Thursday, 29 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 of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia that the introduction of commercial sponsorship of any form of advertising material from commercial sources would destroy the independence of the Corporation Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Senator Childs (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senator Tate (from 35 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 Coates (from 171 citizens), Cooney (from 47 citizens), Devereux (from 164 citizens) and Tate (from 476 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: The Australian Government's proposed War Crimes Amendment Bill is seriously deficient. It is discriminatory. The attention of the Bill is focussed exclusively on political refugees from the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and Yugoslavia. It is bound to result in hostile political stereotyping of refugees from Communist countries and will be profoundly destructive of Australia's multi-cultural society. Your petitioners most humbly pray that, if the members of the Senate in Parliament assembled are minded to support the War Crimes Amendment Bill, the following provisions be guaranteed: 1. That Soviet, Yugoslav or other similar evidence should be totally disregarded unless corroborated by independent evidence clearly beyond Soviet (or similar) control. 2. That the defendant should have adequate and equal access to archives and site visits, as well as the right to select and interview witnesses from overseas, in the preparation of his defence. 3. No affidavits, videotapes or audiotapes to be admissible as evidence. Witnesses to appear in person and be cross-examined before an Australian jury. 4. The word ``Omission'' to be deleted from s. 6 (1) (k) (III) and s. 6 (5). 5. No extradition to occur before trial or after verdict. 6. Entitlement to legal assistance for the defendant so that he can conduct a proper defence. 7. Financial compensation to any person cleared of war crimes allegations. by Senator Bishop (from 80 citizens). To the President and honourable members of the Senate of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned strongly protest 1987 cuts to ESL programs for adults, conducted by the Adult Migrant Education Service (AMES) in New South Wales. * Evening ESL classes have been cut by 25%. * The ESL Correspondence course is to be abolished in a few months time. * The English-in-the-Workplace Program has been reduced. * Full-time on-arrival courses have been abolished. * AMES day centres have had their teaching hours reduced. * Community programs have lost teaching hours. We call for: (i) the full and immediate restoration of AMES teaching programs in New South Wales to at least 1986 levels and (ii) a substantial increase in funding to AMES programs in the 1987 budget, in view of the recently announced increases in the immigration intake. by Senator Childs (from 35 citizens). Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —by leave-I present to the Senate the following petition, from 84 school children, which is not in conformity with the Standing Orders as it is not in the correct form, requesting that entry into Sydney Harbour of the nuclear-armed ships to visit Australia in September 1988 be refused: I object to the entry of the seven nuclear armed warships coming into Sydney Harbour on the 26th and 27th of September 1988. These ships carry nuclear depth charges, Tomahawk cruise missiles, ASROC (Anti-Submarine Rockets) and nuclear armed aircraft. I object because: There is a risk of a nuclear weapons accident in the middle of Sydney. No Australian authorities have any control over the weapons on these ships. We ask you to withhold your invitation to the nuclear-armed warships. Petitions received. Senator COULTER(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate calls on the Federal Government to immediately institute a complete review of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, taking into account- (a) cost benefit analysis of the widest range of health protection and illness treatment strategies; (b) provision of more reliable and independent disinterested information to doctors on the costs and benefits of various health protection and illness treatment strategies; (c) protection of the integrity and confidentiality of the doctor/patient relationship; (d) consideration of the World Heritage Organisation proposal for a limited and basic list of approximately 150 effective and essential drugs subsidised by government; (e) the provision of a financial safety net for those unable to pay for but requiring, expensive drugs not on the basic list; and (f) any other measures relevant to the provision of a cost effective health care system for the Australian public with special emphasis on health protection rather than illness treatment. Senator BROWNHILL(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate notes with concern- (a) the continuing ineptitude of the Hawke Government to control Australia's balance of payments crisis with the August 1988 figures recording a $1.391 billion deficit; (b) that this figure is clear evidence that the Budget strategy of the Treasurer, based on a falling current account deficit and lowered inflation rate, is unlikely to be fulfilled; (c) that interest rates will be forced to go on the rise yet again, despite claims by the Government to the contrary, which demonstrates clearly that the Federal Government has played an expensive gamble which it is likely to lose, to the cost of the Australian economy; (d) that this continuing misreading of the economy by the Treasurer has the potential to plunge Australia into a full blown recession, and calls on the Government to reverse its current economic thinking and introduce strategies and policies of benefit, not detriment, to the Australian community. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia) —I give notice that, five sitting days after today, I shall move: That the Casino Control Ordinance 1988, as contained in Australian Capital Territory Ordinance No. 72 of 1988, made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910, be disallowed. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to Standing Order 109a I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, notice of motion No. 1, standing in my name for the next day of sitting for the disallowance of Pharmaceutical Benefits Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules made on 23 March 1988 under section 99aaa of the National Health Act 1953. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —The Regulations and Ordinances Committee at its last meeting considered correspondence received from the Minister for Housing and Aged Care, the Hon. Peter Staples, in relation to these Rules. The Minister satisfactorily answered a number of queries raised by the Committee and undertook to review the appeal mechanisms in line with the Committee's suggestions. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a description of the Committee's scrutiny and the Committee's correspondence with the Minister. Leave granted. The documents read as follows- 20 May 1988 The Hon. Peter Staples, M.P. Minister for Housing and Aged Care Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting on 19 May 1988 the Committee considered the Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules Under Section 99aaa of the National Health Act 1953 relating to Pharmaceutical Benefits. This instrument was tabled in the Senate on 26 April 1988. The Committee seeks your advice on two aspects of the Rules concerning discretionary powers and a unique identification scheme. Firstly, Rule 24 provides- An approved supplier who uses a computer software system which ceases to be acceptable to the Department under these Rules shall not be entitled to claims processing by the preferred method or to the incentive payment until such time as the system again becomes acceptable to the Department. It would seem that an unjustifiably adverse exercise of this discretion could cause commercial injury to a supplier. While recognising that there must be adequate computer compatibility for your proposed scheme to operate successfully, the Committee wondered if any avenue of appeal or review existed to provide redress should an unfair decision be made that a system was and remained unacceptable. It would be helpful to the Committee if you would advise us on this point. Secondly, Rule 13 provides- An approved supplier . . . is required to enter in the computer system in respect of each concessional prescription . . . the number of the Health Care Card [or other relevant Cards] . . . which applies to the person for whom the prescription is written, and in respect of each general prescription the unique identification held by the approved supplier for the person for whom the prescription is written. The Committee is puzzled by the reference to the ``unique identification held by the approved supplier'' and perhaps you would advise the Committee what it means. The Committee looks forward to hearing from you on these two technical points of scrutiny. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman 18 August 1988 Senator Bob Collins Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances The Senate CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins, I refer to your letter of 20 May 1988 in which you sought, in your capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, advice on two aspects of the Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules under section 99AAA of the National Health Act 1953. I believe some background information would be useful in understanding the processing system for which the `CTS Rules' were developed. Since 1984 the Department has processed claims for reimbursement for pharmaceutical benefits through a payment system known as Pharmpay. Each month pharmacists forward to the Department a claim for payment which is comprised of prescriptions dispensed by them during the previous month. Departmental staff (Pharmpay operators) read the prescriptions and key into the Pharmpay System details of the drugs dispensed. The prescriptions are then priced and, after audit by the Pharmpay System, payment is made to the pharmacist. During the early 1980s a significant number of pharmacies had installed computer systems to facilitate many pharmacy tasks such as the issue of repeat authorisations, record keeping, drug information, patient information and label production. These systems were developed by commercial pharmacy computer suppliers to meet the demands of the market place. They were not designed by or at the instigation of the Department. Because of this trend towards computerisation, the Department introduced the Claims Transmission System (CTS) to enable such pharmacists to submit their claims in a computer-readable form. When a pharmacist dispenses a prescription for a patient, details of the prescription are entered into the pharmacist's computer system. At the end of the month the information relevant to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme is transferred to a floppy disk which is then sent to the Department together with the bundle of prescriptions to which it relates. The information contained on the disk is then transferred into the Pharmpay processing system thus bypassing the keying normally performed by Departmental staff. Some pharmacists submit claims by modem transmission rather than on a floppy disk, but the steps are essentially the same. CTS thus relies on the accuracy of the pharmacist and of the computer systems used by pharmacists, rather than on keying done by Departmental staff. The Commonwealth instituted an incentive payment of 2.5 cents per prescription to encourage pharmacists to make claims by computer, due to the administrative advantage to the Commonwealth when claims are made this way. As CTS is in effect a by-product of pharmacy computer systems, the Department has insisted that a number of safeguards are put in place to ensure the security of the system which generates the data for entry into Pharmpay and to ensure that the data generated by the system is accurate. Approval of a pharmacy computer system for use by pharmacists to prepare and/or transmit pharmaceutical benefits claims data is given after the system has been shown, through stringent testing, to meet the Commonwealth's audit requirements. The `CTS Rules' reflect those safeguards and a key element of the Rules is that the onus has been placed on pharmacy system suppliers to maintain the integrity of their systems so that the transmitted data is accurate. Your Committee has sought specific advice about rules 24 and 13. Rule 24 deals with systems which cease to be acceptable to the Department. The rule reads: `An approved supplier who uses a computer software system which ceases to be acceptable to the Department under these Rules shall not be entitled to claims processing by the preferred method or to the incentive payment until such time as the system again becomes acceptable to the Department.' It is not in the Commonwealth's own interests to unfairly exclude pharmacists from the Scheme-in fact the Commonwealth is hoping that as many pharmacists as possible will take advantage of the incentive payment and claim by computer in accordance with the Rules. Any decision pursuant to rule 24 to exclude a pharmacist would be made on strictly technical grounds. Any exercise of the power to cancel approval would leave the decision maker open to review through the normal appeal system ie the Ombudsman or action under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. While there would be no excuse at all for the unjustified exercise of this power, there would be circumstances where a computer software system was no longer acceptable. Such a circumstance could arise where alterations to the system were made by the system supplier which enabled a pharmacist to falsify the data prepared for processing by the Department. This could result in a serious overpayment of Commonwealth moneys. In such circumstances approaches would be made to the supplier to achieve speedy correction of the fault or deletion of the offending alterations. If this approach failed, the Department would have no option but to cancel acceptance of the system thereby safeguarding public money. The individual pharmacist, although affected, would be reimbursed for benefits supplied through Pharmpay with Departmental staff manually entering the data from the prescriptions. Similar action would apply if an individual pharmacist tampered with the system or a fault developed with that pharmacist's data production. In this case non-acceptance of CTS data would apply only to the offending pharmacist. Again manual data entry would be used to ensure the pharmacist would still be reimbursed for pharmaceutical benefits supplied. Rule 13 relates to the use of a patient identification program within pharmacy computer systems. The rule reads: `An approved supplier using the preferred method is required to enter in the computer system in respect of each concessional prescription or pensioner or entitlement card prescription the number of the Health Care Card, Pharmaceutical Benefits Concession Card, Pensioner Health Benefits Card, Health Benefits Card, Dependant Treatment Entitlement Card, Service Pensioner Benefits Card or Pharmaceutical Benefits Entitlement Card which applies to the person for whom the prescription is written, and in respect of each general prescription the unique identification held by the approved supplier for the person for whom the prescription is written.' As has been indicated, CTS is a by-product of pharmacy computer systems. A significant feature of these systems is the maintenance of individual patient medication profiles. Software authors have designed their systems to accept individual patient identification so that the medication profiles are accurate and meet State law requirements. In the case of pensioners and other Commonwealth entitled persons the systems accept the entitlement number allocated by the Department of Social Security, Department of Veterans' Affairs or the Safety Net number. In regard to general patients, the approved supplier (pharmacist) allocates his or her own identifying code to patients. This identifying code would not enable identification of the individual patient by the Department or anyone else (apart from the pharmacist who allocated the code). However the information available from pharmacy computer systems could provide useful information about utilisation patterns of particular drugs without specifically identifying the patient. This information could also greatly assist in the monitoring of the Scheme from an audit perspective. I trust this information is of assistance to you and your Committee. Yours sincerely Peter Staples 25 August 1988 The Hon. Peter Staples, M.P. Minister for Housing and Aged Care Parliament House Canberra A.C.T. 2600 Dear Minister, At its meeting of 25 August 1988, the Committee considered your letter of 18 August 1988 in relation to the Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules Under Section 99 AAA of the National Health Act 1953 relating to Pharmaceutical Benefits. The Committee thanks you for the valuable information provided concerning the schemes known as `Pharmpay'' and ``Claims Transmission System'' and accepts your advice in relation to the Committee's query concerning Rule 13. In this Committee's letter to you of 20 May 1988, concern was also raised in relation to review rights applicable to Rule 24 and I quote from that letter: ``It would seem that an unjustifiable adverse exercise of this discretion could cause commercial injury to a supplier. While recognising that there must be adequate computer compatibility for your proposed scheme to operate successfully, the Committee wondered if any avenue of appeal or review existed to provide redress should an unfair decision be made that a system was and remained unacceptable.'' Your reply to the Committee indicated that the following avenues of review were available: ``Any exercise of the power to cancel approval would leave the decision maker open to review through the normal appeal system, i.e. the Ombudsman or action under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act. While there would be no excuse at all for the unjustified exercise of this power, there could be circumstances where a computer software system was no longer acceptable.'' While acknowledging that there are appeal avenues available through these channels, the Committee is concerned that a merits review right of the discretionary power in Rule 24, through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was not included in the avenues open to an approved supplier who uses a computer software system. This right of appeal would cover the unfortunate circumstance where the discretionary power was, by mischance, used to the disadvantage of a pharmacist. The Committee would concede that the example provided by you in your letter would require action by the Department but such action would, no doubt, bring against the pharmacist charges of fraud and court action. The Committee was surprised that a merits avenue of appeal was not included as the National Health Act 1953 in Part VIIa-Reviews by Administrative Appeals Tribunal has extensive provisions for the review of discretionary decisions by the Minister or a delegate of a Minister. The Committee would appreciate your further views in relation to this matter. Yours sincerely, Bob Collins Chairman 28 September 1988 Chairman Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances Parliament House CANBERRA ACT 2600 Dear Senator Collins I refer to your letter of 25 August 1988 in which you sought, in your capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, my views as to the review rights applicable to rule 24 of the Information Provision Incentive Payment Rules under section 99aaa of the National Health Act 1953 relating to pharmaceutical benefits. I have noted the Committee's concerns regarding the adequacy of the current appeal mechanisms available in respect of an exercise of power under rule 24 which may act to the disadvantage of a pharmacist and the Committee's surprise than an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was not included in the National Health Act. To ensure that there are adequate appeal mechanisms I will seek the views of the Attorney-General on the amendments your Committee suggests. Yours Sincerely Peter Staples Senator COLLINS —I also seek leave to table the correspondence for the information of honourable senators and others. Leave granted. 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. DEPARTMENT OF THE PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET-Annual Report 1987-88-section 25 (8) of the Public Service Act 1922. 2. INSURANCE AND SUPERANNUATION COMMISSION-Annual Report 1987-88-section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973; section 45 of the Insurance (Agents and Brokers) Act 1984; and section 21 of the Occupational Superannuation Standards Act 1987-together with a supplement on Industry Statistics for 1987-88 in relation to life and general insurance. 3. OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS TRUST-Annual Report 1987-88. 4. GUIDE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF RATES OF VETERANS' PENSIONS-section 29 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986-together with an explanatory statement. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. Yesterday at Question Time I was asked two questions by Senator Boswell. In relation to the second question I evinced some confusion-which drew a lot of glee from those opposite. The reason for my showing confusion was that Senator Boswell said: 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 . . . ? No reading of the Bundaberg News Mail in any way gives any evidence to that statement made by Senator Boswell. I think this matter is serious in as much as if Ministers are being expected to answer questions based on false information based on quoting from a newspaper, it creates difficulties. I do not, however, wish to reflect on Senator Boswell that he in any way deliberately intended to misquote me. It is quite clear to me that he did not. But at the time, clearly, I was embarrassed because I had not read the Bundaberg News Mail. I was clearly embarrassed because I could not understand the context in which the question was put-because I knew that I had not personally sought the views of the Australian Valuation Office, and I was so surprised that the question was put to me in that way. I know that it caused some joy to honourable senators opposite, and some embarrassment to me, during the supplementary stage of questions. But, in conclusion, I do say that I think honourable senators have to be careful when they allegedly quote from a newspaper to ensure that in fact the comments exist in the newspaper. No reading of the Bundaberg News Mail could suggest that I sought a valuation from the Australian Valuation Office. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Robert Ray) agreed to: 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 MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.11) —I 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. Compared with the attention which has been given by Australian government and business to the countries of east and South East Asia and the South Pacific, the south Asian countries, particularly India, have been relatively neglected. India is also a country on the Indian Ocean concerned with regional stability-in this case, to our west. The political harmony and economic growth of the countries of south Asia should be matters of strong interest to Australia. The present Australian Government has made efforts to renew and expand the relationship with India, particularly in developing the potential for economic cooperation between the two countries. Many Australian businesses are now becoming involved in India in areas as diverse as banking and investment, shipbuilding and port development, and optic fibre and coal technology. The significant development of the Indian defence forces, particularly the expansion of naval capability, has been of interest to international observers in recent years, but its dynamics have not generally been well understood. As `neighbours' in the Indian Ocean, we in Australia share an interest in maintaining stability in that region. As India seeks to expand its naval presence, its strategic importance for us will increase. Increasingly, political dialogue with India is taking place on areas of mutual concern such as Kampuchea, Fiji and Antarctica. We are also engaging in dialogue on multilateral trade issues. I seek leave to have the remainder of my speech incorporated in the record. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- Other aspects of the relationship are developing, albeit slowly. In science and technology, there is a project underway whereby an Australian `state of the art' remote sensing device will be flown in an Indian satellite, and the University of New South Wales and the Indian firm Central Electronics Limited (CEL) are working on a project for the development of a photovoltaic cell. A Memorandum of Understanding on monsoon meteorology research should be signed shortly. Cultural relations is another area of expanding cooperation, where advances are being achieved on a small budget. But the economic relationship is a crucial part of the whole, and one likely to become increasingly important in the future as both Australia and India look to expand and develop their respective economies. Trade between the two countries has varied considerably over the past decade, and shown a significant improvement over the last five years. India is among those countries showing the highest trend growth-37%-as a destination for Australian exports over the 5 years to 1987. Australian exports have increased from $151.7 million in 1983 (0.7% of total Australian exports) to $444.3 million in 1987 (1.2% of total exports); India now ranks 19th as a destination for Australian exports (up from 21st in 1985); major exports in 1987 were coal (177 million); wool (99 million); lead (31 million); computers and office machinery (26 million); vegetables (25 million); zinc and zinc alloys (10 million); India is the sixth largest market for Australian coal exports. In the past, trade between the two countries has been limited. On the Australian side it has been based almost entirely on export of primary commodities, particularly coal. Imports from India have mainly been textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF). The outlook for export of traditional commodities (coal, non-ferrous metal, wool) is good over the medium term and will remain an important source of export revenue. But, in the longer term, prospects will reduce because of India's drive to self-sufficiency and its sourcing of requirements from elsewhere as prices fluctuate. For instance wheat, a major export in the decade up to 1985, no longer figures as an export item because India has achieved self-sufficiency in this area. India's current economic development includes exploitation of its coal reserves. But India is seeking to boost economic growth through liberalisation policies aimed at: encouraging private enterprise and investment; overcoming the deficiencies of the public sector; and forcing Indian manufacturers to enhance productivity and competitiveness by allowing acquisition of new technology for modernisation. Policy steps towards liberalisation have included: easing of licensing restrictions, permitting greater transfer of technology from abroad through joint ventures; and moves to streamline foreign investment processes for individual countries (notably Japan, Canada, the United States and West Germany). Exports of Australian manufactured goods, technology and services have increased in recent years, and are expected to grow in conjunction with the liberalisation process. India's economic growth will also enhance the prospects for export of Australian capital and consumer goods. A commonly cited estimate of the size of the Indian consumer middle class at present is up to 100 million. Turning to defence matters, the Soviet Union has recently loaned to India a nuclear powered submarine of the Charlie class. This is said to be the forerunner of a flotilla of six nuclear-powered Victor III hunter-killer submarines. The Victor III submarines are capable of deploying the Soviet SSN-7 underwater-launched anti-ship missile, which can carry a nuclear warhead-although it is not known if such a capability is planned by the Indian Navy. This development has focused international attention on the enhancement over recent years of Indian naval and military capability. The Indian navy, for instance, now possesses two aircraft carriers, equipped with Sea Harriers and Sea King helicopters. A third carrier is planned. As well as the nuclear powered submarines, a flotilla of eight German-designed Type 1500, electrically powered submarines is planned. India's overall defence budget is equivalent to approximately 5% of GDP, and for 1987/88 was estimated at $US 9.73 billion. This is not to posit a threat to Australia's security. The Minister for Defence has clearly stated that India has not and does not constitute a threat to Australia's security. The Prime Minister has indicated that India and Australia as active members of the Commonwealth, have enjoyed a cooperative approach toward international and regional issues for more that 40 years. Furthermore, as a leading member of the Non-aligned Movement, India has always asserted a strongly independent stance in world affairs. Nevertheless, it is simply prudent for Australians, and especially for a Committee of the Senate charged with defence matters, to take account of all military and naval developments that are occurring in our region of strategic concern, and to ensure that in the development of Australia's defence posture any appropriate responses are made. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(10.13) —I would like to speak to the motion and say that, while the Opposition has no objection to this referral, we draw attention to the fact that this suggestion has come from the executive side of the Parliament and not from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade itself. As I understand it, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) has asked the Committee to deal with the matter. One has no objection to Ministers asking committees to deal with matters. That is perfectly all right. But I would have thought that this Committee should set its own agenda and its own priorities. While I take no objection to this reference being referred to the Committee-as I say, my colleagues on the Committee approve of it-I believe that Labor committee chairmen should set their own agenda. We adopted this practice when we where in government. I urge committee chairmen to observe the parliamentary supremacy principle of the Westminster system. In other words, it is for them to determine the agenda of their committees and not to become simply another arm of the executive government. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia)(10.14) —in reply-Can I make it abundantly clear to the Senate in reply to the point made by Senator Lewis that this proposed reference has come totally from the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade itself. Of course, Government members, Opposition members and Senator Dunn are represented on the Committee. There has been no request at all from the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans) that we pursue this reference. I think that point should be made in response to what has been said by Senator Lewis. Senator LEWIS(Victoria) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave granted. Senator LEWIS —I withdraw the allegation. I put the position as I understood it from talking to some people from our side. They were suspicious that the whole thing had come from the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans). However, if that is not the case-and I accept Senator Maguire's assurance that it is not-I withdraw the suggestion. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —by leave-Can I briefly add that what Senator Maguire says is correct. I was not consulted on this matter and I regret any misunderstanding as a result of the lack of that consultation. All I want to say is that I believe that Australia's relationship with India has been a too much neglected area of our foreign relations. When I was a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament this matter was proposed as an urgent priority for us to study further and to bring into focus for the Parliament and for Australians as a whole. Therefore, it is not surprising that this was a matter that was proposed by members of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. I certainly supported the priority of that reference and I am happy to support the motion that the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Maguire, has brought to the Senate today. Question resolved in the affirmative. Debate resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Puplick: 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. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.16) —Last evening when I was debating this issue I was pointing out that because 53 pharmaceuticals have been taken off the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and put on the authority list this has made it very difficult, particularly for general practitioners, to be able to treat their patients urgently. We are told that all these vital areas where people need drugs instantly are able to be undertaken through a hotline. I have been assured that the hold-up on the hotline is sometimes quite acute. Doctors now have to try to encourage their patients to come back and see them while they still have at least a week's medication left because it will take a week for the authority for the prescription to get back. It is not only the patients, particularly pensioners, that are being disadvantaged. The chemists are finding that they will not be able to carry out this idiotic nonsense. I have received so many photograms. The Government may be interested in the thickness of the number I have received because there is a considerable number here. As I have already said, they strongly object to these changes in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. They say that it will create a two-class system, with the elderly and disadvantaged being treated as second-class citizens. One letter I have says that pensioners are deeply concerned and they are speaking not only to the doctors in showing their concern but also to the pharmacists. The pharmacists share that concern. They say that there will be increased paperwork which will cause patient delays and public outrage will result. Another chemist says, `A reversal is needed of this ill-conceived change'. `Doctors and pharmacists are trained for excellence', one says. Another says, `They will not accept pressure for second best. Patients will be forced to accept second rate health care. Urgent discussions and revisions are necessary'. Another one says that if the benefits scheme goes ahead, `I will be telling all my customers that the present Government is intent on destroying the quality of life of health care in Australia'. That statement came from another chemist and so they go on. I have a whole range of views from chemists who say that the scheme is unworkable and will only result in a second-rate health system in this country. To obtain one of the drugs mentioned for treating severe diarrhoea of greater than two weeks duration in infants under the age of four months, they have to seek written authority from the Secretary or, as I have explained, use the alternative method. From my small medical knowledge as a nurse, I would have thought that severe diarrhoea of greater than two weeks duration in infants under the age of four months would be pretty critical. Yet to prescribe the drug that is the best treatment for this condition-admittedly, it is more expensive than other drugs that are not as effective-the doctor has to write and ask, `Please can I use it?' or the doctor may use the hotline which, according to the Government, is available. All members of the medical profession who have approached me in this regard have said that this system is delaying and cannot be tolerated if they are to deliver the best health care to patients. Doctors will have to go through this process because they will not tolerate their patients having second best. As a result, the administration of the Department will be massive. I would like the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) to drop his newspaper for a few minutes and tell me-- Senator Robert Ray —Give me one good reason why I should listen to you. Senator WALTERS —I am asking the Minister a question. Can he tell me-- Senator Robert Ray —I do not have the floor. Are you ceding the floor to me? Senator WALTERS —No, I am asking a question. Will the Minister look into the cost of the administration of this scheme? How many public servants will be required to answer the telephone hotline? How many public servants will be required to answer all the requests by general practitioners and specialists requiring these drugs for their patients? The whole situation is quite ludicrous. The Government, in its attempts to cut costs purely for the ideological position it has taken on health, is creating a second class health system. If the Government wants to save money it should take my advice and cut out bulkbilling. That would save the Government more than its $40m which it aims to save from this little exercise. As I said yesterday, it could have spent far better the $46m that it spent on the abortive referendum campaign, the referendum-- Senator Calvert —Fiasco. Senator WALTERS —Fiasco; thank you, Senator. It could have spent the money far better on the health of the nation than on trying to diddle the community into believing that our Constitution needed to be changed. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia)(10.24) —It falls to my happy lot to do as I often do in this chamber; that is, follow Senator Walters. I must say that I have not heard a more outrageous performance from Senator Walters for a long while. It was quite over the top. It was the most disgraceful misleading and misrepresenting of the facts of this matter that I have heard in many a day. I do not know a better word for it than lies. I think that what has been happening with this debate-- Senator Lewis —I raise a point of order. I take strong objection to Senator Crowley in effect calling Senator Walters a liar and I ask her to withdraw it. I ask her not to make such allegations again during her speech, otherwise I will continually interrupt her speech. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! I ask Senator Crowley to withdraw the accusation of lies. Senator CROWLEY —I will withdraw the reference, but I will now proceed to devote half an hour to pointing out that what Senator Walters did yesterday misrepresented the truth. (Quorum formed) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crowley, will you withdraw the comment about lies? Senator CROWLEY —I have already withdrawn it. I think I have some things to do in this debate. One is to give the complete contradiction to Senator Walters's claims. I would like to take honourable senators through the debate we have had to this point. Senator Puplick opened this debate by bringing a disallowance motion into this chamber addressing the listing for authority of 53 drugs under the National Health Act 1953, subsection 85 (2). I thought the disallowance motion threatened to make Senator Puplick burst yesterday, such was his performance of hot air and rhetoric. It was a quite splendid performance-totally remote from the point being debated here. Senator Puplick mostly used the opportunity to whack and slather over a whole area. He certainly did not convince me or anybody else of the importance of his claim that this disallowance motion should be supported. Senator Cook refuted all those claims and, most accurately and properly, dealt with the Government's position. I have not heard all the speakers opposite, though I had the opportunity to listen to Senator Peter Baume in some part yesterday. I refer honourable senators opposite to Senator Peter Baume's speech because that illustrated one way of tackling an issue and at least he tried to stay on the point. He was followed by Senator Margaret Reid, who gave us an eloquent discourse on the failures of Medicare in the Canberra hospital system, which has absolutely nothing at all to do with the disallowance motion before this chamber. Senator Walters has actually given us a rundown on the insufficiencies of statisticians and Dr De Souza's assessment that three visits to specialists at an extra cost is not sufficient to deal with a condition, all of which is splendid. It is from times past and has absolutely nothing to do with the disallowance motion before this chamber. It is clear that Senator Walters would speak about anything but the motion because there is no way in which she could properly defend it. What she did say when she addressed it was outrageous. She very much endorsed Senator Puplick's words, which were to establish and elaborate on the scaremongering that the Opposition and a number of other people have been doing on this topic to frighten pensioners and patients around this country into the understanding that, if they wanted these drugs, doctors would not be allowed to give them. That is an absolutely outrageous lie. It is a scandalous misrepresentation of what is the case. The disallowance motion for those reasons, if that is what the Opposition is arguing, is totally unnecessary. They are not the facts. Senator Walters may well not know what are the facts but Senator Puplick does, and he was shameful in his performance on air yesterday, contributing further to the fear of many of the very people he is supposed to represent in here, beating his heart and the air in so-called support for their position. (Quorum formed) As I was saying, members of the Opposition, in their contribution to the debate to this point, have certainly not made any points to warrant support for the disallowance motion brought into this chamber by Senator Puplick. In fact, their contribution has been very much to misrepresent the facts and contribute to the scaremongering campaign that frightens the very people they claim to support. One point that Senator Walters made was that the Government seemed to want to put certain drugs back on to the special list, the authority list, for the purposes of saving money and cutting costs. That is absolutely right. Saving public expenditure is not a thing to blush about, and it is not a thing that this Government blushes about. Indeed, I have listened to members of the Opposition wax eloquent on any number of occasions about the importance of cutting public expenditure outlays. Why is it that it is legitimate for those opposite to propose to cut costs but, when we do it, it is an outrage? I do not understand how the Opposition can claim that cutting Government expenditure costs, even allowing for the fact that in this instance we do not identify the particular cost-cutting measure, makes any difference at all. Even if we just look at the importance of Government expenditure restraints, Senator Walters seems to suggest that that is an outrageous thing to do. It is not; it is a useful thing to do. In this exercise it is useful because it has been done under the recommendations of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. It is not a wanton act by the Government at all, and I will give some further evidence in a moment that strongly supports that contention. Those opposite continually tell us that the problem with the Government is that we are not cutting expenditure enough. That they can keep saying that in the face of our achievements is yet more evidence of their own difficulties, not ours. But to argue, as was done here yesterday, that cost cutting is what the Government is on about as though this is somehow deplorable is very peculiar indeed. The Government is determined to try to restrain expenditure. That is exactly what it is doing, but it is doing it in a way that does not disadvantage any patient, does not delay the filling of prescriptions, does not interfere with the quality of medical care, does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship and does not tell doctors how to practise their medicine. It does none of those things, Senator Walters, and when you say that that is the case you are wrong, you are mischievous, and you are misrepresenting the truth in a very wicked way and contributing to the scaremongering tactics that have upset and could frighten the very pensioners and sick people in this country that you claim to protect. It is scandalous, Senator Walters-absolutely scandalous. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —Order! Senator, will you please address the Chair and not other senators. Senator CROWLEY —Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, Senator Walters's behaviour is scandalous. (Quorum formed). The point that needs to be made is that, under the provisions whose disallowance is being argued for, the changes in prescription proposals will in no way disadvantage patients or interfere with good medical practice or the doctor-patient relationship. The Government is not telling doctors how to practise medicine, but it is asking them when prescribing a prescription drug to consider whether there is a cheaper alternative that is just as effective. By way of evidence, I cite what happened with the removal from the authority list of 17 drugs in 1985. After that removal of the authority restrictions, all but two-15-of the 17 drugs continued to be legally available to patients; the terms on which they could be provided remained exactly the same. There was no change in the wording at all. But there was a dramatic blow-out in the prescribing of those drugs after they were taken off the authority list. They were on the special purpose list. The requirement for thoughtfulness in their prescription remained. In the six months to June 1984 the total number of prescriptions for all 17 drugs was about 150 per thousand. By December 1987 that figure had increased to 650. There was a massive blow-out in the prescription of those 17 drugs following their removal from the authority requirement listing. The Government is aware that doctors change their prescribing habits consequent upon some of the decisions the Government makes on advice from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In this instance the Government has taken advice from that Committee. I can see Senator Puplick about to say, ``Aha, but they were given restricted advice'. The Committee was given a request, to which it properly attended. It properly advised the Government, which in turn properly responded with two considerations in mind-cost constraints and the continuing practice of good medical care. Those things are in place. There is always a mechanism for addressing complaints from doctors and difficulties of pharmacists, not by the ham-fisted way that Senator Puplick is proposing of a disallowance in this area but by further review of the pharmaceutical benefits schedule and by Ministers taking requests for further examination to that Committee if that is what people want. If there are difficulties consequent upon this listing, they can be considered and decided by that Committee in the appropriate way. The Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) explained clearly yesterday some of the unintended consequences-we hope they would be unintended-of this disallowance motion being passed. What Senator Puplick proposes does not address the point that he has raised-that is, cost constraint-because this declaration will certainly have some cost constraining effect. The disallowance motion will not alter the prescribing habits of doctors. It is not about that at all, but if those drugs are taken off the list I can cite evidence that they will more likely be used. The authority prescription does not prevent any doctor from requiring them to be provided or having them provided to patients, as Senator Puplick well knows. To suggest that people cannot get treatment for epilepsy or a heart condition when these are the drugs of choice of their doctors is wicked and mischievous and it is not true. I simply say again that anybody who is judged by the doctor to be in need of these medications will get them without delay. That must be understood. The Department of Community Services and Health has been at pains to make sure that the procedures are minimally difficult for doctors. It has established a hotline so that a doctor who needs authority very quickly can get it straightaway. If the hotline is not available to the doctor, he has the opportunity to write `Urgent' on the third copy of the authority form and send that authority to the Department within a week. The prescription can be taken out of the rooms there and then by the patient. If the drugs are needed urgently there is no prospect of delay. Senator Puplick knows that, and if he does not then he was not adequately briefed. He has brought a very inappropriate motion for disallowance into the Senate and used up a lot of time on this mischievous nonsense. If he did know it, then he is disgraceful for not making it clear in his debate. I hope I have laid to rest the point made by Senator Walters about delays and difficulties for patients. It is not the case and the motion for disallowance cannot be sustained by that kind of argument. The problem does not exist. Senator Walters argued about cost containment. Precisely: the Government is unashamed in saying that this is about restraining costs. I cite the clear evidence of the cost blow-out once 17 of those drugs were removed from the authority listing over the period from 1985 to 1987. Doctors' prescribing behaviour will change according to the listing of drugs in one or other category of the pharmaceutical benefits schedule. We know that; the medical profession knows it. Many people would be at pains to advise the Government to take great heed about some of these medications. I think it was Senator Peter Baume, but it may well have been Senator Puplick, who talked about the seriousness of these drugs. They are very potent and powerful chemicals. They have very significant side effects. In the case of anti-cancer treatment, they are used with great caution and great care. The medical profession, let alone the pharmacy profession, would be saying that we need to make sure that these drugs are provided in a considered and thoughtful way. Across the board, the professions involved are concerned about the costs. It is not only the Government that says we must ponder on how best to provide pharmaceuticals to the people in the fairest and most equitable way. Some honourable senators in this place have raised, for example, the cost of treatment for acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) sufferers. It is a very expensive treatment indeed. Where does that fit in? Are we to take no regard of the huge cost for treating one person with AIDS? Are we to put a value on that kind of condition or the quality of life for such people? I think Senator Puplick would be one to argue that we do. We have to weigh all those things in a fairly thoughtful and complex equation. That is what the Government is doing, and it has done it properly on advice from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This is not a random arbitrary approach; it is the system that has been in place for a long time. The authority listing is not new. Senator Peter Baume mentioned that yesterday. We have had authority listing, and doctors have been properly and ably coping with that requirement on their pharmaceutical dispensing practices, for over 30 years. This is not a new tyranny or some horrible thing that has just been introduced. This action has been cause for concern for a few reasons but principally because a scare campaign was initiated by the Australian Medical Association (AMA). I could cite, though I will not, letters from the AMA urging doctors to boycott the proposals for change by the Government and, more than that, to urge their patients to write letters and take up the cudgels against the Government. This was clearly a campaign led by some members of the AMA to promote and create fear and anxiety-the very thing Senator Puplick claims he does not want for patients. If he really wanted to address the issues of patient concern, of care for patients, of quality medical practice, he would have criticised that AMA campaign because it did precisely the sort of thing he says that the listing of these drug does. The drugs listing puts a requirement on doctors to be thoughtful when they write scripts for those drugs. It is certainly not about terrifying or tyrannising patients. It is not about requiring doctors to practise their medicine in a way that they do not choose. It was never the Government's intention, and it is not a consequence of this Government's decision, to scare patients or to practise the fear and tyranny that the AMA proposed and led campaign did. It rather shocks me to see Senator Puplick arguing on behalf, he tells us, of the patients of this world-the old and the sick-precisely the sort of scare and fear campaign that the AMA conducted. If he were genuine he would have put down the AMA; he would have criticised its campaign for doing precisely the sort of thing he wanted this motion for disallowance to save us all from. He cannot have his motion for disallowance because his argument has no evidence, no facts, to sustain it. This is clearly a cost constraint measure by the Government. The Government makes that clear and is not apologetic about it. Cost constraint is being introduced in a way that evidence has suggested will be effective. I can cite the evidence of what happened previously when medications were removed from the authority listing. There is clear evidence that this is likely to have some cost constraining effects. It is done on advice from a committee that has been set up specifically. It has medical and pharmacist representation and is a properly constituted, thoughtful committee that has been contributing to government for years. It is also open to government to take further advice at any time and review decisions, and that is an ongoing process. It is done by government in a way that does not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship or with how doctors practise medicine. It does not require any delay in the provision of medications if doctors decide that these are their drugs of choice for their patients. Finally, the changes come with an education campaign. The Government will expend $2m to further assist doctors in the practice of good medicine through an education campaign on the latest and greatest of drugs. Doctors need to be reminded about those things and assisted from time to time. Anybody who has followed the treatment of cardiac diseases over the last 10 years would know how drugs that were the drugs of choice 10 years ago are no longer so much in favour. Some had side effects and have gone out of favour and some have been replaced by better and more precise drugs. The Government is proper, comprehensive and responsible in this area. No evidence has been brought in this place to justify support for this motion for disallowance. Senator CALVERT(Tasmania)(10.53) —I rise to support my colleagues in this debate, not to cause concern to the people of Australia, which Senator Crowley seems to think we are doing, but more as a reaction to the number of people who have come to my office, the hundreds of people who have submitted signatures on petitions, and the numbers of doctors and pharmacists who have made representations to me. If Senator Crowley thinks that the Opposition is using scaremongering tactics amongst the people of Australia, perhaps the Government should get its public relations act together. The people of Australia are scared; they are concerned about these changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Act. That is why this side of the House is urging disallowance of the regulations. We are not the only people who are concerned about this matter. Senator Crowley mentioned a hotline, and I notice with some interest that her colleague the Labor Minister for Health in Western Australia has set up a hotline. His hotline proclaims `Help us to get the drugs you need'. In this way he is asking the people of Western Australia to lobby the Federal Government in an attempt to change things. I suggest that Senator Crowley should at least try to convince her Labor colleague in Western Australia that his fears are certainly unfounded. The Minister for Health in Western Australia has indicated that the Western Australian Government is fighting for an urgent review of the drugs on this list. He also says that patients are suffering as a result of these changes. Quite obviously, the Government and Senator Crowley and her colleagues have not convinced the Labor Minister for Health in Western Australia. Yesterday Senator Panizza presented to the Senate a petition with thousands of signatures of people who are opposed to this proposal. That also shows how far out of touch the Government is with the people out there in the community. Many people are worried and concerned about the need for and the supply of these life prolonging drugs. It seems that the Government, which is so out of touch with the people, seeks to break down the good relationships which exist between doctors and patients and which have been part of our lifestyle for so many decades. Why should a paper shuffler have the right to say what is the best drug for a person who is in desperate need of the best medication? What right has a government that is so out of touch with the people to take away the best medical care and the best drugs available and let the bureaucrats have the final say? Regardless of the question of the drugs, my main concern about this whole matter is the requirement to disclose to the bureaucracy certain facts about a person's health. It is another attack on the privacy and confidentiality of the people of Australia. I have been in this place for only a little over 12 months, but in that time I have seen all sorts of attempts by the Government to attack the privacy and confidentiality of the Australian people. We all remember, of course, the ID card proposal, and that was soundly rejected by the Australian people because of its meddling in people's privacy. I remember, just after I became a senator, sitting in the Hobart Town Hall and listening to Senator McLean. Unfortunately, he is not in the House at the moment, and he seems to have turned his back on this place like he has turned his back on the people of Australia. He spoke very well about people's privacy and the rights of people. However, now he and his colleagues in the Australian Democrats are turning their backs on the people and selling out the people in relation to the matter of their privacy, even though he defended it so well some 12 months ago. The honourable senator is allowing this legislation to go through, and in doing so he is endorsing the proposal to make doctors divulge private medical information to unknown bureaucrats. Yesterday, I listened with interest to what Senator Coulter had to say, as the spokesman for the Democrats on this matter. He said that he strongly supported a review of the situation. If that is the case, why do the Democrats not do the honourable thing and support the coalition in disallowing the regulations? If they do that, the situation will be reviewed. Unfortunately, none of the Democrats is here at the moment and so I cannot implore them to change their mind and support us in moving for disallowance of the regulations. There are plenty of other examples of the Government's having meddled in the privacy of people's affairs over the past 12 months. Right at this moment we have this illegal Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey, which is causing people a lot of concern. One has only to pick up the papers and read the letters to the editor from people who do not know whether the ABS survey is legal. There has been a lot of debate about the matter. The fact is that people in the community are having to fill out diaries, to give up their confidential bank accounts, and to disclose confidential information about their indebtedness, their insurance policies, and all sorts of things which once upon a time most people in Australia thought were private. If we need any other evidence about what has been happening in relation to privacy and the lack of it in the past 12 months, who can forget the Blewett affair, when we saw people in Dr Blewett's Department releasing confidential medical numbers? Who is to say that this confidential pharmaceutical information that doctors have to give up will not, too, find its way out into the wide world? Today Senator Crowley accused us of causing concern amongst the sick and the needy in the community. Just how much concern did the Government cause when it saw fit to retrospectively reduce the pension assistance to some 50,000 Australians-people who had retired and thought that they had invested wisely in approved schemes, only to find that in a greedy grab for funds the Government had come up with some other ideas? Had it not been for the fact that the temporary Premier of Victoria was having an election, those 50,000-odd people would now be in terrible trouble and would have been caused great concern by the Treasurer (Mr Keating)-who at the moment is telling the rest of the world how to run its affairs. In the meantime, back home, the honourable member for Jagajaga, Mr Staples, and a few others are trying to convince the citizens of this country to take second best health treatment. The honourable member for Jagajaga said: We are simply asking doctors to think twice before prescribing expensive drugs where there are other possible cheaper alternatives. Senator Crowley mentioned earlier that the Government is spending some $2m on trying to educate doctors and inform them about drugs. I always thought that doctors educated themselves very well. They spend many years at medical school and universities trying to make sure that they can give the best health care to the Australian people. I am sure that they welcome the fact that the Government is going to spend $2m to inform them about all these drugs. But I am sure that doctors can do without the meddling by the Government in the affairs of doctor-patient relationships-which seems to be the result of this exercise. If the Government is so concerned about costs, perhaps it should look at the cost of pharmaceuticals in Australia compared to the rest of the world. As a percentage of average weekly earnings, we find that prescription costs in Australia are about 2.6 per cent. In relation to other countries-where Mr Keating is giving advice-for instance, in Canada, the percentage is 4.7 per cent, and in Britain it is 3.6 per cent. I noticed that again today Senator Crowley tried to shift the blame for all this concern in the community from the Government to the doctors. That does not surprise me. As far as I am concerned, doctors are honourable people, engaged in an honourable profession. However, the Government apparently believes otherwise, because at every opportunity in recent times those people in Government responsible for health issues have attacked the medical profession on any pretext whatsoever. I know that doctors have broad shoulders and that they are used to working under pressure for many hours, but I wonder what sort of pressure their patients are used to working under. That is why the doctors are concerned. There is no monetary value in this for doctors at all. It is a genuine concern, as is the case with the pharmacists. The reason I am standing here today is that a genuine concern has been expressed to me by people out there in the community. It seems to me that this greedy Government does not trust anyone to have feelings of compassion. If we look at the record, it is evident that the doctors are the people who are copping most of the brunt of the Government's mistrust. As far as I am concerned, a doctor with many years of training and with his professional reputation on the line will prescribe a drug only if he knows that it is necessary and the most suitable course of treatment. Under this new arrangement he will be required to second guess the decision of a bureaucrat in Canberra. That bureaucrat will have no contact with a patient and no access to that patient's medical records. Therefore, the doctor will be in a gambling situation, particularly in cases which may be borderline. I suggest to the Senate that doctors must be able to operate freely without restrictions, knowing that they can take the safer option rather than the more dangerous option both to the patient and to their own professional standing and careers. It is my opinion that people, whoever they are, deserve the best care and, naturally, the best drugs available to keep them healthy or at least comfortable. Certainly, not just the doctors are concerned about this matter. As I mentioned previously, the Labor Party in Western Australia seems very concerned. I have mentioned some of the concern that has been expressed by Keith Wilson. I just hope he keeps reminding this Government that patients are suffering as a result of these changes. I repeat that no Australian deserves second best. If the only reason this Government is inconveniencing people is monetary gain, perhaps it should look at increasing the cost of drugs in a small way right across the board instead of selecting a few unfortunate people in our community to carry this burden. The reality of the situation is that 75 per cent of the drugs in question are ACE inhibitors which are used for the treatment of high blood pressure. On the one hand we see the Government trying to cut costs in this way; and yet, on the other hand-and commendably so-it is supporting the National Heart Foundation which is carrying out a massive education campaign. Many senators will remember the Balloons Aloft exercise that was conducted last year from which we raised some $37,000. That is a good example of what the Government can do in a positive manner. But this exercise is going to make it difficult for patients to receive life-saving drugs. As Keith Wilson from Western Australia said, it places them unnecessarily at risk of death. To sum up, it seems to me that the Government has rushed into another minefield without thought for the welfare of Australian people. It has ignored consulting with doctors and, as a consequence, many important drugs used in the treatment of cancer and hypertension are not as readily available as they should be. This decision is certainly going to create undue stress and concern for a lot of patients who should not be placed in that position. As Senator Walters pointed out earlier, it will create huge amounts of paper work and bureaucratic control which certainly are not needed. But, most important of all, it allows the private relationship between doctor and patient to be open to public scrutiny. Senator Coates —Public scrutiny? Senator CALVERT —Public scrutiny. Senator Coates —Whose public scrutiny? Senator CALVERT —The public scrutiny of the bureaucrats. We have already seen evidence of bureaucrats releasing information to the general public. Why should anyone who is terminally ill or who has some disease which he or she does not want anyone to know about run the risk of these sorts of things being made known? Senator Coates knows what could happen in a small city like Hobart in Tasmania. Does a distinguished person like Senator Coates think that bureaucrats would keep their traps shut if he were unfortunate enough to be suffering from a serious disease and needed to have certain drugs? I would hope that this sort of thing would not reach the public arena, but it is a risk which I do not believe that the honourable senator or anyone else could afford to take. I, like anyone else in this chamber, would certainly expect the best from my doctor if I needed life saving drugs. I do not believe it should be left up to any paper shuffler in my own State or any file ferret in Canberra to say what we should have. As far as I am concerned, when the chips are down, no-one in this place would accept anything but the best. I do not believe that anyone else in Australia should accept second best either. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(11.10) —I rise to speak to the motion for disallowance that the Opposition has moved because we are sick of seeing patients being ripped off and doctors and pharmacists harassed in order to achieve cost cutting in a fundamentally dishonest Medicare scheme. We have heard very few speakers from the Government side because they know the problems that they have with this regulation. Yesterday, Senator Cook made probably one of the most idiotic contributions-that would be a polite way of putting it-that a Minister could ever make. He did not make any sense at all and he did not state the facts as they are. This morning we heard from Senator Crowley. It is difficult enough to listen to Senator Crowley at the best of times, but this morning one had to stretch one's imagination to understand anything that she said. Senator Crowley always talks on these issues because, supposedly as a doctor, she thinks she has a special qualification to speak on health matters. Quite frankly, I would have to say that, if I had tinea, I would be disinclined to go to Senator Crowley as a doctor. There is a very widely known story around in Parliament House about Senator Crowley's expertise as a doctor. Not so long ago all the doctors and nurses in this place got together to have a resuscitation course. The nurse who was conducting the course said that if someone collapsed it was wise not to check any extremity pulses but to check the person's carotid pulse, to which Senator Crowley-Senator Dr Crowley-responded, `Where is that?'. I am not a doctor, but I happen to know where the carotid artery is. But she said, `Where is that?'. Now honourable senators know why I treat what she says with disdain and why, if I had the misfortune to have something like tinea or whatever, I would prefer to put up with that condition rather than seek Senator Crowley's opinion. The great problem is that with only three Government speakers participating in the debate we have not been able to ascertain why the Government wants to persist with the regulation even though the Government Caucus has expressed concern. An article in yesterday's Australian stated: Federal Cabinet is facing strong opposition from members of its own back bench over contentious changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) announced in the May economic statement. Sections of Caucus are concerned over the apparent public backlash against the Government's decision to add 53 expensive drugs to the `authority only' list. Caucus has called for an explanation of the rationale behind the changes . . . It went on to say that the Minister, Mr Staples: . . . has been asked to provide the answers at a meeting with the Caucus Health and Community Services Committee on Thursday. Of course, today is Thursday. That might explain why only three Government senators have been prepared to talk on this matter. They do not know the answer to the problem either. We know from the patients, the doctors, the pharmacists and so on to whom we have spoken the enormous difficulties that this decision will create. Under this regulation a total of 53 drugs will be obtainable under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme only if a doctor specifically receives approval from the Department of Community Services and Health to prescribe them for patients. My colleague Senator Calvert just explained in great detail what the great fear is-and, justifiably, what the great fear is-with this Government meddling in such a bureaucratic tangle. We have had repeated examples of how the Minister for Community Services and Health, Dr Blewett-and might I remind the Senate that he is Dr non-medical Blewett; unlike you, Mr Acting Deputy President, he has no medical qualifications-- Senator Coates —So? Senator KNOWLES —I just make the point that Dr Blewett has no qualifications in a medical sense. As Senator Calvert pointed out a moment ago, it is important that Australians should be aware that, because of this regulation, there will be the further risk of bureaucrats knowing their private business. I do not believe that it is any business of a bureaucrat to know what drugs I or anybody else is taking. Therefore I think we should be very cautious in extending any of this. Of course, the great irony of this matter is that it was not so long ago-and time goes fast-in November 1985 Dr non-medical Blewett made an announcement entitled `Changes to pharmaceutical benefits scheme'. I will quote directly from his press release in November 1985: Chronically ill patients will be major beneficiaries of Federal Government moves to free up the availability of prescription drugs supplied under the Pharmaceutical Benefits scheme. The press release went on to say: The changes will give more freedom to doctors to prescribe as they see fit. . . . . . . . . . Dr Blewett said 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. That is what he said in 1985. But by 1988 he has done a double backflip, turned a few cartwheels and is now saying, `No way, we are going to put all of these drugs into a more bureaucratic system and tie them up again'. That statement quite clearly shows what the problem was a few years ago. The problem has remained unchanged until now. Following that announcement in December 1985 the Australian Medical Association and doctors generally were written to by the Commonwealth Department of Health. The letter they received stated: For sometime the Government has been looking at ways of reducing the amount of regulation which currently applies to a number of schemes and arrangements it administers. In keeping with these moves to deregulation, the Minister recently announced, with effect from 1 December 1985, a number of changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme relating to prescribing and dispensing restrictions. The changes relate to a reduction in the number of Authority Prescription drugs, an increase in available repeats for some drugs and in some cases the removal of prescribing restrictions. That letter was written not quite three short years ago and yet today we have a complete and utter reversal. In those days the Government saw fit not to have a bureaucratic nonsense tangled up in the prescription of drugs but today all that is changed. In practical terms the regulation that we have before us at the moment can mean delays of up to a fortnight in obtaining an authority, aside from the fact that it places the bureaucracy in judgment over the medical decisions and health care providers. Of course, it is acknowledged by the medical profession and by patients that if they happen to have the misfortune of living in the country they face possible longer delays than those people living in the city. Patients are faced with the option of obtaining these drugs at prohibitive market prices. The amount of unproductive paper work for doctors and pharmacists will increase enormously, adding to the costs. Yesterday we heard Senator Cook and this morning Senator Crowley-who flapped her gums on this particular issue; that is the only way one could describe it because I do not think she was particularly serious-say that it would take a doctor only a couple of minutes. Honourable senators should multiply a couple of minutes by X number of patients per day, per week, per month and per year and see how much time it takes to start ringing up for an urgent authority. I thought doctors were trained to treat patients, not to deal with all the bureaucrats, not to be confronted with all this bureaucratic nonsense that has now been placed before them. This Government has been telling us ad infinitum for the last five years that we have a free health care system accessible to all. What rot! Nothing could be further from the truth. We do not have a free health care system accessible to all. The Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia is now going through an awful crisis of people waiting up to 14 hours to get treatment. This Government thinks that that is acceptable. The Royal Perth Hospital does not, nor do the recipients of the treatment. I think that it is quite a disgrace that the Government still continues to have a system masquerading as free to all. When patients are looking at obtaining some of these drugs at prohibitive market prices it is small wonder that they are concerned when they are told exactly how much they are and what they would have to pay for them in a time delay situation. I object most strongly to the dishonesty of this Government that talks about fairness and social justice. It is trying to portray social justice, whatever social justice really means. I am not quite sure what it means, to be honest, because the way in which the Government put forward the referendum proposals was anything but social justice. But the Government is quite happy to spend $46m on a referendum that was soundly defeated by a very sane and sensible public. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) thought we were going to be sane and sensible in another way. I object most strongly to the dishonesty of this Government while changing the character of the authority required listing from proper means of monitoring new and possibly addictive drugs to a rationing system. Once again I firmly believe that the medical profession is far better equipped than a bureaucrat to know what drugs a patient should have. It is the old story of Medicare promising the electorate a comprehensive health scheme and as it becomes more expensive it creates barriers to ration services. That is what we are seeing today. Services are constantly being rationed at whatever level of health care one cares to look at. These can take the form of hospital queues or, in this new method of discouraging the use of expensive drugs, by creating artificial bureaucratic delays and expensive paper work. I make it very clear that we are not talking about exotic treatments in this debate, something that by any stretch of the imagination could be described as medical luxuries. There is an active discouragement of the prescription of drugs of proven effectiveness in the treatment of very serious complaints. Ninety per cent of the costs to the Government of the 53 drugs is represented by seven drugs. I defy the Government to argue that these seven drugs are unnecessary. We have drugs for inhibitors of high blood pressure and for reducing levels of cholesterol. I may just stop there on that point to say that the Government runs programs encouraging people to reduce their cholesterol. Now what does it do? It spends more taxpayers' money trying to prevent the reduction of high cholesterol by making it more difficult to get the drugs. Senator Coates —Oh, come on! You don't really believe that nonsense. Senator KNOWLES —The Government is making it more difficult to get the drugs. Senator Coates knows it full well and he should not deny it. Then, of course, we have other drugs prescribed for uneven heartbeat. In a society where 34 per cent of deaths are due to heart disease and where in 1984 it was estimated that heart disease cost Australia $600m in hospital and medical services and between $900m and $1,400m in lost production, what responsible government would ever think of discouraging the prescription of those drugs most effective in fighting it? This Government has decided that it will make it more difficult for people to get those drugs. The seventh drug in question is used in the treatment of 100,000 epileptics in Australia. This is not just a drop in the ocean-it is 100,000 people. What regard does this Government have for those suffering from this distressing illness? It is inevitable that such drugs will be more expensive when drug companies need to recoup research and development expenditure during patient life and when the decline in the value of the dollar has increased the cost of imports. That is no reason for pressuring doctors to prescribe cheaper alternatives. That is what the Government is doing. It is suggesting that the doctors think twice. They are the Minister's words, not mine. He says that they should think twice before prescribing an expensive but more effective drug and give a patient a cheaper drug. The fact that it is less effective matters not to this Government-just that it is cheaper, because it has problems balancing its books in health and many other areas. I do not think that there is any reason for any government to put pressure on doctors and patients in such a way. Alternative blood pressure drugs can produce side effects such as male impotence. Does this Government care? No. It is just not reasonable for a government, supposedly concerned with improving health care, to encourage the prescription of less effective drugs in greater quantities simply because they are cheaper. While arthritis may seldom be life threatening, it is most certainly very debilitating. Anyone who knows someone with arthritis or has arthritis himself knows just how debilitating it can be. It diminishes the quality of life for thousands of Australians, particularly the elderly whose generally lower incomes make it imperative for them to obtain necessary medication at a subsidised rate. Ten out of the 53 drugs on this infamous list are used in the treatment of rheumatoid disease. I stress that there are no effective alternatives. But what does this Government do? It makes it more difficult for those people to get relief. The Government is ignoring medical opinion and it will condemn arthritic sufferers in Australia to inferior and ineffective treatment. What an insult to medical practitioners to assume that they would not prescribe the drug most effective in treating the condition of their individual patients and to seize on this artificial means of harassing them. Any estimated cost saving to be achieved in this way at the expense of the health of thousands of Australians has to be offset against the cost of administering three million prescriptions annually. There is also the wider cost that may result when sufferers from cancer or heart disease, denied proper medication, end up in hospital for longer stays. Surely we should be looking at preventative medicine. That is the way that doctors can best prescribe what drugs are the most suitable for their patients to prevent any hospitalisation-not to exacerbate their condition. It is not good enough for the Government to allege that the placing of the 53 drugs on the authority list will not deny them to those patients who need them. Prescriptions would not be subject to this bureaucratic mechanism if it were not the Government's intention to discourage doctors from prescribing those drugs with proven effectiveness. The Opposition does not object to the placing of drugs on authority lists if their effectiveness is in doubt or if there is any other bona fide medical reason. If this motion for disallowance is passed there may be a case for the Government presenting a revised list of drugs that fall into this category and that are not the most effective form of treatment for common and serious complaints. The problem is that this decision has been based solely on cost. There is not one of us who would not think that it is desirable to reduce costs of government whenever and wherever it is possible to do so. But what we are talking about today are drugs that account for only 5 per cent of the total health bill. We are talking about a decision that this Government took without any consultation or discussion with the medical or pharmaceutical professions. That was highly undesirable. They are the people who know best-not bureaucrats. The Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Peter Staples, drew attention in his statement to what he said was the alarming increase in the prescribing of the 53 drugs in question over a six-month period to November 1987. I would not call an increase from one per cent to 1.43 per cent an alarming increase, but he obviously would. According to him, an increase of 0.43 of a percentage point is alarming. As I said before, the decision will make the Government's objective of trying to get people to have lower cholesterol levels very difficult. The Better Health Commission and the Health Targets and Implementation Committee have identified elevated cholesterol levels as a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease in Australia. That is no secret to anybody. Yet this Government is trying to make the accessibility of proven drugs more and more difficult. I cannot help keeping on coming back to the fact that I am also very concerned about bureaucratic intrusion into the professional relationship between doctor and patient. Patients expect, and deserve, the best possible treatment available to them. They do not expect their doctor to have to seek approval to give them such treatment. This Government is suggesting exactly that. My colleagues have already mentioned that the Western Australian Labor Government has come out very strongly against the Federal Government's decision. I suppose a real cynic could say that the only reason it has done so is that it recognises how unpopular the decision is. Of course, it is facing a State election within the next few months and, therefore, it is a popular hobbyhorse to kick. However, I would not like to be that cynical. I would like to say that the Labor Government in Western Australia has probably seen the error of the ways of this Federal Government; so much so that it has put advertisements in the newspaper entitled `Help us get the drugs you need'. The Western Australian Government's advertisement stated: 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 is, the Western Australian Minister for Health, Mr Keith Wilson, is convinced- that patients are suffering as a result of these changes. I remind Senator Coates, who is to speak soon, that that came from a Labor Minister in Western Australia. The honourable senator's silence on this occasion is deafening. Is it not funny that when it is one of Labor's own people who comes out with the collywobbles there is absolutely deafening silence? A newspaper article entitled `Phone-in over drug changes' stated: A special ``pharmacy protest'' hotline is being launched by the State Government to pressure its Federal counterpart to review controversial changes to pharmaceutical benefits. The move-which will be officially announced today by the Minister for Health, Mr Wilson- a Labor Minister- is aimed at convincing the Federal Government that it should back down on its stance. I quote his words: ``I hope he will agree- he is talking about the Federal Minister for Housing and Aged Care, Mr Staples- to exclude a number of drugs which are crucial in the treatment of cancer, epilepsy and high blood pressure,''. . . That came from the Western Australian Labor Government. Yet we have people-few as they might be-coming in here saying, `Do not worry about it; it is all right'. But what the Government has also lost sight of is the fact that the authority only list was first created for medical reasons to monitor addictive or new drugs which might have had deleterious long term effects. That has all changed because what we see today is a list of drugs that are crucial for the treatment of chronically ill patients-not just addictive drugs. We are quite happy, and in fact we consent totally, with restricting addictive drugs, but on this occasion the Government is misusing the authority only list to save money when the efficacy of the drugs has already been approved by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. This is in direct contrast to the Hawke Government's claim that it provides Australians with a fair, free and universal health system. It could not be further from the truth. Hospital waiting lists and now the authority only action are deliberate rationing mechanisms which generally impact most heavily upon the poor and those least able to work the system. I remind the Senate that the drugs on this list are not exotic drugs, they are simply modern developments which dramatically improve the lifestyles of many sick people. I do not think that this Government has any right to impinge on a more pleasant lifestyle for those who are very ill. Those suffering from epilepsy and cancer do not need to have their condition further aggravated by bureaucratic intervention of the authority only prevention-- Senator Walters —Or any concern at all about their ability to get drugs. Senator KNOWLES —That is quite right, Senator Walters, they should not have any concern at all. They are confronted with a problem, a medical condition that gives them enough concern already without governments quite willingly giving them greater concern. As this list stands, however, we cannot regard it as anything other than an attempt to ration medical services to the detriment of thousands of Australians and their health providers. I think that this is a very serious position that we have reached on this subject now. I really do urge honourable senators to support this motion of disallowance. I hope that the Australian Democrats have a further change of mind, as they are capable of doing on any subject over a short period, and that they swing back again to the position where they started a few minutes ago. Senator VANSTONE(South Australia)(11.37) —I rise to support the motion of disallowance moved by my colleague Senator Puplick. The motion of disallowance, as we all know, relates to 53 drugs that in the May mini-Budget were placed on the restricted list, meaning that the drugs would still be available, as Senator Crowley pointed out earlier in the debate, but that doctors would have to go through extra steps before those drugs could be prescribed for their patients. There is no question that the decision made in May was a rush decision. Much has been made by the few speakers on the other side of the chamber of the fact that this was a recommendation of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. In making that comment and trying to blame, if you like, or shelve the responsibility off on to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, they seem to have ignored the comments of the Chairman of that Committee, Dr Wal Grigor. On 7 September he said that the Committee had, in effect, been forced to make hasty decisions when the Government asked it to select the expensive drugs. He stated: We met in Canberra on the Monday before the May Statement, and we didn't get any warning before the meeting. It was the committee's view those decisions were reached in some haste and they would all need to be looked at in the future. So much for the sensible decision made by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. When honourable senators read what the Chairman of the Committee had to say they can see that members of the Committee were told by the Government what to do. They were not given advance warning of what was going to be requested of them and they therefore had no opportunity to consult with medical practitioners and specialists in the fields affected by these drugs. I will just give a brief outline of some of the drugs involved. They are predominantly cancer treatments, treatments for epilepsy and for rheumatism. There are 53 drugs which are all, basically, very expensive and new drugs. Since that decision in May we have seen a hot line established and some modification to the Government's initial proposal. That is proof positive that, firstly, concern has been raised in the community-in other words, the Government has not implemented its program sensibly so that people understood what was being done-about this inept and speedy action with respect to pharmaceutical benefits. Secondly, the modifications indicate that there were original errors. If no errors have been made, modifications are not required. When a scheme is modified it is admitted that there were errors in it in the very beginning. Since then we have also had some pretty facile comments from the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples), who is the Minister responsible. One comment that was reported was that some people might benefit more by changing their lifestyle and their diet rather than use these drugs. It is an insult to members of the medical profession to suggest that they would be prescribing very expensive drugs for people whose illnesses could be cured or whose health could be improved by simply changing their lifestyle and their diet. That is an outrageous accusation to be making and simply shows the lack of understanding by the Minister of the serious nature of the illnesses involved. He obviously has not got a clue. What we have been told by a few speakers on behalf of the Australian Labor Party is that all the Government is trying to do is to encourage better prescribing habits. They are saying that because these extra forms will have to be filled out it will cause doctors to think twice about whether this is the best drug and whether a cheaper alternative would be just as good, if not more appropriate. That is the argument. But the Australian Medical Association tells us that once the forms are filled in-they go off to who in heaven knows how many bureaucrats who will be looking at them and putting a tick and a stamp and putting them in the in basket or the out basket-the only ground the bureaucrats will use for authorities for prescriptions being rejected is that there is some technical defect in completing the Government's forms. In other words, if the doctor completes the form properly, the drugs will be able to be prescribed in any event. So there will not be, necessarily, that much of a saving if that is the case. An additional point that needs to be made is that one does hope, with the pressure that is on general practitioners, that the extra bureaucratic barrier put between them and these expensive drugs going to their patients is not an incentive for quite the reverse of what the Government says it intends, which is better prescribing habits. One would very much hope that this extra bureaucratic barrier does not encourage some doctors to make inappropriate decisions to give a cheaper alternative that, in fact, is not better. There has been no comment by the Government on how it believes that will not happen. Senator Crowley this morning made much of the fact that she believes the Government has done the right thing. I was somewhat surprised to hear that because I have in front of me a clipping from the Australian headed `Caucus concern on health'. It is from yesterday's Australian, on page 18. One paragraph reads: Caucus has called for an explanation of the rationale behind the changes and for clarifications of `misinformation' surrounding the issue from the minister responsible, Mr Staples. In other words, the Government's own members do not understand what it is all about. We have got so few of them speaking in this debate because they do not understand what it is about. Senator Tambling —Senator Crowley probably doesn't even go to Caucus. Senator VANSTONE —Senator Crowley may not even roll up to Caucus and probably does not know that Caucus is concerned about it. We have got so few members on the other side speaking because a lot of the senators on the other side do not approve of it either. This was something that was shoved through and Government senators have all got to wear it. I might add that, unlike the Liberal Party of Australia, Government senators are unable to disagree with their Party. They have to sit there like monkeys locked into a cage about whatever their Cabinet decides. Let us look sensibly at the suggestion by Senator Crowley that this will be an effective cost cutting measure. She said, `Look, when the Opposition wants to cut costs it is a rational thing, but when we want to do it you say that it is an outrage'. We do not always say that it is an outrage, but we do say that this action by the Government is an outrage. The reason we say it is an outrage is that the placement of these 53 drugs on the restricted pharmaceutical benefits list has been done for no other reason than cutting costs. It has not been done to improve health care and it has not been done sensibly. If it had been done sensibly, then we would find when we looked at the drugs that are on the restricted list that there are cheaper and better alternatives. Then we could say that this bureaucratic barrier that has been put up would encourage doctors to look at cheaper alternatives. But when we look at a good number of the drugs we find that there are not cheaper alternatives, let alone better alternatives. There is simply the one and only suitable drug for that particular condition. So there has been no rationale behind this decision other than, as I understand it, any drug costing over $30 a treatment. If we speak to oncologists, cancer specialists, they will tell us that virtually all of the hormone and cytotoxic treatments for cancer are in the 21 cancer drugs now on the list, and all of them bar one can be used for breast cancer. I am very surprised that the Government, with its concern for women's health, which I acknowledge it has, and its very sensible program to improve breast and cervical cancer screening, seems to have the view that doctors who are treating women for breast cancer do so in such an off-hand fashion that the Government needs to put one extra form in front of them in order to encourage them to make the appropriate prescription. It is a damning indictment of the capacity of the medical profession to suggest that because the doctors have to fill in one extra form the treatment they prescribe for cancer will in some way be different. The cancer specialists say that there was no consultation at all with them about which drugs they could say there were cheaper alternatives for, that they were simply left out and that this was purely a bureaucratic decision. As I have already indicated, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is not to blame. It was simply handed the list and a Department of Finance directive about what needed to be done. The cancer specialists very much believe that this is simply an increase in bureaucratic paper which will cause inevitable delays and will in the end only inconvenience the patient. I am told that, with virtually no exception with respect to the cancer drugs, there are no suitable alternatives. In many cases it is not feasible or appropriate to contemplate a cheaper alternative. I am sorry that Senator Crowley, in her speech this morning, did not take the opportunity to list what the cheaper alternatives would be to some of the drugs that are on the list, if she believes that that is the net result of putting these drugs on the list. I am again informed that because the drugs related to hypertension and cardiovascular fields are narrow in nature, in the sense that they are for particular symptoms or illness levels, it is extraordinarily difficult to prescribe them inappropriately. If that is the case-one can only sensibly rely on specialists in that field, which the Government did not-what saving will we achieve by making the doctors fill in another form if there is a very narrow band of suitable drugs in any event? I am also informed that the long term costs have not yet been looked at. The Government would like to save $30 here and there by some other sort of drug being prescribed or, as the Minister suggests, someone changing his diet or lifestyle, but in fact there can be very long term savings in costs and social areas because these drugs could prevent complications early on; in other words, they could prevent a heart attack which quite obviously would result in a cost and social saving. Again the doctors involved, those specialising in these areas, are concerned that this is simply a bureaucratic delay. They go on and say that some of the older drugs for hypertension, the cheaper alternatives that the Government seems to want doctors to use, have very serious side affects. So I have difficulty in agreeing with Senator Crowley and some of the Government speakers in that area because what we have again been told, in relation to a specific area, is that there probably are not cheaper alternatives with respect to these specific drugs; that in fact in the long term the use of these drugs may be cheaper for the community because problems will be fixed earlier; that again it is simply a bureaucratic nightmare; and that the cheaper alternatives that are available are not appropriate. I am told that some time last year-you may know when this was, Mr Acting Deputy President, because of your involvement in health care-the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee did moot the question of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors being restricted. There was such a fuss by the profession involved, submissions were put forward by experts, and the decision was changed on therapeutic grounds. In other words, the decision to put ACE inhibitors on the restricted list was not a decision that would improve the health care of Australians and therefore the decision was changed last year under this Government. But now we see a complete change of heart by the Government, to chuck out the advice from specialists in this area, to throw away the therapeutic concerns we might have for whether or not these drugs should be restricted and simply to go on a cost alone decision. I want to turn to a few remarks that Senator Crowley made, because in my view her contribution this morning was somewhat outrageous. Apart from referring to a number of senators on this side as being straight-out liars she made a few other remarks that I think need to be challenged. As I have indicated, Senator Crowley said that this move to place the 53 drugs on the restricted list will both cut costs and improve health care. By the few examples that I have raised I have tried to show that that is not in fact the case. As Labor members have agreed, doctors will still be able to get these drugs, so if they are the most appropriate and they are still prescribed, there will not be any cost saving. But if they are not the most appropriate drugs, the doctors will go to the cheaper alternatives. What I have tried to show, by referring to advice that I have had from specialists, is that in most cases there are either no cheaper alternatives or no suitable cheaper alternatives. It seems that the whole goal of this proposal is for Australians to use less of the more expensive, modern, better and more effective drugs. That is what the Government is on about in this case. Senator Crowley admitted that if there were difficulties the Government would look at them. I think that bears some consideration, because what she is in fact saying is that the Government has thought this proposal through very carefully, that it is a very sensible proposal to put these 53 drugs on the list, but in the next breath-almost without taking a breath-she says that if the Government has done the wrong thing it will look at it. It seems the Government has done the wrong thing and Senator Crowley would be well advised to consult with her Caucus colleagues, who obviously are concerned about this measure. She would also be well advised to consult with not only members of the Australian Medical Association but specialists in the particular fields to see what they have to say about it. An additional point that Senator Crowley made, again within the space of one breath, was that this move would not affect prescribing habits because the drugs would still be available, but in the next breath she said it really would because doctors would change their prescribing habits as they would not want to fill in the extra form. That is in effect what she said. I have made that point before. It is a somewhat damning indictment of the medical profession by this Government to suggest that the simple filling in of an extra form will occasion doctors to prescribe other or inappropriate drugs. I have already mentioned that Senator Crowley, while saying that doctors would shift to cheaper and, she thinks, more suitable alternatives, did not take the opportunity to give a few examples of what are cheaper and more suitable alternatives. She referred to the potency of drugs that are involved, the very high powered anti-cancer drugs, and she pointed out how they were prescribed with great care. In the same breath she said that despite the care that is involved in the prescribing of these drugs, they should be shifted onto the restricted list. She said that putting them on the list makes doctors more thoughtful about prescribing. The same sort of insult keeps coming up. It came up not only in Senator Crowley's speech but also in the speeches of many other Government senators involved in this debate. As I say, it is somewhat of an attack on the thoughtfulness that doctors put into their prescribing now and implies that cheaper alternatives exist. I am sorry that senators do not get the opportunity to speak twice in the one debate, because I want to give an invitation to Senator Crowley. I will extend it to her through Senator Coates. I refer to the drugs tamoxifen and medroxyprogesterone, other wise known as provera. I notice Mr Acting Deputy President shaking his head. I suspect that I have pronounced those names wrongly. Those two drugs are for the treatment of breast cancer and uterine cancer in women. Perhaps Senator Coates will take the opportunity to tell us what the cheaper alternatives are. If he is so well-informed in this area, so competent as to be the last speaker in this debate on behalf of the Government, let him take the opportunity to tell the chamber what the cheaper alternatives are for the treatment of cancers that affect women. If he can manage that, why does he not tell us what the cheaper alternatives are in every other area? Speakers from the Government side have been noticeably silent in this debate on what the cheaper alternatives are. The reason they have been noticeably silent on the cheaper alternatives is that primarily there are not any. Government speakers have presented a most ill-informed debate which only confirms the view that we are debating a rushed decision that they are now forced to back. In conclusion, although I do not wish to stray from the question of disallowing this ill-informed and hastily made decision to put 53 drugs on the restricted list, I want to raise the question of whether this Government believes it needs to have a rational pharmaceutical drugs policy. Clearly, it does not have one. It seems simply to believe that the only concern it needs to have with pharmaceuticals is that of their cost, and that it can tamper with that by putting drugs on the restricted list, altering the number of prescriptions that are allowed or changing the number of prescriptions one has to have filled before one is entitled to free drugs. They are all cost related measures. I do not hear from the Government of any therapeutic based health care decisions with respect to pharmaceuticals. I want to cite a number of examples that could have stood, if the Government had let them, as warning posts to the Government that something needs to be done in this area. In November 1987, a survey on tranquilliser usage found that 10 million prescriptions are dispensed, with the staggering figure of one in six women in Australia being on prescription drugs. In March 1988 the parents of a 23-year-old Sydney man who died of a `legal overdose' demanded a strengthening of legal measures to monitor legal drug use. In May this year diuretic drugs, which promote weight loss, were shown to be regularly abused by women and athletes, according to the Australian Prescriber. Again in May this year, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia accused the Government of short-term bandaid measures that represented false economies over the pharmaceutical benefits scheme pricing and regulatory policies. In June this year the National Health and Medical Research Council released a very disturbing report on the extent of mood altering drugs being used amongst children. In September this year, the Chairman of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee confirmed what we already knew-namely, that the decision we are debating today was made hastily with no prior consultation with specialists. Also in September this year, we found from the Australian Consumers Association that a disproportionate number of prescription drugs is being used by the aged. All of these matters should concern a government which is concerned about health care rather than costs. I would like to see the Government put forward a rational pharmaceutical drugs policy-directed not just to costs; in part, of course, it has to be, because the coffers are not endless; there is a limited supply of money. But money is not the only factor to be taken into account in terms of health care. Therapeutic decisions or factors should be taken into account and the Government should come up with a rational pharmaceutical drugs policy. I very much support the motion of disallowance moved by my colleague Senator Puplick. Senator COATES(Tasmania)(12.00) —We are dealing with an Opposition motion to disallow a regulation about pharmaceutical benefits, which has turned into a deliberate attempt by the Opposition to frustrate the Senate's legislative program. I would like to answer the accusation by-- Senator Reid —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. It is an unnecessary, unfair and unreasonable attack to suggest that we are attempting to frustrate the Senate. If the Government does not see that this is an important measure to be debated, I am sorry that it has missed the point of the debate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Burns) —There is no point of order. Senator COATES —As the Opposition Whip knew, of course, that was not a point of order. She may not have heard her colleagues making a big fuss about the fact that there were only three Government speakers in this debate. I would have thought that three speakers from each side would be enough to avoid repetition on this issue and to allow honourable senators to put their arguments adequately. But we have had something like nine Opposition speakers spinning out the debate over two days and, in the process, preventing us from getting on with the program. Virtually all those speakers from the other side have taken their full time. Instead of giving a relatively brief and effective speech, most of them have taken all or almost all of the time available to them. I just make that point in answer to the repeated comments from the Opposition about the fact that there are only three Government speakers in this debate, suggesting that this means that we really do not oppose the motion. Of course we oppose the disallowance motion. It has been adequately dealt with by the Minister for Resources, Senator Cook, and by Senator Crowley, and is now being dealt with by me. Since the debate started a further Opposition member has been added to the speakers list. Who is to say that, if we listed nine speakers, the Opposition would not say, `Oh well, we will have to have another nine to show that we really mean what we say more than you do.'? It is a ridiculous situation. The issue is about the 53 drugs that have been added to the authority list for approval under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. We have had a whole lot of infuriating misrepresentation about this matter, and a whole lot of emotive phrases to the effect that this means divulging private medical information to unknown bureaucrats, that it involves harassing doctors and dying patients, and that the Government is meddling in people's private affairs. Of course bureaucrats are involved when we have a scheme of publicly funded health services, including pharmaceuticals. What does the Opposition really suggest-that we have an open slather scheme, that anything that a doctor prescribes is subsidised from the public purse? If the Opposition wants to have no bureaucrats involved in these matters, it really wants no pharmaceutical benefits scheme at all. I acknowledge that parts of the medical profession take that attitude. They say, `We want no government involvement at all-totally free activity for practitioners. We will prescribe what we want and people can pay for it'. But we have a situation in which very expensive drugs are needed by some people and, as with all sorts of drugs-those that are on the authority list and those that are not-practitioners can get into the habit of too easily prescribing some of these drugs. Therefore, on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, 53 drugs have been added to the authority list. I emphasise that they have been added to the list, because this is not some totally new scheme. There has for many years been an authority list of drugs which require special approval before they can be prescribed. It is just that 53 more drugs out of the thousands that there are have been added. All that is now required is for the medical practitioner to make an extra notation that a particular drug is essential and special authority is requested. The Senate has heard a lot of emotive nonsense from the Opposition about unproductive paperwork and waste of time and so forth, but very little time is involved. If there is no urgency about the matter, the practitioner can merely sign the authority request and state that there is no cheaper alternative available or that the efficacy of the particular drug is such that it is the only one suitable for the particular patient and mark it off. If there is urgency, there are two options. The practitioner can telephone the Department if unsure about what has to happen to get immediate approval by telephone or he or she can sign the prescription so that it can be dispensed immediately and follow it up with a request for approval by mail. It has been suggested by the Opposition-the most outrageous suggestion being made by Senator Walters last night-that these options for dealing with this matter urgently are not available. I hope that by reminding the Opposition of these provisions we have dealt with the accusations about the Government risking the lives of patients and so forth. I think it was Senator Calvert who said that the addition of these 53 drugs to the authority list will make it difficult for patients to receive life saving drugs and it introduces the danger of death and undue stress and concern. The only undue stress and concern has been caused by the political campaign by the Opposition and others who are trying to make patients think that they will miss out on the drugs that will improve their life expectancy. The Australian Medical Association has also tried to sabotage the addition of these new drugs to the authority list. I am happy for the Association to indulge in a political campaign. It does it all the time. I have no great objection to doctors encouraging their patients to contact their members of parliament or take whatever other action they wish, but I do object to their doing it without their patients having full knowledge of the situation. I have had concerned patients contact me about the matter, saying that they have run out of the drug that they have been dependent on and the doctor has said it is going to take two weeks before they can get more supplies. There we have a situation where doctors are deliberately causing unnecessary worry to their patients and encouraging them to become involved in that sort of political campaign. Perhaps some doctors have done so in ignorance-I acknowledge that possibility-but there ought not to have been ignorance, for practitioners were fully informed. There should be no concern about drugs that are urgently needed being immediately available. The point of the matter is to ensure that there is full consideration by the practitioner of what is being prescribed, rather than just getting into the habit of always prescribing a particular drug, especially one that is so expensive. Senator Vanstone —Do you think there are cheaper alternatives? Senator COATES —I suppose I had better answer Senator Vanstone now or she will continue to harass me throughout my comments. She made some nonsense challenge before for me to say what are the alternatives to specific drugs. I am not going to answer that question. Senator Vanstone —You cannot. Senator COATES —It is not my place to answer a medical question. It is a matter for the medical practitioners and for the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. For some of those 53 drugs there may not be an alternative. In some cases there are alternatives. All that has to happen is for the practitioner concerned to certify that there is no appropriate alternative. I am not going to get into debates about particular drugs. It is not my place and it ought not to be Senator Vanstone's place to do so. It is a matter of making sure that there is consideration, that practitioners think twice about the drugs that they prescribe. The Opposition is mixed up, I suppose. It is trying to make a political point about this matter. In effect it is saying that there should not be any limitations on drugs at all. It wants no controls because they interfere with the precious doctor-patient relationship. The doctor-patient relationship is one thing; but public funding of the consequences of that relationship is another. It is important that where such high cost is involved and, as has been acknowledged by the Opposition, such potency and danger with some of these drugs, extra authority should be required to ensure that the doctor considers the matter properly before prescribing those drugs. The Opposition seems suddenly to have exempted this kind of public expenditure from its general campaign of saying that the Government spends too much on everything. It is continually bleating about reducing public expenditure. Here is a relatively minor but legitimate attempt to control the very expensive area of pharmaceutical benefits, and members of the Opposition use terms such as Senator Calvert did that this is a greedy grab for funds and it will result in second best health treatment and all sorts of things. The arguments that have been raised are pathetic. Let us never hear again from the Opposition about health costs. This debate over two days has taken away any legitimacy it had in arguing that sort of point. The stress that has been caused to patients by misleading reports and misleading statements from the Opposition and from medical practitioners has upset me when I have heard about it. It is important to emphasise that patients have nothing to fear from this decision. They are not being denied necessary medication. The decision does not involve removing any drugs from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme list. All these drugs are still on the list. I think Senator Vanstone acknowledged that, even if some of her colleagues did not. And there are the procedures I mentioned earlier to ensure that the drugs can be obtained in cases where they are urgently needed. That issue has been of concern, I acknowledge, to organisations such as those representing people suffering from epilepsy, who know that the drugs sometimes are needed urgently. But they can be obtained just as quickly as before by using the fast track method of obtaining approval. It is important that there be incentive for doctors to consider costs when they are prescribing. I appreciate the problems they have. They are continually being bombarded with aggressive promotion by drug companies. It is important for them, busy as they are, to consider continually whether it is absolutely necessary for an expensive drug to be prescribed for all patients with a particular disease rather than thinking about whether it really is appropriate for a particular patient, whether an alternative, preferably cheaper drug would be just as satisfactory, or whether perhaps even non-drug therapy would be just as good. At the same time as having this authority mechanism, we have an educative program encouraging more appropriate prescribing activities by medical practitioners. There is no requirement for doctors to try cheaper drugs first. Again, it has been suggested that it will be said `No, such and such a drug is not available, you must try the cheaper alternative first'. There is no such requirement. There is only a requirement for the practitioner to consider whether the cheaper alternative might be just as good. It is a prompt mechanism to require this extra certification. Patients will not miss out on anything that is necessary for them. The drugs have not been removed from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) list. All that is required is an additional authority. Turning to the issue of faceless bureaucrats getting involved in doctor-patient relationships and telling doctors what to do, there is no role for officers in telling doctors what to do. Their role is in checking that the authority is properly completed and that the prescribing restrictions have been complied with. They have no role in actually determining the appropriateness of the prescribing doctor's judgment in choosing drugs for their patients. The doctor simply needs to state that the alternatives are inappropriate or that there are no alternatives and the authority will be approved. There is no question of bureaucrats-the word spat out by the Opposition in a most offensive way-trying to tell medical practitioners what they should do with patients. Of course, this reference to bureaucrats has led the Opposition on to its track about privacy. There is no change in the privacy situation. If honourable senators opposite stopped and thought for a moment they would know that, even with an ordinary PBS prescription, the name of the patient and the drug is part of the information. This makes sure that the payment subsidising these drugs out of the public purse is correct. There is no additional question at all about privacy. In any case, there has to be a compromise in these matters. If we are to have a system of public subsidy of drugs and prescriptions and so on, it is important to make sure that that information is secret. To suggest, as one of the Opposition speakers did, that because this information is in the authority forms it is in the public domain is just ridiculous and an insult to those who administer the system. The other suggestion that was made by the Opposition is that somehow or other this arrangement is totally set in concrete forever and a day. It is open to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to change its advice to the Minister for Community Services and Health whenever it likes. It does that all the time. There are drugs coming on and off the PBS list all the time. The Committee, both on its own initiative and on advice received from practitioners involved, is able to reassess things. No doubt, because of the representations made to the Minister by organisations and individual practitioners and patients, there will be a reassessment of some of these things, especially epilim and some of the cancer drugs, and the Committee will consider these representations in the normal way and make recommendations accordingly. I imagine that over time, and depending on developments of drugs and new information, drugs will go on and off the authority list all the time. That should not be a surprise to any of us. It ought to be the way the system works for continual review of these restrictions. I can only suggest that the Opposition is not really serious about this motion for disallowance. It has been introduced for purely political reasons to stir up patients, who are being misled about the circumstances of having drugs available. I urge the rejection of the motion for disallowance so that we can get on with some other business and get some legislation passed. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(12.23) —As I am at the tail end of the debate, I presume that I am the additional Opposition speaker Senator Coates has just deplored. Not only did he deplore the number of Opposition speakers on this motion for disallowance but he also deplored the content of their speeches. This indicates that he has missed the whole point of the depth of concern we have over the Government's action in putting these drugs, many of them most important ones, back on the restricted list. As a sheer matter of logistics it is estimated that this action by the Government will necessitate the processing of an extra three million applications in a year. That might be very good news for the bureaucrats but it is very bad news for everybody else, particularly as the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) said in his speech that they will all be approved. Why have the applications if they will all be approved? I can tell honourable senators why the Minister made that statement. He is aware of the depth of concern people have about restricting the prescribing of these drugs. This decision was announced in the May economic statement. Among other things, this particular action was really a flying flip at the moon, and instead of winding up in the Sea of Tranquillity the Government has wound up in a sea of illogicality and inconsistency. I think that the Government will reap the whirlwind for what it has done. Senator Coates must be aware of the depth of concern within his own Party. Those people have realised how illogical and inconsistent this decision is. Community concern is mounting more and more. The honourable senator accused the Australian Medical Association (AMA) of sabotage of the Government's action. I do not know how he can accuse the AMA of that, because it was not consulted at any stage. A lot of the drugs involved relate to the specialities within the AMA, and plenty of advice would have been available to the Government had it sought that information. Indeed, over a long time the AMA has always said that it is perfectly willing to consult with the Government on matters such as this. I might say that, in my view, it is a fault of the AMA to keep going back to the Government which has put it in the mess that it is already in. It is like going back and back to the same doctor who is making you sick. The AMA is still willing to go back to the Government and negotiate, not only in this area but also for a whole restructuring of the pharmaceutical benefits system in Australia today. Concerning the illogicality of the whole situation, the Government has laid stress on the priority that it gives to preventive measures. It has a Better Health Commission going, it has very expensive procedures in process to prevent illness and injury in the work force, and it has the National Health and Medical Research Council in operation. The drugs that have been restricted are largely for preventive measures and they could save the Government a lot of money. The big cost with many of the illnesses that are treated by these drugs relates to costly complications and effects. For example, treatment of cardiovascular conditions, strokes and heart attacks, is very expensive. However, such conditions can be prevented or delayed with the treatment that is now available. Huge campaigns are now being undertaken in the community to promote healthier lifestyles and to urge people to adopt a healthier diet and to watch their blood pressure. However, here is the Government restricting access to the very preventive measures that would result in saving a lot of money in the long run. Senator Coates —Are you saying that they should be given to every patient? Senator SHEIL —I am not suggesting that at all. It was ridiculous for Government members to say in debate that doctors would prescribe these tablets willy-nilly and that there would be an explosion of prescriptions. That is entirely wrong. Almost every one of these drugs is specific for what it does. They are at the frontier of medicine; they are state of the art drugs. They have fewer side effects than previous medications, and they are safer. In the matter of preventive medicine, these drugs are specific in what they do. Doctors are not likely to give cancer drugs to an epileptic. They are not likely to prescribe drugs willy-nilly in the treatment of the various diseases. Indeed, most of the illnesses relate to the specialised areas of the medical profession. Most of the patients involved would have seen a specialist, have obtained advice and have been put on a regime, and perhaps then sent back to their general practitioner. Now, the general practitioner has to do extra paperwork in order to get drugs for these patients. As to the extra paperwork involved, ridicule was heaped on the profession-here were these doctors complaining that they were being asked to fill in just five to 10 extra words on a certificate. However, just the name and address of the doctor and the patient would amount to more than 10 words-and then there is the rest of the form to fill in, with the number of repeats, dosages, and so on. It is a longer job than just a few extra words. The important thing is that the doctor already has a lot of paperwork that is generated by the Government. In most surgeries the doctor's desk is cluttered with forms-red forms, green forms and blue forms-because, to a large extent, doctors have become `referologists'. They have to refer people for all sorts of tests or examinations, and there is a form for everything. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 12.30 to 2.30 p.m. Senator CHANEY —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I note the Minister's reluctance in Question Time earlier this week to make any prediction about interest rates. But I draw his attention to today's Melbourne Herald report that a Reserve Bank of Australia spokesman has said that it is accurate to claim the Government is holding down interest rates until after the Victorian election. Will the Minister confirm that this is the case? Will he tell the Senate when the monetary policy brakes will be taken off? Senator BUTTON —I have not seen that report. I do not know who it is from. I regard it as a totally unauthenticated sort of comment. I have no comment to make. Senator MAGUIRE —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy. I refer to the project for the interconnection of the Victorian and South Australian electricity grids. What progress has there been to date on this vital scheme involving a power line from near Portland in Victoria to Mount Gambier in South Australia? What is the timetable for completion of this important project and what are the major benefits estimated to flow from it? Senator COOK —On 25 February 1985 the Premiers of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia announced an agreement to interconnect South Australia's electricity grid with the combined Victorian-New South Wales grid at a cost of $155m to be shared between South Australia, with a contribution of $102m, Victoria $46m and New South Wales $7m. The interconnection is now under construction and is planned for completion in, I think, 1990. The Commonwealth Government facilitated this project by supporting, in the Loan Council, additional borrowings by the South Australian and Victorian electricity authorities of up to a total of $8m over the proposed period of construction. The interconnection, as implied in the honourable senator's question, was recommended by the Commonwealth initiated inquiry into electricity generation and the sharing of power resources in south-eastern Australia-the Zeidler report-in 1980. The project will provide total annual savings of at least $14m by allowing the exchange of electricity when generation in one State is cheaper than generation in another State. There would also be savings from the sharing of reserve generating plant capacity. Studies indicate that the capital savings to be achieved from the reserve generating plant capacity could be around $75m. Any student of Australian resources or Australian constitutional law who has travelled, particularly by rail, between the States knows how difficult it has been to achieve cooperation between State governments in areas where there are overlapping or interconnecting services. They know how difficult it is to combine those services and work out a sane and sensible system. I think it is a tribute to the Labor governments of Victoria and South Australia that they have been able to put aside whatever constitutional obstacles have prevented governments in the past reaching this sort of agreement and, with the assistance of the Commonwealth, come to a conclusion like this which will be of great benefit to all consumers of electricity in both Victoria and South Australia. Senator BISHOP —I ask the Minister for Justice whether he has seen the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister, Attorney-General Lionel Bowen, in the Weekend Australian of 10 September 1988 in which he is quoted as saying that for a referendum the Electoral Commission: Can't get to the polls in under 15 weeks. If I had been able to get there in 8 weeks I might have had a chance. With the implicit meaning being that the people can be fooled for eight weeks but not for 15, will the Minister now admit that the Australian people are good, sensible people who refused to be duped by the Government's motherhood questions and false rhetoric, or does he believe that the Australian people were stupid and swayed by arguments which the Chairman of the Constitutional Commission said `would disgrace a nine-year-old school child'? Senator TATE —I have not read that article. In general, the Government accepts that, as is proper in a democracy, a question put to the people and answered by them concludes the matter. Senator ZAKHAROV —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to comments made by Senator Alston in the adjournment debate on Tuesday night? Can the Minister inform the Senate of action taken by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in response to claims made against the Latrobe Valley Morwell Migrant Resource Centre? Is there any truth in Senator Alston's claims of mismanagement at that centre? Senator ROBERT RAY —This particular migrant resource centre commenced operations in November 1984. Within its catchment area there are over 16,000 overseas born residents, including about 9,000 from non-English speaking backgrounds. The area serviced by that migrant resource centre covers some 7,000 square kilometres. I am aware of reports of internal dissension within the board of management of that migrant resource centre and its impact on ethnic communities in the area. My Department is already working in close contact with the board of management of the migrant resource centre in an endeavour to resolve these problems as soon as possible. Our priority is to ensure that the services of the centre are continued in an uninterrupted way. Because of the inference drawn by some board members and others that the Migrant Resource Centre funds have been misappropriated, an officer from the Internal Audit Section of my Department visited the Migrant Resource Centre last week at the request of the Chairman of that centre, Mr Ferguson. The report of the officer concludes: All expenses incurred by the centre were duly approved by board members. Although receipt of certain money was not recorded in the receipt book, they were all reflected in the bank statements. From the records examined, audit is satisfied that the funds were expended with proper approval being given by the board and that such expenditure was consistent with departmental guidelines. Whereas audit has identified some scope for improvement in the accounting procedures followed by the Migrant Resource Centre, these are not such as would expose the organisation to risk of undetectable financial losses. The internal audit report is being made available to that migrant resource centre. Senator Alston's claims about the Department's auditor's findings relating to that centre including cutting back funds, banking in Canberra, indiscriminate payment of travelling expenses, failure to identify income, existence of an unidentified bank account and payments to cleaners under fictitious names are all unsubstantiated and untrue. In addition, contrary to Senator Alston's claim, the centre's books are audited each year by a qualified chartered accountant who is certainly not a member of the board of management. The Government is committed to the migrant resource centre program, under which voluntary community based organisations assist migrants to settle in Australia. Whilst essential controls and guidelines should be and are enforced, there must be some flexibility in dealing with elected representative management groups. In this case the board of management of the Latrobe Valley Migrant Resource Centre is elected by and from the Latrobe Valley ethnic community. Membership of the community group is open to members of the public and I understand that its annual general meeting is scheduled for early November. In conclusion, I understand that Senator Alston's comments are made in the background of the Victorian State election. Nevertheless, I think it was incumbent on him to check his source of information and maybe a prior check with our Department would have allowed him to avoid making some outrageous allegations that have proved to be fictitious. Senator McLEAN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health aware that some Australians who meet their Medicare levy are suffering discrimination when their medical claims are refused because the Department arbitrarily decides their particular practitioner does not hold suitable views about how to treat his or her patients, and therefore Medicare benefits will not be provided? Does the Minister consider this to be a breach of contract with the patient who has paid his or her Medicare levy in good faith, then received medical care from the legally recognised medical practitioner of his or her choice? Is the Minister aware that these patients-I know of 12 in one practice in my electorate-many of whom are sick and therefore less able than usual to deal with stress, are being summonsed over the non-payment of medical bills? Does the Minister believe it is appropriate that these people now have to seek legal aid, challenge Medicare in the courts and bear the associated stresses and distresses in order to achieve a rightful Medicare claim? What immediate action does the Minister intend to take about this shameful situation? Senator COOK —Senator McLean has raised a number of allegations and I do not have sufficient detail from him to enable me to check and answer specifically the particular cases to which he referred. I make this offer to Senator McLean: if he makes the particulars of those cases available to me, I will investigate them and see that there is a reply in each of the circumstances. However, it is nonsense to suggest that Medicare refunds are decided on the basis of the views of the treating medical practitioner. Medicare benefits are paid for all medical services rendered by or on behalf of a medical practitioner in accordance with the Medicare benefits schedule. When a particular medical service rendered by a medical practitioner is not listed on the schedule, the mechanism exists for the practitioner to claim for payment of benefits to be determined by the Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee. The Medicare Benefits Advisory Committee also makes recommendations about items which should appear on the schedule. When a doctor bills a patient for medical services rendered, the patient needs a properly itemised account and receipt, or combined account-receipt, to enable a claim to be made for Medicare benefits. Information on that account needs to include a description of the professional services sufficient to identify the item that relates to that service. Many practitioners use the Medicare benefits item number: others prefer to write descriptions. Unfortunately, a small number of medical practitioners do neither, usually for reasons of ideology or of opposition to Medicare itself. It may be that this is what has happened in the cases to which Senator McLean referred in his question. However, as I have said, without specific information I am unable to be certain about that. Senator McLean would appreciate that when the Government is involved in the expenditure of very significant amounts of public moneys under Medicare it is incumbent upon it to ensure that a description of the service performed is included on accounts to ensure that Medicare funds are spent properly. It is disappointing that some doctors refuse to comply with this requirement, as the people who are being hurt are the very patients that they, the doctors, are supposed to be caring for. If patients find themselves in that position they should ask their doctor to itemise the accounts properly. If the doctor refuses to do so they should go to a different doctor and have the matter attended to properly. Senator McLEAN —I pose a supplementary question, Mr President. I acknowledge the detail of the answer. Will the Minister undertake, in investigating the matter further, to refer to the two previous questions without notice that I have asked on this matter; the numerous questions that I have previously asked on notice; and the Minister's response to those questions on notice? Will he also refer to the Hansard record of a debate which took place in the Appropriations context about 10 months ago? Will he acknowledge that some medical practitioners who prefer to pursue a line of medicine which is preventative rather than curative, and who are approached in good faith by Australians who choose to have that line of medicine applied to them, are now finding that their bills are not being honoured by Medicare and their patients have to pursue the matter under the law? Senator COOK —I have already offered, if Senator McLean gives me the relevant material, to have the matter investigated fully. That offer stands. I invite Senator McLean to do that. I notice the references that he has. I might say, since I am representing Minister Blewett, who is by any measure the most outstanding Minister for Community Services and Health that this country has ever had-- Opposition senators-Oh, come on. Senator COOK —Four shadow Ministers have been moved off him. What has happened to Porter, Michael Baume, Wilson Tuckey and the other shadow Ministers for the portfolio of health and community services? Neal Blewett has put in a Hawthornlike performance as the Minister for Community Services and Health in this country. All the players that those opposite have had shadowing him have been moved off him into other and often lesser portfolios because they just cannot hack the pace. To answer Senator McLean's question, if the material is available, we will have it properly investigated and an answer will be given. Senator DUNN —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Defence aware that the United States Government gave a unilateral assurance to Canada in 1969 and to New Zealand in 1976 that it would accept liability if an accident involving a United States nuclear weapon occurred in their territory? Has the Australian Government sought or received a similar assurance? If so, is the Government satisfied that this assurance is binding, given that the United States Congress has not legislated to accept the financial burden of such liability as it has in the case of nuclear reactor accidents on transiting warships? Senator ROBERT RAY —In brief, the answer to the first part of the question is yes and to the second part no; but I might expand on the second part of the question. In some circumstances, of course, United States allies accept stationing of nuclear weapons in their own territories. United States nuclear weapons are not stationed on Australian territories. This is forbidden by the Treaty of Rarotonga. The unlikelihood of a nuclear weapon accident in an Australian port was a matter I covered in the Senate on 27 September. Australia does not therefore have the need for assurances from the United States similar to those given to allies on whose territories United States nuclear weapons could be stationed. Any claims for compensation resulting from a nuclear weapons accident would be dealt with through diplomatic channels in accordance with customary procedures for the settlement of claims under generally accepted principles of law and equity. In the case of the United States, settlement of claims would take place in accordance with Article 12 of the agreement between Australia and the United States concerning the status of forces in Australia. The Government is confident that the United States Government would promptly settle any proper claim for damage in the highly unlikely event of a nuclear weapon accident in an Australian port. Senator DUNN —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question: If the Australian Government has not requested or received such an assurance, can the Minister explain why not, given that these two allies-New Zealand and Canada-have found it necessary to protect their citizens from the possible catastrophe associated with a nuclear weapon accident, and that the United States has found it possible to respond positively to their concerns? Senator ROBERT RAY —For some reason I had anticipated that supplementary question and answered both questions as a whole. I just refer the honourable senator back to that answer. Senator HAMER —Is the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications aware of the large number of ships which either have had to be diverted to other ports or have had to leave behind export cargo because of disruptions to the Sydney waterfront caused by stoppages and pickets by members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia, the Transport Workers Union of Australia and the crews of tugs? Has the Minister been informed of the amount of export cargo that has been affected and the repercussions of this for our export industries? Can the Minister inform the Senate of the time that it will take to clear this new backlog, remembering the disastrous delays earlier this year in the Sydney depots which seriously affected almost all small businesses which relied on imported goods for survival? Do the September disruptions to our waterfront mean that, yet again, Australia has turned out to be an unreliable supplier of much needed export goods? What is the Government intending to do to repair the damage done to Australia as an exporting nation and to our balance of payments crisis? Senator GARETH EVANS —It is the case that recent industrial action by the Transport Workers Union, not the Waterside Workers Federation as Senator Hamer says-I think that is indicative of his general state of knowledge of this industry, notwithstanding the rhetoric to which we are constantly subjected-has severely disrupted container movements on the Sydney waterfront, although the dispute does not relate directly to waterfront conditions. The dispute did take an unfortunate turn for the worse when pickets were imposed on the waterfront by owner-drivers, apparently without the authority of the Transport Workers Union. The dispute is a State matter involving truck drivers covered by a determination of the New South Wales Industrial Commission. A couple of days ago a Full Bench of the Commission recommended that the pickets should be lifted so that negotiations could proceed on the owner-drivers' claims and, if necessary, could be expeditiously arbitrated. I understand that meetings were being held yesterday-I am not sure what the outcome was-in the light of that particular decision. The situation is that stevedoring employers, faced with a complete stalling of their cargo operations, have been granted stand-down provisions in major stevedoring awards. The implementation of stand-downs is not proceeding at this stage, as I understand it-there may be some supplementary information required to this answer and, if so, I will provide it later-so that the Industrial Commission proceedings and other actions aimed at resolving the present impasse can be pursued without this added complication. Some limited movement of cargo is happening on the waterfront, as I understand it, pending a full resumption of work by owner-drivers. It is incumbent upon the parties to this dispute to make every endeavour to resolve their differences without causing further disruption to the economy, adding to the costs incurred by importers and exporters, as this sort of action does, and imposing the hardship of stand-down upon the waterfront work force. Senator BLACK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. I refer to assertions made yesterday by the shadow Minister for finance, Dr Hewson, that the Treasurer is manipulating interest rates to hold them down, specifically the housing loan rate, until after the Victorian election. Has the Minister seen assertions that the opposite is in fact the case? Is the Government taking any actions which would give substance to either of these sets of assertions? Senator WALSH —Dr Hewson was succinctly described by Senator Stone once as a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage. Even those people who believe that Senator Stone is almost always wrong in his economic judgments all acknowledge that he has a flair for the use of the language, and he certainly demonstrated it when he described Dr Hewson as a mere meretricious player flitting across the stage. Yesterday the meretricious player had his big day in the House of Representatives, or so he thought. He moved a motion about this and went through the allegations that we have become accustomed to hearing from the Opposition, that is, that the Government is manipulating interest rates, et cetera, and that this is all being done because of the Victorian election. I suppose it is appropriate that the mere meretricious player should be put down by Senator Stone, and he was put down by Senator Stone in Senator Stone's article in this morning's Australian. I have already said that many people believe that Senator Stone is almost always wrong in his economic judgments but that he does have this great flair for language, although this is quite a straight statement and does not have that sort of flair and does not mention meretricious players or anything like that. Senator Stone wrote amongst other things: The Reserve Bank has thus been forced to lever up short-term interest rates in order to head off any `hot money' flight- Senator Button —Lever up, did he say? Senator WALSH —Yes. Senator Stone said that the Reserve Bank of its own volition was pushing up interest rates to stop hot money leaving the country. Dr Hewson, the mere meretricious player, says that the Government is leaning on the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates down until after the Victorian election. I leave it to the public to decide whom it will believe-whether it will believe Senator Stone or the mere meretricious player who is flitting across the stage of the House of Representatives. Senator SHEIL —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment, Education and Training. Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth Government is helping to fund a job training course for long term unemployed in which, under threat of losing their dole payments if they do not comply, the unemployed build card houses, lie on the floor to meditate, and pretend to be blind in public parks? The course also involves basic sex education lessons which these unemployed people, some of them in their forties, find highly embarrassing and which are of no use at all in helping them to find a job. They are also taught how to use wire coat-hangers as divining rods to judge people's auras, and undergo other ridiculous indignities. The course, which lasts up to four months, is certainly being run on the Gold Coast and, I understand, at several places in New South Wales. Will the Federal Government take immediate steps to stop this ridiculous program? Senator WALSH —I understand that a course which roughly fits the description Senator Sheil has given is being run by an organisation which calls itself the Southport Human Resources Centre. I will be making some further inquiries about it. Senator GILES —My question is directed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. Has the Minister read an article in today's Age newspaper which suggests that women should not be involved in decision making positions, should not have parliamentary careers, should not be employed in many areas of the work force because of their incapacity to mix family and career and they do not have the strength and tenacity of men? Senator Robert Ray —But they are allowed to win gold medals. Senator GILES —Exactly. The PRESIDENT —Order! I am aware that there is some trouble with the microphones. I ask all honourable senators to speak up. There seems also to be a pause of two or three seconds before microphones are switched on. I ask honourable senators to take that into account. Senator GILES —As Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women, will the Minister comment on the effect of views such as these on the women of Australia and whether in her consultations with community groups such opinions are widely held-outside, I might add, the lunar fringe? Senator REYNOLDS —I have had my attention drawn to the article which appeared in the Age. It represents the views of none other than Mr Ross-Edwards. Senator Jones —Who? Senator REYNOLDS —Mr Ross-Edwards, in Victoria. It appears that the National Party in Victoria is about as antiquated in its attitudes to women as the National Party in Queensland. It does not really surprise me, because I have had a number of years to witness at close hand the attitudes of the Queensland National Party in regard to the absence of policies-- Senator Sheil —What about Florence? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, Senator Bjelke-Petersen is an exception. I will not go into that. When it comes to policy, obviously the National Party in Victoria does not have any policy at all in regard to equality for Victorian women. Mr Ross-Edwards says, for instance, that the National Party does offer complete equality, but everything he is reported to be saying in the remainder of the article goes on to contradict that statement. For instance, he says that for women children are an unavoidable impediment to political success. I ask women members and, indeed, male members of this place: Have we ever regarded children as an impediment to our being involved in the political process? I notice that Senator Bjelke-Petersen shakes her head. I wish that she could bring some of her good influence to bear on the Queensland National Party. It is obviously needed in the Victorian National Party. Mr Ross-Edwards goes on to say that children are not the only impediments to political life. He says that men are stronger physically and that women would be conquered by fatigue after a long day's campaign. I find those remarks absolutely extraordinary, first of all, because Mr Ross-Edwards does not recognise the work that elected women throughout this country are doing on the campaign trail and the contribution they are making to Australian parliaments. Equally, he does not recognise the role of all Australian women. All Australian women are fatigued at the end of the day by the work they do, whether it is work in the home, out in the work force, or a combination of both. Mr Ross-Edwards is so out of touch with the electorate that he seems to think that a bit of running around on the campaign trail would be too much for the so-called weaker sex. Obviously Mr Ross-Edwards has not been watching the television coverage of the Olympic Games and the contribution of Australian women in that regard. As for employment, I would like to continue with the views of Mr Ross-Edwards, because I think it is important for Victorian women to be aware of those views. He said that equal employment opportunity and the anti-discrimination policies of the Cain Government could not be expected to last long under a coalition government. Senator Boswell —Hear, hear! Senator REYNOLDS —Thank you, Senator Boswell. That is very interesting. I am not surprised that my counterpart, Senator Hill, who is Opposition spokesman on the status of women, is looking rather uncomfortable. To come back to Mr Ross-Edwards, he said, `I have never had a woman press secretary because I would not have the heart to say no, she could not leave if something was wrong with her children'. He then went on to talk about the fact that he had employed a single parent male on his staff and he was quite surprised that that male was able to balance the two roles. Not only do we now know that a coalition government would do away with anti-discrimination policies-and we have got from Senator Boswell a commitment that the National Party does not support anti-discrimination policies-but also we find that Mr Ross-Edwards is in breach of the Victorian Government's legislation. What I find most offensive about the article by Mr Ross-Edwards in the Age yesterday is his attack on the Country Women's Association. I notice that Senator Chaney is groaning. I hope he is not groaning about the contribution of the Country Women's Association. Senator Chaney —I am groaning at the length of the answer. Senator REYNOLDS —I do not believe that the length of my answer should be criticised when we are talking about the contribution of the Country Women's Association. Mr Ross-Edwards said in his comments that he dismissed the Country Women's Association, as the Nationals were `on about bigger and better things'. He obviously believes that the Country Women's Association is not-- Senator Chaney —On a point of order: Mr President, there is an element of humour about this over-lengthy answer, but I ask you to remind the Minister that she is not to debate the question. I think we all understand the context in which she is seeking to debate the question, but I ask you to call her to order. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order, but it is a very long answer and the Minister should answer within the areas of her responsibility. Senator REYNOLDS —I apologise if the answer is a little long and I can understand the discomfort on the Opposition benches. I finish by saying that I totally reject the views that have been put forward by Mr Ross-Edwards. I am sure that Victorian women would be well warned by the comments that he has made and they will know not only that a vote for the National Party is a vote for the demise of equal employment opportunity in Victoria and for the demise of the women's policy unit in Victoria but also that a vote for the Liberal Party means exactly the same because, regardless of what the Liberal Party's policies might be, if it is in coalition it will have to accommodate people like Senator Boswell and Mr Ross-Edwards who are totally opposed to equity in social policy. Senator HILL —I have a serious question to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women. I refer to the Budget decisions, first, to cut from private business colleges the scheme of assistance which has been in operation for 14 years and which provided some subsidy for business and secretarial courses; and, secondly, the decision not to provide Austudy to students attending such courses. I ask: Is the Minister not aware that about 15,000 students are enrolled in such courses, of whom about 90 per cent are young women? Is she not aware that many who are disadvantaged or are from the country are already under enormous financial pressure and, because of this Government's Budget decision, will be forced to terminate their studies? How did the Minister allow such policy decisions that blatantly discriminate against young women and further reduce their educational options to get through the Budget process? What will she do about it? Senator REYNOLDS —I will take that question on notice. Senator CHILDS —Is the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women concerned about the impact on social cohesion of anti-multiculturalism statements by Opposition spokesmen? Has the Minister received any feedback from non-English speaking women on the effect of this backlash, particularly on women and their families? Opposition senators interjecting- Senator REYNOLDS —I am fascinated by the response of honourable senators opposite. I am sure, as I have said before in this place, that Australian women are most unimpressed by the raucous behaviour on the other side when questions relating to serious issues such as the status of women are raised. Senator Childs raises a very important question about women from non-English speaking backgrounds. It is certainly true that women from non-English speaking backgrounds are extremely concerned about the breakdown in bipartisan policy and the attacks on multiculturalism that have been made in this place and generally in the community in the last two months. I remind honourable senators opposite that it is women who have to bear the brunt of the breakdown in this bipartisan policy. It is women who have to deal with children who are teased at school. It is women who have to deal with the situation when teenagers are frustrated. In some instances young Asian teenagers in Sydney and Melbourne have been forced off buses because of this general breakdown in bipartisan support and the attack that has been made on multiculturalism. It is also women who have to deal with hostility out in the community and, particularly, it is women who have to explain to older members of the family, who are often not as able to go out and participate because of lack of English skills, that the Opposition has been attacking multiculturalism and their ready acceptance in the Australian community. It is certainly of great concern to women from non-English speaking backgrounds. I say to Senator Vanstone and Senator Hill, who are trying to interject, that I am in a good position to know because in the last couple of months I have had consultations with about eight different organisations in all States except South Australia. I guess I thought that I could leave that in the capable hands of Senator Vanstone. She was doing a very good job in regard to her consultations until there was an unfortunate reshuffle. A number of important initiatives have been taken with regard to women from non-English speaking backgrounds. First, in the announcement that I made about the National Women's Consultative Council about four weeks ago, I said that four of the 19 members of that Council came from a non-English speaking background. I think that has been a very significant step in reassuring women with a non-English speaking background that the Government, at least, is very concerned to communicate and consult with them. Secondly, the Office of the Status of Women and the Office of Multicultural Affairs are arranging for a joint meeting, to be held on 20 October, of Commonwealth, State, community, union and employer representatives, to discuss a new approach to better consultative measures to ensure that women from non-English speaking backgrounds feel that their views and concerns are being taken seriously at all levels of government. Furthermore, a very important initiative that this Government has taken is in regard to the 008 national toll-free number for the telephone interpreter service, with about 60 per cent of the clients who use that service being women. I believe that I can safely say to Senator Childs that the Government is very concerned about addressing the needs of women from non-English speaking backgrounds. Senator Hill —Mr President, I ask that the Minister table the document from which she has read. The PRESIDENT —The Minister can table the document if it is a public affairs document or, if she claims it is confidential, she does not have to table it. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: in the light of your ruling yesterday about a speaker's notes, where a Minister-I think it was Senator Cook-voluntarily tabled some handwritten notes, and in relation to which you read a ruling of the Standing Orders Committee, I simply draw your attention to the fact that we are not talking here about the same sort of document. We are talking about the official briefing papers which the Minister has brought in, with such papers having been tabled on numerous occasions in this Senate in response to a request. The PRESIDENT —I said that the Minister could table the document or she could claim it was confidential. She has that choice. Will Senator Reynolds table the document from which she was quoting? Senator REYNOLDS —I am quite happy to table the document. Senator PATTERSON —I draw the attention of the Minister for Local Government to a speech that she made earlier this year at a local government and economic development seminar in Adelaide. I ask whether the Minister made the following comments: Local governments will have to learn how to mobilise their skills and resources to work with financial institutions to lever additional funds into the local economy . . . Potential exists here for local governments to enter into planning investment type agreements with local firms. By taking a more direct role, councils would be able to become more involved in management decisions. Is the Minister advocating that private enterprises be subjected to the same form of intervention which has been made infamous by the electorally hard-pressed Cain Government with the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) investments, from which the Labor Government is now desperately trying to extricate itself? Senator REYNOLDS —Yes, Mr President. I would not like to say that it is the exact wording, but the general tenor of what the honourable senator has read out is certainly a common theme in a number of speeches that I have made to local government. It is well recognised that local government-- Senator Patterson —Not general-is that what you said? Senator REYNOLDS —I do have a reasonable memory, but I cannot recall the text of that speech word for word. However, we certainly encourage local government to develop its economic development strategies and to adopt an entrepreneurial role. I believe that that is very important, not just for local government but, indeed, for the Australian economy. I do not at all deny that that is one of the strategies that the Office of Local Government is adopting to try to encourage local government to move away from some of its more traditional roles, in which it is concerned only with the collection of rates and rubbish, to a much more entrepreneurial role. Local government bodies should try to attract industry into their areas and work hand in hand with the private sector, where appropriate. Senator PATTERSON —I ask a supplementary question. In the second part of my question I asked whether the Minister was advocating investments which would lead to the same sorts of problems which had been associated with the VEDC. Senator REYNOLDS —I think the honourable senator is drawing a very long bow. No, I am not prepared to make that concession at all. I have absolutely nothing further to add to the answer. Senator FOREMAN —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services. I draw the Minister's attention to an article in the Melbourne Herald on Tuesday, 27 September, headed `Postal votes key to poll result'. In that article, Federal Liberal, Mr Roger Shipton, questioned the secrecy of postal voting. Can the Minister assure the Senate and the Australian electorate that all necessary and adequate measures are used by the Australian Electoral Commission to ensure the secrecy of a voter's ballot paper? Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes, I did read the article in the Melbourne Herald referred to by Senator Foreman. I might say that that article fits a pattern-that in the last week or two of every election, State or Federal, some outrageous statement is made by some member of the Liberal Party of Australia. There is cheap publicity pertaining to such statements. Those members never check the facts and they know that immediately afterwards any investigations will clear up their claim. May I instance just two or three examples. Before the 1987 election Mr Ridley came out and claimed that a how to vote card arrived with a postal ballot paper. He argued that this was a general pattern. That matter was fully investigated and the charge was dismissed. Before the New South Wales State election Senator Bishop, who is sitting on the other side of the chamber, jumped up and down about 400 people whom she believed had voted although they were buried in cemeteries. She has never taken that charge any further. I have written to Mr Greiner on two or three occasions, seeking a response and an investigation. All that has happened is that I have been fobbed off. If that allegation had any substance, not only would it be a breach of the Commonwealth Electoral Act but also it would be a criminal action. Mr Greiner and the rest of the Liberals know that this was just a slimy stunt before the last State election. The third example was raised in the Melbourne Herald. Mr Shipton says that he has taken out a postal vote overseas and he believes that that system is open to abuse. I might say that that is the same system that has existed for the last 50 years. That is the same system which existed when Mr Shipton's party was in government-from 1971 to 1972 and from 1975 to 1983. There is no evidence that anyone opposite-anyone who was in the Fraser Government, the McMahon Government or the Gorton Government-tried to alter that system. They were totally satisfied with the integrity of that system. There is, if you like, an extenuating circumstance in regard to Mr Shipton. Coming from the electorate of Higgins, he would never have supervised or organised a scrutiny of postal votes. When Higgins falls to the Australian Labor Party, civilisation as we now know it will certainly end. As well, Mr Shipton would not be involved in the normal process of organising scrutineers for Electoral Commission ballots. He is much more interested in organising scrutineers for the internal ballots of the Liberal Party in the electorate of Higgins because all the big businessmen who aspire to get into parliament have to try to white-ant the jewel in the crown-the seat of Higgins-because the Liberals hold so few seats in Victoria. I am really surprised that Mr Shipton has taken the time to go on a tour of Europe. Now that the cat is away, I wonder what the mice are doing back in the electorate of Higgins. Let me go to the actual method of counting postal votes, and some people here at least would have been involved in that. Postal votes come in in an outer envelope. Scrutineers are invited to be present during all parts of the count. Votes are never counted individually; they are always counted in bulk so that no-one can detect who has voted in a particular way. They are cut open. When the ballot papers are extracted they are turned upside down, so there is no viewing of the ballot papers. Scrutineers can be present at all times. Ballot papers are counted only when there is a substantial pile. So the accusation by Mr Shipton that in some way we could correlate the name on the back of the envelope with the actual vote is really an extremist sort of view. I would suggest that if he is back from his jaunt in Europe he scrutineer in an electoral office just once-after the State election-because the same method is used as that following a Federal election. He should acquaint himself of how things have been done for the last 50 years. What has happened in this case fits the classic pattern. Somewhere the Liberal Party has a manual entitled `How to win elections'. That manual has been reprinted a few times. It has to be updated a bit, given past failures. But one of the pages in the manual states, `Pull some cheap stunt in the last week that implies a lack of integrity by the Electoral Commission'. That is what it says and that is what those on the other side do election after election. I am just sorry that newspapers are gullible enough to print these stories. I will say that the article in the Melbourne Herald, unlike a lot of others, went on to quote the Chief Electoral Officer in Victoria, Mr Lyons, and actually give the answer to this problem to prove what a lie this proposition is. Senator KNOWLES —My question, which I direct to you, Mr President, refers to the behaviour of an Australian Labor Party senator for Queensland. Are you aware, Mr President, that last night in the non-members bar of this building Senator Burns abused a female bar attendant and called her `a wog'? Are you, Mr President, also aware that, because of Senator Burns's action and behaviour, the catering staff of this building are considering industrial action? Will you ask the senator to apologise to the lady he called a `wog', which, incidentally, reduced her to tears? The PRESIDENT —I am not aware of the circumstances referred to in the honourable senator's question. I was not given notice of the question. I will investigate it and make a reply at the appropriate time. Senator DEVLIN —I address my question to the Minister for Finance. In his personal explanation on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Messner asserted that $56 a week, which we have heard so much about, was the sum required to restore in 1989 the real household disposable income of the average Australian family to the level it had been in March 1983. Can the Minister provide any information to the Senate regarding that $56 a week? Is that the sum required to restore the real household disposable income of the average Australian family to its level of March 1983? Senator WALSH —In a, to say the least, confused statement on Tuesday afternoon, Senator Messner said-and it appears in Hansard as a quote from Mr Peacock: I am concerned with assumptions about wages and inflation over the next 12 months. By 1 July 1989 Australian families will require about $56 a week to restore their household real disposable income to what it was in March of 1983 when this Government came to power. What that is asserting, of course-and the honourable senator was quoting that other well known innumerate, Mr Peacock-is that living standards have fallen, that real per capita incomes have fallen-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I take a point of order. It is offensive to refer to the honourable member as innumerate. I ask for a withdrawal. I think it is objectionable to the honourable member. The PRESIDENT —Order! The Leader of the Opposition says that there is an imputation. Will the Minister withdraw what he has just said? Senator WALSH —I will withdraw it if Senator Chaney is upset by it. I observe for the record that the Opposition had a $1,500m error in its shadow Budget in 1987. If that does not constitute decisive evidence of innumeracy I cannot imagine what would. Words have no meaning. I was asked a question about changes in real incomes per capita since 1983. I have some data addressing that question. `Household disposable income' is a term used in national accounting and, as even Senator Messner may be aware, it has a very precise meaning which is defined in the Australian national accounts. The published national accounts do not provide figures for real household disposable income or for average real household disposable income. The standard practice employed by statisticians and economists is to get real household disposable income by the use of a private consumption deflator and to get average real income on a per capita basis. Senator Stone would be well aware of that and even the mere meretricious player may be aware of it. The real average household disposable income of Australians has been calculated and presented in Budget Papers for a number of years. On page 56 of this year's Budget Paper No. 1 there is a very interesting table. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave not granted. Senator WALSH —It is already published; it is taken from the Budget Papers. The pathetic creature who leads for the Opposition will not allow it to be incorporated in Hansard. That is a measure of the desperation to which he and the Opposition have sunk. I invite people to look at page 56 of Budget Paper No. 1, which shows household disposable income per capita. For every financial year from 1982-83 to an estimate for 1988-89 it shows that in all but two of those years there has been an appreciable increase in per capita household disposable income in real terms. There was a big decline in 1982-83 of per capita household disposable income. That was the consequence of the last Budget that the discredited former Treasurer brought down. Senator Cook —Where was John Stone then? Senator WALSH —I am sure that Senator Stone was assiduously working in the Treasury to try, unsuccessfully and in a completely futile endeavour, to make the Fraser Government and the then Treasurer have some economic strategy in the 1982 Budget. That Budget stands out among all Budgets presented in Australia as having absolutely no economic strategy. The Opposition had a political strategy only which the discredited former Treasurer and his then Prime Minister thought might just get them over the line in a premature election. They were wrong about that as well. In 1982-83 average per capita household disposable income fell by 1.8 per cent. In the following years it went up by 2.6 per cent, 1.1 per cent and 1.4 per cent. It did fall in 1986-87 by 1.3 per cent. But when we look at those figures in total we see that over the five-year period of 1982-83 to 1987-88-I have not included the estimate for this year-there was an increase in real per capita disposable income of 4.4 per cent. It is a great mystery where Mr Peacock got the $56 from, which he claims average households have suffered in household disposable income. The final point I want to make is that those figures do not take into account the Medicare effects. That is an essential item of expenditure for most Australian families; and health insurance is no longer essential. Senator ALSTON —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the Minister's recent pseudo-virtuous pre- tence that the Australian Labor Party is always anxious to uphold the electoral law, could he explain on what possible basis he justifies the failure of the Victorian Cain Government to prosecute the State Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Peter Batchelor, who was blatantly and wilfully responsible for the printing and publication of a fraudulent and misleading how to vote card in the recent Victorian by-election for the seat of Nunawading? Is it also true that such disgraceful failure to act flew in the face of eight separate legal opinions which advised that serious electoral offences had been committed? Is this the standard of electoral fair play that the Government now espouses? Senator ROBERT RAY —The decision not to prosecute Mr Batchelor was by the Electoral Commissioner of Victoria, Mr Richardson. Mr Richardson was appointed by a previous Liberal government. In the time in which he exercised those powers over a number of years he made a variety of decisions, all of which were regarded as fair. I did not like all the decisions in terms of the way some of the boundaries were drawn. That is where the chips fell. I did not like the way Mr Richardson ruled on informal votes in Nunawading in 1985 or Werribee in 1976. The fact that I did not like it does not mean that I impugned his integrity. Senator Alston automatically assumes that there was a strong enough legal case not based on his legal knowledge but I suspect based on his partisanship as a member of the Liberal Party of Australia and as a former President. I draw Senator Alston's attention to a similar case. That is the case in Petrie in which the candidate and others put out a how to vote card as though it was an Australian Democrats how to vote card. We had to take out an injunction against them. We then sought legal advice from the deputy prosecutor's office as to whether that person could be prosecuted. The advice said no. It was a very analogous case. The legal implications of that case are also applicable to Victoria. If Senator Alston thinks that someone should just be prosecuted, not on the basis of an assessment at law but on the basis of his partisan political position, albeit with some legal training, I reject that. There was an upper House inquiry into this matter which Senator Alston forced through. He stacked the committee 3 : 2 and he still could not get three votes. We had two Labor people on the committee. Senator Alston had two Liberals and a National Party member. It was meant to be a star chamber and he could not even get the evidence there, with its unlimited powers to get anywhere near a conviction of Mr Batchelor. Even when he stacked the odds 3 : 2 Mr Batchelor was eventually, in a de facto sense, cleared 3 : 2 the other way. Senator Alston has raised this issue time and time again and he has got nowhere. I suppose that if I had it in my power I would have preferred the matter to go through the legal process and Mr Batchelor would be cleared as he should have been. But I will never support a system that says, `Because he holds a political position we will not treat him the same as any other citizen'. Mr Richardson, the one who made the decision, was an appointee of a Liberal government which presided over the Victorian electoral system for at least 15 years. He made a whole series of decisions. Never once did our side or the Opposition side attack his integrity until the Opposition did so in the last few months. Senator ALSTON —I ask a supplementary question, Mr President. Is the Minister seriously pretending that there were not eight independently commissioned legal opinions which advised that offences had been committed, that the only opinion which suggested that perhaps offences had not been committed was one provided in haste at the insistence of the Government by the Solicitor-General who happens to have his office next to that of the Premier, and that on that basis the Commissioner of Police and the Electoral Commissioner decided not to prosecute? Senator ROBERT RAY —If Senator Alston is serious about that last question and the relationship between the Premier's office and the Solicitor-General, I invite him to walk out the door and say so. Is he serious or not? I will watch him after Question Time to see whether he has the guts to walk out the door and make that accusation, because I know and he knows that he does not. The decision made to prosecute or not is to be made by the chief electoral officer on all the advice he can get. There was no pressure, and there has been no evidence of any pressure, on Mr Richardson to rule one way or the other. Senator Alston —Is that right? Senator ROBERT RAY —If there is evidence, let Senator Alston produce it. He should put up or shut up. The PRESIDENT —Order! In Question Time Senator Chaney raised a point of order. At that time I was talking to Senator Burns about a question that had been referred to me about his conduct. I did not hear the words that were used. I do not believe that the word `innumerate' is unparliamentary. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yesterday Senator Boswell asked me a series of questions. I have already put on the record this morning a correction to part of his questions and I am still waiting for an apology from him. Senator Peter Baume-Did you give him a copy of it? Senator ROBERT RAY —He was here. I asked him to be here. But there are no hard feelings: I have a much more extensive answer on the rest of the question. The Bundaberg Rifle Range became surplus to Commonwealth requirements in 1983. Consistent with the then Government policy, rifle clubs in occupation were offered first option to purchase at Commonwealth valuation. Their financial and legal problems delayed this process for some years. The most recent valuation by the Australian Valuation Office on 20 October 1987 was based on advice from the Bundaberg Council Town Planner on the likely future zoning that that Council would apply and other relevant market evidence. The Council's advice appears to have been drawn from the town plan and the strategic plan. The valuation was $270,000. The Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club accepted a priority offer to purchase the property for $270,000. Settlement occurred on 11 July 1988 after Brisbane-based officers of the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) Australian Property Group had signed the disposal authorisation on 4 May 1988. So it was a priority sale to the rifle club based on the Australian Valuation Office valuation. I now table the valuation report and the disposal authorisation. On 29 August Mr West became aware of the transaction when the Department of Administrative Services Australian Property Group advised him that the Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club had immediately on-sold the property for $370,000. Mr West immediately requested further briefing and, on 6 September 1988, in consultation with DAS Australian Property Group, he initiated an independent internal review. Mr West considered that review on 27 September 1988. The review confirmed that the Bundaberg Small Bore Rifle Club on-sold to a private company-Eskrose Pty Ltd-for $370,000, with the intention that the property be developed for purposes other than shooting. Mr West is further concerned at suggestions that the rifle club may have had prior intention to on-sell and may have received funds additional to the $370,000 purchase price from Eskrose Pty Ltd. Mr West has been advised by his officers that press reports of multimillion dollar price tags, however, are inaccurate. Nevertheless, Mr West is concerned, firstly, to establish beyond doubt the probity and competence of DAS Australian Property Group and Australian Valuation Office officers who handled the transaction and, secondly, to investigate whether the on-purchaser may have had knowledge of any proposed zoning changes; that is, information not available to the DAS Australian Property Group and the Australian Valuation Office. Therefore, on 27 September 1988 Mr West requested referral of the matter to the Australian Federal Police for internal and external investigation and consideration of possible tax evasion aspects of the alleged extra payment to the rifle club over and above the $370,000 purchase price. Mr West also ordered that the matter be drawn to the attention of the Australian Taxation Commis- sioner. In view of this, and the Government's current policy to dispose of surplus properties on the open market, Mr West has instructed the Department of Administrative Services to withdraw offers for priority sales of rifle ranges to other rifle clubs where there is no legal impediment to doing so. In the publicity surrounding this event the role of Mr Brian Courtice, the local member, has been very confused in the press, and very unfortunately so. I must place on record that it was Mr Brian Courtice, the member for Hinkler, who drew the problems with the sale of this rifle club to the attention of the Minister for Administrative Services. That was his first involvement in the matter. He has acted with great honour and propriety in drawing these problems to the Minister's attention. I think that the press coverage of his role in it has been quite distorted. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —With the indulgence of the Senate may I say that I noted that the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) opened his remarks by saying that he was waiting for an apology from Senator Boswell. I advise the Senate, and the Minister in particular, that at the beginning of Question Time Senator Boswell approached me, indicated that he wished to seek leave to make a personal explanation at the end of Question Time and showed me the text of a statement. I put that on the record in light of the Minister's point that he was waiting for an apology. I want him to know that Senator Boswell had it in train before he made that point. Senator Robert Ray —I withdraw my ungracious remarks about Senator Boswell. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland) —by leave-In Question Time yesterday I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services-the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Senator Robert Ray)-a question about the disposal of the Bundaberg Rifle Range. The part of my supplementary question that Senator Ray referred to earlier today was: The Minister is quoted in today's Bundaberg News Mail as saying that he sought a valuation from the Australian Valuation Office. After carefully checking Hansard and the News Mail report, I acknowledge that the News Mail report stated: The Acting Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Robert Ray, wrote to the member for Hinkler, Mr Brian Courtice, over the matter. Senator Ray told Mr Courtice that the land had been valued by the Australian Valuation Office. I concede that there is a difference and assure the Minister that there was no intention to misrepresent him. The supplementary question was constructed spontaneously in response to the Minister's previous answer. However, that is not to diminish the significance of the sale. Senator HAMER(Victoria) —by leave-In Question Time I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport and Communications-the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade (Senator Gareth Evans)-a question about the disruption to the Sydney waterfront caused by stoppages and pickets by members of the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the Transport Workers Union of Australia and the crews of tugs. As I asked the question Senator Button interjected, `Get your facts right', and Senator Evans said in his answer that I was ill-informed and that the Waterside Workers Federation had not been on strike and made some rather exaggerated remarks which are common whenever Senator Evans speaks. I draw the attention of the Ministers concerned to the fact that on Monday the Waterside Workers Federation went on strike in protest at the entry into Sydney of warships taking part in the bicentennial naval salute. The fact that two senior Ministers should be so ill-informed is illuminating. Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN(Queensland) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented by Senator Reynolds in her reply to Senator Giles's question today. She said that the Queensland National Party was antiquated and had policies which discriminated against women and, thus, against me. I claim to be proof that neither is correct. I do not believe that I am antiquated and the National Party in Queensland has never discriminated against me. Indeed, I have been given the opportunity to lead the Queensland National Party team on two occasions when four of our senators were elected, which proves that Senator Reynolds certainly misrepresented my position. Senator McGAURAN(Victoria) —by leave-I claim to have been misrepresented. It is in regard to the comments made by Senator Reynolds in reply to a question from Senator Giles. Senator Reynolds called the Victorian National Party antiquated and, by implication, misrepresented my position as a Victorian National Party senator. I am the youngest senator in this chamber. The Victorian National Party's confidence in its parliamentarians is revealed by the wide range of ages represented here. I bring to the honourable senator's attention the fact that no other party has promoted the status of women more than the Victorian National Party. Senator Coates —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I understood that this was to be a personal explanation and not some general description of events. I understand that personal explanations have to be personal. The PRESIDENT —I am listening to the reply and I will be pulling the senator up shortly unless he gets to his personal explanation. Senator McGAURAN —The point I was making is that no other party has promoted the status of women more than the Victorian National Party. Shirley McKerrow rose to the position of President of the Federal National Party. She is the only woman to hold such a position in any party. If Senator Reynolds wishes to take the National Party on in regard to women's issues, we will certainly stand toe to toe against her when it comes to a discussion of radical feminists. Her pathetic and scandalous attack on Peter Ross-Edwards-- The PRESIDENT —Order! This is not a personal explanation. Senator CROWLEY(South Australia) —by leave-During the disallowance debate this morning-I was sitting in my room so I did not hear it in detail-I heard Senator Sue Knowles speaking about her tinea and how in the course of seeking treatment she would not consult me. I simply say that I am not sure to what I should owe the favour of her not seeking treatment for any condition of that sort from me, nor about her possible qualifications for Footrot Flats with a condition such as that. I notice that the honourable senator implied that I would not be the person to see because my capacity as a doctor was to be questioned. I suggest that it is particularly inappropriate for the senator opposite to question my integrity or my practice as a medical practitioner. If she wishes to seek treatment from any other doctor for any condition she has, that is her right, but it is not her right to impugn my capacity or my medical qualifications in this case. I strenuously object to that. I do not know what I did to the honourable senators opposite, but then Senator Vanstone proceeded to misrepresent me. In particular, she commented about whether or not I attended Caucus. What relevance that would have to a debate about pharmaceutical benefits is not at all obvious to anybody but somehow she seemed to suggest that my integrity was, once again, to be called into question. I suggest that the honourable senators have misrepresented my capacity in both these categories. I suggest that in future they hold themselves to the point of debate and stay relevant. Senator DUNN(New South Wales) —by leave-On the British Broadcasting Corporation program World Roundup of 22 September it was alleged by two British journalists and the British Defence Minister, George Younger, that I had abused my position as a senator and had concealed my identity to board-- Senator Stone —Quite true. Senator DUNN —I invite Senator Stone to wait until he hears what I have to say-the nuclear-armed warship HMS Ark Royal, which was then berthed in Brisbane; that I had attempted to kidnap the captain, Mike Harris; that I had been arrested and thrown off the ship; and that I was part of a tiny minority which opposed visits by nuclear-armed ships. I would like to give the chamber the true explanation of what happened not only in my position as a senator but also as a current member of the Australian Journalists Association and one who takes the code of ethics very seriously. I was, indeed, at the wharf that morning and I did radio a message through to the Captain, Mike Harris. I let him know exactly who I was and my position. I was then invited on board by the Captain's secretary. When on board with my press secretary, I went down to the press conference where we engaged in conversation with some officers while waiting for the Captain. About half an hour later we were asked to leave and I left without any fuss at all. That is the true account of what happened. There was no abuse of my position at any time. Furthermore, in relation to my being a member of a tiny minority, I am, in fact, a member of at least 50 per cent of the Australian population because, according to the Frank Small and Associates Pty Ltd poll, about 50 per cent of Australians are opposed to the visits of nuclear-armed warships. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I seek leave to make a statement with regard to the microphones in this chamber. Leave granted. Senator MACKLIN —I am unaware in terms of where senators sit in this place whether or not they are able to hear the whole of Question Time. Certainly those senators who sit at this end of the chamber have had great difficulty hearing both questions and answers. I checked in my own office during Question Time. The same problem is occurring over the speaker system. In fact, two questions from Senator Hamer were impossible to hear and half the answers were impossible to hear. It seems to me that the problem has been going on for quite some time. I wonder whether it is possible to let senators know in an authoritative way, rather than just hearing things around the corridor, what is happening with this incredibly expensive system here. In the old Parliament House, which had a very old system, these types of problems never occurred. The PRESIDENT —In reply to Senator Macklin, I will make a full statement as soon as I can get one. I am aware of the fact that the engineers have been working on this problem not only since we came in here to sit as a Senate, but for some weeks before. In fact, there were two trial sittings in this Senate chamber, one of which I was involved in. Senator BURNS(Queensland) —by leave-My personal explanation is regarding the incident referred to by Senator Knowles. When in the staff bar last night ordering drinks-- Senator Hill —What is the personal explanation about? The PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator asked for leave to make a personal explanation about the question asked about him at Question Time. Senator Walters —Mr President, I raise a point of order. We cannot hear what is being said on this side. The PRESIDENT —Order! I will ask Senator Burns to start again. I make the point that there were a number of interjections when he started. Senator BURNS —In relation to the incident-this was not described factually by Senator Knowles-in the staff bar last night-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. I think the point taken by my colleague Senator Walters is that a number of senators did not hear what the honourable senator was saying when he sought leave. It is certainly my view that he should receive leave, but, as a matter of courtesy to senators, I think they are asking the senator to seek leave so that they know what is going on. The PRESIDENT —I ask Senator Burns to start again. Senator BURNS —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. The PRESIDENT —Concerning the question asked by Senator Knowles? Senator BURNS —Yes. Leave granted. Senator BURNS —On a number of occasions I have had drinks with staff and guests in the staff bar. I have found the staff to be very courteous and helpful; never a cross word has gone between us. Last night when ordering drinks for myself and some friends, in a very haughty fashion the bar attendant sought to instruct me on how to describe white wine. I responded angrily that that was not her role and that she was there to serve me as a customer. She is obviously an Australian born person. To my mind she is. I cannot recall using the word `wog' for many years. When I did use it in years gone by it was in relation to migrants. I therefore had no reason to use such a word-- Senator Knowles —Don't you remember? Senator BURNS —I do not recall using any such word last night or for some time. Senator Alston —You don't deny it. Senator BURNS —There are many things that one might say that one cannot recall in a heated moment in a dispute with somebody who was rather nasty. I had no reason to use such a word. I think that is important. I had no reason to use that word. Senator Walters —There never is. Senator BURNS —I agree with that. That is why I do not use it. Senator McGauran —You used it in the past; you said so. Senator BURNS —Many years ago, I admit that I, and many thousands of Australians, used that word. In fact they now use it as a term of endearment on occasions and it is accepted in that way by people from overseas. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —I seek leave to move a motion to take note of Senator Burns's statement. I am prepared to give notice to the Senate that I do not intend to debate it. I intend to say only a couple of sentences dealing with this matter but no more. Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —I move: That the Senate take note of Senator Burns's personal explanation. All that I wish to say at this stage is that I trust, Mr President, that you will proceed with the inquiry that you indicated, in response to a question asked by Senator Knowles, you would make. I note the very careful way that Senator Burns has couched his personal explanation, which is not in the form of a denial. As the Opposition sits here day after day being lectured, not least by Senator Reynolds but by people such as Senator Gareth Evans, on the supposed sins of the Opposition with respect to matters such as this, most of which lectures are totally ill-based, let me say that we would expect a very careful investigation into this matter and if it is found to have occurred, we would expect far more than the sort of explanation we have had from the senator. It would be a thoroughly offensive thing if this were found to have occurred. Senator Jones —You are prejudging it. Senator CHANEY —No, I do not prejudge it. I am just saying that, if it is found to be as the allegation has been made, then the Opposition would regard it as a very serious matter, not least because of the attitudes continually adopted by the Government in this place. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator Cook —Mr President, I just want to say a few words about the seeking of-- Senator Peter Baume —Seek leave. Senator Cook —Yes, I am going to seek leave. Just wait. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cook will seek leave and then explain why he is seeking leave. Senator Cook —I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Cook will seek leave and then explain why he is seeking leave. Senator Cook —I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —Should we ask him for what purpose? Senator Cook —I wish to make a statement in relation to the use of personal explanations as they are being used-- Senator Chaney —No, leave is not granted. If the Government wants to take that matter up, it can take it up in the proper way. Leave not granted. Senator Cook —If that is the way the Opposition is going to conduct business in this place, Senator Chaney, two can play at that game too. That is a disgraceful performance by the Opposition. The PRESIDENT —Order! I inform the Senate that I still intend to make a statement on the question that was referred to me at Question Time. Senator Cook —Mr President, I now seek leave to make a personal explanation. The PRESIDENT —Is leave granted? Senator Chaney —Provided it is a personal explanation, yes. Does the Minister claim to have been misrepresented? Senator Cook —Yes, I claim to have been misrepresented. Leave granted. Senator COOK(Western Australia-Minister for Resources) —A moment ago I sought leave to make a statement. Leave was denied. In the interchange across the table that followed upon the denial of that leave Senator Chaney rolled back in his chair and said that he was not going to be lectured on policy by a junior Minister in this Government. Senator Stone —On a point of order, Mr President-- Senator Chaney —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Stone —The exchange that may or may not have taken place-- The PRESIDENT —Order! I call Senator Chaney. Senator Chaney —I apologise to Senator Stone but I could not hear him due to the acoustics in this chamber and I was watching you, Mr President. The Minister has asked for leave to make a personal explanation. He has started off by misquoting what I said across the table. Of course I would not have wished to refuse him leave to do that. He has, however, opened up his comments by misquoting what I said across the table. I just want to say that I will take a point of order with respect to the Minister unless he sticks to facts and to giving a personal explanation with respect to factual material. At the moment my objection is that he has not stated a fact which requires any explanation. Senator COOK —I am not sure what the point of order was. Senator Chaney —What are you claiming to have been misrepresented about? Senator COOK —Why does the honourable senator not just wait and show a bit of patience and then he will find out? The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator COOK —What I said by way of introducing my personal explanation I believe to be true. I believed I heard those words from Senator Chaney. What I say by way of personal explanation is that when I rose to make a statement I did not wish to lecture anybody. I wished to make an observation which I thought would have been valuable and useful to help the procedures of the Senate. I object to being characterised as someone who would lecture on a matter as serious as this. I think that it in fact reduces to some absurdity the performance of Senator Chaney if he seeks to use that sort of abusive behaviour. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition) —by leave-Mr President, I claim to have been misrepresented. The simple point I wish to make in response to Senator Cook is that he has made a personal explanation about a matter which was not said in this chamber. Unfortunately, because of the acoustic problems presumably Hansard has not got the exchange, and I do not complain in any sense about that, but I simply wish to assure Senator Cook that he has misheard and misunderstood what I said. What I was concerned about was that it was not appropriate to have a statement on the issue or the question of personal explanations from the Government on the basis of some extempore remarks from him at this time. If the Government wants to make a statement on that matter it should be made in the normal way. The PRESIDENT —I have received letters from the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) and the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) requesting changes in the membership of Estimates committees. Motion (by Senator Cook)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with Standing Order 36ab, the membership of Estimates Committees be varied as follows: Estimates Committee A Discharged: Senator Burns. Appointed: Senator McKiernan. Estimates Committee B Discharged: Senators MacGibbon and Schacht. Appointed: Senators Hamer and Morris, with Senator Alston to replace Senator Hamer for the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport and Communications. Estimates Committee C Discharged: Senators Archer and Parer. Appointed: Senators Messner and Teague. Estimates Committee D Discharged: Senators Peter Baume, Colston, Giles, Sheil, Walters and Zakharov. Appointed: Senators Black, Coates, Cooney, Hill, Puplick and Reid, with Senators MacGibbon and Newman to replace Senators Puplick and Reid for the consideration of the estimates of the Departments of Defence and Veterans' Affairs. Estimates Committee E Discharged Senators Beahan and Newman. Appointed: Senators Durack and Maguire. Estimates Committee F Discharged: Senators Black, Coates, Cooney, Puplick, Reid and Vanstone. Appointed: Senators Peter Baume, Colston, Giles, Sheil, Walters and Zakharov. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.02) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I want to make a few comments in relation to that part of the paper which refers to the Office of the Status of Women. I am very pleased to now have that responsibility on behalf of the Opposition and I intend to carry on the good work of my colleague Senator Vanstone. I do want to say that I intend to adopt a somewhat different approach to this matter from that being carried on by the Government. Regrettably, in this area the Government is strong on rhetoric, strong on propaganda, and works well with the interest groups and the professionals in the field, but unfortunately it seems to me, as an objective observer, it neglects the real questions that concern enhancing the status of women. I think the Senate could not have received a better demonstration of that than in Question Time today, when I had the opportunity to put to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Status of Women (Senator Reynolds) a very genuine and important question in relation to the education of young women and the educational opportunities that are going to be lost as a result of changes that occurred in this year's Budget, changes that particularly affect business colleges and that are going to mean that young women within Australia are going to be less able to afford training in private business colleges. The Minister indicated that she would have to take the question on notice. In other words, she had no idea what I was talking about. I find that incredible in circumstances where some 15,000 young people in Australia are being educated and trained in these private colleges, of whom 90 per cent are women. Therefore the Government's decision is clearly going to have a major and detrimental effect against the interests of those young women. That is the type of important area that the Government should be addressing its attention to and clearly is not. I thought that as part of my education in this area perhaps the first places I should visit are the types of places I would not expect Ministers in this Government to visit, and I talked to women in the cities of Port Augusta and Whyalla in South Australia. I did that last week and was astounded to learn from women's groups in Whyalla and Port Augusta that they estimate that in Whyalla between 30 and 40 per cent of women under the age of 25 who wish to be employed are in fact unemployed. There could be no better demonstration, I would have thought, of the failure of government policies in relation to young women than those appalling unemployment figures. When I asked the women in those cities, `What is the most important thing that could be done to enhance the status of women?', they said, `Provide employment'. I have used this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that if this Government concentrated more on ensuring financial security and financial independence for women, rather than on pursuing some of its highbrow rhetoric, the women of this country would be better off. For the benefit of the Minister, I will take the matter one step further. The Women's Refuge in Whyalla was the first in South Australia and is carried on by the Young Women's Christian Association, a very fine organisation with a wonderful record of service in the best traditions. When I visited that refuge last week and talked to the women who run it concerning their clients-those women who have to call upon them for help in situations of domestic violence-I found that practically 100 per cent of women who need to call upon the refuge for help are unemployed and that approximately 80 per cent of their partners or spouses are unemployed. That simply demonstrates even further the fact that, if this Government concentrated in the critical area of unemployment among women, the women of this country would be better off. I urge Senator Reynolds to give that matter greater consideration, to give greater consideration to the question of education and training, and perhaps to look at the effect on women of this Government's high tax policies for lower income groups. The Government has increased taxes on lower income groups at the same time as reducing taxes on high income earners. The Minister would not then find that disadvantaged and lower income women in such seats as Adelaide and Port Adelaide, as we saw on a very recent occasion, are turning away from this Government because it is simply out of touch and no longer represents their interests. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.07) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Australia is an ageing country. People are having fewer children and living longer, and this has important consequences for the future revenue base of the nation and the capacity of governments to pay pensions. As the demographics of the Australian population change there will be a smaller proportion of young people earning wages and paying taxes to support a growing number of people who retire at 60 years of age or thereabouts. The cold, hard fact is that governments will have to wake up to this fact now and not in a few years. I believe that it is time to evaluate the need for a national superannuation scheme. New Zealand has such a scheme. It was developed by the late Sir John Marshall because, as an accountant and an actuary, he foresaw that that nation did not have the population base to provide pensions and benefits to the increasing aged percentage of the population. I am not suggesting that such a scheme would not have problems, but I would like to see a committee established by the Government to investigate all the options and to look at the demographic changes that are occurring in Australia through the eyes of an actuary. I think it is timely to consider such a report into retirement incomes, specifically in the light of the actions of the Government, which has been found out in its greedy attempts to dip much more deeply into people's pockets and particularly into the investments of retired Australians. I believe that the Senate, as a legislative chamber, has a responsibility to make sure that the laws we pass are technically correct, but even more important is the impact that they have on society as a whole, particularly the aged section of the population. I believe that superannuation guidelines and rules of a long term nature should be established, because superannuation affects people's security in retirement, and policies should last for a working person's life. It therefore gives me great concern to witness in this chamber the introduction of a whole host of legislation affecting pensions-in fact, the whole gamut of retirement incomes and retirement taxes which nowadays seem to be constantly chopped and changed by this Federal Government. The Government's changes to the taxation of superannuation include such things as the 15 per cent tax on the investment earnings of superannuation funds, approved deposit funds and roll-over annuity funds; and the new tax on employer contributions to superannuation funds. There also now are restrictions on the level of benefits payable for both lump sum and pension options. Unfortunately, this regular revision of superannuation and retirement laws and pensions means that many people are very wary about taking out superannuation policies and the like. Many could decide not to do so because they do not know what future laws could be from this Labor Government. All too often in the taxation legislation minefield the rules are changed, often by a complex series of amendments which are hard to follow even for parliamentarians or the experts in the field, let alone the ordinary retirees of this nation or those facing retirement. Those concerns also occur with superannuation legislation. I am firmly of the belief that people have the right to take out a contract with a reasonable expectation of what the result will be and what their future benefits and taxation obligations will be. I am not talking about minor changes, because these will always occur, but governments do not have the right to say to a working man who has worked for 30 years, within five years of his retirement, that there will be significant changes which could affect his status in his retirement. I believe that the report before us today is another manifestation of the many changes that have occurred in the superannuation area. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.12) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(4.13) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The new Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions (GARVP) tabled today is a complex document on any objective assessment. Essentially, it provides the basis for determining disability pensions for veterans. It also relates to the controversial lifestyle questionnaire. In particular there is considerable concern among veterans in relation to the determining system and the guide. Firstly, considerable delays in making determinations on veterans' applications are resulting in some veterans dying before the completion of their case. Justice delayed in this situation is justice denied to those who served their country in times of war. Secondly, there has been a steady reduction in the level of the general rate of disability pension increases as the system has been toughened up against the veteran, especially in relation to the criteria for eligibility for the totally and permanently incapacitated pension. The recent report of the independent monitoring committee strongly recommended a series of reviews and investigations in relation to the additional aspects of the repatriation disability pension determining system and the Government's response. By and large, this response has been merely to throw the matter to the Repatriation Commission's ongoing review of the guide. Undoubtedly, this can be a method for procrastination. As the shadow Minister for veterans affairs, Mr Tim Fischer, pointed out, by far the better alternative would be to re-create the independent monitoring committee and issue specific terms of reference to it from time to time. The recently released coalition policy in relation to veterans affairs, entitled `A fair go for veterans', gave a categorical commitment to retain the independent monitoring committee for this purpose. Thirdly, many veterans have despaired at the complexity of aspects of both the guide and the lifestyle questionnaire, which is to be doubled in length, but which I concede is necessary to help bring about consistent determinations on behalf of veterans. It seems that the new guide and the lifestyle questionnaire are an improvement and will provide some increase in the level of determinations-for example, 5 to 10 per cent in respect of cardiology patients. Because of its complexity, any new guide and lifestyle questionnaire will need to be monitored very closely to ensure that it does not impact harshly on veterans. The Senate, in any subsequent consideration of the guide, must take into account the fact that Service personnel and their service in times of war cannot be equated with civilian experience. It is very much a different circumstance, requiring discerning legislation which discriminates in favour of and not against the veteran. The Liberal and National parties will now study in detail the new guide and the lifestyle questionnaire and determine any further action which might be required, after further consultations with many organisations, including the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL), Legacy, the War Widows Guild and the Australian Veterans and Defence Service Council. The RSL has already indicated its independent assessment that the GARVP 2 represents a significant improvement on GARVP 1, but it has also indicated its very real concerns over many aspects of repatriation in recent times. Veterans are sick and tired of the series of cutbacks and complex changes that they have faced in recent years. They now want a consistent, fair guide, not only for veterans but also for war widows, ex-service personnel and serving personnel. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(4.16) —I endorse the remarks of Senator Tambling in relation to this very important document which is referred to in veterans circles as the Guide to the Assessment of Rates of Veterans' Pensions or GARVP 2. It needs to be read in conjunction with the monitoring committee's report which was tabled earlier in this session. Honourable senators will be aware that a special committee was set up to monitor the application of the new Veterans' Entitlements Act. The committee, in making its recommendations in its report, cited GARVP 1 in its first form, in which it was applied subsequent to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1987, to be a major source of dissatisfaction among veterans. It made a series of recommendations in relation to a variation. What we are looking at here today is the tabling by the Minister for Local Government (Senator Reynolds) of that variation on the guide for assessment which is referred to as GARVP 2. It is accompanied today by an explanatory statement by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Ben Humphreys. Earlier in the day I was approached by a senior officer of the Returned Services League of Australia (RSL) and I have had discussions with other members of the veterans community and they have asked me to convey to the Senate their reactions to this document. They reflect very much the comments that were made by Senator Tambling. In essence they urge quick assessment of this document. They cite the fact that it is absolutely critical to the welfare of veterans and if it proves to be as unsatisfactory as GARVP 1 they would like the Minister's attention and reaction to be prompt and urgent. We need to be aware of the fact that this is the set of guidelines which determines the fortnightly income of veterans. It is on the basis of this set of criteria that judgments are made about the entitlements of individuals. Many of these individuals are aged and infirm. There has been widespread dissatisfaction with this process in the past. So the RSL and other veterans groups consider that GARVP 2 represents a significant improvement upon GARVP 1 and, therefore, they would not seek its disallowance. However, any commitment that could be obtained from the Government-specifically from the Minister; perhaps in the very near furture-for a greater degree of urgency in undertaking the reviews recommended by the monitoring committee would be very helpful. Further, the monitoring committee recommended-and the RSL and other veterans groups support this recommendation-that the adequacy of GARVP 2 will be able to be assessed only from the operation, experience and application of it. The monitoring committee had difficulty in obtaining data on which to base its assessment of GARVP 1. So it will be important for the Government and the Minister to commence a deliberate program for the collection of objective statistical data relating to assessments under GARVP 2 from the commencement date of 1 December this year. In essence, what the veteran community is saying in relation to this variation in the criteria of assessment of pensions is, `Please regard it with urgency. Please see that it is a matter of day to day significance to veterans', and it calls upon the Minister to report quickly-they hope within six months-and to initiate immediately a data collection base to allow a valid assessment of the adequacy or otherwise of GARVP 2. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(4.19) —I present the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, entitled Manufacturing Industry Revitalisation: Making it Together, and the transcript of evidence. Ordered that the report be printed. Senator CHILDS —by leave-I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I would like to refer to the experience involved in printing this report of the Senate Industry, Science and Technology Committee. The report deals with the topic of revitalisation of Australia's manufacturing industry. Its subtitle is `Making it together'. Its basic theme is the need for all Australians to lift their game if there is any chance for future economic prosperity via the manufacturing sector. This report was due for delivery from the printers on Monday of this week so that it could be presented to the Senate on Tuesday, 27 September. On Monday, 26 September, the secretariat was informed by the Australian Government Publishing Service (AGPS) that it would not be ready in time. The reason given was that some shift workers had not turned up for work. I have made my own inquiries about the situation and have discovered that: firstly, an old machine broke down on Friday, 23 September; and, secondly, a maintenance man from Melbourne was expected to be in Canberra on Tuesday, 27 September, to fix the machine-a four-day delay. Our secretariat had checked progress as recently as Friday, 23 September, and had been told that delivery would occur on Monday, 26 September, as previously promised. The fact is that an officer of the AGPS told us a `fib' as to the reason for the delay-that is, blame the workers. The breaking down of an old machine and a four-day delay in obtaining maintenance are typical incidents that occur in industry and they are unacceptable. Our report addresses these problems. This report is the result of the Committee's examination of the prevailing attitudes to manufacturing and the need to develop an environment more conducive to sustained growth and increased investment in manufacturing. It deals with the attitudes of governments, business organisations, trade unions and individuals within the Australian community towards manufacturing industry. In pursuing its inquiries, the Committee confined its attention to the single objective of the revitalisation of manufacturing in Australia. Given the substantial downturn in agricultural and mining markets, manufacturing must be seen as Australia's chief means of economic revival. Currently Australia imports more than 70 per cent of its machinery and equipment. Ninety per cent of Australia's imports are manufactures. Australia's main hope of recovery lies in spending much less on the importation of manufactured goods and in earning much more from their export. To achieve larger slices of both the domestic and export markets, niche markets need to be identified and developed and goods of high quality need to be produced. Australia must create its own unique manufacturing culture. It can restore its international competitiveness only with the support and cooperation of all sectors of the community. This support and cooperation can be obtained only if Australians have appropriate attitudes. The need for more positive attitudes towards manufacturing industry was stressed to the Committee in the course of the inquiry. Numerous witnesses and submissions described attitudes which have an impact on manufacturing sector performance. The report emphasises the negative aspects of these attitudes. By identifying and discussing such aspects the Committee hopes to encourage further discussion and action that will help overcome the detrimental effects. Their general recognition and discussion are an essential prelude to the revitalisation of manufacturing industry. The Committee has drawn attention to the tip of the iceberg. Much more research needs to be done in the general area of attitudes to manufacturing. The Committee considers it very important that all those involved at government, industry management and employee level-in fact, the community at large-should address the question of attitudes. The Committee, having identified a number of attitudes whose existence affects manufacturing industry performance, looked at several critical areas of the manufacturing sector where attitudes are important. In the light of the increasing competitiveness of world trading conditions and the rapidity of change in products and markets, the need for initiative, creativity, dynamism, flexibility, vision and self-reliance on the part of business management is greater than ever. To help management become more enterprising the Committee recommends consistent government leadership and involvement in specifically targeted programs such as industry plans. The Committee also recommends ways for management to improve its performance by looking beyond the domestic market and actively seeking the cooperation and involvement of its work force. The Committee considers there is much evidence in the manufacturing sector of the positive results of harmonious industrial relations. Industrial democracy policies which allow appropriate employee participation encourage the development of positive attitudes. For Australia's manufacturing industry to become strong, the cooperation of employees and their informed involvement in the workplace are essential. The Committee supports moves to rationalise unions and to break down the barriers between employers and employees in the interests of healthier, more efficient industries. The media can also help to spread the news about positive developments in manufacturing industry. As we all know, they have a large audience and can do much to influence and shape community attitudes. Reorganisation of manufacturing systems can have a big influence on the productive capacity. The Committee recommends the adoption of techniques which speed up production times and ensure that factories are operating at maximum efficiency. These include, of course, value adding management techniques such as just-in-time, total quality control, the use of computer-aided design and manufacturing, and flexible manufacturing cells. Management should not try to do it all on its own. Professional assistance from such bodies as the Technology Transfer Council, the National Industry Extension Service and the Australian Productivity Council is available and should be made use of when reorganising production processes. One area which cannot be ignored is that of the education and training needs of the manufacturing industry sector. The Committee found that, even though there have been recent moves to link education and training more closely to the needs of industry, there remains a great deal to be done. I will mention only some of the recommendations here. The Committee recommends that the Government inaugurate a review of the effectiveness of skills training in Australia. In addition to work experience programs for students, there should be opportunities for teachers to familiarise themselves with the reality of working in industry. All students, regardless of their sex, should be encouraged to study the full range of subjects. Both governments and the manufacturing industry should work towards breaking down the education system's attitudinal bias against manufacturing training. Australia's research and development effort is another critical area for manufacturing sector performance. If Australia is to lessen its dependence on the volatile commodity markets of the world it will need to expand its production and exports of elaborately transformed goods. To achieve this expansion, industry needs to increase substantially its research and development effort. The Committee recommends that the Commonwealth Government at least maintain its direct expenditure on research and development and special provisions for tax deductibility and the grants for the industrial research and development scheme. The Committee would also like to see the encouragement, wherever possible, of innovation from the shop floor and regular interchanges between government, academic and private research bodies to facilitate exchange of information and development of new ideas. The Committee gave some attention to the macro-economic environment. We consider that Government policies should continue to be directed towards the substantial reduction of unemployment, interest rates, inflation and the balance of payments deficit. In addition, we believe that specific measures are sometimes necessary to help industry adjust to the more competitive world trading conditions now prevailing and to stimulate investment in new industries. The Committee specifically recommends the use of industry plans where there are special problems, provided that they incorporate clear objectives. We also recommend that a review be undertaken by the end of June 1990 with a view to an extension of the management and investment companies program past June 1991 if it is justified in the light of experience to that date. The Committee recommends continued support by the Government for organisations which promote the development of manufacturing industries such as Austrade, the National Industry Extension Service, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, the Technology Transfer Council, the Australian Manufacturing Council and the Australian Science and Technology Council. Foreign investment in Australia should be strictly monitored to ensure that it is beneficial to Australia. Immediate attention also should be given to other areas which affect industrial productivity such as transport and handling arrangements, labour on-costs, business regulation and takeovers. There are many other conclusions and recommendations contained in the report. What I have tried to do today is provide honourable senators with an overview and a taste of its contents. The Committee hopes that the report will be a positive tool for influencing and changing attitudes of all Australians to the manufacturing industry. We have even gone so far as to state that a doubling of manufacturing productivity levels in five to seven years should not be beyond Australia's capacity. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who made submissions to the inquiry and those who gave evidence. As a final word, I remind the Senate that when the former Committee on Industry and Trade commenced this inquiry it was described as a threshold inquiry. The aim was to examine attitudes so that we could all gain a clearer understanding of the views and the reasons for their persistence. The reasoning was that only then would it be possible to address in a more purposeful manner the issues of manufacturing growth and investment. I hope we have gone some considerable way towards not only understanding the views but also offering positive ways of stimulating manufacturing industry growth. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator MAGUIRE(South Australia) —On behalf of Senator Cooney I present the eleventh report for 1988 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills concerning the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Bill 1988; the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill 1988; and the Research and Development Legislation Amendment Bill 1988. I lay on the table Scrutiny of Bills Alert Digest No. 11, dated 28 September 1988. Ordered that the report be printed. Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Senator Chapman: That the Senate take note of the paper. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.34) —Speaking today on the waterfront investigation of the Inter-State Commission, I wish to make a number of initial remarks. First, this is a massive report. In a way it is a pity that we have only a short time to deal with it. Secondly, I think it is fitting that this follows the report from Senator Childs on the revitalisation of the manufacturing industry. Everyone knows that if we are to get this country back on track we have to revitalise the manufacturing industry in respect of both import replacement and exports. A key part of that is to be able to use the waterfront in an efficient way. The Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) put out an excellent report, but basically its conclusion was that there should be a five-year scheme to streamline the waterfront. We are confronted with three options. The first is to do nothing and leave the status quo-which would be an absolute guarantee of a banana republic and what has been commonly termed the white trash of Asia. The second alternative is the five-year proposal, as suggested by the IAC. The third option is to act now. I believe that we have no option other than to act now, if we are going to get this country back on track. The Australian waterfront is renowned for its lack of productivity, its inefficiency and the enormous costs that apply to industry as a whole. The Inter-State Commission's report summarises this aspect as follows: it suffers from ineffective management, it has poor work force training and career arrangements, it has an introspective industrial attitude, a poor response to user needs, poor information flows to users and between links in the transport chain, a lack of supply and demand balance-often reflected in congestion and queues or in under-utilisation of expensive facilities-diffusion of governmental responsibility, and it is an abuse of monopoly power. I think that last item sums it all up. We have a monopoly situation on the wharves. Unless there is an alternative method of transportation, such as the airlines, an importer of manufacturing goods will be disadvantaged. Senator Childs has indicated that, of all machinery used in Australia, 70 per cent is imported and it has to come through a very expensive wharf situation. Of all imports into Australia, 90 per cent are manufactured goods. As an indication of the problems that we have, the cost of shipping milk powder, for example, from Tasmania to Taiwan is $72 a tonne, while the cost of shipping it from Tasmania to Melbourne is $82 a tonne. That is an incredible situation, and one that we cannot allow to continue in this country. There are many other similar examples. Adelaide Brighton Cement obtains supplies of cement clinker for its plant in Darwin from Japan rather than its own operations in Adelaide. The relative freight costs are $12 a tonne from Japan and $20 a tonne from its own operations in Adelaide. This applies across the board in this country. Senator Maguire —Tell us about what the Queensland Government did to the Adelaide Steamship Co. Senator PARER —We are talking about the problems of the waterfront. Senator Maguire is diverting attention on this issue because of industrial rorts which are a plague on this country and which have arisen due to the actions of people like those who put Senator Maguire into this place. We have heard Senator Robert Ray admit to me that the Australian Labor Party is the political arm of the trade union movement. We all know about that, and yet honourable senators opposite sit there and allow the destruction of this country and make it totally impossible to revitalise the manufacturing sector. Until they get this right, there is no hope. I am asking the Government to address the question. Senator Maguire, for example, should not throw red herrings across the path of those who want to draw these matters to the attention of the Parliament. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 27 September, on motion by Senator Peter Baume: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator KNOWLES(Western Australia)(4.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.40) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The most significant thing that has happened to the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) since the presentation of its last annual report is that it has been moved from the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce to the Treasury. I hope that this power grab by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to the anger of Senator Button, will not mean that the Treasurer will begin to form industries assistance policy in the same way as general Treasury announcements-that is, by Press release instead of by substantive announcements made to parliament and then supported by timely legislation. Because of Senator Button's lack of comprehension of economic issues, as was certainly displayed during Question Time in the Senate on Tuesday-when it became apparent that he was not aware of the linkage between terms of trade and the exchange rate and the effect that this would have on the international competitiveness of Australian industry-it is therefore not surprising that he was stripped of this IAC responsibility. The move of portfolio responsibility for the IAC brings a most unusual situation to the fore. Whilst Senator Button and his Department retain overall responsibility for industry policy, Senator Button has lost control over references to the most powerful body in the field of industry assistance. It is rather like having an Attorney-General having no say over the Australian Law Reform Commission. I welcome the change of thrust of IAC investigations, but I question the Government's priorities in relation to cutting staff from 360 to a little over 200. However, the more lean commission has shown that it can still function adequately with fewer staff and provide competent advice to the Government. But I am concerned at the quite dramatic fall in the number of reports from the IAC in the current year. In 1987-88, there were only 10 references, with 11 last year, while in 1982-83 there were 20 references, and 33 for 1981-82. The last two periods were Fraser years. So, there is less commitment by this Government in looking at efficiency generally so far as it affects industry efficiency. I believe that issues, such as the inquiry into the Government's non-tax charges, are just as important as those relating to manufacturing efficiency. Perhaps it is time to change the name of the Industries Assistance Commission to something that reflects more adequately its current inquiries and certainly its wider responsibilities under its new Minister-the Treasurer. Perhaps we could call the IAC the Efficiency Advisory Commission-which I think would be more appropriate in terms of its meeting its wider responsibilities. The wide ranging report also focuses on changes in industry protection. Judging from the speeches that have been made in this chamber, not everyone is aware that, for example, in the clothing and footwear manufacturing industry tariffs have fallen by 17 per cent in the past 12 months, while in the motor vehicle industry tariffs on fully imported cars have been cut by 12.5 per cent. It is unfortunate that the Government's response to the Commission's draft report on coastal shipping was disappointing, with the Government actually distancing itself from the findings and the recommendations made at that time. However, the final report, which I think was tabled in the Senate yesterday, appears to have received greater government approval, even though, strangely, it canvasses the same issues as did the previous report-but perhaps the more moderate language has helped the Government in its relationships with the unions. In the past, restrictive union policies and the Navigation Act have prevented competition in the coastal shipping area. These problems must be addressed urgently to enable industries to be competitive overseas. I thank Senator Parer for his comment in which he compared freight charges between Tasmania and Melbourne with the charges between Melbourne and Taiwan. I give as a further example the fact that it is far cheaper for an Australian industry to transport a manufactured product by sea from Melbourne to Tokyo, offload it at Tokyo and transship it back to Port Moresby than to send it direct from Melbourne to Port Moresby. Such a situation is quite ludicrous and very damaging to Australian industry. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.46) —Chapter 1 of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) annual report is devoted to a discussion of micro-economic reform. The Commission emphasises the urgency of the situation, an urgency of which one wishes the Government would take note. For example, the Commission states: The need to remove impediments to efficiency is made more urgent by the rapidity with which such reforms are now spreading through many other parts of the world. I think this is the crux of what is wrong in Australia. There is still not a recognition among certain power groups, and certainly within the Government itself, that we are on the world scene and that we must adjust to that scene. All sorts of noises are made. Senator Button makes nice noises about all this. He says, `We are in there doing our bit'. But, when it comes to the hard decisions, one does not see much happening. The report goes on to say: . . . Australia will need to move faster than its competitors if gains in international competitiveness are to be achieved. Of course it will because we are so far behind. We have an inflation rate which is two to three times higher than those of our competitors overseas. We have interest rates which are substantially higher. In recent days we have debated the punitive level of interest rates which affect not only business but also every home buyer who has to make mortgage payments. I think it is patently obvious that the Government has become arrogant and has totally lost touch with the ordinary aspirations of ordinary people. The report mentions the need for greater flexibility in labour markets but, of course, does not offer any judgment about the Government's current efforts. The report can be interpreted as making an implicit criticism of the pace and extent of adjustment. The coastal shipping episode, which honourable senators will recall was the subject of a report put out by the IAC and denigrated by the Government, and the current IAC amendment legislation could indicate-and this is of great concern-the Government's intention to muzzle the IAC because it is saying things that the Government does not want to hear and will not act upon. If this is true, it is a very retrograde step. Of course the IAC is not perfect but it has shown itself to be an independent body. The Government does not like independent bodies. Hence, it stacks bodies with its own people at all levels. Of course, the comment is made around the Australian Capital Territory these days that the Government is stacking the Public Service at all levels. The IAC has done a lot to expose publicly the cost of protecting certain groups. It might be true that the IAC's recommendations pay little heed to the political implications of their implementation. But we all appreciate that the IAC is an independent body and politics is not and should not be its job. In the short time left to me, I commend the IAC on its annual report. This extensive report is a great reference document in many areas. For instance, in the appendices to the report, the IAC talks about the steel industry. It draws attention to the fact that the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd committed $800m to a plan, spent $1.5 billion and that its only reward was a poor productivity performance because of the attitude of the trade union movement. I recognise that the performance has improved in recent times as it must. The IAC discusses superannuation and draws our attention to the fact that this year the Government is going to gain $980m in revenue on superannuation and $1.4 billion in 1990-91. Yet, the Government has the audacity to say, `We are going to rip this out of the system but in the end you will get the same amount of money you would have got on retirement if we had not done so'. That is an impossibility. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Senator Reynolds) agreed to: That consideration of the Advance to the Minister for Finance-Statement of Heads of Expenditure and the amounts charged thereof pursuant to section 36a of the Audit Act 1901 for the year ended 30 June 1988 in the Committee of Whole be an Order of the Day for the next day of sitting. Senator HILL(South Australia)(4.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the papers. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(4.57) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Coulter: That the Senate take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Senator Knowles) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 28 September, on motion by Senator Boswell: That the Senate take note of the paper. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(4.58) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I draw attention to some of the features of the Australian Maritime College which, as I think is well known, was established by a Liberal-National Party government. The Australian Maritime College not only has become a top college in Australia but is amongst the top maritime colleges in the world. The college features three distinct schools-the school of engineering, the school of fisheries and the school of nautical studies. I pay particular tribute to the work of the Council, which has served the college very well. In particular, I make special mention of Mr Fred Connell, the Chairman of the Council. I have known Mr Connell for many years, mainly through his interests in fishing in Western Australia and his membership of the Australian Fishing Industry Council. He has done enormously valuable work for the college. His dedication is illustrated by the fact that he travels to and from the college from Geraldton in Western Australia, which is not a small task in itself. I think the dedication that has been shown by Mr Connell and the Council should be noted and appreciated by all. The college continues to grow. The report points out the fact that there is now a staff of 135 and 566 permanent students. The college produces a range of courses in all three areas and has produced excellent graduation results. There are 23 full courses. As of last year there were 35 short courses which operated over 35 sessions with 886 participants. One of the interesting areas in the college has its operating company, AMC Search Ltd, which now manages maritime technology contracts. I notice in the report that it includes work done in the development of a mechanical minesweeping device for the Royal Australian Navy (RAN). It also did work on the testing of a design of a 16-metre transitional speed motor yacht. In another RAN project it undertook a survey of Australian based fishing vessels and compiled a computer database on those. It also provides teaching experience for staff of maritime colleges in developing countries and short course programs for fishing industry personnel in these countries. The work that has been done has been greatly appreciated all over. I mentioned the work done by the research operation. The report also lists a complete schedule of the work that the college did in approximately 15 different areas. The work in that search area is growing. It is producing overseas capital. It is making valuable contracts in many of the countries that we need to be in close touch with. I am sure that the development can proceed. Australia is a natural maritime nation. We have a role to play in the whole of the western area of the Pacific. We now have graduates who are demonstrating their skills very widely. We look forward to an ever-improving future for the Australian Maritime College. In light of the comments of one of my colleagues, the college welcomes parliamentary visitors. I suggest that when members of the Parliament are visiting lovely Tasmania they call on the Maritime College. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(4.57) —It is worth noting that the existence of a special purpose institution to train merchant mariners had its beginnings in a 1973 commission of inquiry under Mr M. M. Summers. The then Whitlam Government accepted the commissioner's advice that training for the fishing and shipping sector was inadequate and that a comprehensive maritime college be established. In 1976 a preliminary Act became law under the Fraser Government and in 1978 the Australian Maritime College Act was passed which provided for an autonomous national institution of marine education. It is important to note that the intention of the independent commission and of both the Whitlam and Fraser governments was that the Australian Maritime College be autonomous and of high quality. To that end, almost $40m has been spent to develop the twin campuses of the college on each side of the River Tamar at Newnham and at Beauty Point. I am very concerned that the recent pronouncements by the Minister for Employment, Education and Training, Mr Dawkins, regarding higher education have totally compromised the Australian Maritime College and could destroy its integrity as a specialist national institution. In fact, the college has been ordered by Mr Dawkins to enter into discussions with the Tasmanian State Institute of Technology (TSIT) and the University of Tasmania with a view to the amalgamation of the three institutions. I am not blindly opposed to tertiary amalgamation in general. My point is that the people who should decide whether or not it takes place are the members of the relevant councils and staff of the tertiary bodies. The Australian Maritime College is a specific purpose college and has close links, as Senator Archer has said, with the fishing and shipping industries. The Government should be aware that the shipping industry has said that it supports the Maritime College only because it is a national institution specifically dedicated to that field and that it would hold grave fears for the college if the amalgamation, which comprised the basis of the Australian Maritime College, was forced. It is essential that the finance and governance of the Australian Maritime College remain separate even if there is to be some merging in other aspects with the TSIT and the University of Tasmania. I know that shipping and fishing industry groups have already written to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy (Mr Kerin), and Mr Dawkins, strongly making these points. What is not always appreciated in the Canberra bureaucracy is that the Maritime College cannot be directly equated with other tertiary institutions because its courses range from basic marine apprenticeships to post-graduate degrees in shipping and fishing fields. We have already seen the divisions that are emerging with the mooted amalgamations in Armidale and Canberra. I am fearful that this battering ram approach by the Education Minister could also be applied to the Australian Maritime College. I note that the Government already has the power to appoint 12 of the 22 members of the council, two of whom are the chairman and the deputy chairman. The forum for discussion of the future of the college is the college council, not a ministerial directive to the principal. If the reports of Mr Dawkins's directive are true, then it indicates to me serious doubts about the Hawke Government's attitude towards the vital question of academic independence. It is worth noting that the Australian Maritime College is a truly national entity even though it is situated in Launceston. Only 12 per cent of its students come from Tasmania. The rest come from each State and Territory across the country and even from overseas. In 1986 the number of overseas students studying at the college was 39. I notice from the figures in the report that this year it has increased to 69, showing the growing interest from overseas countries in the courses offered. I also noted that the number of students enrolled in short courses has significantly increased, by about 60, since the 1986 report was presented to the Senate. These courses are designed to supplement areas of knowledge for people already assigned to ships or involved in shipping. They also provide groundwork in other areas such as first aid at sea and proficiency in survival craft. The continued growth and development of study courses specifically related to industry needs is to be commended, as is the dedication of the Council and staff. The college is involved in a wide range of teaching experience programs of maritime colleges in developing countries, particularly in South East Asia and the South Pacific region. College staff have been involved with many research and development activities and their work is to be commended. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(5.03) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. I ask you, Mr Deputy President: How can the meteorology division be siphoned off into the Department of Administrative Services? What an absolutely ratbag operation this is to wind up with an institution of this nature shovelled into Administrative Services. Out of sight, out of mind. There is no logic, no sense, no relationship whatsoever in shuffling off the meteorology people into the hands of Administrative Services where, I suggest, the Government hopes they will be lost. We are more affected by weather and the effects of weather than any other continent in the world. Very solid action is absolutely essential. The situation in meteorology has been degenerating for some years. When I look at the excellent staff that the Bureau of Meteorology has and the responsibilities we place upon them, it is really appalling. Dr Zillman, the head of staff, is a first class operator. He has certainly been as loyal as anybody can possibly be within the constraints that have been placed upon him. I read the press statement put out by the Minister for Science, Customs and Small Business (Mr Barry Jones) yesterday. I thought I must have read the wrong statement because it did not really relate to the report at all. The Bureau of Meteorology is operating against totally unreasonable odds, but it is very cost effective in spite of the constraints placed upon it. With reasonable equipment it could do ever so much better. The money that is being spent could produce a lot more if we looked after it properly. At present all we face are forecasts that are less accurate than we would like to see both in the short and long term. Over the years there have been requests and pleas, and for what? I understand that this year there is to be some dribble of extra finance, but that will not do anything towards getting the equipment and the facilities generally up to date. For an annual report it is quite extraordinary to see the list of requests and recommendations that it contains. Page 2 of the report notes: the achievements of the Bureau . . . and, in particular, the good start that has been made on accelerating the Bureau's capital requirement program . . . the importance of sustaining the re-equipment and warning service upgrade programs . . . The Committee's concern that pressures for increased cost recovery . . . And so it continues. The report outlined all the things that have to be worked out by the Government, what it is prepared to fund and what it expects to get from the Bureau. There are enormous pressures in terms of cost recovery. While we believe in cost recovery, we do not see how it can be achieved with a meteorology department. Page 18 of the report states: . . . the Committee believes it is also important to identify clearly those basic services which, under its Charter, the Bureau is required to provide in the public interest and for which the most efficient and equitable method of funding is through normal budget appropriations. We need to be able to determine what we expect of this organisation and we need to know what the people of Australia expect in meteorology, because they are certainly not getting much now. Over and over again the report talks about the shortage of high-speed computer equipment. We are in a deplorable situation. A graph in the report shows our position relative to West Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, India, Japan, and the United States. We just do not figure in any comparable way whatsoever; yet we expect more from meteorology. Do we want reasonable forecasting? Do we believe that that comes without cost? Is weather forecasting regarded as being important in Australia? Can we determine what, in the public interest, we can reasonably expect and what we must do without? Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator PARER(Queensland)(5.08) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The final report of the Industries Assistance Commission (IAC) on coastal shipping is a scathing indictment of Australia's shipping and stevedoring industries. The draft report, when it was issued, brought forth a scathing attack from the then Minister responsible for shipping-Senator Robert Ray-and a less stern rebuke from the Treasurer (Mr Keating). Anne Davies wrote in the Australian Financial Review of 8 September: The Government's reaction raised questions about its intestinal fortitude in taking on the more difficult areas of micro-economic reform, of which shipping and the waterfront are probably the most crucial. Without a shadow of a doubt, the most critical question confronting Australia today is that of shipping and the waterfront. Australia is an island continent with a great trading economy. We should have one of the great merchant navies in the world; yet our coastal shipping has declined because of inefficiency, featherbedding and all the other restrictive work practices that have grown up over a number of years. I was visited by members of the Seamen's Union of Australia for whom I have some sympathy. They asked that we consider doing everything we can to restore coastal shipping. I pointed out that they had a long way to go-not because of their actions but because of the actions of people who have represented them over the past 10, 15 or 20 years. Those people destroyed Australia's coastal shipping industry to the extent that it is used only when it is absolutely necessary to do so; for instance, for the transportation of goods between the mainland and Tasmania and around the coast when there is no alternative mode of transport. The report states, among other things, that the reduced manning levels are a significant improvement on past Australian standards. That is correct. However, we are still behind the practices that exist in other maritime countries with similar standards of living. Honourable senators will know that our crewing costs are higher, for instance, because of generous leave provisions. The IAC found that Australian ships need to employ 2.2 crew per berth to maintain a year-round crew, compared with 1 1/2 per berth for west European vessels. Even the tugs have similar crewing conditions, particularly those which have to go across an artificial line which is called open sea. For instance, if a tug goes from Sydney Harbour to Botany Bay once a year the vessel has to be built with full accommodation facilities. If a tug has to go from Mackay to Hay Point in Queensland-there is an artificial boundary from Mackay Harbour to Hay Point Harbour; a small piece of open sea-it has to be classified as an open seagoing vessel with all the conditions that apply to vessels that ply the international trade. The report referred to the most serious problem facing the industry and I drew it to the attention of the men from the Seamen's Union; that is, onshore costs. It is appropriate that several reports have been placed before us one after another; for instance, that of the Inter-State Commission, this coastal shipping report and another IAC report. Mr Deputy President, in the last Parliament you introduced a Bill that sought to take away what is called cabotage; that is, the total reservation of Australian shipping to Australian ships and Australian crews. I suspect that the only way we will do something about shipping in Australia and the coastal trade is to introduce a bit of competition into it. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.13) —It was not my intention when I came into the chamber to speak to the motion. However, I listened with great interest to what Senator Parer said about the report of the Industries Assistance Commission on coastal shipping. I listened with great interest because Senator Parer has taken an interest in this mode of transport over the period in which both of us have served in this chamber and indeed in this Parliament. I waited with bated breath for Senator Parer to give some accolades to the major players in the whole ball game surrounding maritime transport in Australia but, unfortunately, I waited in vain; they just were not there. What we have witnessed in the last five minutes is another indication of where the Opposition's industrial relations policies are. The Opposition is hell bent on confrontation-promoting and, indeed, provoking confrontation. At this stage of the game we must examine what achievements have been made to date. We have addressed them in previous debates in this chamber. The Government and, I think, all the players in the game-the trade unions, the employers and the shipowners-recognise that a lot of work needs to be done in this area of industry. A lot of work is being done and a lot of achievements are on the board at this stage, but we need a lot more. They will not be achieved by using the tactics of Charles Copeman which were used in the Robe River dispute in Western Australia. They will not be achieved by using the tactics used in the Mudginberri dispute. We are all aware of the cold cry that came out following that particular industrial dispute that there would be a thousand more Mudginberris. I hope there will not be because Mudginberri is no longer, it has been closed down. We do not want the same form of confrontation to be in existence on the waterfront and in the seagoing industries in Australia. There have been a lot of achievements to date. Senator Parer in his contribution here a short while ago recognised that a number of bodies are addressing this matter. He referred to the Inter-State Commission which we discussed here a few short weeks ago. He referred to another Industries Assistance Commission report that has addressed problems in this industry. Work is going on to rectify some of the difficulties that we are experiencing. It is work that is going on with a very great degree of cooperation. That cooperation needs to be fostered. Certainly efficiencies can be achieved by the use of strong arm tactics and various forms of confrontation, but they come at a price. At this time in our development and redevelopment, after the appalling years under the Fraser Administration, I do not think Australia can afford to take the risks of another all out brawl in the ports of Australia. The Government has addressed the problems with a will that has not been matched by any coalition Ministers who have had portfolio responsibilities in these areas. We are doing it. We would like to get on with the job. We would like to foster further cooperation between the major players in the game. It would be nice just for a change if some recognition were given now and again to some of the achievements that have been put into place. Senator Devlin in his contribution on the Inter-State Commission paper here, I think it was four weeks ago, recorded some of those achievements, such as the reduction in manning levels, which has been done through cooperation. Why do not honourable senators on the other side recognise that there is a chink in the armour, that there have been achievements and, with the will which is there at the moment, that such goals can be fostered and encouraged and a lot more runs put on the board? Those opposite can have the confrontation if they want, but they know what the waterfront union is like. They are continually quoting one major exponent in the industry, Mr Fitzgibbon. They know his record. He has been succeeded. The waterfront union can deliver if it comes down to a confrontation, but Australia does not need that. We cannot afford it at the moment. Let us continue with the job. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(5.19) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. Since the period covered by this Christmas Island Services Corporation annual report, there have been many fundamental changes to the administration of Christmas Island, changes which make this report obsolete and somewhat irrelevant. The Christmas Island Assembly, set up by this Government as an elected body to act on the wishes of the Christmas Island community and as the body responsible for the running of Christmas Island, was dissolved on 3 November 1987 and an Administrator and temporary manager were appointed in its stead. There is no sign of democracy being re-established on Christmas Island. So much for one vote one value and fair and democratic elections. The main income earning industry for the island, the phosphate mine, was closed in November 1987. The Government, at the Opposition's prompting after the outrage felt by Christmas Islanders, was forced reluctantly to call for expressions of interest in future mining operations. The Government set conditions that it would no longer subsidise many of the service functions of the Christmas Island Services Corporation. The Government appointed a liquidator/assessor and chose Elders Resources Finance Ltd which said that it would provide 40 to 50 jobs. After reports which suggested that the original intention by Elders was to fly workers in from Australia, the company then agreed to use Christmas Islanders. The assessment process continued to be questioned as Elders leading rival bidder, Century Metals and Mining, had promised 189 people jobs. Moreover, it had the support of a large number of Christmas Islanders. Century Mining subsequently challenged the whole assessment procedure by asking for a judicial review of the decision. Legal argument was put before the Federal Court of Australia in Perth. Yesterday Justice French reserved his decision, to be handed down within seven days. My predecessor as shadow Minister for Territories, Mr Ray Braithwaite, has attacked the Government for refusing to permit scrutiny of the processes involved in choosing a successor mining operation for Christmas Island. External territories failed to fulfil two freedom of information requests within the specified period and only belatedly complied once a complaint was lodged. Elders has recently expressed doubts about the viability of proceeding. I hope that it does not withdraw. Christmas Island now has a new Minister, the Hon. Clyde Holding. It is hoped that he makes more progress than his predecessor, Mr Punch, who in his six-month period made absolutely no tangible progress in establishing a successor mining operation on the island. Negotiations are still in limbo. There is very little employment there at the moment. This Government's handling of Christmas Island concerning the period before, during and after the time of this report has been characterised by inexcusable delays, turnabouts and a lack of understanding of Christmas Island's resources and needs; and, most importantly, the Government has not shown itself to be open and above board in its dealings. As the shadow Minister for this portfolio, I urge this Government to keep on its toes and act in the best interests of the Christmas Islanders. Senator McKIERNAN(Western Australia)(5.23) —Again I make the point that I had not intended to speak in the debate but, after listening to Senator Boswell's maiden speech on his shadow portfolio, I am again encouraged to enter the debate in a similar vein to that in which I was encouraged to enter the previous debate. I listened with interest and bated breath to what the honourable senator had to say. I waited for some accolades to be directed towards the trade union movement, but they did not come. Senator Crichton-Browne —Tell us about Mr Bennett. Senator McKIERNAN —Senator Boswell mentioned that a submission went in from Century Metals and Mining which would take over the mining operations on the island. He neglected to say that that submission was on behalf of a consortium which included the Union of Christmas Island Workers. The Union of Christmas Island Workers initiated a feasibility study into whether phosphate mining operations could continue on Christmas Island after the Government had made the announcement that the mining operations were going to cease. The Union of Christmas Island Workers initiated it, not Century Mining or Croesus Mining NL. Senator Crichton-Browne identified the very worthy and very well respected secretary of that union, Gordon Bennett. I thank him for the reminder. The union took a very positive stand. I have no problem about admitting that, because on the release of the findings of the survey it commissioned, through a firm of private consultants, I went public in my support of the union, with this consortium-Century Mining and Croesus Mining. I was perhaps seen by some to be taking a stand in opposition to what the Government was proposing at that time. I will admit, in response to some of the earlier interjections, that I have identified some problems in the way decisions have been taken on the administration and the operation of Christmas Island. I put those concerns to the previous responsible Minister, the Hon. Gary Punch, and we talked them through. I can say at this stage that I am not completely satisfied with all the answers that have been given to us. However, I have not sought to pursue the point either in this place or in the media because of the legal challenge Senator Boswell has mentioned, which has been taken to the Federal Court of Australia. Following a hearing yesterday the matter was adjourned and a decision will be announced at a later time. I think we will have to wait until that decision is handed down before we can follow the matter through. All is not well, and has not been well, with the administration of Christmas Island. There have been many mistakes made in the past. We should probably put on record the tremendous achievements of the Union of Christmas Island Workers since its formation in bringing a form of democracy to that island and to those Australian workers who, prior to the union being in operation, were treated not like second class citizens but indeed like third class citizens. It is all very well for honourable senators to get up in this place and talk about democratic processes, but when the Opposition was in government and it had a chance to do something about the situation, it operated like some Third World government in its treatment of the residents and the workers of Christmas Island. Nothing was done. It was the Union of Christmas Island Workers that brought this to the fore and, indeed, that union, under the leadership of Gordon Bennett, put forward some very positive solutions. Senator Crichton-Browne —He is a thug. Senator McKIERNAN —Gordon Bennett is no thug. Senator Crichton-Browne —He tries to be. Senator McKIERNAN —We all take stances from time to time. Indeed, I have seen the honourable senator take aggressive stances himself. Senator JENKINS(Western Australia)(5.29) —I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Senator WATSON(Tasmania)(5.29) —I move: That the Senate take note of the paper. The Government certainly appears to be holding an axe over higher education in the Australian Capital Territory, particularly over the Canberra College of Advanced Education (CCAE). I think it is most unfortunate that the Government has abolished the semi-independent Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and that this body, the Canberra College of Advanced Education, has to provide an educational profile and deal and negotiate directly with the Government. Now we have an example of the Government seeking to intervene in the manage- ment of the college, in fact of all universities and colleges, many of which fall under the responsibility of the States. I believe the Federal Government must be strongly condemned for threatening to stop funding to tertiary education institutions unless they conform to certain criteria. Mr Dawkins has said that universities must have at least 8,000 students and colleges of advanced education must have at least 5,000. These figures are purely arbitrary and could lead to efficient regional colleges being closed down. At a time when the Hawke Government proclaims better access to education, the realities of its policy are quite the opposite. This is just another example of the Government's attitude to education being based solely on cost-benefit terms, and I believe it is not in the best interests of students. I believe few of the students who will be graduating from the Canberra College of Advanced Education will realise that the graduate tax, which was announced in the Federal Budget, is actually indexed for life, and those CCAE students who will be paying it off may never know the final amount until they have paid their very last instalment. Young women in particular from this college will be disadvantaged because when they leave the work force soon after graduation to have their families and subsequently go back to work the inflation factor will have continued to accrue even though they were not earning. I think this is reprehensible and it could well result in a frighteningly big surcharge on the original amount that a graduate from this college must have to budget to repay. The Government has also instructed this institution and others to provide individual enrolment information, which is fed into the Australian Taxation Office computer network four or five years in advance of its need in expectation of future tax liabilities. Here is another area which is tantamount to a tax file number type syndrome, with a central register recording information on all the students across Australia. Even though students from this college may receive a discount, as with all similar CAEs and universities, there is supposed to be a sweetener of 15 per cent if this graduate tax is paid off during studies. Unfortunately this discount is completely withheld even if only a small amount of the repayment is deferred. It makes no allowance for people who are attempting to pay it off as they are studying but who do not have the financial resources to note the final payment before finishing studies. The Government must act immediately to resolve these sorts of inequities because they only increase the burden of the already unpopular, ill-conceived and regressive graduate tax. I believe that the decisions that are being made by the Government will have a regressive effect on education. It is reprehensible that this important issue is being considered purely in cost-benefit terms. It is unfortunate that, under the proposal, if this institution is judged to be overfunded it will have to seek and take on many more students. The emphasis now appears to be on quantity rather than quality of education, particularly in the Canberra College of Advanced Education. It is a reprehensible move. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I should warn Senator McMullan that he has only 10 seconds. Senator McMULLAN(Australian Capital Territory)(5.34) —For the purpose of getting on the record, I start by saying that I think it is a pity that so much of the time for the discussion of this report of the Canberra College of Advanced Education has been taken up by that overly negative contribution. I would like to take the opportunity to refer to some of the serious questions that are being raised by students at the Canberra College of Advanced Education and other tertiary institutions in Canberra, who have been remarkably positive and have not taken up the negative and carping points that Senator Watson chose to raise. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The time allotted for the consideration of Government papers has expired. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE (Western Australia) (5.36) I 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. I say as I commence my comments that it is predictable, but again disappointing, that we find that the one senator who purports to represent a group of people in the community who themselves purport to have a mortgage on peace is again not in the chamber. It seems to be the habit of Senator Vallentine, whenever there is debate on motions such as this or legislation such as the South Pacific nuclear free zone legislation, not to be here. She is not here again today. I do not know whether she is in the building. Presumably, if she is, she is in her room scribbling anti-American notes to herself. The truth of the matter is that she is never here to express the views of those she purports to represent. I notice that her name is somewhere-I think eighth-on the speakers' list. There are to be 11 speakers in an hour and a half of debate. Senator Vallentine finally struggled to put her name eighth on the list, which means that she will not get a chance to speak on this matter today. Senator Tate —You could be shorter in your remarks. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Senator Tate is quite right. I could be shorter in my remarks, but if I spoke for only five minutes and not 35 minutes Senator Vallentine would still not get to speak today, because she is eighth on the list. That is symptomatic of Senator Vallentine's response. She is always dragging her feet. She is the great pretender. She is always acting in the shadows but is never on the stage. Senator Tate —What about Senator Dunn? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —The second XI has just arrived carrying the drinks-yes, so it is. I take particular pleasure in welcoming the naval warships from around the world which have come to our bicentennial celebrations and to take part in the international naval review. It was with pleasure that I recently accepted an invitation from the United States Navy to sail from Cockburn Sound to Albany in Western Australia on the United States battleship New Jersey. It was a pleasure to respond to the United States Navy's hospitality. Senator McKiernan —A bit of a risk, though. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It was no risk. How could anyone feel at risk on a 58,000-tonne battleship equipped with Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles, with 16-inch guns capable of hitting a Volkswagen at 23 miles, and with Harpoon weapons? Senator Tate —I feel safer already. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Absolutely. The battleship is equipped with the sort of gunnery that the Americans, as our allies, offer to us as part of our defence alliance. The only sour note on that very pleasant two-day and one night voyage was learning, as we steamed south, that there had been an incident in Albany. The USS Brewton, another United States ship, was in Albany at the invitation of the Albany residents. As honourable senators can imagine, the ship was well received. There were literally hundreds of people visiting the ship every day, enjoying the hospitality and the pleasure of the company of the American Navy. But, of course, things had to be disrupted. One of those grotty, smelly, long-haired people who purport to stand for peace-as long as it is their peace and nobody else's-came aboard, climbed the mast of the ship, tied himself to the ship and totally disrupted everybody else's day. If that were not bad enough, on the second day there was an incident in which two protesters illegally sought to gain entry to the ship. The captain of the ship, to preserve the integrity and safety of his ship, gently sprayed a bit of salt water on the protesters. What did we see? We saw Senator Vallentine flying down to Albany, not to apologise to the United States Navy for the conduct of some of her more loutish supporters, not to apologise on behalf of decent Australians for the conduct of a couple of ratbags: no, she went aboard the ship and demanded an apology from the captain because he put the water hose on the protesters. Can you believe it? When the captain of the ship quite properly told her that he had nothing to apologise for, Senator Vallentine then wrote to the Minister for Defence, Mr Beazley, and demanded action against the captain of the ship, for goodness sake! I think that the great offence of the captain was that he gave these guys a bath for once in a month. Can you believe it-a member of the Australian Senate conducting herself in that way in the name of peace? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you are verging on criticising Senator Vallentine. This motion is not critical of Senator Vallentine. In order for you to do that you have to have a substantive motion to that effect. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Mr Deputy President, you are quite right. If I am verging, I am doing it badly. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —If you do it any better I shall have to call you to order. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. I have to say that it is a sad day for Australia when the Americans, as allies, cannot come to this country without being disrupted and harassed by a small group of ratbags. Can honourable senators imagine the reaction of one of these ratbags if an American sailor who had climbed through his window then departed and rang the American consul to complain because somebody had hosed him down? The logic is absolutely absurd. It is symptomatic of those who pretend that they are for peace-it is peace for themselves and nobody else. That is the sort of conduct that we have seen in recent days. One ought to note that the person who is to take the salute for the review, His Royal Highness the Duke of York, who is on one of the British ships, will also be subject to a protest, as was the Ark Royal. We ought to understand the effect of these protesters. Let me give an example relating to the New Jersey. The New Jersey steaming at 18 knots takes three miles in full reverse to stop. It has no steering at less than 12 knots, so when it gets into the Heads at Sydney and has these protesters-- Senator Schacht —It is not doing 18 knots when it goes through Sydney Heads, surely? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I did not say that. I said that it has very little steering at under 12 knots. It is very difficult for the ship to manoeuvre. There is a very small response on the rudder. When the protesters get in front of the ship the captain has two choices. First of all he has my choice, which is to run them down. Second, he has his choice, which is to seek to avoid them. Senator Schacht —You cannot be in favour of peace if you want the boats to run people down. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —We are not talking about my peace; we are talking about their peace. Of course, to seek to avoid the protesters is to jeopardise the safety of everybody else who happens to be on the water at the time enjoying and welcoming the company of the American Navy-and, the Indian, British, French and American navies-and all those who have come here to join with us in celebrating our Bicentennial. It is an interesting observation that it is those who claim peace that most often disrupt the peace of others. When they say peace, they mean peace for themselves but disruption for everybody else. When they talk about their intrinsic rights as Australian citizens they mean rights without responsibilities. When they talk about passive protest, they really mean specific infringement upon the rights of others. When they talk about tolerance for them, they are talking about intrusion into the rights of other people. It means, for them, acting above the law and trampling on the rights of other people. It means their freedom, their rights, their liberties, but at the price of everybody else's. Because of the ruling of the Deputy President I shall not reflect on one particular example, but recently we had a case in Fremantle where a certain well-known citizen had the audacity to complain about Dial-a-Sailor. So 5,000 Australian women are wrong, for goodness sake, and one woman is right in demanding that the Dial-a-Sailor system be cut off. One can only speculate about the reasons, but it demonstrates the arrogance, and perhaps, sadly, the ignorance, of those who think their will, their right, is special and unique and superimposes itself upon anybody else's. These people are, by and large, anti-American. It is interesting as I listen to their speeches and I read their copy to see how often they criticise the Americans. How often does one hear them criticise the Soviets? I was reminded when I was in Moscow recently to go to the Soviet Peace Centre. Senator Schacht —Did you take Senator Vallentine with you? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No. Senator Vallentine has not, I think, been to the Soviet Union, to my knowledge. She is probably frightened to go because she would be so tempted to stay. When I asked these people whether I could look at their copy on their criticism of the Western world-well, they had truckloads of it that they could dump on the table. I said, `Show me what you have said about the Soviet aggression-invasion of Afghanistan; Kampuchea; Mongolia'. Of course, there was not a word. The explanation was, `Well, Senator, you understand that that is not allowed in our country'. I said, `Surely you are prepared to go to the barricades? Surely you are prepared to go to the Gulag? Surely you are prepared to stand up and pay the price of your integrity and your even-handedness about peace?'. They said, `Well, we think there is another way of doing it'. I said, `What is that?' The bottom line was just simply being funded by the Soviet Union and criticising the West. That is what we see in this Parliament and that is what we see outside this Parliament by the peace movement. Senator Schacht —They are funded by the Soviet Union, are they? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course they are funded by the Soviet Union. When I was in the Soviet Peace Institute, they had this magnificent building that compared with this chamber, and I asked them where they got the funds from. They said, `Soviet citizens' donations'. Can you believe it? And as I walked out and down the main street I found Soviet citizens queueing up for 35 minutes to buy rotten vegetables. I suppose they could not afford fresh vegetables because they had donated their money to the peace group. And of course the funding in Australia comes from the Soviet movement. Senator Schacht —Which peace movements in Australia are funded by the Soviet Union? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Regrettably, time prevents me from pursuing the proposition Senator Schacht puts to me, but there will be another time. If the honourable senator will give me an extension of my time afterwards, I will chase it up for him. Senator Gietzelt —Why don't you speak to the motion? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you. Of course I shall. These peace groups do not acknowledge and do not want to welcome the American and other naval ships. It is interesting that there is such deathly silence when there is an opportunity to be constructive. What did we hear on the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement? Absolutely nothing. Did we hear acclamation? Of course we did not. What did we hear when the South Pacific nuclear free zone was debated? Senator Schacht —You opposed it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I still oppose it; but I had a voice and I had a vote. Senator Vallentine was in New Zealand, causing trouble with the rabble over there. If she is not there, she is in the United States; or if she is not there, she is in the Western Australian Parliament causing trouble, or she is in gaol in the Northern Territory somewhere. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne is infringing again in regard to Senator Vallentine. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. The truth of the matter is that in the case of the INF there was an opportunity for these people to speak. In that case we saw the benefit and the effects of peace through strength. We all know that, in 1977, west of the Urals the Soviets had most of the SS20s and they would do nothing about moving them, notwithstanding requests from the Americans and their Western allies. It was only after the Americans and Western Europe deployed the Cruise and Pershing II missiles that we saw the beginning of peace. Senator Sanders —Really? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Yes, the two-track system-by negotiation and a threat of locating the Pershing II missiles. The Soviets then came to the peace table, because they suddenly found that although they had SS20s that could strike into West Germany in 20 minutes of flying time, we had the Pershing II, which could fly into Soviet Union airspace in four minutes with a 550-kiloton warhead. That is peace through strength. We suddenly found the benefit of deploying Pershing II missiles at Greenham Common, where all the lesbians and all the troublemakers and all the protesters had been before. Suddenly we saw the benefit, did we not? Of course we did. What was said about that? Not a word. No mea culpa. Absolute silence-which is the way of the peace group. They do not want peace. They want Soviet superiority. Senator Schacht —How did you know they were lesbians? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If you want to know whether they were lesbians, ask Senator Tate. He has had a personal experience, on the lawn outside Parliament House. Let me say that one should not be confused by the Soviets' recent apparent change in foreign policy. It is purely pragmatic. It is purely driven by economic necessity. We have seen their withdrawal from Mongolia, the withdrawal of troops from the Sino-Soviet border, and the withdrawal of troops from Kampuchea and Afghanistan. We have heard talk of the early commencement of the strategic arms reduction talks (START). All of this is not because we have a born-again libertarian Gorbachev who has recognised all the sins and all the failings of the political system of which he is a creature, but simply because the Soviets understand that one cannot be a first-class world military power and at the same time have a Third World economy. One of the reasons that I, for my money, always supported the strategic defence initiative (SDI) was that it was a whip hand to ensure that the Soviets came to the negotiating table on a whole range of other things. The Soviets are in a real dilemma. They could not afford to compete with SDI. They could not risk it failing or succeeding. They understood, when the peasants in this country could not, that it was going to provide enormous technology for the American economy and the American community. It was going to make them economically much stronger than they already are. The Soviets understood that. Senator Schacht —Which peasants are you talking about? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —What is the expression about the cap fitting? The truth of the matter is that the only way the Soviets can continue as a first-class military power is to have a strong economy. That is why they are now prepared to negotiate on these defence matters, as Senator Schacht will accept and acknowledge. If they do not, they cannot continue to compete and they cannot continue to be the dominant force that they are as a world military power. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Do we want a strong Soviet Union or a weak Soviet Union? Senator Schacht —What do you want? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I want a strong Soviet Union. The only way it will be strong is by being part of world trade. There is no question that that will be to the benefit of all the world. I will come back to our own region for a moment. I am reminded of what Paul Dibb said just two short years ago-I think in March 1986. Let us remember his view: Australia's area of primary strategic concern-South East Asia and the South West Pacific-is one of the most stable regions in the world. He did not give evidence to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. He could not have been further from the truth. I do not expect that he should have known what would happen, but if one reflects upon it with 20-20 vision, given their types of economies, their isolation and their vulnerability, I suppose the potential was always there. In the last 18 months in that so-called region of security and stability we have seen two coups in Fiji, civil violence in New Caledonia, political unrest in Vanuatu, and a signalling of intent by Libya to exert a greater influence than it already does. Senator Sanders —Couldn't you get a better bogyman than Libya? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am so sorry, but Senator Sanders, as he is on all his subjects, is with the fairies. He ought to go back and tilt at his windmills again or peddle his water power. It is significant that Vanuatu broke off its discussions with the Libyans on the issue of establishing diplomatic relations. I think it is realistic to say that it was primarily as a result of the exerting of influence by New Zealand and Australia. Without doubt, the strategic situation within our sphere of relative influence is deteriorating. Our relations with Fiji, as the last few weeks have shown, are at rock bottom. Senator Schacht —Look who has turned up. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I am as pleased as anybody to see Senator Vallentine here. But of course it is like all these things: she is too late to fire a shot. She is a passive traveller again, sitting here and observing the events that are going past her. It is very sad, is it not? I am glad that I do not know anybody who voted for her because they sure got robbed. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Crichton-Browne, you are again transgressing. Senator Gietzelt —I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy President. Surely that is regarded as reflecting upon the character and integrity of a senator. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I have just ordered Senator Crichton-Browne to desist from that line of speech. You have the call, Senator Crichton-Browne, but you must not involve yourself in personal criticism of another senator. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Thank you, Mr Deputy President. What causes more alarm than our deteriorating relationship with Fiji is that this deterioration is occurring at a time when the Soviet Union is quite openly expressing an intention of expanding its role in the Pacific region. In his Vladivostok speech-- Senator Sanders —How do you connect the two, though? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —I can understand why Senator Sanders cannot connect the two. Unfortunately, he is stuck with a thought process that runs on only one line at a time. But if he reads my speech afterwards he will probably be able to draw it together in the darkness, lying on his couch. In his Vladivostok speech on 28 July 1986, Gorbachev made it quite plain that the Soviet Union is an Asian and Pacific country. Gorbachev was formally declaring the Soviet belief that it has a legitimate role in the entire Asian-Pacific region. I will not comment upon whether it is legitimate to put that proposition or not. But the truth is-- Senator Schacht —The Soviet Union has a Pacific coastline; you have a Reader's Digest atlas. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Sadly, I do not, but Senator Schacht can send me a copy of what he has read. The truth is that the Soviets are here. It is even more explicit when Gorbachev says that he wishes to expand ties with member nations of the South Pacific Forum. Senator Sanders —What is wrong with that? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —If Senator Sanders can just draw breath and wait, it will come to him-I promise. These ties are reflected in the Soviets' drive to negotiate fishing agreements with Pacific islands, the first agreement being with Kiribati in August, I think, of 1985. Senator Schacht —How long did it last? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —It was withdrawn but 12 months later, I think, in mid-1986; but then the Soviets proceeded to conclude a similar agreement with Vanuatu in January of 1987. When they negotiated these agreements the Soviets sought, and one can understand it, port facilities and landing rights for Aeroflot, in the case of Vanuatu. Such rights and such access are important to the Soviets in their efforts to establish and maintain a presence and an influence in the region. It is not without significance for us to note that they have made overtures to Papua New Guinea in respect of fishing agreements. Further evidence of Moscow's wish to expand relations in the Asian-Pacific region can be found in the visit last year by the Soviet Foreign Minister, Mr Shevardnadze, to Australia, Thailand and Indonesia. It is significant in its timing because it is the first time, if I am correct, that a Soviet Foreign Minister has visited Australia. Senator Schacht —Did you oppose that visit? Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Of course not. Why should I? Senator Schacht —You have been giving them a belting for 20 minutes. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I have not. I have not given them a belting; I am putting their position. We need to understand it. Senator Schacht —Some of those wheat farmers in Western Australia who vote for you don't mind their wheat going to Russia. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Why does Senator Schacht always imagine that, because I talk about the Soviets, I am saying it is wrong. I am putting it to honourable senators as it is. Senator Schacht —But you are frothing at the mouth when you do it. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —No, I am not frothing at the mouth. I accept that the Soviets are trying to destabilise our relations with Japan, they are trying to uncouple our relations with America and New Zealand, and they are trying to destabilise our relations in the South Pacific. If Senator Schacht says that that is not right, he should put his hand up so that we can all see him. There is not a hand to be seen, is there? I do not think the Foreign Minister has been to Indonesia since Suharto took power in the 1960s. The Soviets are seeking to exert greater influence, not only for economic reasons but also for defence reasons. In their case it cannot be argued that the two are necessarily coupled; of course they are not. During his visit to Australia, Shevardnadze is reported to have said that the Soviets were seeking to gain political influence through their fisheries agreements. They were hoping this would lead to normal commercial, cultural and sporting contacts. It is a significant strategic advantage for the Soviets to be able to conclude fishing agreements. That comes about-I hope that even the Australian Democrats would accept this-because the Soviet fishing fleet is simply an extension of the Soviet naval effort. The Soviet presence in the Asian-Pacific region is not limited in its efforts to developing commercial fishing agreements in the South Pacific. For instance, in return for essential Soviet support since 1979, Vietnam has allowed the build-up in Cam Ranh Bay of the biggest naval base, I think, outside the Soviet Union. I am having an argument with my colleague as to whether Aden in South Yemen is larger. Whatever, it is a very large presence. This allows the Soviet Union to exert both a political and a military influence in the region. Because of Australia's position within the Asian-Pacific Basin, there is no doubt that we ought to have a major role to play in maintaining the stability and security of the region. I am overcome by time, but let me conclude by saying that we have a two-pronged approach to our defence capability-our own reliance and that of alliance. To think otherwise is to be intellectually very crude. It is an absolute imperative. The bringing of naval forces to Australia is, again, a reflection of our commitment to our alliances with the Americans, the British and others. Senator Schacht —Perhaps the Soviet navy can come along for the visit. Senator CRICHTON-BROWNE —Well, the Soviet navy does not have a ship here but it surely has rocket launchers and it surely has missile launchers sitting on the Indian aircraft carrier that is lying in the harbour. One should not imagine that the Soviets do not have a presence of some sort here. I believe that all Australians support the presence of the naval forces, the naval tasks, which have come here to participate with us, at our invitation, in our bicentennial year. Senator CHILDS(New South Wales)(6.06) —We are dealing with a motion from Senator Crichton-Browne that the Senate: . . . 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; 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 acknowledges that peace can only occur through security . . . The international naval review might reassure some people. I am certain that this visit has been successful in the terms of the motion. I think we should be thankful to have Senator Crichton-Browne in the Senate and that he is not Admiral of the Fleet because there is a danger that he and other people would be a threat under certain circumstances. Be that as it may, and although I think the motion is not serious in itself, it raises for any thinking person a very serious issue. We must look at the deeper issues that arise when naval ships of this type come to Australia. They remind us of the need to be concerned about the way we are going and the way the world is going, particularly with the development in the Pacific and Indian oceans of a naval arms race of alarming proportions. More attention, in a sober way, should be given to this problem. While `pacific' means peace, in recent years the United States and the Soviet Union have repeatedly accused each other of relentlessly expanding and modernising their military forces and presence in the Pacific region. Amitav Acharya, a research fellow at the Institute of South-East Asian Studies, has written about the military balance in the Pacific. Table 6, which gives details of the Pacific naval balance, is included in his article entitled `The United States Versus the USSR in the Pacific: Trends in the Military Balance'. This article was published in the Contemporary Southeast Asia journal of March 1988. I seek leave to have this table incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- TABLE 6 THE PACIFIC NAVAL BALANCE U.S. Soviet Union Principal Surface Combatants: - Aircraft carriers 6 2 - Battleships 2 0 - Cruisers 18 15 - Destroyers 29 161 - Frigates 46 552 Submarines: - Strategic 83 324 - Attack 43 905 - Amphibious 326 217 1 About 10 are obsolete gun-destroyers of Skory, Kotlin and Kildin classes. 2 About 30 are obsolete gun frigates of Riga, Grisha and Petya classes. 3 Ohio class SSBNs. Each carries 24 Trident missiles with a total of 192 warheads per boat. 4 Includes 16 Delta, 9 Yankee class SSBNs and 7 Golf class SSBs. 5 About half are nuclear-powered, 25 carry cruise missiles. 6 Includes 6 assault carriers, about 30,000 tons each. 7 Includes one Ivan Rogov class landing ship dock (LPD). Source: Statement by the Australian Minister of Defence in Federal Parliament, 26 February 1987; The Military Balance 1986/87 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1987); Jane's Defence Weekly, 27 June 1987; Time, 24 November 1986, p. 16; and U.S. Department of Defence, Soviet Military Power 1987 (Washington D.C., 1987). Senator CHILDS —The article concludes: The US strategy in the Pacific is focused on a vigorous build up of its Pacific fleet as part of a markedly offensive naval war fighting strategy aimed at ensuring the `containment' of the Soviet naval power at its source in the northern Pacific . . . the superpower military balance in the Pacific will continue to favour the United States for the foreseeable future. I believe that that is a fairly accurate assessment of the situation. We must ensure that in this area every effort is made to bring the superpowers to the conference table. The Australian Government has been very active at disarmament negotiations in the world forums. These efforts are recognised outside of Australia-and I refer to that specifically because, unfortunately, many Australians do not realise the good favour that Australia has for its role in nuclear disarmament negotiations. Like Senator Crichton-Browne, I have been to the United States and the Soviet Union this year. I am certain that the Australian Government has a very high reputation. Of course, the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty has encouraged confidence that new steps are possible in nuclear disarmament. I believe that the examination of nuclear disarmament requires that special attention now must be given to the critical role of naval warfare in the nuclear context. I was going to refer very briefly to the peace movement, but I feel that I have got to-- Senator Crichton-Browne —Give them a serve. Senator CHILDS —No, I will not give those people a serve because I know them too well. I appreciate the peace movement as a mass movement of ordinary Australians, comprising a cross-section of our society. It cannot be described as a movement supported by Soviet funds, as Senator Crichton-Browne would have us believe. I have no doubt that among the hundreds of thousands of people who participate in the Palm Sunday rally there would be someone who is sympathetic to the Soviet point of view. There is no question about that. However, I want to put on the record here, and even bring the voice of the peace movement into this chamber, if I can, by indicating that hundreds of thousands of Australians are involved-people with differing views, some of whom would not necessarily agree with me. They have different approaches as to how the problem can be solved. Many of them are very sober and sensible people trying to find a solution. Senator Bishop —All of us want peace-they do not have a monopoly. Senator CHILDS —Yes, but they have been attacked by Senator Crichton-Browne as being idiots and fools, and stooges of the Soviet Union, to coin a phrase. I have had some experience of this movement in my home city. I have seen it grow in the past decade. I have been involved as the convener of the nuclear disarmament coordinating committee, which is an umbrella organisation that facilitates the bringing together of the various organisations. I want to express the views of that committee, because only recently at its annual general meeting it adopted a theme for the next Palm Sunday rally, to be held in Sydney-and that is `Disarm the seas'. That was adopted as a concept for the next Palm Sunday rally. Senator Crichton-Browne —I suppose we will see them at Vladivostok. Senator CHILDS —Senator Crichton-Browne cannot help himself; he has got to believe that the whole thing is a communist plot. Having regard to the fact that 90,000 people marched in a rally in Sydney this year, I defy anybody to believe that these people are communist agents, stooges of the communists, or anything else. Of course, every imaginable slogan is expressed in that mass movement of people. Senator Bishop —All the people in this chamber are in favour of peace-no-one has a monopoly on it. Senator CHILDS —That is very good, and I certainly hope that that is the case. I know that the all-party committees on disarmament have had very successful meetings. That is fine, and I certainly hope that that activity continues. However, I want to take up the challenge for ordinary people-not the experts, not politicians and not people who are favoured in society-to express their concern. And they do. In particular, once a year some 100,000 people come out to express their views-and there are many different views. I am getting excited like Senator Crichton-Browne and I am getting off the point, and I will take longer than I mean to if I go into too much detail. However, ordinary people at various levels are expressing a view. For example, in adopting a slogan such as `Disarm the seas', some of them will understand that at a very superficial level, seeing it as just something they want to achieve, but many others will now start to work at solving the problem. As Australia is surrounded by the seas, particularly the Indian and Pacific oceans, that is the way that the peace movement is going. It is not an organisation with only one voice-and that is the point I am making. In berating the peace movement, Senator Crichton-Browne is just showing how ignorant he is of the movement that he is attacking. I intended to spend some time drawing attention to another matter which is thrown up by the visits of warships to our shores, particularly to Sydney Harbour. I am aware of the work that the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is doing in conducting its inquiry into the adequacy of current contingency planning by Federal and State authorities to deal with the accidental release of ionising radiation from visiting nuclear-powered or armed vessels in Australian waters and ports. I look forward to the report because I am very concerned about the danger, no matter how unlikely a nuclear accident in Sydney Harbour may be. There will be a danger in other ports or harbours, but I confine my remarks to Sydney Harbour. Senator Robert Ray indicated in response to a question asked this week during Question Time that the Government had at an embryo stage plans regarding nuclear-capable ships. He indicated in his reply that the Government is looking at plans similar to the proposals for nuclear-powered warships. I express some concern about the dangers that exist, no matter how remote. I am informed that there is a 10,000 to one chance of an accident per year. That is the order of the threat. A Lloyds of London analysis shows that, for ships over 7,000 tonnes, 30 per cent of accidents occur in rivers and harbours, more than 50 per cent in coastal waters and only 10 per cent on the high seas over 25 miles from the coast. When we consider the danger of terrorism, sabotage or a whole range of other things which we do not normally think of, we realise that we have a problem. In Sydney Harbour, in the case of a nuclear accident a safe berth would be a remote berth. Unfortunately all the planning has been done on the basis of what can be done in four hours. The reality is that the child thyroid dose limit is 150 rems. That limit would be reached in two hours in the worst sort of example. The only base which would have the minimum safety requirement of a five-kilometre radius would be Jervis Bay. So there are a great number of problems associated with Sydney Harbour. I do not want to take all of the time to which I am entitled. However, I should point out that the three major berths in Sydney Harbour are the oil wharf at Garden Island, No. 2 Naval Buoy and Athol Bight dolphins. Within the danger area surrounding at least two of these berths-Garden Island and No. 2 Naval Buoy-are 40 schools, a number of hospitals and child-care places and establishments. So the problem is immense in terms of evacuating these areas should an accident occur. I think most people know the Elizabeth Bay area in Sydney in which Garden Island is located. When we consider that half a million people work and live in the central business district of Sydney and that the prevailing winds are from the north and east for 50 per cent of the time, we can see the real danger that accidents on nuclear-powered, armed or capable ships present to the population of Sydney. I could make out an argument in some detail of the dangers that exist. I think the other side of the issue is the concern that people have about their harbour. Many people-and this happened this week-have expressed a genuine concern for the harbour. Even more importantly, they have a genuine concern for life. They are genuine in their desire not only to make a symbolic protest about nuclear-capable warships but also to express their concern that nuclear-powered ships should not come into our harbour. Other countries which do not allow nuclear-powered ships to enter their harbours are just as loyal as Australia is to the United States alliance. Senator DUNN(New South Wales)(6.21) —In addressing Senator Crichton-Browne's motion, I would like to begin by asking the honourable senator a rhetorical question. If he really believes that deploying nuclear missiles encourages disarmament, as he claims has occurred in Europe, does he believe that Australia should obtain nuclear weapons and deploy them in Darwin to encourage peaceful relations with Indonesia? I do not really expect a reply from the honourable senator. I would like to let him know that not everyone welcomes naval vessels to Australian ports and certainly not everyone welcomes nuclear-armed vessels to our ports. Not everyone welcomes the idea of about 200 Hiroshimas floating into Sydney Harbour this week for the naval salute. The public opinion poll conducted by the international market research company, Frank Small and Associates, has shown that those Australians who do have an opinion are about two to one against the visits of nuclear-armed ships. There are very good reasons for their opposition to the visits of these vessels. Senator Crichton-Browne —I invite you to get in the queue. You will be a week getting onto the ships. Senator DUNN —I have already been on board some of the ships. I received hospitality from the American captain of the Ingersoll and his crew. I am certainly not anti-American by any means. But I am very much opposed to nuclear weapons. I am not funded by the Soviets; I am paid by the Federal Government. There are very good reasons why such ships should not come to this country. One of the reasons which most concern the Australian population and which should concern every responsible member of the Government of Australia is the very devastating consequence of an accident in one of our harbours. The Australian Ionizing and Radiation Advisory Council, in evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, gave evidence of the most likely scenario. Senator Childs has referred to the number of accidents which have occurred in our ports. While the likelihood is certainly remote, the consequences are so devastating that finally the Federal Government has acknowledged the necessity of planning for such an accident. The state of planning in Australia at the moment is really dismal. In fact, it is a national scandal. Even the United States Navy acknowledges the need to plan for such an accident. About a month ago the New York City Council released a plan dealing with a nuclear-armed vessel accident in the Port of New York harbour. Who better to help the New York City Council in developing such a plan than the United States Navy because, of course, the United States Navy would know about such accidents. We do not because of the secrecy surrounding such matters. Originally the Department of Defence told the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, of which I am a member, that there was no need to plan for such a weapons accident in Australia. Last week, when I was in Brisbane visiting the State emergency services, I was told that in fact the Department of Defence had changed its mind and had indeed prepared guidelines for such a draft plan to deal with accidents on board nuclear-armed vessels visiting Australia. This week Mr Beazley, the Minister for Defence, said in the 7.30 Report: Accidents do not happen on board these ships that come into Australian harbours. Senator Tate —I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable senator to complete the quotation to make it quite clear that Mr Beazley was not as confined as that quote indicates. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! There is no point of order. Senator DUNN —As a matter of courtesy, I inform the Minister that that is the complete quote and I have the transcript with me. Senator Tate —Give me the transcript. I will give the quote. Senator DUNN —The Minister is welcome to have it. As I said, the United States Navy certainly sees the need for planning for such an accident. I wonder whether Mr Beazley has access to more information than the United States Navy. I do not think he does. The situation in New York is identical to Sydney. There is no movement of weapons in New York harbour. There is no storage of weapons anywhere other than on the ships. Senator Schacht —There is no storage in Sydney Harbour. Senator DUNN —That is exactly what I am saying; they are on the ships. The situation is the same in New York as it is in Sydney Harbour. Senator Crichton-Browne —Where would you like them, my love? Senator DUNN —I do not think I can say. Senator Tate —Do they allow nuclear-powered warships in New York harbour? Senator DUNN —No. As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which has been examining contingency planning for accidents on board nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed warships visiting Australia, I am really appalled that the Department of Defence has not seen fit to give us a copy of the guidelines of this particular plan, neither has the New South Wales Government seen fit to give us the plan that it suddenly came up with this week. I do not imagine that our report can be at all comprehensive or complete without access to these particular plans. Certainly, I do not think that we will be in a position to advise the Australian Government or the Australian people of the adequacy of existing planning if we do not take these particular plans into account. The other point I wish to mention about these plans is that they are top secret. There is absolutely no reason for these plans to be secret except for the fact that they include personal phone numbers of the personnel involved in the evacuation procedures and the other emergency procedures. It is very easy to take a page out of the plan and then make that plan public-as the New York plan was made public-for full comment. It is only when all the emergency services, the unions and the public know what is contained in the plan and know what they have to do in the event of an emergency that we can really be sure of having an adequate plan. Let us take the New South Wales plan. This week Premier Greiner announced that he had such a plan but he said he was not going to release it. Honourable senators should look at the history in New South Wales for planning to cope with such an accident. Premiers Wran and Unsworth told the Committee that there was no plan for a nuclear weapons accident. Mr Paciullo, the former Minister for Police and Emergency Services, told the New South Wales Parliament that there was a plan called Plan Point Piper to deal specifically with an accident on board a nuclear-armed vessel in Sydney Harbour. During the most recent New South Wales election the present Minister for Environment, Tim Moore, told the Parliament that the coalition Government would release the plan if elected. When it was elected the Minister for Police and Emergency Services, Mr Pickering, immediately withdrew the plan before it was made public and said that there was no need for one. Why did he withdraw it? He withdrew it because the contents were completely unsatisfactory and in no way resembled anything like an emergency plan. Last week the New South Wales Attorney-General, John Dowd, announced the existence of a plan to deal with such accidents. That too is still secret. That plan has not been given to the Committee. With such a history in New South Wales is it any wonder that Sydney citizens feel a little apprehensive about their Government's ability to deal with an accident in Sydney Harbour? It is irresponsible of both the Federal and New South Wales governments to allow these ships into the harbour without an adequate plan in place, to allow thousands of people to go aboard these ships and to allow these ships to be tied up in berths where there is no easy access for them to be towed away. It is really irresponsible to expose so many Sydney citizens and visitors to Sydney to such a risk. Senator Puplick —That is why they are demonstrating in their herds, rather than lining up to get on the ships and meet the visiting sailors! Senator DUNN —I point out to the honourable senator that while thousands may visit the ships thousands more stay at home. These ships also become nuclear targets in times of conflict. In the nuclear age we cannot and do not have the same definitions of wartime and peacetime as applied 40 or 50 years ago. With nuclear technology the lead time in firing weapons is only minutes away. A conflict in another part of the world can bring these ships into war service immediately and from that time on they can be targets. The Federal Government has recognised that there are sites in Australia which would become targets for the Soviet Union in the event of a conflict. That is why the Natural Disasters Organisation is planning for an attack on Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator DUNN —As I said before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, these ships could easily become nuclear targets. The Government has already recognised that the three United States bases in Australia-Pine Gap, Nurrungar and North West Cape-are possible subjects of Soviet attack and has instructed the Natural Disasters Organisation to prepare accident plans, namely, evacuation plans, in the event of attack on those three places. It must be recognised that, in a nuclear age, the lead time is so short when nuclear weapons are fired and delivered that no bases are safe. The ships fall into the same category as the bases: they will become objects of attack. They are not safe simply because the conditions under which we allow them to enter have been described as peacetime conditions. Senator Crichton-Browne's motion calls for the development and maintenance of a strong navy for both Australia and our allies. If he were in the chamber I would ask him what he means by the word `strong'. Does it really mean that we should support the rapid escalation of the nuclear arms race at sea? Does it really mean that we should support the decision by our ally, the United States, to deploy 3,994 naval Cruise missiles by 1992, including 758 nuclear missiles? Those Tomahawk Cruise missiles are aboard the United States ships, the New Jersey and the Ingersoll, which are currently in Sydney, having been invited here by the Federal Government. These missiles, and their Soviet equivalent, are currently the major obstacle to a new strategic arms control agreement. They are very difficult to verify because the nuclear and the ordinary versions of the missiles look the same. One would have to open them up in order to tell the difference. The United States resisted negotiating limits on these sea-launched Cruise missiles. Does the Government support that position? If so, is it acting in the interests of Australia or in the interests of the United States? Surely the Government and the Opposition would not argue that everything the United States does is automatically in Australia's interests. Why do we have to accept the United States and the United Kingdom policy of `neither confirm nor deny'? Everybody knows that these ships carry nuclear weapons. Retired United States admirals have given evidence in congressional hearings in the United States that where they are nuclear-capable they will carry those weapons. United States Rear Admiral La Rocque stated: Any ship capable of carrying nuclear weapons, carries nuclear weapons. They do not off load them when they go into foreign ports. If they are capable of carrying them, they normally keep them aboard ship at all times. That is because it is well recognised that increased dangers will occur if these weapons are transferred from one ship to another or from ship to port. Commander Alan Robertson, formerly the captain of HMAS Melbourne-honourable senators will remember the terrible disaster in which the Melbourne was involved-acknowledged at a public meeting last Monday that these ships carry nuclear weapons. The Federal and New South Wales governments have virtually admitted that the ships are carrying nuclear weapons by preparing accident plans to deal with an accident on board. The policy of neither confirming nor denying that a ship is carrying nuclear weapons is a farce and should not be tolerated by a country which is supposedly committed to nuclear disarmament. The Government's attitude to the visits of nuclear-armed ships is symptomatic of its inability to take the hard decisions on disarmament. What does one say to a friend who brings lethal weapons to one's birthday party? One tells him to leave the weapons at home and that he will then be welcome but that, if he is not prepared to leave them at home, he is not welcome. Although the likelihood of a nuclear accident is only very small, the consequences are devastating. In the event of such an accident with a nuclear warhead of five kilograms, a city such as Sydney would be devastated by the resulting fire and the spread of plutonium particles in the atmosphere. Professor Jackson-Davis, who gave evidence before a Senate standing committee, estimated that up to 11,000 latent cancer fatalities could occur. The only real response to such an accident is to get away from it as soon as possible. However, governments can minimise the damage by developing adequate accident plans to deal with such a tragedy. I hope that I will never be in a position to tell this chamber, `I told you so'. Senator MacGIBBON(Queensland)(8.05) —The motion before the Senate, which has been moved by Senator Noel Crichton-Browne, reads: 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. I have much pleasure in supporting the motion. Two honourable senators have spoken basically against the motion. The approach of Senator Childs could only be defined as an anti-United States approach. If he is against the United States it follows automatically that he is against the Western alliance. In the time that Senator Childs has been a member of this chamber, this is the first occasion on which I have heard him claim membership of and support for the peace movement. He has never talked about that before, although it is well known that he has been associated with extreme Left causes and other front organisations operating behind the peace banner. I am concerned that the peace movement is moving behind the slogan `Disarm the seas'. If there is one thing that will have a major influence on Australia's peace and security it is any move by the peace movement to restrict the growth or the deployment of sea-borne forces, because so much of the free world's trade turns on ocean passage. The ability to keep the sea lanes of communications free is absolutely fundamental to our continued survival. Senator Dunn, a representative of the Nuclear Disarmament Party before she was expelled-I do not know which party she stands for now-opened her speech with a very silly proposition that somehow Australia should buy nuclear weapons and site them in Darwin, whereby we would have peace with Indonesia. As someone who spends quite a while in Indonesia, I do not believe that relationships with Indonesia are anywhere near that level of difficulty. I am afraid that I cannot follow the logic of siting in Darwin nuclear weapons targeted against Indonesia -- Senator Tambling —Neither can I. Senator MacGIBBON —Neither can Senator Tambling, who happens to live in Darwin. Senator Dunn was misleading the Senate with her quotation from a pseudo-research organisation, another peace front organisation supported by the Soviets, with respect to Australian support for the banning of nuclear weapons. The sole point of accuracy in Senator Dunn's speech was when she talked about the difficulty of identification of sea-launched Cruise missiles. I do not wish to spend the limited time available to me debating sea-launched Cruise missiles, but I would draw Senator Dunn's attention to the fact that in a nuclear world and, therefore, a dangerous world, the slower and the more detectable a weapons delivery system is the safer it is, because it can be both detected and intercepted. I would much prefer the Soviets to be armed with sea-launched Cruise missiles than with the horrendous intercontinental ballistic missile armoury they have. We simply have no effective warning time when they are launched. The sea-launched Cruise missile is a reduced threat, and the fact that the Americans have chosen to go down this path-and the Soviets also to some degree-is a matter for support, not for criticism. The point that Senator Dunn was correct on is the detection of these missiles. It is very hard to detect stored weapons and to run any verification on which ships are carrying them and which are not. A ship might be capable of carrying sea-launched Cruise missiles, but as to actually proving whether those weapons are on board, the verification, which is always involved in arms control procedures, becomes extremely difficult. A ship could be searched and it could rendezvous with another ship later on, a day or so later, or a submarine, and arm with those missiles. I will come later in my speech to the strategic arms reduction talks and how the sea-launched Cruise missiles are one of the sticking points in that discussion. Senator Dunn was quite wrong to attribute to Commodore Alan Robertson the command of HMAS Melbourne. I think from memory that the commander of HMAS Melbourne at the time of the accident was a Robertson. It certainly was not Alan Robertson, who is known to me. In all, Senator Dunn's approach to it was the usual sort of unintellectual, unilateral disarmament, pacifist stuff that we have heard for the years that we have been listening to the peace movement. The first part of Senator Crichton-Browne's motion welcomes more than 40 ships to Australia. As an Australian I find it grossly discourteous that some people should take it upon themselves to be rude and to threaten the visitors who have come here at the invitation of the Australian Government. These visitors have made a great effort to come here. One country, Nigeria, simply did not have the money to sail one of its ships to Australia. I presume that it sent its crew in by air. Every nation coming here has been involved at the very least in hundreds of thousands of dollars and, in the case of the United States and Britain, millions of dollars, in sending those ships to Australia. They have done that out of the respect they have for Australia and the people of Australia. We have an obligation to give them the hospitality for which this country is famous-not abuse and not the vilification that some of the uninformed members of this community have given them. It is a relatively rare event. Fleet reviews occur around the world very infrequently. It is of historical moment that we have more than 40 ships here-I think it was 50 ships on the latest count-which have come to help us celebrate this great event in our history. The second point of Senator Crichton-Browne's motion deals with the development of goodwill between nations. We have over 17,000 sailors in Sydney. The opportunity is rarely given to the service men and women of a large number of nations-20 or 30 nations-to come together. The element of human contact that the international naval review in Sydney this week provides is not to be lightly set aside, because at the end of the day, if we are concerned about peace-and we all are-it basically gets down to human relations. All the horrible weapons, all the nuclear weapons that we dislike so intensely, are not the cause of the trouble between the various nations and groups of the world; they are but the symptoms of it. The opportunity for 17,000 men and women in Sydney this week, coming from a range of different countries, with different governments, social systems and cultures, to meet in the bars, in the parks and over meals in Sydney is not, as I have said, lightly to be set aside. The final part of the second part of Senator Crichton-Browne's motion deals with the fostering of a lasting world peace. If we look back over the history of recorded time, we find a frightening number of wars. I forget what the actual figure is, but it is of the magnitude that in the last 3,000 years there have probably been only something like 300 years where peace has reigned completely around the globe. This century that we live in has been characterised by two really massive world wars. The point I would make is that conventional arms have never ever kept the peace. In the 43 years that nuclear arms have existed in the world we have kept the peace. Whether or not we like that difficult and dangerous role that we have in the nuclear age, we cannot deny the argument that the presence and the careful management of nuclear weapons has given us a freedom from a world war and I believe will continue to give us freedom provided we continue an intelligent and careful monitoring of what we are doing. The third part of Senator Crichton-Browne's motion deals with the maintenance of peace. That is a matter of great complexity. We could be forgiven in here for thinking that somehow or other peace and war were as simple as throwing a light switch-black and white. In reality, it is a matter of enormous complexity. The whole subject of international relationships is not measurable in simple terms. I think the Vietnam war illustrated very clearly the way one cannot see matters in purely military terms. The failure of the Vietnam war came, when the North invaded the South, in not recognising the political complexity of the argument that was involved. Military involvement was essential because the South was being invaded by the North and that could not be countered by any political means. But a political war as intensely fought as a military war was essential if the South was going to be kept free. Most of the situations that exist around the world of conflicts between nations are extremely complex. They require a great deal of work and a great deal of understanding. Knee-jerk reactions will not solve them, either with slick political fixes or with slick military fixes. Some breakdowns can be prevented by intense diplomatic activity. Sometimes that diplomatic activity has to be supported by military force, or the readiness to use military force to back it up, because at the end of the day foreign policy turns very much on being seen to be able to enforce it. But we have to recognise that some conflicts around the world are insoluble. It does not matter what level of diplomatic understanding and effort is put into them or what level of military involvement is put into them, they are never going to be resolved, because they are basically, for want of a better word, cultural in nature. Some of the problems in the Middle East are quite insoluble. The best that the other nations of the world can do is to exert what influence they can to damp the situation down and create some stability. But one has to recognise that at the end of the day there are those difficulties that simply cannot be prevented from erupting from time to time. The important thing is that they can be localised into small, discrete parts of the world. They need not involve the whole of mankind in a World War III. Part of the prevention of major conflagrations certainly rests with the armed services. Everyone in Australia owes an enormous debt to service men and women of all the countries of the Western democracies for the sacrifices they have made in their personal lifestyles and at times for the risks they have run in keeping the world free from a major war in the last 43 years. I go back to the point I made about five minutes ago. Conventional weapons have never kept the peace in the past, it is only the existence of nuclear weapons which has given us that freedom from major conflagration and which will go on keeping us in peace in the foreseeable future. No-one likes nuclear weapons. I do not like them, no-one in this chamber likes them. The risks in possessing them are enormous. We have never had weapons with such total destructive power, but we cannot unlearn nuclear physics, we are stuck with it. We certainly cannot preach a doctrine of total freedom, of the total abolition of nuclear weapons. We have far too many nuclear weapons. But we certainly can make very deep and significant cuts in the armouries of all the nuclear nations. That is, of course, the aim of the Western democracies, and has been for quite a few years-mutual, balanced reductions of nuclear arsenals to the minimal levels required to preserve Western democracies from a strike from the Soviets or any other Third World power which might acquire them. The resolute approach that the Western nations have taken with nuclear deterrence has paid dividends. It was only last year that we had the enormously significant achievement of the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) agreement. All the INF weapons were removed or are in the process of being removed from the European theatre, and from the Asian theatre where the Soviets had some deployed. That agreement would never have been possible if the Americans had not had the ability and the determination to deploy the Pershing II missiles and the ground- launched Cruise missiles in Europe. It was when those weapons were actually deployed in the ground and the Russians were looking at a counterstrike capability which matched their own that they decided it was time to negotiate. Those negotiations have been successful. I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago and the view at the highest levels in the strategic arms division is that the Soviets are honouring the agreement to the letter, just as the Americans are. That is of great significance because it is the first time we have seen the abolition of a whole class of weapons, but it is of even greater significance in so far as for the first time the Soviets have permitted on-site verification. The stumbling block on all arms reduction and arms limitation talks has always been the matter of verification, of knowing precisely what one's opponent has. The great breakthrough of the INF talks was the fact that the Soviets and the Americans agreed to allow, with effectively no warning at all, inspection teams to look at their opposing arsenals. The next round of negotiations is the strategic arms reduction talks, the START talks. For reasons that are not clear the Soviets are not prepared to proceed purposefully with the talks at this stage. But in general what we are talking about with the START talks is very big reductions in strategic nuclear weapons-of the order of 50 per cent of warheads-which is quite dramatic. It will leave the world, in my judgment, still with a great excess of strategic weapons, but as a first move it is very significant. But there are two sticking points. The first is that the Soviets want the sea-launched Cruise missiles (SLCMs) eliminated and the Americans will not cooperate on that point. Secondly, the Soviets want to maintain mobile inter-continental ballistic missiles and they have already deployed the first mobile ICBM system in the world. The Americans do not like mobile systems because, just like the SLCMs, they are hard to verify. My judgment on it is that both of them will yield on those points. The Soviets will pass on the sea-launched Cruise missiles because they will recognise that verification on them is impossible, and similarly the Americans will pass on the mobile ICBMs. The Americans are ready to negotiate on this and we could see dramatic progress on these talks if only the Soviets would come to the table with the determination to see it through. I believe we could see as rapid a resolution of that problem as we saw with the INF. This is important because it fits in with the general theme of my speech tonight. I believe we have too many nuclear weapons. We have to work in every avenue we can towards reducing them. But what we could never do is go down the pacifist path, the unilateral disarmers path, of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, because it is simply unreal to believe that the Soviets, the United States, Britain, France and even China will ever put themselves in a position where they could be blackmailed by the possibility of a surprise attack. So we will always have some level of nuclear weapons, but I hope we can reach a position in 10 years' time where we will have far fewer weapons than we have today. There is room for optimism that there has been some change in the Soviet negotiating position. If there is a change in the Soviet position that will be more than matched by the Western democracies to accommodate any reduction in the Soviet nuclear force. Whilst Mr Gorbachev is a very different kettle of fish to his predecessors, one still has to look at the actions of the Soviets as opposed to their words. There is room for cautious optimism but the Western democracies still have to maintain their care and their caution. Every 37 days the Soviets are commissioning a new nuclear submarine. They are building more tanks, more aircraft and more artillery weapons every week than the West builds in a month or several months. Their expenditure on armaments is about 15 per cent of what is quite a large gross domestic product and their real expenditure on defence is way beyond that 15 per cent level, far in excess of any levels ever reached in the Western democracies. Not only is the Soviet Government very active in nuclear weapons and conventional weapons, but also it has the biggest arsenal of chemical weapons in the world. We hear a great deal from the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmers about nuclear weapons, but from a personal point of view I think chemical weapons are every bit as horrendous as nuclear weapons. In many ways they are far more dangerous because they involve very low levels of technology, they are cheap and, as we have seen in the Iran-Iraq war, they can have absolutely devastating effects. One matter which I find very disturbing about the Iran-Iraq conflict is that there was good evidence presented that Iraq was using chemical weapons. Senator Puplick —Irrefutable evidence. Senator MacGIBBON —Irrefutable evidence, as Senator Puplick says. Where was the community protest? I do not expect anything from the blinkered vision of the Australian Democrats or the nuclear disarm- ament people. However, I am disturbed that the great mass of people in the West raised no comment at all about the horrors of what was going on in Iraq. I really have reservations as to where we are going if the use of chemical weapons, as they have been used in the last year or two in the Persian Gulf area, passes without comment. I am old enough to remember a lot of men who served in the First World War and who were subjected to and crippled by gas attack, which, essentially, is the type of chemical warfare that was used in Iraq. I find it disturbing that we can go back those 70-odd years to the horrors of the First World War and let the use of chemical weapons in Iraq pass without comment. I think that those people who are concerned about nuclear weapons and stridently preach unilateral disarmament should broaden their horizons, educate themselves slightly and discover the horrors of chemical weapons. Finally, I come to the discourteous behaviour of the protest movement to our guests in this country this week. I am appalled that people should behave so badly. Democracies are concerned with the rights of minorities. While those in the lunatic fringe certainly are a minority, they are definitely entitled to their right to protest, to get their point across, to meet and to put their view to the public. But they are not entitled to hazard the lives of sailors on ships and other users of the harbour. It is absolutely untenable to have people in canoes moving into the path of ships which have very restricted mobility in confined waterways. It is just the height of stupidity. They might be valueless human beings intrinsically, but even their lives are worth something. To put themselves between the ships and the wharves in their path is just the height of stupidity. Above all, we have visiting us people who have come from all around the world. They have come out of respect for Australia, they have come specifically at our invitation. What do we get? We get a bunch of stupid, uneducated, uninformed people who, instead of standing aside and writing letters to the captains of ships or to the newspapers, instead of hiring a hall or a truck or holding a meeting on a street corner and spreading the word that way, take direct action against the crews of these ships. On behalf of the Australian people I apologise for the behaviour of those few misguided, miserable, uninformed and utterly reprehensible members of my country who behave in this way. In closing my remarks I would like to put the point of view of the other side. I have been talking to a number of senior British and American servicemen during the last two or three weeks. In talking about this visit to Australia they expressed great concern that somehow or other some of these demonstrators might be injured. I found that quite embarrassing. Here were people at the level of generals and admirals in other countries who wanted to come to Australia, to do the right thing and to help Australia to celebrate, yet were genuinely worried that some of the protesters might be hurt and that some of the tug crews might be on strike. The whole matter gets quite out of perspective. By all means let these people go to Redfern, Balmain or those parts of Sydney where they naturally come from; let them wallow where they grew up; let them, if they like, write to the Sydney Morning Herald; but, for goodness sake, let them try to acquire some elements of decency and courtesy towards our guests. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Order! The time allocated for General Business has expired. Debate resumed. Senator SHEIL(Queensland)(8.35) —When this debate was interrupted I was speaking both in anger and in sorrow at the action of the Federal Government in putting an additional barrier between patients and their treatment, particularly with regard to preventive medicine. The Government speaks with high energy about its contribution to preventive medicine and considers that it is taking enormous strides in that area. It does not see how illogical it is to put another barrier between the patients and the preventive care which can be obtained with the 53 drugs which the Government proposes to put back on the restricted list. Further, I cannot condone or understand, nor do I see any extenuation, palliation or excuse for it, the attitude of the Australian Democrats in regard to the Opposition's disallowance motion concerning these 53 drugs. Just yesterday one of the Australian Democrats gave a notice of motion indicating that he was going to move a motion to promote preventive health care in Australia. Yet he got up and spoke in favour of the Government's action in putting these drugs on a more restricted regime for patient access. It just so happens that this afternoon some papers from the Australian Medical Association (AMA) crossed my table. It is too much for me to ask that the papers be incorporated in Hansard, but I seek leave to table them. Leave not granted. Senator SHEIL —Leave is not granted to table the papers? What a miserable attitude. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Senator Sheil, you asked for leave; it has not been granted. Senator SHEIL —Very well, Mr Acting Deputy President. Enclosed with the letter from the AMA was some additional information. The first enclosure was a newspaper advertisement from the Western Australian Labor Minister for Health urging a review of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme (PBS) changes. The second was an article from the Medical Journal of Australia headed `Pharmaceutical Benefits System: time for radical surgery'-which, I interpolate, it is-and written by Professor John Shaw of the University of Sydney. The third enclosure was a letter dated 2 September 1988 to all AMA members containing the Association's reasons for opposing these changes, and the fourth was a letter dated 2 December 1985 from the Commonwealth Department of Health informing the AMA that the Government would reduce the paperwork associated with the PBS. Also attached was a press release dated 19 November 1985 announcing this `deregulation'. The fifth and final attachment was a press release from the Minister for Housing and Aged Care (Mr Staples) dated 18 June 1988 announcing the new impositions. I am very sorry that the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook) does not want to have access to these papers because they indicate in no small way the opposition to the Government's action in further restricting access to these medications. Admittedly, once the Government realised the enormity of its mistake in restricting these drugs it took action to try to overcome the effects of what it has done-in true bureaucratic style, I might add. It introduced a 24-hour telephone service by means of which doctors could apply to get access to the drugs for their patients. That would be at no small cost, by the way. It introduced free postal arrangements so that there would be no imposition on doctors making applications to prescribe the drugs, and it introduced special arrangements for pharmacists to make access to the drugs easier. The Government used these and other unsavoury tactics rather than free up the use of these drugs. The Minister has said that he is going to approve all applications for the drugs anyway. Surely honourable senators can see how senseless it is to cause at least three million more applications to have to be processed every year when the Government has decided to approve them all. Why introduce such a ridiculous scheme? The remark was made during the debate that the Opposition was trying to prolong the debate for some obscure reason. That is not true. The number of speakers from this side of the House is merely an indication of the importance of the need to reject this measure. The drugs involved are virtually disease specific and would not be used for other diseases. For example, it is no use giving drugs that are specifically intended for use in the treatment of cancer patients to people who have epilepsy or arthritis. The drugs for other conditions such as diabetes, cardiac arrhythymia, high cholesterol or high blood pressure are specific for those disorders. It is also unlikely that doctors would be prescribing these drugs willy-nilly to cause a burgeoning of the pharmaceutical benefits system when they are all state of the art medications, disease specific, to which in most cases there are no alternatives. The idea of the Government is purely to create a nuisance to doctors, under the guise of making them think a little bit more about the cost of the medication that they are prescribing. Why would a doctor want to be overusing these drugs when they are manufactured for a specific purpose? They have fewer side effects than the older medications. The new drugs are superior. They are safer. In many cases there are no alternatives to them. This applies particularly to the anti-cancer drugs. To suggest that a doctor should have to think twice about the use of an anti-cancer drug or even consider the use of surgery instead of drugs is the height of ignorance. I mentioned earlier-I did not have time to expand on it-the fact that the Australian Medical Association had been willing all along to consult with the Government about what alterations should be made to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In fact, the AMA is willing to have a complete revamp of the system because it has become so unwieldy. But the AMA was not consulted at any stage about these alterations, nor were any of the other parts of the organised medical profession. These include rheumatology, cardiology, oncology and diabetes. All the areas in which these drugs are used have specialised departments within the organised medical profession. I am sure all those organisations would have been willing to assist the Government in deciding what alterations should be made to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. But the Government chose not to do that. It chose a monetary leveller, set at $30, and gave instructions to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to put restrictions on any drugs over $30. That is why the Government has finished up in this illogical position and is trying to defend it as if it is not restricting the availability of drugs to patients. If doctors have to apply to a bureaucrat for permission to prescribe the drugs, there is the possibility that the bureaucrat will refuse permission and that will cause additional delays. The fact that the Government has later said, `We are going to ratify all applications' makes no difference. The application still has to be made and the opportunity is there for some bureaucrat to refuse it or to delay the provision of treatment to patients. This whole shemozzle results from the Government's unfulfillable promise to provide a free, fair and equitable health care system, the best system of health care delivery in the world. The Government has found that it cannot possibly deliver on that promise. The Government has had a campaign vilifying doctors, the pharmaceutical companies and even patients. It has sought to make out that doctors are willing to prescribe these drugs in an offhanded way in order to qualify for overseas trips. There has been no end of red herrings drawn across the trail, across the fact that if this regulation is passed it will make access to drugs for patients just that little bit more difficult. That is a heinous way to treat people. It is almost cruel and inhuman. Even though the Government says that patients are not going to be denied the drugs, there will be an additional obstacle in the way of their prescription. At this stage, Mr Acting Deputy President, I reapply to have the papers I mentioned before tabled in the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT(Senator Morris) —Is there any objection? Senator Puplick —Mr Acting Deputy President, could I clarify with you whether the honourable senator needs leave to table a paper or whether he has a right to table it without seeking permission or leave? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I believe he does need leave. I have taken advice from the Clerk, who advises me that leave must be granted. Is leave granted? Senator Cook —No. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Leave is not granted. Senator SHEIL —If the Government does not wish to be edified about the degree of opposition there is to the measure, that is further evidence of the illogical position that it is taking. This kind of refusal of leave to table information for the use of honourable senators is what I would expect from a Fabian socialist such as the Minister sitting-- The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Sheil is making a very interesting contribution, and I should like him to continue with it. I am listening very carefully. Senator SHEIL —Where did I go wrong? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —The honourable senator was sidetracked by the Minister. Senator SHEIL —I am sorry I was sidetracked by that Fabian socialist, the Minister. I can understand that he does not wish to be edified by this information. The Government has accused the AMA of sabotaging this move by the Government, which the Government claims to be responsible economic policy but which is very irresponsible health policy. The AMA can hardly be accused of sabotaging the exercise when it was not consulted. That is why the AMA is circulating the information that I have here. Probably the Government's refusal of leave to have it tabled is an effort to prevent it becoming widely available. However, I can ensure that it has wide circulation and the Government will be exposed for the exercise it is perpetrating upon the patients of Australia. I do not know whether the Government is aware of the mounting opposition to its proposal to restrict these 53 prescription drugs that are specific for severe diseases in Australia, but opposition is now coming from within its own Caucus and it is refusing to recognise even that. There is certainly opposition from patient organisations and consumer organisations, as well as from the AMA and other areas of the organised profession in Australia. Why does the Government not take notice of all this opposition when the position it has adopted is absolutely illogical and inconsistent? If it maintains that it is here to institute a major program of preventative medicine in Australia using organisations such as the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Better Health Commission and the work force organisations, why would it put up an obstacle preventing the prescription of these drugs? It is illogical. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that the Democrats are supporting the Government on this issue. It is with sorrow and anger that I stand up and oppose the measures the Government is taking. They were announced in the May economic statement, when the Government took this giant leap thinking, I presume, that it was cost cutting, which is the end result of these munificent promises. It has said that it will give the best health service in the world to Australia. Finding that it cannot deliver on that promise, it has to restrict the service. There are many ways to restrict the service, but to restrict this part is absolutely ridiculous, particularly when one thinks that the end result, the cost of not treating these diseases, will be a lot more than the cost of preventing them. Yet the Government is trying to maintain that its position is sound in the face of heavy and mounting opposition. We in the Opposition are left bereft of ideas as to why the Government, assisted by the Democrats, should persist with this inconsistent and illogical attitude towards putting another block between the patients and their medication. Again, I make another plea to table the information that I have mentioned before. Senator Cook —Leave is granted. Perhaps the same courtesy can be guaranteed to us next time by Senator Chaney. Leave granted. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.52) —in reply-I rise to conclude this debate. It has been an extremely long debate because of the importance the Opposition attaches to the issue that is before the chamber at the moment. I start therefore by thanking those of my colleagues who have participated in this debate and who have made contributions ranging over a very wide spectrum of interests as far as the operation of the nation's pharmaceutical benefits scheme and system is concerned. Both the Minister for Resources (Senator Cook), the responsible Minister, and Senator Crowley have not in any sense sought to conceal the fact that the Government's decisions in this regard have been primarily based upon an attempt to control costs within the pharmaceutical benefits system. The Opposition has no argument with the Government about the general necessity to curtail government costs and government expenditure. It is, however, a matter of priorities. It is a matter of deciding whether the cost saving, or the reduction in government expenditure that is proposed by this device, is justified when there are other areas from which the Government could be making substantial cuts in public expenditure. For example, the Government could have saved $46m by not conducting the referendum campaigns, which were overwhelmingly defeated in all the States. It could have saved money by winding up that Government propaganda outfit-the National Media Liaison Service, as it is formally called. However, it has chosen to make the sick and the elderly in particular bear the disproportionate cost of reduction in government expenditure through this device. As I say, it is freely admitted by Senator Cook and those who have supported him-Senator Crowley and Senator Coates-that it is primarily a cost cutting exercise. It is not an exercise related to the better health care of Australians; it is an exercise related to control of government expenditure. We see the pharmaceutical benefits system being used not as a device to bring about a particular health outcome but as a device to bring about a particular economic outcome. We reject that approach. In the first instance, it becomes very difficult to identify where substantial saving is likely to be made. One of two things will occur if the Government is sustained in this course of action. Either doctors will be encouraged to prescribe less costly and, at the same time, less efficacious drugs or we will have a situation in which the bureaucrats in the Department of Community Services and Health will refuse to grant authority permissions. The Minister for Resources shakes his head. Presumably that is because it is a device in which, the Minister says, any script written will eventually get some sort of authorisation. Where will the cost saving occur when two million extra forms have to be processed somewhere, presumably at some cost? It will occur only if there is a large scale switch to less expensive and less efficacious pharmaceuticals. The less efficacious pharmaceuticals will be those which do not have the same benefits as the expensive drugs which the Government is attempting to restrict or they will be those that have the degrees of side effects which cause non-compliance with medication regimes. We know from the evidence that non-compliance with prescribed medication costs the health care system somewhere between $700m and $800m a year. This will increase the degree of non-compliance because the less expensive drugs are those which are known to have a variety of unfortunate and unacceptable side effects including, as we have said, an increase in the level of male impotency. The particular point that I make is one that is referred to by Professor Shaw, the Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Sydney in the editorial of the 15 August edition of the Medical Journal of Australia. Speaking of the Government decision that we are debating this evening, he says: This decision did not include any assessment of the efficacy or cost-effectiveness of the drugs, simply their monthly costs. We know that the instructions given to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) were to review all those drugs which cost more than $30 per prescription. That was the basis upon which they were placed on this list. Professor Shaw goes on to say in that editorial: . . . 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 . . . That is precisely the point we have been making throughout this debate. This decision must raise fears in the minds of people as to what is next on the list of drugs to be restricted by some sort of authority only device. Is AZT to be the next drug placed on the list? A year's treatment with AZT costs somewhere in the vicinity of $10,000 to $12,000. That drug is currently available in limited supplies to people suffering from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), but a year's regime costs $10,000 to $12,000 of public expenditure. Is that to be the next drug that goes on the authorisation list? If one looks at the minute paper written in the Department of Finance-the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) is now here in the chamber-by a First Assistant Secretary, Social Security Division, and addressed to the Minister, which was made available as a result of a freedom of information request, one will see that the Minister is advised by his Department: For instance, total expenditure on over $10 drugs dispensed in November 1987 was 32 per cent higher than in April 1987. This figure excludes the impact of any price increases that pushed drugs over the then $10 threshold. Apart from ACE inhibitors, most of this increase was concentrated in: penicillins, an 86 per cent increase; anti-epileptic drugs, 26 per cent: non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 40 per cent: anti-anginals, 26 per cent: insulins, 25 per cent: and anti-asthmatic drugs, 56 per cent. Of particular importance has been the increase in prescribing of cholestyramine, used to reduce cholesterol levels. Priced at $58 per prescription, monthly expenditure on this drug increased by more than $0.5 million (76 per cent) over the seven month period. The greater use of authority procedures for some drugs announced in the May statement is intended to stem this growth. I emphasise the words `is intended to stem this growth'. What is to be next? Already some of the anti-epileptic drugs have been added to the list. We have already had cholestyramine added to the list. Will the anti-asthmatic drugs be the next ones added to the list? Will we be told that the little respirator devices, the Berotecs, the Becotides, the Ventolins, and things like that, which to those of us who suffer from asthma are essential to maintain a status of health, will be the next things to be placed on the Government's hit list because it wants to contain a blow-out in costs? People are right to be concerned and worried about the Government's approach to the way in which it manages cost containment through the pharmaceutical benefits system, rather than cost containment through proper controls on government expenditure. I now want to turn briefly to some of the contributions that were made by other honourable senators in the course of this debate. Senator Cook has told us-and presumably this relates to part of the Government's cost control expenditure operation-that $2m is to be spent to `re-educate doctors'. They are his words. They are to be re-educated in how to resist the blandishments and the salesmanship of the pharmaceutical companies. They will be re-educated in order to have a better understanding about how to prescribe cheaper drugs. I suppose that in the long run they might well be sent to re-education centres-we might establish a whole new industry of doctors' re-education camps around the place! In fact, what the Government really needs to do is to re-educate some of its legal advisers about attacks on the Constitution-but, no, we can find $46m to waste on that exercise, and here another $2m to re-educate doctors to prescribe drugs in accordance with the Government's economic criteria-in accordance not with public health requirements or the health requirements of patients but with the Government's economic parameters for cost control. Senator Crowley, in her contribution, said that there would be no undue delays in this matter. Some years ago I was required to find for my family a certain drug, clomid, which was on the authority only list. From personal experience I can tell the Senate that, if the Health Department in Sydney was working at maximum efficiency, an authority could be obtained in two days. Senator Cook —That would have been in the period of a Liberal government. Senator PUPLICK —Bad luck, Senator, I am talking about the last two years. If the Department was not working at maximum efficiency, it took five days, unless of course a public holiday or a long weekend were involved. If the Commonwealth Department of Health in Chifley Square was making its normal Public Service holiday arrangements, one could wait longer than that. I have had practical experience, within the last couple of years, of requiring a pharmaceutical item for a member of my family, which was an authority only pharmaceutical and I have personally experienced delays of five and six days in getting an approval for that authority only prescription. Senator Coates was asked to address a matter that Senator Calvert had raised. Senator Calvert raised a very important point about the privacy of individuals, but Senator Coates deliberately declined to respond to this matter. The point about privacy is that, in order to complete the necessary bureaucratic form, doctors are now required not simply to put the name and address of the patient and the drug which is being prescribed but in fact to detail the diagnosis for which they have prescribed that drug. I am not aware of any other requirement for a doctor to divulge to the Health Department details of a specific diagnosis of the patient in order to get an authorisation for a drug to be prescribed. Is Senator Cook or Senator Coates, or anybody else, able to say that it is a regular and proper procedure for a physician not simply to provide to the Department the name and address of a patient and the details of the drug that has been prescribed but also to outline the diagnosis that he has made? Of course, the diagnosis might not be correct. The physician might diagnose a certain ailment and prescribe a drug. Later, after other tests have been done, it might be found that it was not that particular ailment but another. It might be a certain type of infection or virus which has subsequently changed, in terms of the diagnosis, after further pathological tests have been done. However, he is now required by government policy to divulge to the Department the personal diagnosis of the individual. If Senator Cook were able to assure the Senate that there had never been leaks from the Health Insurance Commission about the personal data which is held by that Commission, we might have no concern. But we have seen two or three specific instances of deliberate leaks from the Health Insurance Commission of supposedly confidential data. Senator Calvert's point was that personal and very sensitive information-the diagnosis-has to be disclosed, by compulsion to the Health Department, which we believe does not have an adequate record of maintaining the confidentiality of medical records, particularly those of people with whom from time to time the Government is in dispute. People will remember the deliberate leaking, in I think May 1985, of details of the income of members of the medical profession, and their names, to the Sunday papers in Sydney. We do not believe that the privacy issue has been addressed by the Government. Senator Coates was invited to address this point but he declined to do so. Senator Knowles made the point, quite rightly, that the Government is changing the nature of the authority only operation. It used to be that the authority only system was there in order to monitor what were addictive drugs. That was the original intention some 30 or 40 years ago-whenever the system was put into place. Essentially, that was to monitor the use of potentially addictive drugs or drugs whose precise nature was not well understood at the time. That was the purpose of the authority only list. It is now being used as an economic tool in the management of the Government's health budget. That was not the purpose for which it was established and we do not believe that it should be used for that purpose. I want to refer to a couple of points made by Senator Coates. He said that it was not up to him or the Government to indicate to the Parliament what alternative cheaper drugs the Government has in mind. We believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide in some form an indication to the Parliament of the alternative drugs that are available. I put it to the Senate that in a number of instances alternative appropriate pharmaceutical products are simply not available. Secondly, Senator Coates told us that the cost saving in all of this, in any case, would be minor. That was actually the word he used-`minor'. If it is minor, how does one justify the amount of inconvenience, trouble and additional bureaucratic involvement, with these two million extra authorities around the place, which is now to be imposed? Senator Coulter made a point on behalf of the Australian Democrats which seems to me to be quintessentially a statement of Australian Democrat philosophy. Senator Coulter said, `This measure may not be effective but we will support it'. That is the very essence of Democrat politics. They say, `It may not work; it may not be effective; it may not count for very much, but it seems like a good idea at the moment and therefore we will support it'. His actual words were, `It may not be effective but we will support it'. Nothing could more encapsulate the political philosophy of the Australian Democrats than that statement. It is a tragedy and a shame that the Democrats on this occasion have indicated that they are not prepared to be swayed by the basis of argument. We know full well that when the PBAC meets in October it will get back to this list. Members of the PBAC are as embarrassed as anybody by having been put under the hammer to come up with a hit list purely on the basis of the $30 figure imposed upon them by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). They know the outrage in the medical community, in the wider community, in the Labor Caucus and this Parliament. Undoubtedly they will try to rescue something of their good name when they meet again in October. I am not going to refer at length again to the Hon. Keith Wilson, the Minister for Health in Western Australia. We know full well the advertisement that he put in the newspapers which in fact established-- Senator Walsh —He is a whinger. He always has been. Senator PUPLICK —I am glad to have the Minister's assurance that the Minister for Health in Western Australia is a whinger and always has been. Senator Cook was not prepared to say that yesterday, no matter how much he might have thought it. Senator Walsh's intervention to characterise Mr Wilson is greatly appreciated. Senator Chaney —It is obviously an indication that Senator Walsh knows the Minister concerned a great deal better than does Senator Cook. Senator PUPLICK —I note Senator Chaney's interjection. Mr Wilson set up a hot line. He said that the Western Australian Government was going to fight for the rights of Western Australians not to have their health ruined by this Federal Government intervention. It is a pity that he did not get some help around the place. Where, for example, is the well known Labor Party sisterhood when it is needed? A number of drugs on this list are of particular importance to the women of Australia. I will just mention three of them. Drugs which go under the names provera and nolvadex are used in the treatment of breast and uterine cancer. They are of great importance to the management of the health care of Australian women. The drug auranofin, which goes by the brand name of Ridaura and is used in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, is again a drug of considerable importance so far as women are concerned. These drugs have been added to the hit list of 53 drugs. It is a great shame that, although the Australian Labor Party makes a great deal of noise and goes on with a great deal of nonsense about supporting the rights of Australian women and looking after their particular problems, in fact women are to be singled out for particular disadvantage as far as this list of 53 drugs is concerned. In conclusion, I wish to make three other points. First, I believe that these restrictions as part of the general approach that this Government takes to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme in fact are likely to threaten investment in Australia on the part of pharmaceutical manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Just as there are lacunal and transitional provisions in the proposed patents amendments legislation before this Parliament to extend the patent life of pharmaceuticals which cause various companies to fall between two tools in terms of regimes for the extension of patent protection, so I believe the continued use of the authority only scheme in this fashion by the Government will cause a diminution in the degree of investment in the pharmaceutical industry and the willingness of pharmaceutical companies to invest in Australia and in Australian industry. I return to the comments made by Dr Blewett, the Minister, on 19 November 1985 when a number of the authority only drugs, which I specified yesterday, were removed from the authority only list and added to the specified purpose list. Six of those drugs are now to go back onto the authority only list and three drugs which were previously on the specified purpose list, which had their restriction as specified purpose removed in November 1985, have also been added to the authority only list. In November 1985 the Minister for Community Services and Health was at great pains to say what a great job he was doing on behalf of the people of Australia in removing these drugs from both the special purpose list and the authority only list. Now, just a couple of years later, they go back on the list and all of that rhetoric of the Minister for Community Services and Health in November 1985 is shown to be perfectly hollow and perfectly without substance. I conclude by referring once again to the representations made to me by Professor Priscilla Kincaid-Smith, the professor in the Department of Medicine at the University of Melbourne and the Director of Nephrology at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. I will read again the comments made by Professor Kincaid-Smith, one of the most eminent medical authorities in this country, in her letter. Talking about patients who have been affected by side effects of less desirable, less efficacious medications than ACE inhibitors, she says: As a consultant, I would only see these patients 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 PBAC considered an Authority listing for 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 run 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. Yesterday Professor Kincaid-Smith's reputation was traduced by Senator Cook who said she was the spreader of alarmist nonsense. I do not believe that she is the spreader of alarmist nonsense. I believe that she is one of those members of the medical community and profession who are fundamentally concerned with nothing more than providing the best health care for the people of Australia and treating patients in the best possible way. She sees how much more difficult her job will be made by this Government decision. She sees the effect which this Government decision will have on the lives of ordinary Australians. She sees the effect which this Government decision will have on the management of serious heart disease in Australia and the way in which it will lead to an increase in cardiovascular mortality and morbidity. She sees the extent to which authority listing as provided for in this Government decision will be a serious blow to all who believe in preventive medicine. This Government has once again decided to make the poor, the sick, the elderly and women bear an undue and disproportionate burden of its cost cutting exercise. It does the Government no credit and it will do this Senate no credit if we do not disallow this particular pharmaceutical regulation. Question put: That the motion (Senator Puplick's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The Deputy President-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 33 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 4 —— Alston, R. K. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E. (Teller)Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Stone, J. O.Durack, P. D. Teague, B. C.Hamer, D. J. Vanstone, A. E.Harradine, B. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.McGauran, J. J. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Jones, G. N.Burns, B. R. McKiernan, J. P.Button, J. N. McLean, P. A.Childs, B. K. McMullan, R. F.Coates, J. Macklin, M. J.Collins, R. L. Maguire, G. R. (Teller)Colston, M. A. Morris, J. J.Cook, P. F. S. Powell, J. F.Cooney, B. C. Reynolds, M.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devereux, J. R. Schacht, C. C.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Dunn, I. P. Vallentine, J.Evans, Gareth Walsh, P. A.Foreman, D. J. Zakharov, A. O.Gietzelt, A. T. Baume, Michael Bolkus, N.Newman, J. M. Richardson, G. F.Knowles, S. C. Crowley, R. A.Lewis, A. W. R. Sibraa, K. W.Tambling, G. E. J. Black, J. R.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Ray, Robert Question so resolved in the negative. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS BILL 1988 Consideration resumed from 27 September. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The Committee is considering the Industrial Relations Bill 1988 as a whole. It has before it Opposition amendment No. (5) moved thereto by Senator Chaney relating to clause 3. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.27) —I think we are probably waiting not only for Senator Button but also for the advisers. Now we have the advisers and we seem to have Senator Button. I think I am probably out of order because I had just spoken for 15 minutes when we adjourned but I will stay on my feet for a moment until the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) is ready. Perhaps while the Minister is preparing his papers I can simply say that to facilitate the consideration of the Bill-which I am sure the Minister would like-I suggest that we vary slightly the approach that was taken at the suggestion of the Minister when we were last in committee, which was the day before yesterday. At the Minister's suggestion we separated amendments (4) and (5) in group 11 which related to the objectives. We have dealt with amendment (4). I had just spoken to amendment (5). I have forgotten what it relates to. Amendments (4) and (5) relate to subsequent amendments because the question of trade union amalgamation or formation is referred back to the objectives. Senator Button —You were talking about freedom of association. Senator CHANEY —I thank the Minister. I wanted to suggest that by leave we recommit amendment (4) and deal with the whole of block 11 together. I do not wish to reopen the debate on amendment (4) but as a matter of sensibly dealing with the amendments they should be dealt with together as we originally proposed. I seek leave to recommit amendment (4). Leave granted. Senator CHANEY —Because we had a very long debate on the pharmaceuticals matter, I would like to facilitate the debate on this Bill. I would suggest that it would help if I spoke to amendments (4), (5), (11), (12), (13), (22), (23), (24), (28), (29), (30) and (31) en bloc. I want to get some indication from the Minister as to whether he sees this as a reasonable procedure. I suggest that if I speak to those amendments and outline them then perhaps we can try to deal with them. The principles involved in them cross into just a small number. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Would you indicate to the Chair, Senator Chaney, how you want these amendments voted on? Do you want them voted on as one block or as several? Senator CHANEY —We wish to vote on all of them together. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Is leave granted to move all those amendments together? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Senator CHANEY —I move: (5) Page 2, paragraph 3 (f), line 14, before ``to encourage'' insert ``to provide for freedom of association, and''. Page 2, after paragraph 3 (b), insert the following new paragraphs: ``(bb) to encourage direct dealing between employers and employees within each enterprise; ``(bc) to minimise interference in relation to enterprises by persons or bodies who have no direct interest in those enterprises; and ``(bd) to facilitate the consolidation of single enterprise bargaining units;''. (11) Page 52, subclause 118 (2), lines 40 to 42, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(2) The Commission may, in relation to a demarcation dispute, order that a ballot be conducted of the employees involved in the dispute for the purpose determining the organisation that should, in the opinion of those employees, represent them.''. (12) Page 53, subclause 118 (4), lines 16 to 20, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(4) In considering whether to make an order under subsection (3), the Commission shall have regard to: (a) the objects of this Act; and (b) the results of any ballot conducted under subsection (2).''. (13) Page 53, after clause 118, insert the following new clause: Representation ballots ``118a. (1) Where at least the prescribed number of the employees of a particular employer at a particular place of work make an application to the Commission to change the organisation that has a right to represent under this Act the industrial interests of those employees, the Commission may, if: (a) it considers that to do so would further the objects of this Act; and (b) a vote of the employees of that employer under this section has not been conducted in the period of 3 years before the Commission commenced to consider the application; order that a vote of the employees of that employer (in this section called a `representation ballot') be taken by secret ballot for the purpose of finding out whether those employees wish to change the organisation that has a right to represent under this Act their industrial interests. ``(2) After the conduct of a representation ballot in relation to particular employees, the Commission may, having regard to the results of the ballot, make one or more of the following orders: (a) an order that an organisation of employees shall have the right, to the exclusion of another organisation or organisations, to represent under this Act the industrial interests of a particular class or group of employees who are eligible for membership of the organisation; (b) an order that an organisation of employees that does not have the right to represent under this Act the industrial interests of a particular class or group of employees shall have that right; (c) an order that an organisation of employees shall not have the right to represent under this Act the industrial interests of a particular class or group of employees who are eligible for membership of the organisation. ``(3) Where the Commission makes an order under this section, the Commission shall, unless it is satisfied that no alteration of the rules of any organisation concerned is necessary, refer the matter to a designated Presidential Member. ``(4) Where a matter is referred to a Presidential Member under subsection (3), the Presidential Member shall determine such alterations (if any) of the rules of any organisation concerned as are, in the Presidential Member's opinion, necessary to reflect the order of the Commission. ``(5) In this section: `place of work' has the same meaning as in section 136; `prescribed number', in relation to employees employed by a particular employer at a particular place of work, means: (a) if there are fewer than 100 of those employees-5; or (b) if there are 100 or more of those employees-5% of the number of those employees.''. (22) Page 84, paragraph 189, lines 6 to 20, leave out (1) (b), (c) and (d) paragraphs, insert the following paragraph: ``(b) the registration of the association would further the objects of this Act;''. (23) Page 84, paragraph 189 (1) (j), lines 33 and 34, leave out the paragraph. (24) Page 86, clause 193, leave out the clause. (28) Pages 112 and 113, paragraph 237 (a), line 38 (page 112) to line 2 (page 113), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ``(a) shall immediately fix a time and place for the hearing of submissions in relation to the proposed amalgamation;''. (29) Pages 113 to 115, clauses 239, 240 and 241, line 12 (page 113) to line 19 (page 115), leave out the clauses. (30) Page 115, subclause 242 (1), lines 22 to 35, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) If, after hearing submissions in relation to the proposed amalgamation, the Presidential Member is satisfied that: (a) the amalgamation complies with, and is not contrary to, this Act and awards and is not otherwise contrary to law; and (b) if the amalgamation took place, it would further the objects of this Act; the President Member shall approve the submission of the amalgamation to ballot.''. (31) Page 119, subclause 246 (1), lines 2 to 14, leave out the subclause, insert the following subclause: ``(1) Where, under subsection 243 (1) or (2), the question of an amalgamation is submitted to a ballot of the members of an existing organisation concerned in the amalgamation, the members of the organisation shall be taken to have approved the amalgamation if, and only if, more than half of the formal votes cast are in favour of the amalgamation.''. I again thank the committee for that. I would now like to deal with the amendments. Amendment (4) has been discussed at great length. It seeks to add objects to the Act which would encourage direct dealing between employers and employees within each enterprise; minimise interference in relation to enterprises by persons or bodies who have no direct interest in those enterprises; and facilitate the consolidation of single enterprise bargaining units. Amendment (5) makes provision of freedom of association one of the objects of the Act. The relevance of these amendments is that they encompass the principles which we say are relevant to the shape that trade unions should assume. The general thrust of the amendments can be understood by reference to our policy, which refers to promoting cooperative, flexible and productive relationships within enterprises; providing for genuine voluntary unionism and a greater scope for workers to choose their union; and having a change to existing union structures which we see as a significant impediment to improved relations between employers and employees in many enterprises. We suggest in our policy that the structure of registered trade unions in enterprises which operate under the Commission and its awards will be determined by the wishes of the members of those unions. Freedom of association will be preserved subject only to Commission supervision of matters relating to the formation of new unions and amalgamation or fragmentation of existing unions with a view to ensuring that, as far as possible, new union structures contribute to the objectives of the things that are dealt with in amendment (4)-that is, ensuring that employers and employees deal directly with each other; minimising interference by people or bodies with no direct interest in the enterprises; and facilitating the consolidation of single enterprise bargaining units. We say that, where employees wish to form a new union to represent them or to vary existing union structures, there will be secret ballot provisions to enable the wishes of the work force to be determined. We say further that when those wishes are established-in other words, when the workers themselves vote as to the structure they want-the desired structure will be approved unless, in the opinion of the Commission, it will provide a less effective structure to promote the objectives set out in amendment (4) or if there has been a change in or a determination on union structure within the previous three years. That is there simply to stop chopping and changing. We undertake in our policy to legislate to enable employees to approach the Commission if they wish to vary the structure of their union. Amendments (11) and (12) provide for demarcation ballots and empower the Commission to conduct a ballot of employees involved in a demarcation dispute for the purpose of determining the organisation that should, in the opinion of those employees, represent them. The Bill enables the Commission to issue orders concerning which union should have coverage over a certain area of work and the amendments provide that, in considering whether or not to make an order, the Commission shall have regard to the results of a demarcation ballot and the objects of the Act. The amendments are very much consistent with the policy that I have just read out. Amendment (13), on representation ballots, provides that, where a prescribed number of employees at a particular workplace apply to the Commission to change the organisation that has a right to represent their industrial interests, the Commission may order a representation ballot of those employees. The Commission may order such a ballot only if it considers that to do so would further the objects of the Act and if there has not been a representation ballot of the employees concerned during the previous three years. After a representation ballot has been conducted, the Commission may make orders concerning which organisation shall represent the industrial interests of the employees concerned. Amendment (22) alters the criteria for registration. Size ceases to be a criterion for registration, as does whether the association seeking registration is an industry-based association. Instead, each application for registration is to be tested against the objects of the Act that we are seeking to insert. Amendment (23) deletes the provision that an association may be registered if, and only if, there is no organisation to which the members of the association might conveniently belong. The effect of the `conveniently belong' rule is to make it almost impossible to register new organisations. This is inconsistent with freedom of association and reinforces the monopoly enjoyed by existing unions. It acts as an obstacle to the creation of a more enterprise focused union structure by, for example, effectively preventing the registration of enterprise unions. In the past the `conveniently belong' provision has been defended as preventing the further proliferation of unions. The problem, however, is not the number of unions in the country. After all, Japan is an example of how a union structure with a number of small and very large unions can work satisfactorily. The problem is the multiplicity of unions operating within individual enterprises. It is important to note that our amendment makes the registration of new organisations subject to whether this would further the objects of the Act which, again, focus on that need to promote the single enterprise bargaining unit. Registration can be refused if to do so would fragment bargaining at an enterprise level. Amendment (24) deletes the provision in the Bill that provides for a designated presidential member to consider whether special circumstances exist that justify the continued registration of small organisations. The existence of small unions is not inimical to good industrial relations. That point was made to us by trade unions, which gave statistics and made direct representations about their experience of industrial disputation being more likely in the larger structures with which they were in contact and sometimes had been involved. To illustrate the view of the Confederation of Australian Industry, I quote from its press release of 26 August: There is no good reason for example, to require unions to have 3,000 or more members. Such a requirement is based on the false assumption that bigger unions will be more industrially responsible, more receptive to the needs of particular industries or enterprises, or will otherwise improve industrial relations. This ill-advised proposal should be deleted from the Bill. It is a myth that small unions cause demarcation disputes. Since the beginning of the year there have been over 40 demarcation disputes, and only one of those involved a union whose continued registration would be threatened under this provision. In fact, it is large unions that get involved in demarcation disputes. Those unions with the highest involvement in such disputes since the beginning of the year are the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia, the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia (FEDFA), the Plumbers and Gasfitters Employees Union of Australia, the Federated Ironworkers Association of Australia and the Transport Workers Union of Australia-all large unions. As I have said, small unions have made a series of direct representations to the Opposition. The Australian Government Lawyers Association regards clause 193 as a fundamental interference with the civil liberties of its members, who are desirous of continuing the structure which would be at risk under the proposals in the Bill. The Australian International Pilots Association makes the same point and says that it will simply not accept any amalgamation but will operate as an official body if it is forced to do so. Amendment (28) provides that, where a presidential member has accepted a properly lodged application in relation to a proposed amalgamation, the presidential member shall immediately fix a time and place for the hearing of submissions in relation to the proposed amalgamation. Clause 238 provides that submissions concerning proposed amalgamations may be made only with the leave of a designated presidential member and in relation to a prescribed matter. Such hearings will provide an opportunity for the unions involved, other unions which might be affected, and employers to make submissions on whether the proposed amalgamation would further the objects of the Act. I am sorry to speak at such length, but as these are all related matters I think that it is better to deal with them in this way. I may need to seek leave to continue or go through the joke of having someone else talk and then my coming back to this. However, I will try to finish. Amendment (29) deletes the provisions concerning the declaration of a community of interest between organisations proposing to amalgamate. Under the provisions of the Bill, a designated presidential member may, at the conclusion of a hearing concerning a proposed amalgamation, make a declaration that there is a community of interest between the organisations concerned in the amalgamation in relation to their industrial interests. Where such a declaration has been made, a simple majority of votes cast in a subsequent ballot is required to approve the amalgamation. Where no declaration is made, 25 per cent of the members on the roll of voters must actually cast a vote as well. In practice the community of interest test is very widely drawn. It certainly does not by itself encourage amalgamations that will lead to industry unions. The outcome of the Bill as it is drafted will not be industry unions but fewer larger conglomerate unions with members in a range of industries. There may be a reduction in the total number of unions, but employers will continue to face a multiplicity of unions. Indeed, from an industrial relations point of view the Bill is likely to accelerate a trend away from the goal of unions organised on an industry or enterprise lines. Some unions which largely operate in a single industry and are therefore likely to identify with the interests of that industry are merging with occupationally based unions that operate across a range of industries. I do not think that is the objective that the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button), who is at the table, would have in terms of, again, his own portfolio objectives. One example is the proposed amalgamation of the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia. The Commission recently found that this amalgamation met the community of interest test because a substantial number of the members of both unions were engaged in the same work in the building industry, and yet most FEDFA members are not employed in that industry. So the Government is producing a large structure, which is certainly the Australian Council of Trade Unions' objective-perhaps it is the Government's objective-but it would be very difficult to claim that that is a structure which meets the description of an industry union; it clearly does not. If in fact the two unions merge, the result will be a union with over 100,000 members employed not only in the building industry but also in the power industry, the mining industry and the manufacturing and public sectors. Other amalgamations in the offing include that between the rubber and allied workers and the storemen and packers. Again, the result will be a multi-industry union. I think the industrial record of the storemen and packers over recent years would not really give great cause for ease of mind in terms of their contribution to industrial peace in Australia. I think again the Minister at the table would have been concerned some time ago when I think 13 storemen and packers at Borg Warner were able to wreak considerable havoc on the motor vehicle building industry, to cause very substantial stand-downs and so on. It is not -- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(9.42) —In so far as the right of choice of employees at a particular plant or establishment is concerned, to exercise a right of choice in terms of who their agent or representative will be in respect of wages and industrial conditions, I would like Senator Chaney to address the question of how frequently that right of choice can be exercised. As I understand it, it is once every three years. But let us put the hypothetical situation of the workers at the Caltex oil refinery-who seem to have improved since a few years ago; but let us take that example. They say, `Look, we will have the storemen and packers this time with a big wages and conditions claim, and we will have the storemen and packers represent us'. The storemen and packers do not do the job, so next time they shop around again. They say, `This time we will have the Australian Workers Union'. I am just concerned about that sort of process because it seems to me to be extraordinarily destabilising not only for the employer but for the industry for that sort of situation to take place. I would like some comments from Senator Chaney on that. The other thing is a comment which I made in the second reading stage of the debate. With these amendments the registration procedures are still left essentially as they are in the existing legislation; that is, the conditions of eligibility for membership of an organisation will still be determined under this legislation. If the Opposition amendments were carried, as I read it, the conditions of eligibility for membership of an organisation will still be determined as a matter of law by the Industrial Registrar, perhaps confirmed by a bench of the Commission. The conditions of eligibility will then be subject to the test of the choice of employees in a particular area. So the law which is laid down as to who shall be a member of a union via the system-honourable senators can like or dislike it as they will-will then be open to some sort of overriding provision based on this concept of choice. I am not knocking the concept of choice. I understand-I was going to say `the logic', but that would be putting it too high-the scheme of what is proposed, but it might be helpful for Senator Chaney to go on with what he was saying before, and if in the course of it he addresses those two questions, I would be grateful. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(9.45) —I had almost completed going through the amendments that are part of this group of amendments which deal with trade union structure. I was dealing with amendment (29), which provides for deletion of the community of interest test. I made the point that the result of what the Government is proposing is not to produce industry unions but to produce conglomerates which will, in fact, cross industry lines. I gave some specific examples of amalgamations which are being sought. The point has been made not just by the Opposition but also by other observers of the industrial relations scheme. I will quote in this context the Business Council of Australia (BCA) which I think has been adopting a most positive and constructive role in industrial relations over this recent year or two. I think that again it has very much concentrated on trying to improve enterprise level industrial relations. I think that no-one would say that it is approaching industrial relations from an anti-union or a particularly biased viewpoint. The BCA had this to say about this element: . . . the Bill is setting the scene for the emergence of large craft-based conglomerate unions, an example of which is the suggested merger between the Electrical Trades Union and the Vehicle Builders' Union . . . So we have a proposal for an amalgamation between the Electrical Trades Union and the Vehicle Builders Union. The BCA continued: . . . which would involve a craft union covering thousands of employees in many industries swallowing one of the few examples of an industry-based union. Mergers of that type will significantly worsen current problems, not solve them. No-one should doubt that this will occur under the provisions of the Bill. One only needs to look at amalgamations under way and being planned to see that despite ACTU policy which favours industry-based structures, the internal politics of the union movement will probably result in the creation of craft-based maxi unions. The Government needs to reconsider its whole approach. In particular, it needs to ensure workable ways exist to encourage rationalisation in the workplace to the advantage of the workers in the enterprise and thus of all Australians. That is all I wish to quote of the BCA for the time being. But to return to amendment (29), the amendment also deletes the provisions relating to objections to amalgamations. Such objections can be dealt with at the hearing under clause 237. Amendment (30) provides that, if after hearing submissions in relation to the proposed amalgamation the Industrial Relations Commission considers that the amalgamation complies with the law and would further the objects of the Act, then it is to be submitted to a ballot. Amendment (31), provides that, where the question of an amalgamation is submitted to a ballot of the members of an existing organisation concerned in the amalgamation, the members of the organisation shall be taken to have approved the amalgamation if more than half the formal votes cast are in favour of the amalgamation. In other words, only a simple majority is required to approve an amalgamation as long as the amalgamation would further the objects of the Act. I turn to the specific inquiries that were made by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) when he helpfully intervened to enable me to complete my description of this group of amendments. Senator Button expressed concern really about the problem that people might be shopping around. We indicated during his inquiry that the amendments proposed would provide that one cannot make changes if there has been a change within the previous three years, so there is a three-year period. I simply say to the Minister that we believe that that sort of flexibility is a matter of right, a matter of entitlement that we think ought to be allowed. In terms of its practical operation we believe that it will be a spur to the provision of a good and adequate service to the membership by trade unions that they know that their membership has this sort of freedom of choice. Again this is something which is not outside the range of human experience. I think the development of the Electrical Trades Union (ETU) in the United Kingdom is leading the way, as the Minister would know, in terms of providing union coverage in the new industries which are so vitally needed in the United Kingdom. It is an area where one knows the Minister's sympathies lie, where an employer is seeking to ensure that a new enterprise is being established on a competitive basis internationally and which cannot afford to be trammelled by absurd restrictive labour practices. The ETU is at the forefront of providing coverage, very much on a competitive basis. Whether the ETU gets the coverage is very much a matter of choice of the membership and of the capacity of the ETU to deliver the services that are in the interests of those members. Quite frankly, we believe that if that sort of environment is provided, where there is greater freedom, there is in fact very great pressure on the elements of the system to perform. I think I made the point earlier in the debate-it may not have been in here as I remember making the point in a speech recently outside this chamber-that the experience in Queensland with the South East Queensland Electricity Board was very interesting, because in discussions there with the voluntary organisation, which represents the contract employees and which is not a registered organisation under the relevant Act, we heard very strong expressions by the representative of that association of the need to provide services to the members' satisfaction if it was to attract membership. I think that is a very much better approach than the process of industrial conscription through the use of preference clauses and the closed shop which is still so much a feature of our industrial scene. In response to Senator Button's first question I do not see that capacity of the work force to choose a union as being a negative in the way he suggests. In terms of his attempt to describe the amendments generally, he is quite right. Of course, these provisions do not relate to whatever associations employees might form in a work situation which is not subject to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. We are dealing here with registered organisations only. In those circumstances, yes, the whole scheme is based on an overriding provision of giving regard to the choice which is made by the work force itself. We have not given untrammelled regard to that. As the amendments make clear, in assessing the desire of a group of employees to form a new registered association, the Commission is thrown back on a consideration of whether that will facilitate those objectives that we have spelt out, and those objectives seem to us to be on common ground. When we talk to people who are involved in the productive process they see those things as being really fundamental to an improved industrial relations situation. We are simply trying to provide for the sort of flexibility which will permit people to move in their own economic interest, be they employer or employee, but with this one area of public policy concern given proper consideration by the Commission. As we are having a fairly long debate on this Bill I suppose it sounds strange for me to say that I do not want an unnecessarily prolonged debate because we are in the unfortunate situation where we know the Australian Democrats are not going to support these amendments. We are putting them down essentially to provide the clearest possible indication to the Government as to the line we think it should adopt, and to the people of Australia as to the line we would adopt in government. In that sense it is a demonstration of the alternative that we think is available and which is better. I just want to stress to the Minister, as he would in fact know, that there are plenty of people-I have quoted the Confederation of Australian Industry and the Business Council of Australia-who have significant reservations about the move towards bigness per se, which is really what we think is going to be achieved by the Government under this proposal. I would also like to quote from a paper published by the Department of Industrial Relations of the University of Sydney. It is one of its Working Paper Series and comments were made on the Bill in some detail by Mr Andrew Stewart. I quote from part of that paper where he said this: The obvious criticism to be made of the Bill in this context is that it is ill designed for the purpose of reshaping the union structure to achieve what is said by the Government to be the desired result of industry based organisation. In the first place, the existence of small unions is not necessarily incompatible with an industry based structure: it depends whether those unions are in fact industry or craft based. While it may be conceded that the majority fall into the latter category and that there are valid concerns on a more general level as to the efficacy of such unions in representing their members' interests, the adoption of a principle that all small unions must go seems a very blunt instrument. Much will turn on the Commission's view of what constitutes `special circumstances'. Conversely, the Bill makes no attempt to put pressure on larger organisations which are craft based. On the contrary, the incentive is there in the amalgamation provisions (particularly given a community of interest) to amalgamate to form even larger craft based unions. While this might reduce the number of unions with which some employers must bargain, the overall effect will be to entrench rather than detract from the craft based structure. I repeat those words because they are quite fundamental. In the view of the University of Sydney paper we have a change which will entrench rather than detract from the craft based structure. He continued: The same can be said of the tendency for unions with overlapping but by no means co-extensive interests to amalgamate to form ``super unions'' of the type found in the United Kingdom. The recently announced AWU/FIA merger provides an illustration. The more that attention is concentrated on eradicating small unions, while amalgamations are used to create multi-industry and multi-craft unions, the harder it will be in the long run to reorganise unions on industry lines alone. If that is the Government's aim, the Bill does little to promote it. The suspicion must be that both the Government and the ACTU's real interest lies in the reduction of the number of unions and that any restructuring along industry lines that happens to eventuate from that process will be regarded merely as a laudable coincidence. I think that quotation very squarely puts the concerns which the Opposition has about the way the Government is proceeding. It is certainly meeting the agenda of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) to have larger unions. It is not meeting the agenda of the Government, which we understood to be encouraging industry based unions. We put those amendments forward because we believe they provide a workable, flexible scheme which pays far higher regard to the right of freedom of association, to the basic human rights of employees. We believe it provides a much greater and better instrument for encouraging the sort of workplace relationships which the Minister has so often said are at the heart of our economic future. We believe we are putting forward a union structure approach which is much more related to the change to a more productive culture that the Minister has talked about. It is a matter of very great regret to me that he is not prepared to consider these amendments. As far as the Australian Democrats are concerned, I remind this committee that we sought during the last sitting, when we had ahead of us the period of the recess-dead time as far as this Bill was concerned-a parliamentary committee examination of this particular element of the Bill. We are so convinced that any rational public examination of the Bill would produce a clear demand for a changed approach that we think it is a great shame that the Australian Democrats were not prepared to support that approach, and indeed that the Government was not prepared to support it. I think the Government has adopted a quite pig-headed-I think `mulish' was the expression I used last time we were in committee-approach to the industrial relations structure which is laid down by this Bill. I think that will be quite expensive for Australia because it will be at least into 1990 before we will have an opportunity, as a government, to introduce contrary legislation. I believe many of the Minister's own objectives with respect to Australian industry, if they are not subverted, will be substantially hindered by the trade union structure that will be encouraged by the present proposals. Senator CHAPMAN(South Australia)(10.00) —Freedom of association obviously implies some choice over which organisation an employee wishes to belong to. The amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill which Senator Chaney has just moved in series liberalise the rules governing the registration of new organisations and give employees a far greater say over which organisation has the right to represent them. As Senator Chaney has emphasised in moving this series of amendments, a major defect in the Government's legislation is its total neglect of any attempt to protect the rights of workers to establish or to join an organisation of their own choice. In supporting the amendments moved by Senator Chaney, I particularly refer to clauses 189 and 193. In that regard this Bill, quite apart from the arguments which Senator Chaney put with regard to those clauses and in support of the amendments which the Opposition has moved, is also a direct contravention of Convention No. 87 of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), to which Australia is a signatory, on the freedom of association and protection of the right to organise. This convention provides that workers, without any distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and join organisations of their choosing. Australian workers do not have the right to establish and join trade unions of their own choosing. At least, they certainly do not have the right to freely establish and join organisations that can be registered to operate within the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. This is already prevented under the existing Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Employees under that Act are prevented from forming or joining enterprise or multi-skill unions. Instead, they are forced into big trade unions which are already established and registered in respect of their particular trade. Likewise, under the Bill we are currently debating, the freedom to establish and join a registered union is restricted even further. We have moved these amendments firstly to make the provision of freedom of association one of the objects of the Act and, more especially, to delete those parts of clauses 189, and the whole of clause 193, which reinforce that inability of employees to operate under freedom of association. Clause 189 of the Bill prohibits the registration of a new union except in exceptional circumstances, those circumstances being, firstly, that the union must have more than 3,000 members; secondly, that the union is industry based; and, thirdly, that there is no existing union to which the members might conveniently belong. Therefore, the `conveniently belong' clause of the old Act which protected the vested interests of existing unions and which was the subject of a great deal of industrial litigation over its lifetime, is even more strongly entrenched in this legislation. Clause 193 effectively requires the amalgamation of small unions by ensuring that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission will deregister unions with fewer than 3,000 members after three years unless there are special circumstances which make continuation of registration in the public interest. Article 4 of the ILO convention provides that workers and employers organisations shall not be liable to be dissolved or suspended by administrative authority. So clause 193 of the Bill is in direct contravention of Article 4 of the ILO convention. It is for this reason that the Opposition has moved amendments to clauses 189 and 193. Obviously, registration of a union is essential if that union is to be able to represent its members before the Commission. So deregistration is, in effect, equivalent to the dissolution or suspension of that union. The creation of larger unions is a move towards increased centralised control rather than the preferred movement towards a more flexible system which would be more responsive to local enterprise and individual industry needs. As Senator Chaney said earlier in this debate, statistics show that the majority of demarcation disputes involve unions with more than 3,000 members; in other words, the sorts of unions that are required to be established under the two clauses to which I refer. Unions such as the Amalgamated Metal Workers Union, the Federated Storemen and Packers Union of Australia and the building and transport workers unions are the large unions which are the subject of the majority of demarcation disputes. In fact, in a recent survey of 32 demarcation disputes it was found that only one of those disputes involved a union with fewer than 3,000 members. This indicates that these two clauses, which will serve to create bigger unions, will only increase the likelihood of these costly and destructive demarcation disputes. With a larger membership spread over a wider range of industries it is inevitable that demarcation disputes will spread out through the workplace in a ripple effect, eventually crippling many industries, many of which will not have been directly involved in the original dispute. We should in fact be aiming for a single union in each workplace through the creation of either enterprise or industry based unions rather than legislating to create huge, unwieldy craft based unions that stretch across a multitude of enterprises. Of course, that is the policy of the Opposition. It is a policy which has been very carefully developed over the last couple of years. It has been given considerable public airing and subjected to considerable public debate and, I might say, it has won considerable public support over the past two years. It is to give effect to that well accepted policy of the Opposition that we have moved a series of amendments to this Government legislation. In particular, we seek to amend clause 189 to leave out paragraphs (1) (b), (c), (d) and (j). Paragraph (c) requires that, to be registered, an association of employees must have at least 3,000 members. Paragraph (d) provides that for an association of employees to be registered it must be industry based. Paragraph (j) provides that an association may be registered only if there is no existing organisation to which the members of the association might conveniently belong. These are the three particular subclauses which would prevent employees from either establishing or joining the industrial organisation of their choice. They would prevent employees from exercising freedom of association, that right which is provided under the International Labour Organisation convention. The other amendment to which I have referred proposes to remove clause 193 completely. This clause requires that after three years, unless there are special circumstances, organisations with fewer than 3,000 members will, in effect, be abolished. It provides that they will no longer be registered which, of course, means that they can no longer operate in our industrial relations system. These clauses, the Opposition amendments to which the Government has indicated it will not accept, go very much to the heart of this legislation. They also reflect the way in which this legislation gives effect to the proposed industrial structure argued for in Australia Reconstructed-that document of the Australia Council of Trade Unions which seeks to push industrial relations in this country in the wrong direction and reinforce all the shortcomings and faults which have been evident in the Australian system of industrial relations for so long. The proposals in Australia Reconstructed are very much in accord with the clauses we are dealing with and which we are seeking to amend, in effect, to reverse that direction, to ensure that employees have the opportunity to form organisations of their own choice and of whatever size-that they have that freedom of association. That will ensure that industrial relations is more effectively conducted at the enterprise level. That is what this country desperately needs. This country desperately needs difficulties in industrial relations and disagreements between employers and employees to be sorted out at the workplace or enterprise level. One of the most effective ways of ensuring that is to base the structures in which industrial relations are conducted at enterprise level. The policies of the coalition will ensure that that objective is achieved. The legislation before the Committee, and in particular the clauses to which I have referred, will not allow that desirable development to occur. For that reason the Opposition has moved these amendments, which I strongly support. Senator BUTTON(Victoria-Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce)(10.10) —I do not want to prolong the debate, for in some senses we have had it before, but I want to refer to one or two points relating to the comments which have been made. First of all, there are extreme practical and technical difficulties with the Opposition amendments. I sort of accuse the Opposition-not in any hostile spirit-of using this Bill as a convenient vehicle to advance an alternative strategy or philosophy in relation to the industrial relations system. I follow that. Nonetheless, the Government has the responsibility of dealing with the Bill as a piece of legislation. There are a lot of very confusing matters contained in the Opposition amendments which in my view conflict with other provisions of the legislation. That is certainly one reason why the amendments are not acceptable. If I could make the point, as I did before, I think there are real problems about the Industrial Registrar's function in determining eligibility for organisations and the proposal for freedom of choice at the enterprise level of the organisation which is going to represent the worker in particular circumstances. Secondly, I believe that under the Opposition amendments we could end up with an even bigger disparity between the coverage under Federal unions and the coverage under State unions. As I coincidentally happened to make that comment at this time, might I refer to a debate on a previous clause of the Bill where it was being alleged by the Opposition that the Government was hell-bent on getting all unions into the Federal system and so on and some provisions of the Bill were seen as damaging or detrimental to the continuation of State industrial systems, and I was asked by Senator Chaney at that stage-- Senator Chaney —It was a view put by State unions. Senator BUTTON —Yes, I understand that. I just make the point that in April 1954 the numbers under Federal awards represented 42.5 per cent of the total and in May 1985 represented 32.6 per cent of the total. In respect of State awards over the same period, it varied from time to time between 47 per cent of the total in April 1954 and 49.8 per cent of the total in May 1985. I come back to the point about the disparity between the coverage under Federal unions and State unions. The Opposition amendments, in addition to the other inconsistencies in legislation terms which I mentioned earlier, ignore the fact that we have a dual Federal-State industrial relations system which includes registration at State and Federal levels. Enormous problems can be caused, as the case of Moore v Doyle, with which Senator Harradine would be familiar, amply illustrates. In other words, the Opposition amendments are impractical and assume that the State systems do not exist. The Bill, on the other hand, provides machinery to overcome these problems. For example, clause 202 allows members of State unions to be treated as members of Federal unions for certain purposes. In summary, what I want to say is that we disagree in a philosophical sense with the various assumptions underlying these amendments. Secondly, in a very practical sense, because of other provisions in the Bill, we say that in legislative terms the Opposition amendments cannot be accepted. Finally, there are consequences which would flow from the passing of the Opposition amendments in terms of the relationship between the State and Federal systems which would be very confusing and damaging. So we commend the Bill to the chamber as it stands. Question put: That the amendments (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Senator D. J. Hamer) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Panizza, J. H.Bishop, B. K. Parer, W. R.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Patterson, K. C. L.Boswell, R. L. D. Puplick, C. J. G.Brownhill, D. G. C. Reid, M. E.Calvert, P. H. Sheil, G.Chaney, F. M. Short, J. R.Chapman, H. G. P. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Crichton-Browne, N. A. Teague, B. C.Durack, P. D. Vanstone, A. E.Hamer, D. J. Walters, M. S.Hill, R. M. Watson, J. O. W.Lewis, A. W. R. Aulich, T. G. Giles, P. J.Beahan, M. E. Harradine, B.Black, J. R. Jenkins, J. A.Burns, B. R. Jones, G. N. (Teller)Button, J. N. McKiernan, J. P.Childs, B. K. McLean, P. A.Coates, J. McMullan, R. F.Collins, R. L. Macklin, M. J.Colston, M. A. Maguire, G.R.Cook, P. F. S. Morris, J. J.Cooney, B. C. Powell, J. F.Coulter, J. R. Reynolds, M.Devereux, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Devlin, A. R. Schacht, C. C.Evans, Gareth Tate, M. C.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A.T. Zakharov, A. O. Question so resolved in the negative. Senator McLEAN(New South Wales)(10.22) —by leave-I move: (3) Page 84, subparagraph 189 (1) (c) (i), line 13, leave out ``3,000'', insert ``1,000''. (4) Page 86, subparagraph 193, definition of ``small oganisation'', line 40, leave out ``3,000'', insert ``1,000''. These two amendments are the first two of seven amendments to be moved by the Democrats. It is apparent not only from my speech in the second reading debate but also from the pattern of debate in this committee stage that the Democrats are, in essence, supporting the Government on this Industrial Relations Bill 1988. We have chosen two aspects of the Bill which we find exceptional and which therefore have become the foci of our amendments. They are in essence questions of structure and specifically the question of amalgamations. Earlier in the debate our attention was drawn to the fact that one of the most significant aspects of the Bill is that it seeks to alter significantly the structure of unions in Australia. This is one of the main thrusts of the draft legislation. However, in posing an alternative structure of unions it sees the process of amalgamation and the move towards essentially 20 large unions as being essential. In essence, we offer no objection to the process of amalgamation. However, we think it is important that we proceed slowly and responsibly and in a way which accommodates the needs of presently small unions. Indeed, we have been lobbied quite extensively by a number of small unions, which tell us that the formula for amalgamation poses considerable difficulties for them. These two amendments seek a significant variation on the amalgamation formula. Clauses 189 and 193 of the Bill propose that it become a requirement in three years' time that employee organisations, in order to be registered-in other words, to have standing before the Industrial Relations Commission-have memberships of no fewer than 3,000 unless they are able to prove special circumstances, and that employer associations have memberships of no fewer than 1,000 in order to have such standing. It was argued by Professor Hancock in the report of the Committee of Review of the Australian Industrial Relations Law and Systems-a committee that was commissioned by the Government and whose recommendations have been substantially accepted by it-that a minimum membership of 1,000 should be required. We are therefore merely endorsing the recommendations of the Hancock Committee. This figure would provide the opportunity to meet the needs of smaller unions, who could amalgamate rather than rely upon special circumstances, exemptions in the legislation. Therefore, this would avoid the overloading of the special circumstances provisions and would not detract from the credibility of those provisions where they were truly needed. The figure of 1,000 was the figure in the Government's 1987 Industrial Relations Bill. It was clearly acceptable to the Government 15 months ago and, at that time, it was also acceptable to the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU). We are puzzled as to why there has been a 200 per cent increase in that figure in the intervening 15 months. We argue that, since the amalgamation figure of 1,000 was acceptable to the Government and to the ACTU 15 months ago, it should still be acceptable to them now. The former Minister for Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, argued that the credibility of the amalgamations process required a strong commitment to it in the formula delineated in the Bill. He argued that without this strong commitment there would be a lack of identification and commitment by the union movement to what the Government regards as an essential process of amalgamation. The Democrats do not believe that there is any lack of commitment to amalgamations by the union movement. The two papers, Future Strategies for the Trade Union Movement and Australia Reconstructed, both have the endorsement of the ACTU and the trade union movement at large and both demonstrate a strong commitment to the amalgamation of unions. We therefore reject Mr Willis's argument that there is insufficient commitment to the process of amalgamation to ensure that the Government is able to achieve the vital objectives which are inherent in the general thrust of the broad Government strategy. Small unions have experimented with amalgamation unsuccessfully, some of them finding that very large unions cannot represent the interests of a small specialised group as well as they would like. Indeed, some of the 40-odd unions that have lobbied us in relation to these amendments have walked that course over recent years and found it to be unsuccessful. They have withdrawn from it, only to be told, through this Bill, that they are to go back whence they came. They find that quite unacceptable. We therefore feel that the figure of 3,000 is likely to lead to an ideological family of unionists whereas a requirement for a minimum of 1,000 members is more likely to be specifically based and therefore to produce the type of union structure that is able to operate more functionally in the workplace. This amendment simply says: let us accept the recommendations of the Hancock Committee. Let us go back to a formula which was acceptable to the Government 15 months ago and which was acceptable to the ACTU at the same time. Let us adopt a formula which accommodates the needs of the small unions. Let us adopt a formula which will not unnecessarily exhaust or extend the clauses of special provision. The Democrats believe that such an amendment is responsible. We understand that the Opposition will find it acceptable. Whilst we realise that in recent days it has attracted a good deal of attention, from my recent discussions with the Minister-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Peter Baume) —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., pursuant to sessional order I put the question: That the Temporary Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. The Temporary Chairman having reported accordingly- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It being 10.30 p.m, under sessional order I put the question: That the Senate do now adjourn. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(10.30) —Yesterday in the Senate I detailed various examples of the disastrous situation in Victoria under the Cain Labor Government's WorkCare scheme. Also yesterday my colleague Senator Alston and I gave details of the equally horrendous situation facing the Victorian Economic Development Corporation (VEDC) due to its investment in a number of companies and ventures which have proved to be disastrous failures. I mentioned both of those in the context that, at the end of the day, the cost of these failures and the cost of the WorkCare scheme, which has grown beyond anyone's belief, finish up with the taxpayers of Victoria, and indeed of Australia. Today I received information and some of it was reported in today's Melbourne Herald-- Senator Button —I hope it is better than most of your information. Senator SHORT —If that is best the honourable senator can do he should go back to sleep. Today I received information about the Commonwealth Banking Corporation having taken action to recover more than $300,000 owed to it. This should be of interest to Senator Button in his capacity as Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. It is very a serious matter, in that the Commonwealth Bank has been forced to take action to recover more than $300,000 which is owed to it by a high technology computer company, which had received $6m from the Victorian Investment Corporation (VIC) Ltd. Of course, the Victorian Investment Corporation is owned jointly by the Labor Government in Victoria and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. As I have said, the Commonwealth Bank has taken action to recover more than $300,000 from the company, which has had significant financial problems. It is understood as well that the company owes $400,000 to the State Bank of Victoria, and as well, there is the $6m-the $3m in equity and $3m in loans-from the Victorian Investment Corporation. The Commonwealth Bank action was taken a couple of weeks ago. Indeed, on 8 September the bank wrote to Dr Peter Sheehan, who is the Deputy Chairman of the Victorian Investment Corporation, advising him that the bank had served a notice pursuant to section 364 of the Companies (Victoria) Code on O'Dowd Research Pty Ltd. Section 364 of the code details the circumstances in which a company may be wound up by the court and one of the primary components of that, of course, is that the company shall be deemed to be unable to pay its debts. I seek leave to table the letter from the bank to the Deputy Chairman of the Victorian Investment Corporation Ltd. Leave granted. Senator SHORT —As a result of this action by the Commonwealth Bank, and given that the grave financial difficulties facing O'Dowd Research are not unique in relation to the companies that the VEDC and the Victorian Investment Corporation have provided assistance to, I have today written to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation drawing to his attention the fact the his bank has taken formal action to recover these funds from O'Dowd Research and pointing out that in late 1986 the firm received $6m from the Victorian Government, in effect, through the VIC and the VEDC. I also drew to the Chairman's attention a reported statement by an officer of the Victorian Corporate Affairs Commission that O'Dowd Research has failed to lodge returns for the 1986 and 1987 financial years. Because of the difficulties that so many of the companies that have received assistance from the VIC and the VEDC appear to be in, I have asked the Chairman of the bank to request that the bank review its lending policies as they apply to companies associated with both these Victorian Government financial institutions, to ensure that the interests of taxpayers in general, and Victorian taxpayers in particular, are fully safeguarded. This is a matter of very considerable importance, because it affects the public purse and, therefore, every taxpayer, every Australian and, in relation to Victorian financial institutions in particular, every Victorian taxpayer because that is where the buck stops when ventures of this nature run foul of normal commercial considerations. Victorian taxpayers have been continually assaulted by the Cain Labor Government during the past 6 1/2 years. My letter to the Chairman of the Commonwealth Bank, Mr Besley, is designed to ensure that at least in this area of Commonwealth Bank lending to institutions which have received assistance from the VEDC and the Victorian Investment Corporation much greater attention is given to safeguarding the interests of taxpayers. I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard my letter to the Chairman of the bank. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- 29 September 1988 Mr M A Besley, AM Chairman Commonwealth Banking Corporation Cnr Pitt Street & Martin Place Sydney NSW 2000 Dear Mr Besley, It has come to my attention that the Commonwealth Bank is taking formal action to recover more than $300,000 from the Melbourne based computer technology firm of O'Dowd Research Pty Ltd. As you will be aware, this firm in late 1986 received $6 million, divided equally between equity and loans from the Victorian Investment Corporation, which is owned jointly by the Government of Victoria and the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. You may also be aware of a reported statement by an officer of the Victorian Corporate Affairs Commission that O'Dowd Research has failed to lodge returns for the 1986 and 1987 financial years. O'Dowd Research is only one of many companies which have received funding from the Victorian Investment Corporation and/or the Victorian Economic Development Corporation and which are in financial difficulties. Any losses incurred by the V.I.C. or the V.E.D.C. of course are borne ultimately by the taxpayer. In essence the same applies to losses incurred by the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. I do not know the extent of Commonwealth Bank loans to ventures with which the V.E.D.C. or the V.I.C. are involved. In the light of reports about the parlous financial position of the V.E.D.C., and the V.I.C., however, I am writing to request that your Management and Board review the Bank's lending policies as they apply to companies associated with both these Victorian Government financial institutions to ensure that the interests of taxpayers in general, and Victorian taxpayers in particular, are fully safeguarded. I am sending a copy of this letter to the Acting Treasurer for his information. I look forward to hearing from you on this request at your earliest convenience. Your sincerely, JIM SHORT cc. The Hon John Dawkins, Acting Treasurer Senator SHORT —I conclude by reminding the Senate of the importance of the election that will be held in Victoria on Saturday, 1 October. The result of that election will in many ways determine whether Victoria continues to slide into financial bankruptcy, as it has done inexorably over recent years under the gross and criminal economic mismanagement of the Hawke Government, or whether Victorians, by returning a Kennett Liberal government on Saturday, will give Victoria a chance to live and grow again. Senator VALLENTINE(Western Australia)(10.39) —As I did not get a chance to speak earlier on the General Business notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Crichton-Browne, I will use the opportunity to do so now-not only because I think I was personally attacked quite unjustifiably by the honourable senator but also because I think this is a very important issue which I want to address. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr Deputy President: I will have to rely on your knowledge of the numbers of the Standing Orders, but I understand that there is a restriction in Standing Orders on the capacity of senators to address such matters on the adjournment. The matter to which the honourable senator refers was on the Notice Paper and was part of the general debate, and I think it is out of order for the debate to be continued during the adjournment debate in this way. I seek clarification on that point and your ruling on this matter. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Does Senator Vallentine wish to speak to the point of order? Senator Vallentine —Yes. The fact is that a number of people were on the speakers list. There was a restricted amount of time and not everybody could speak. I will withdraw my introductory remarks and make this an adjournment speech which happens to be on the same topic. I was planning to make a speech this evening anyway on the subject of nuclear warship visits. The fact that I did not get a chance to speak earlier is perhaps beside the point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! The point of order raised by Senator Chaney is correct. The matter is still on the Notice Paper and the honourable senator is not entitled to continue the debate. Her speech on the adjournment cannot be directly on the subject that is on the Notice Paper. Senator Vallentine —That is okay. Can I continue my remarks in the adjournment-- The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Vallentine will have to be careful because a matter relating to the visit of American and Allied ships to Sydney is on the Notice Paper. Senator Vallentine —May I clarify something, Mr Deputy President? Are you suggesting that I cannot make a speech on this topic while this subject remains on the Notice Paper? I am not allowed to make a speech if this matter remains on the Notice Paper for weeks or months? If that is the case, that is an outrageous situation. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —There is a 15-day limit. Senator VALLENTINE —I have a right to speak on the subject. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! There is a 15-day limit. Senator Vallentine can make her speech after this matter has been on the Notice Paper for 15 days. The honourable senator may speak on the adjournment, but she cannot speak on that subject. Senator VALLENTINE —All right, I will speak on the topic of militarisation in general, which is not specific to the subject of the nuclear warship visits. I am opposed to the glorification of war under any guise whatsoever. I think it is most important that we do not glorify in the community any form of militarisation. I do not think we have to look very far to see the horrors of modern warfare. I would concur with the comments that were made earlier by Senator MacGibbon on the subject of chemical and biological warfare. He is wrong to say that there has been an absolute silence from the peace movement on these subjects. We have spoken out on these topics. But, in fact, as often happens with media releases which are put out by individual members of parliament, there has not been a great deal of response. I have written letters about the nature of chemical warfare and what has been going on in Iraq, where the Kurdish people have suffered enormously in recent times. So it is quite incorrect to say that nothing has been said on that subject by people in the peace movement. I would also like to point out that, as the peace movement in Australia is focusing on areas which Australia has direct involvement in and responsibility for, it is important that we speak out about chemical and biological warfare as well as nuclear weapons in general. But it is more relevant for the peace movement in Australia to direct its efforts to the active involvement of the Australian Government. As an elected representative, I think that is what it is my job to do. That is where I can have most influence on Australian public opinion. I can focus on Australia's involvement in the nuclear arms race in whatever guise that takes. I think it is most important that the peace movement is not criticised for not having opinions on international issues. We do have opinions on international issues but our most effective work can be done on Australia's direct involvement in the arms race. That is where we choose to pinpoint our community education programs. I think it is also important to point out that nuclear weapons and the Western alliance have not preserved world peace for 43 years. This subject is often raised by members of the Opposition. I think this claim is an insult to the families of the 20 million people who have died since 1945-almost as many people as died in the Second World War. Many smaller wars, often proxy wars, have been fought by the super-powers, which use the smaller nations as pawns in the superpower rivalries. So I think it is most insulting to those countries to say that nuclear weapons have kept the peace or that there has not been a war since 1945. This just shows that there is a very clear misunderstanding of the nature of modern warfare. Our security in Australia has nothing to do with belonging to ANZUS. I believe that we belong to ANZUS for one reason. As the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who has recently been relabelled the Minister for nuclear threat, has often said, we do so because we get cheap sophisticated military technology from the United States of America, which means that we have to buy into the war games that that country wants to play in order to test out those expensive systems. That is one of the reasons why we belong to that alliance. I believe that the benefits flow in the direction of the United States rather than in the direction of Australia. I also want to correct something which is often said by people who criticise the peace movement-that is, that we are anti-American. This is arrant nonsense. Senator Chaney —And unilateral. Senator VALLENTINE —It is absolute arrant nonsense for Senator Chaney to say that we are unilateralists. We are working for multilateral nuclear disarmament. It so happens that the bases in Australia are American. It so happens that many of the warships that visit Australia are American. In this case we are also protesting about the British ships, including the Ark Royal, which bear nuclear weapons. It is most important that this is understood. We would protest vigorously-and we do-against French militarisation in the Pacific. If French ships in the present naval review were bearing nuclear weapons, we would protest vigorously against them. We would also protest vigorously against the Chinese or the Soviets if their ships came into our ports. It happens that the ships bearing nuclear weapons in our ports at the moment are from the United States and the United Kingdom. So that is where we are directing our energies. Sometimes I think our energies are a little misguided. Actually, we should be directing our chief opposition to our own Government. After all, it is our own Government that has issued these kind invitations to the visiting warships. I think it is also important that we hold responsible our Government for putting us at risk. The Minister for Defence really ought to be defending Australia. He should be making sure that Australia and Australians are secure from any kind of risk or attack. But he is actually inviting risks. He is doing this on behalf of the Government and on behalf of the people of Australia. But 50 per cent of Australians quite clearly disagree with the Defence Minister putting us at risk by inviting these warships into our ports. I think there are many better ways of fostering international understanding than by glamorising war, which is what I think we tend to do. We need to promote the learning of foreign languages, cultural exchanges, youth festivals and more events like the Indian Ocean festival of the arts which was held in Perth and the South Pacific event which was held in Townsville. These activities actually bring people of the region together and give them the opportunity to exchange a lot of very valuable cultural information. We can build better relationships by engaging in that kind of activity rather than by playing fancy war games with one of the superpowers. Military activity makes the people of the region feel very ill at ease. There is no doubt at all that the people of the South Pacific see the French, the Americans and the Soviets as great threats to peace in the region. So we should not be involved with any of those superpowers by playing any fancy war games with them. These activities do not foster peaceful relationships but increase threats in our region. I think it is also important to realise that governments have to make choices about where they spend their money. I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the publication World Military and Social Expenditures 1987-88, which details, as the title suggests, how much individual countries are spending on militarisation around the world. There is an increasing call for governments to spend money on social programs-on health, education and welfare programs, on housing and on feeding people rather than feeding the arms race. I just want to give a few examples of how money could be much more effectively spent on social programs than on weapons systems of any kind which I believe increase our insecurity. I do not believe that they make us any more secure in any way at all. For example, 50 MX so-called `Peacekeepers'-and I emphasise that that word is in inverted commas because they are violent weapons with multiple re-entry vehicles which can do an enormous amount of damage; the United States Government calls these weapons `Peacekeepers', which I think is a highly offensive euphemism-costing $4.5 billion could equal a year's cost of the United States health program for long term home care of about one million chronically ill children and elderly people. The citizens of the United States-and I was there recently-are railing against their own Government's outrageous expense on militarism. For example, that country's research on Star Wars for the fiscal year 1988, almost $4 trillion, would equal an elementary school education for 1 1/2 million children in Latin America. I think we should be paying attention to these non-military options rather than increasing the risk to all people on planet Earth by wastefully expending this amount of money on weapons systems. One Trident submarine costing $1 1/2 billion would equal a five-year program for universal child immunisation against six deadly diseases, preventing one million deaths a year. The United Nations Children's Fund has an international program of trying to rid children of these six deadly diseases against which immunisation is available but the funding is not forthcoming. For the cost of one Trident submarine those sorts of problems could be solved. These are the sorts of choices that internationally and as a global community we have to start making. I think that the people who want peace through strength are those who are also concerned about India's rearmament, about Indonesia, about Libya, and about the Soviet threat. Some of these people talk of an all oceans alliance, involving countries with a well-known respect for human rights and democracy like Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea and Indonesia. Their records are highly dubious in areas of human rights. On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation midday show today defence analysts were trying to work out why Malaysia was spending such a massive amount on rearmament. They came to the conclusion that Malaysia felt it necessary to follow the example of neighbours who were also expanding their military might. This is exactly the problem with the arms race. It has an escalating effect. A threat perception is seen by one country or a group of countries. Their ideological opponents, or even their neighbours who are not necessarily ideologically opposed, see a threat and immediately feel that they must try to keep up with the competition. I think that is a great shame. We should not be part of encouraging that kind of thinking to go ahead. People who want peace through strength cannot have it both ways. It is a recipe for war, not for real long term security. It provides the momentum for the arms race and diverts resources from real human needs, which is where I believe we should be directing them. Real security comes through removing the causes of war. I have frequently advocated increased overseas aid. Currently we spend 0.36 per cent of gross national product on aid despite the original United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. So Australia is about halfway to what it should be providing in terms of the United Nations intended levels of expenditure. Australia is one of the most affluent countries. I think we should be going ahead with that rather than cutting down our foreign aid. With that aid goes trade. We object to unfair trading pressure from the United States-our first rate ally and second rate friend, as our relationship could be described. But our smaller trading partners also want fair terms to reduce their economic insecurity. At the recent Parliamentary Christian Fellowship meeting we heard the Assistant Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, the Reverend Bruce Wilson. He had just been to the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England in the United Kingdom. He said that what became very obvious at that conference was that the call, particularly from fellow bishops from developing countries and from the Pacific, was for economic security. That is what they are calling for. They are not looking for defence arrangements. They are saying, `We can be more secure if we have economic security and independence'. They are very keen to build better relationships. That is exactly what we should be doing. In some respects our Government is doing that. I think that its position is rather hypocritical when one lines it up against the fact that we are also part of a military and nuclear defence arrangement with the United States. I think that is a great hypocrisy of our Government's position at the moment. I do not believe there is any security whatsoever in nuclear weapons. At the moment we have a number of nuclear weapons in Sydney Harbour for this fleet review. There is a wave of opposition around the world to nuclear port calls. The United States Navy is increasingly frustrated by protests, not just in Australia but in Denmark; New Zealand, which has been very strong on this issue; Palau; Spain; the Philippines; the North Atlantic network, which has just met for its fourth conference in Glasgow; the Pacific campaign to disarm the seas, which has just met in Sydney; and the Greenpeace disarm the seas campaign. All these campaigns are contributing to this growing opposition to the deployment of nuclear weapons at sea. Of course, we must not forget the domestic opposition to the deployment of nuclear weapons in various ports in the United States. Senator Dunn mentioned the New York situation when she spoke earlier. The same thing is happening in San Francisco. There is enormous domestic opposition to crowded ports being used for the entry of nuclear weapons in the United States and, of course, to nuclear weapons at sea. There are 16,000 nuclear weapons now at sea, which is a third, roughly speaking, of the total number of nuclear warheads. The peace movement is turning towards demands for naval arms control, which is a very important subject. It is one which was not allowed to be part of the discussions at the special session on disarmament in New York which I attended. It was interesting to note that the United States refused to allow any mention of the naval arms race, yet this is where the arms race is escalating most rapidly in the world at the moment. Weapons at sea are not part of any arms control agreements. They are very difficult to locate because they are moving around. They can hide out in the depths of the ocean. There is no visible opposition to those weapons as they float around the seas. But the risks with the armaments being deployed at sea are enormous. For example, if there was a breakdown in communications from any vessel and there was an emergency or a situation of high tension or high risk then the commanders of the vessels would be very tempted to use their nuclear payloads if they lost contact with headquarters. That is not a wild proposition but something which is quite likely and which I have discussed with former admirals of the United States Navy as a distinct proposition. They are extremely worried about the autonomy of naval commanders at sea in a risk situation if they have lost contact. We really need to focus a lot of attention on the arms race as part of this international campaign. Here in Australia we are participating in the growth of the arms race at sea by hosting the visits of nuclear armed warships. By inviting these ships to visit our ports-Senator MacGibbon is right; they are here at the invitation of our Government-we are saying to the nuclear navies of the world, `We approve of what you are doing. We think it is fine for you to hold the world's people to ransom by trundling your nuclear weapons all around the world's oceans'. I think that is a totally unacceptable proposition. In more general terms we must overcome our preoccupation and obsession with East-West issues and peace through strength. Security in this part of the world means economic security, not greater expenditure on weapons of destruction. Public opinion is now leading the way in saying no to nuclear armed ship visits and the politicians must now follow. In the Small and Associates Pty Ltd polls over 50 per cent of Australians have said month after month for the year of 1988 that they disapprove of the Government continuing to invite these risks into our ports. So I think it is very appropriate that Mr Beazley has now been dubbed the Minister for nuclear risks. It is an unnecessary risk which he is inviting into our ports and I think that as the Minister for Defence he should be defending Australia against risks and not inviting risks into our ports. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(10.47) —As honourable senators know, it is now the tax season. Like the concern I had last evening, I have another concern about the Government locking up money in this Treasury that belongs to taxpayers with the add-on figure to provisional tax. Going back some 10 odd years, provisional tax was the same as the past year's tax. That amount was used as a figure for provisional tax. Under a Liberal government there was some sort of concoction brought up by which about 5 per cent was added to last year's tax bill for next year's provisional tax. That remained much the same until the last year of the Liberal Government when it put that up to 10 per cent. At that time inflation was running somewhere near that figure. When this present Labor Government came into power in 1983 it immediately increased the figure to 11 per cent and has kept it there. The Government has claimed since those years that it has got hold of inflation and forced it down. But by the same token it has still insisted on leaving that add-on figure for provisional tax at 11 per cent. That adds up to a lot of dollars. I will give some figures. In 1983-84, when we arrived at the figure of 11 per cent, the inflation rate was 5.8 per cent. We had the figure of 11 per cent add-on. In 1985-86 the inflation rate was 8.4 per cent. We still had the 11 per cent add-on figure. In 1987-88 the inflation rate was officially 7.3 per cent, but we still had that 11 per cent add-on. The Government and the Treasury, having pushed the add-on figure up to 10 and then 11 per cent to counteract inflation, would, if they were dinkum, use the same criteria when inflation goes down and reduce the figure. It is time the Government brought that figure into line. That provisional figure represents an interest free loan to the Government. As I said last night in respect of the diesel fuel rebate, it is a matter of locking up interest free funds in the Treasury at certain times of the year. Another small matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the Senate at this late hour concerns the fiasco with the capital gains tax. It is ridiculous that the dividends on a parcel of shares, whether it is large or small-I am more worried about the small investors such as old people who have retired and have a parcel of shares-are to be automatically reinvested. That means that every year a certain number of shares-it might be only 10 shares if a person has a parcel of 500 and the dividend is enough to buy 30 or 40 shares-attract a bought-in value. Every year that parcel of shares has a new date of acquisition. I know that the capital gains tax has not been in place for very long but, looking down the track seven or eight years in the case of, say, a deceased estate, a person with 500-odd shares, or any small parcel, will have to calculate the capital gains tax at 11 different dates. The first is the acquisition date and the others are the dates on which that person receives the 10 dividends every year. Even though the capital gains tax has been in operation for only 3, 4 or 5 years-and I have the figures-it has reached the stage where, especially in a post-crash situation, no profit is made but the accounting fees taken away or added on amount to far more than the value of the dividends. This will multiply if the system remains in place for the next 20 or 30 years. We have pointed out that if there is a change of government that sort of thing will disappear within five years. As a result of the ill-thought out capital gains tax, in many cases accounting fees will increase and many people will not be able to afford them. I urge the Government, if it will not remove this iniquitous tax, to consider how it will administer that sort of thing. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.04 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Proposals-1988- No. 13-Quarterly and annual surveys of expenditure by public financial enterprises on fixed assets. No. 14-Quarterly survey of international shipping operations. No. 15-Survey of international airline operations. No. 16-Survey of principal transport enterprises. No. 17-Survey of foreign investment. No. 18-Consumer Price Index (CPI). No. 19-Monthly collection of prices of materials used in the construction of buildings. No. 20-Monthly collection of export prices. No. 21-Monthly collection of prices of articles produced by manufacturing industry. No. 22-Monthly collection of prices of materials used by manufacturing industry. No. 23-Monthly survey of housing finance for owner occupation. No. 24-Quarterly survey of government financial transactions. No. 25-Survey of building activity. No. 26-Survey of interstate road freight movement. No. 27-Census of mining establishments and enterprises. No. 28-Mineral and petroleum exploration. No. 29-Census of sand, gravel and quarry production, Queensland. No. 30-Census of manufacturers' stocks and selected commodities. No. 31-Survey of sales and stocks of new agricultural machinery. No. 32-Surveys of monthly and quarterly manufacturing production. No. 33-Survey of sales of new construction machinery and selected attachments. No. 34-Survey of sales and stocks of new tractors. No. 35-Survey of forest products, Tasmania. No. 36-South Australian timber statistics. No. 37-Census of Queensland slaughter- houses. No. 38-Interstate exports, Tasmania. No. 39-Sales of Australian wine by winemakers. No. 40-Retail business survey. No. 41-Census of manufacturing establishments and enterprises. No. 42-Survey of interest and royalties 1987-88. No. 43-Survey of new capital expenditure. No. 44-Survey of stocks and sales. No. 45-Survey of metallurgical refining, Tasmania. No. 46-Interstate trade, Western Australia. No. 47-Survey of tourist accommodation. No. 48-Labour force survey. No. 49-Survey of job vacancies and overtime. No. 50-Household expenditure survey. No. 51-Census of health and welfare establishments, Queensland. No. 52-Collection of statistics on industrial disputes. No. 53-Agricultural census. No. 54-Monthly collection of statistics on apples and pears in cool stores. No. 55-Census of livestock slaughtering establishments. No. 56-Wool brokers and dealers receivals and stocks collection. No. 57-Survey of business registrations. Bass Strait Freight Adjustment Levy Act-Price Determination pursuant to subsection 6 (2), dated 5 September 1988. Defence Act-Section 58h-Determinations-1988- No. 2-Flying allowance. No. 5-Review of salaries and relevant allowances. Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Grants) Act-Price Determination pursuant to subsection 6a (3), dated 1 October 1988. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 422) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: Have any offset obligations incurred under the civil offsets program, which have not been satisfactorily discharged, been written off since 30 June 1985; if so, what specific obligations were written off and what were the reasons for the individual write-offs. Senator Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (i) No civil offsets obligations have been written off. Records of unfulfilled obligations are maintained indefinitely and negotiations will be recommenced should the supplier again bid for Government business. (ii) Three civil offsets obligations have been identified which are unlikely to be fulfilled. All arose from purchases made several years ago. They include: - Two obligations which were incurred by corporations which ceased trading soon thereafter. - The third was inadequately secured by an agreement which included a ``best efforts'' clause and was ambiguous to the extent that no action could be taken by the offsets authority. These unfulfilled agreements total about $30m in value and make up less than 2 per cent of the Civil Offsets Program's achievements. (Question No. 423) Senator Lewis asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) Have any offsets obligations incurred under the Defence component of the Offsets Program, which have not been satisfactorily discharged, been written of since 30 June 1983; if so, what specific obligations were written off and what were the reasons for the individual write-offs. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) No obligations incurred under the Defence component of the Offsets Program have been written-off. (Question No. 426) Senator Lewis asked the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 2 June 1988: (1) What individual obligations under the civil 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 Button —The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: (1) Only a small percentage of offsets obligations are addressed on an individual basis. Most obligations are discharged through longer term arrangements such as Pre-Qualified Offsets Supplier, Partnership and various forms of Corporate Agreements. The reporting format used in these agreements does not allow the disaggregation of offsets achievements in relation to specific obligations. Further, in its consideration of the report of the Committee of Review on Offsets (Inglis), the Government decided that detailed information on an overseas supplier's offsets activities should only be made publicly available in case of delinquency of the overseas supplier, as the information is regarded as Commercial-in-Confidence. (2) For the reasons outlined in (1) only aggregate information on the Offsets Program as a whole can be made available. The following is a report on offsets obligations incurred and achievements of the civil offsets program between 1 July 1981 and the latest report available for period ending 30 June 1987. (This information has not been finalised for the whole of the 1987-88 financial year.) This information is in nominal Australian dollars. Industry Obligations Achievements $A Million $A Million Aerospace 668.7 307.0 Computing 167.4 117.3 Communications 385.0 277.8 Vehicles 31.7 33.5 Earthmoving Equipment 3.1 24.7 Misc Electrical 22.5 7.9 Misc Mechanical 2.3 2.0 Misc Machines 2.7 5.1 Total 1,283.4 775.3 Note: Achievements occur some time after the obligations are incurred. Some achievements included in the table result from obligations incurred prior to 1981 and many of the obligations incurred towards the end of the period have not yet been fulfilled. (Question No. 528) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, upon notice, on 29 August 1988: (1) How many positions in each Senior Executive Service and administrative service category were abolished and how many in each category were created in 1987-88 in the Minister's portfolio. (2) Of those created, how many have the same similar functions as one or more of those abolished. Senator Cook —The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) Formation of the Primary Industries and Energy portfolio occurred in this period as part of the 1987 Machinery of Government changes and involved merging the former Department of Resources and Energy, the former Department of Primary Industry and two Divisions and some corporate services elements of the former Department of Trade. Consequently, the majority of positions abolished and created related to this merger. In answer to Question (1), the following table shows a comparison between the number of positions in the respective Senior Executive Service (SES) and Administrative Service Officer (ASO) categories which existed in the former Departments immediately prior to the abovementioned merger, i.e as at July 1987 and as at June 1988 when the new Department of Primary Industries and Energy (DPIE) organisation structure was in place. Category Number of Positions as at July 1987 Number of Positions as at June 1988 Variation SES Level 6 2 2 0 SES Level 5 3 2 -1 SES Level 4 16 16 0 SES Level 3 11 7 -4 SES Level 2 45 46 +1 SES Level 1 29 19 -10 ASO8 165 143 -22 ASO7 182 178 -4 ASO6 234 220 -14 ASO5 103 96 -7 ASO4 96 106 +10 ASO3 98 108 +10 ASO2 280 195 -85 ASO1 236 156 -80. (2) In the new DPIE structure there were 11 SES positions created which have similar functions to positions abolished in the former Departments. It is not possible to determine precisely how many ASO positions created in the new DPIE structure have the same or similar functions as one or more of those abolished because of the approach adopted. Abolition and creation of ASO positions was carried out in conjunction with introduction of new Divisional and Branch structures, with the endorsement of relevant Staff Associations and with the interests of affected staff in mind, particularly as substantial reductions in the overall number of positions occurred. The majority of ASO positions created would have functions generally similar to positions in the former Departments. (Question No. 548) Senator Archer asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 30 August 1988: For the financial years 1986/87 and 1987/88, what was the expenditure, by quarter, for travel and accommodation. Senator Richardson —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Quarter Ended 1986/87 1987/88 $ $ 30 September 28,117,726 28,308,504 31 December 31,415,489 33,274,418 31 March 25,047,491 32,693,405 30 June 28,196,000 35,482,315 This data is for Travelling and Subsistence in total. It includes not only travel and accommodation, but all classes of fares, travelling allowances, expenses of members of the Defence Force and civilians travelling on duty or postings (including families on posting), members of the Defence Force travelling on leave and fares and attendance allowance for Reserve Forces. Senator Cook —On 25 November 1987 (Hansard, page 2391), Senator Coulter asked Senator Walsh, as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, a question without notice concerning the occurrence of cadmium in Australian food. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: Australia does not have the sort of cadmium pollution that occurs in the industrial countries of the northern hemisphere and therefore the use of the word pollution to describe the Australian situation is somewhat exaggerated. Some incremental cadmium may accrue from the application of fertilizers derived from phosphatic deposits and this may be of significance in areas where other factors, such as soil acidity, favour uptake by plants. Directly or indirectly, soil is the source of cadmium for grazing cattle and sheep, but the distribution of high cadmium levels in the kidneys of sheep and cattle is not always correlated with the use of phosphatic fertilizers. The factors governing uptake and accumulation of cadmium in plant and animal tissues are complex and not well understood. Kidney levels tend to increase with age, and higher levels are found in females than in males. Kidneys have higher levels than liver and negligible levels are found in muscle. The 1986 National Residue Survey found 7 per cent of wheat samples analysed for cadmium to contain more than 0.05 mg/kg of cadmium. In the 1987 survey period only 2.86 per cent of samples were above 0.05 mg/kg. Since that period no further violations on wheat have been reported. There is no record of a shipment of Australian wheat being rejected by Sweden because of cadmium contamination. Indeed, the last shipment of Australian wheat direct to Sweden appears to have been made in 1953. Sweden is a net exporter of wheat and is only a small and irregular importer. The 1986 National Residue Survey found that 21.3 per cent of sheep kidneys and 12 per cent of beef kidneys sampled exceeded the Australian standard of 2.5 mg/kg for bovine and ovine kidney. The Western Australian data showed 47.1 per cent of sheep kidneys exceeded that level not 75 per cent as mentioned by the honourable Senator. The samples analysed since 1986 show a somewhat lower incidence of levels exceeding the Australian standard. Only 8.6 per cent of sheep kidneys and 4.7 per cent of cattle kidneys had levels above 2.5 mg/kg, while the figures for Western Australia were 26.8 per cent for sheep and 14.7 per cent for cattle. The complex issues governing the uptake of cadmium by plants and animals are being investigated by the Bureau of Rural Resources in the Department of Primary Industries and Energy in close consultation with State agencies, the CSIRO and the NH&MRC. Senator Walsh —On 2 June 1988 (Hansard, page 3455), Senator McGauran asked me a question, without notice, in my capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy in the Senate. This question concerned the Government's uranium policy. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy has supplied me with the following additional information: A document purporting to be a Denison contract to supply uranium to a Japanese utility was fleetingly shown to the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy at a meeting with Mr J. D. Fowler, on 19 April 1988. Presumably this is the document referred to in Denison's letter of 26 May 1988. The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that he was unsure of the status of the document he was shown. Mr Kerin advised Mr Fowler of his views on the matter in a letter responding to the Denison letter of 26 May.