House of Representatives
13 May 1970

27th Parliament · 2nd Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 27th Parliament
  3. 1970

Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Sir William Aston) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers.

page 2035

PETITIONS

Kangaroos

Mr FOX presented from certain residents of the State of New South Wales a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy; none of the Australian States has sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem; and it is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received and read.

Kangaroos

Mr WENTWORTH presented from Mrs Florence Jones and 34 other residents of the State of New South Wales a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy; none of the Australian States has sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem; and it is an indisputable fact that no natural resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Govern ment make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received.

Conciliation and Arbitration

Mr HOWSON presented from 4,636 electors of the Commonwealth a petition showing that in the national interest it is essential that there be an effective and respected Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system; that the decision given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the professional engineers case on 3rd December 1969, which has followed to the letter in both magnitude and date of operation the salary increases for engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service which were announced before the arbitration hearing had concluded has given rise to bitter dismay and has indicated a lack of independent assessment; that statements made by leaders of industrial organisations have indicated disillusionment with recent decisions of the Federal arbitration system including particular references to the professional engineers case; that an unacceptable arbitration system must inevitably lead to industrial unrest throughout Australia, to the detriment of the community.

The petitioners pray that the Australian Government take positive action as soon as possible to re-establish confidence in the Commonwealth arbitration system and to ensure that consideration of salaries and conditions for professional engineers be dealt with in a manner which will be seen to be expeditious and just and will be appropriate to the unique and complex nature of professional engineering employment.

Petition received and read.

Mr HOWSON:
CASEY, VICTORIA

– I move-

That the petition be printed.

In accordance with the requirements of standing order 132, I inform the House thatI intend to submit a notice of motion in connection with the petition.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Kangaroos

Mr IRWIN presented from certain residents of the State of New South Wales a petition showing that the red kangaroo and many other marsupials, through shooting for commercial purposes, have been reduced to a numerical level where their survival is in jeopardy; none of the Australian States has sufficient wardens to detect and apprehend people breaking the laws in existence in each State, and in such a vast country only uniform laws and a complete cessation of commercialisation can ensure the survival of our national emblem; and it is an indisputable fact that no natural’ resource can withstand hunting on such a concentrated scale unless some provision is made for its future.

The petitioners pray that the export of all kangaroo products be banned immediately, and the Commonwealth Government make a serious appraisal of its responsibility in the matter to ensure the survival of the kangaroo.

Petition received.

Education

Mr DUTHIE presented from certain citizens of the Commonwealth a petition showing that (a) the Commonwealth Parliament has acted to remove some inadequacies in the Australian education system; (b) a major inadequacy at present in Australian education is the lack of equal education opportunity for all; (c) more than 500,000 children suffer from serious lack of equal opportunity; (d) Australia cannot afford to waste the talents of onesixth of its school children; (e) only the Commonwealth has the financial resources for special programmes to remove inequalities; and (0 nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States have shown that the chief impetus for change and the finance for improvement come from the national Government.

The petitioners pray that the House make legal provision for (1) a joint CommonwealthState inquiry into inequalities in Australian education to obtain evidence on which to base long term national programmes for the elimination of inequalities; (2) the immediate financing of special programmes for low income earners, migrants, Aboriginals, rural and inner suburban dwellers and handicapped children; and (3) the provision of pre-school opportunities for all children from culturally different or socially and economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Petition received and read.

Conciliation and Arbitration

Mr PETTITT presented from certain electors of the Division of Hume a petition showing that in the national interest it is essential that there be an effective and respected Commonwealth conciliation and arbitration system; that the decision given by the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the professional engineers’ case on 3rd December 1969, which has followed to the letter in both magnitude and date of operation the salary increases for engineers employed in the Commonwealth Public Service which were announced before the arbitration hearing had concluded has given rise to utter dismay and has indicated a lack of independent assessment; that recent statements made at the Australian Workers Union Conference and by the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions have indicated disillusionment with the Federal arbitration system and have particularly referred to the professional engineers’ case; and that an unacceptable arbitration system must inevitably lead to industrial unrest throughout Australia.

The petitioners pray that the Australian Government take positive action as soon as possible to re-establish confidence in the Commonwealth arbitration system.

Petition received.

page 2036

NOTICE OF MOTION

Mr FOX:
Henty

– I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move:

  1. That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and report upon:

    1. The need for an urgent and comprehensive survey of wildlife populations including birds, mammals of the land and water, and reptiles, and their ecology to enable conservation measures to be effectively applied to threatened species;
    2. the adequacy of the several systems of national parks, reserves, etc., of the States and Territories to ensure that at least minimum areas of the major animal habitats and the wildlife of the continent are preserved, held securely, and are properly managed in the national interest;
    3. the effects of pollution and the widespread use of pesticides on wildlife population;
    4. the effect on the population of kangaroos of the trade in meat and hides and the effect of other industrial exploitation on wildlife;
    5. the need for international and interstate agreements for the effective conservation of migratory animals; (0 the threat presented to wildlife by the large numbers of domestic animals gone wild, particularly in Northern Australia; and
    6. the need for a Commonwealth wildlife conservation authority.
  2. That the committee recognise the control in these matters exercised by the States and seek their co-operation in all relevant aspects.
  3. That the committee consist of 7 members, 4 to be appointed by the Prime Minister and 3 to be appointed by the Leader of the Opposition
  4. That every appointment of a member of the committee be forthwith notified in writing to the Speaker.
  5. That the Chairman be appointed by the Prime Minister.
  6. That the Chairman have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also have a casting vote.
  7. That the Chairman of the committee may from time to time appoint another member of the committee to be Deputy Chairman, and that the member so appointed act as Chairman of the committee at any time when the Chairman is nol present at a meeting of the committee.
  8. That the Deputy Chairman, when acting as Chairman, have a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also have a casting vote.
  9. That the committee have” power to send for persons, papers and records, and to move from place to place.
  10. That the committee report to the House as soon as possible.
  11. That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders.

page 2037

QUESTION

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr LUCHETTI:
MACQUARIE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question to the Minister for Social Services deals with the difficulties of living being experienced by aged, physically handicapped, sick and other needy Australians. I ask the Minister to make an immediate increase in the rate of pension payments because of the hardship being experienced by many pension recipients due to the continuing increase in the cost of living and the necessity to provide against the rigours of the approaching winter. Will the Minister show compassion by breaking with past practice in the timing of pension increases and act now to grant the necessary pension justice?

Mr WENTWORTH:
Minister for Social Services · MACKELLAR, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I think the honourable member is well aware that this is a matter of policy and not one capable of being dealt with at the present moment. The honourable member will know that I and every other member of the Government endeavour to approach all these things in a spirit of sympathy and compassion and, within available resources, to do the best that is possible for pensioners and all other sections of the Australian community.

page 2037

QUESTION

DARTMOUTH AND CHOWILLA DAMS

Mr GILES:
ANGAS, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– The Minister for National Development will be aware that written into the Dartmouth Dam agreement, which was signed by the leaders of 4 interested governments, was a clause granting South Australia an effective increase in divertible water entitlement of 37%. Will South Australia necessarily be offered this increase in entitlement in any renegotiation of the agreement? If the conditions are altered, for example by request to build 2 dams at once, what will be the attitude of the other parties? Can the Minister see any immediate advantage to South Australia in the construction of Chowilla Dam in addition to Dartmouth Dam or would any marginal increase in yield be taken up by the 2 upstream States?

Mr SWARTZ:
Minister for National Development · DARLING DOWNS, QUEENSLAND · LP

– First of all I would express disappointment that the agreement for the construction of the Dartmouth storage on the Murray system was not proceeded with by the South Australian Parliament, because we know that it is to the definite advantage of South Australia to proceed with that agreement. The honourable member has asked a number of questions which relate first of all to the Government and Parliament of South Australia and the governments and parliaments of New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth. As far as the questions relating to whether or not there would be any advantage to South Australia in the dual construction of 2 storages at Chowilla and Dartmouth are concerned, the advice of the River Murray Commission to the 4 parliaments and to the 4 governments is that little advantage would be obtained in total storage gained and that in fact a very good possibility exists that if the 2 storages were constructed together no additional benefit would be available in the form of additional water supplies to South Australia.

Even if there were agreement by the upstream States to allow South Australia a portion of the very small increase in total storage that would result, it would be only a very minute addition to the existing arrangements and also would be at a very substantial cost. It is ?. fact that the Dartmouth storage, as agreed to by the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and the Commonwealth, and now not yet ratified by South Australia, will provide to South Australia approximately an additional quarter of a million acre feet of water per year. We believe that it is in the best interests of South Australia to proceed with this agreement.

As to the question whether the other Governments would agree to continue the increased supply of water to South Australia if the Chowilla Dam were proceeded with or if the 2 projects proceeded together, I of course cannot answer on behalf of the other governments. But I think it is quite clear that this matter has been thrashed out very thoroughly over a long period. A firm decision was made first of all on the recommendation of the River Murray Commission and by all the parties to the agreement. This decision subsequently was ratified by 3 of those parties. So I would say that it would be unlikely that the other States would agree to any additional supplies going to South Australia if they did not proceed with the Dartmouth proposal.

A question arises also as to whether or not the present supply of water to South Australia under the existing agreements would be maintained in the future. Well, my advice is that this probably would be so. But it is the same volume of water that has been provided over many, many years, in fact dating back practically to the year 1915. The only way in which South Australia could gain the benefit of the additional supply would be by proceeding with the Dartmouth proposal at the present time. I would fully recommend that this action to ratify the agreement be taken by the new South Australian Parliament when it is formed.

page 2038

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Mr SCHOLES:
CORIO, VICTORIA

– I ask the Prime Minister: Is he aware that this year Victoria is faced with a Budget deficit of at least $25m? Is he aware also that the Premier of Victoria has offered at least $120m additional expenditure in election promises in the policy speech of the Liberal Party last night? Has the Prime Minister promised the Victorian Premier that if his Government is reelected the Commonwealth will provide additional finance to the State in order that these election promises can be redeemed, as has happened in the State of Tasmania? If this is so, will the Prime Minister advise the leaders of the other Parties participating in the State elections of this fact so that all Parties can assess properly the financial state of the Victorian economy?

Mr GORTON:
Prime Minister · HIGGINS, VICTORIA · LP

– If I can, first of all, refer to the State of Tasmania, to which the honourable member referred, I would point out to him that, in the case of the State of Tasmania, it was left with a record deficit owing to the bad management of the previous Labor government. It was therefore necessary for that State to be given some assistance, it having been left in such a bad situation, as was done previously when the State of South Australia was left with a record deficit after a Labor government had gone out. So this has nothing to do with it.

In reply to the second part of the question I would say that the Premier of Victoria who has been in power in that State for many years has made a number of promises for the development of that State and that all of them, as far as I know, have been kept. I therefore have no doubt that he will be able when he is re-elected, as he will be, to keep the promises that he has made on this occasion. I would point out also to the honourable member that according to the Financial Agreement as it at present exists there will be increasing sums of money available to State governments to enable these kinds of things to be done; and, of course, any alterations that are made in this Agreement would enable more to be done than otherwise would be the case. I have no doubt at all that the Premier of Victoria will be able to carry out the forward looking programme which he has put before the people of Victoria and that he, unlike the Government of Tasmania, will not be hamstrung by a record deficit left by a previous Labor government.

page 2039

QUESTION

CAMBODIA

Dr SOLOMON:
DENISON, TASMANIA

– 1 address a question to the Minister for External Affairs. Given the longstanding position of international neutrality adopted by Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia and his apparent popularity when bead of State, how does the Minister assess Sihanouk’s present overt collaboration with Peking? Is Sihanouk any longer representative of any significant power element in the Cambodian Administration?

Mr MCMAHON:
Minister for External Affairs · LOWE, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– Prince Sihanouk, as Head of State, had on many, many occasions protested against the violation of Cambodian territory by the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong.

Dr Klugman:

– And by the Americans.

Mr MCMAHON:

– Never by the Americans. They were never there. Despite these protests, upwards of 60,000 North Vietnamese and Vietcong in up to 12 separate enclaves were gathered on the South Vietnamese borders and could, use the Cambodian sanctuaries in order to make attacks and then, under the doctrine of privileged sanctuary, could return to Cambodian territory. Prince Sihanouk was removed as a result of the decision of the National Assembly of Cambodia and of the King’s Council because they felt that not enough was being done to restrain the North Vietnamese and Vietcong from continued violations of their territory.

Since his deposition Prince Sihanouk has been, for most of his time, in Peking ot in other parts of continental China. Recently he did have a meeting of various elements - so far as North Vietnam was concerned, of the North Vietnamese; of South Vietnam, the Vietcong; the Pathet Lao from Laos; and dissident elements from Cambodia. He, as chairman, represented what is called the National United Front of Kampuchea. I understand that at this meeting Mr Chou En-lai, the Premier of Communist China, was also present. What is obvious is that Prince Sihanouk has joined forces with Communist regimes and hopes to form a dissident government in exile in Chinese territory. Where he will go from there is unknown for the moment. From all the information given to us - and this relates to the last part of the honourable gentleman’s question - the people in Cambodia, so far as their views can be ascertained, are loyal to the Lon Nol Government. It was the Government at the time of Prince Sihanouk’s head of stateship and all the classes that are representative of popular opinion are expressing complete confidence in that Government.

page 2039

QUESTION

COCKBURN SOUND

Mr WEBB:
STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Prime Minister a question. Did the former Minister for Defence just prior to the last Federal election foreshadow a naval exercise off the coast of Western Australia? Is it correct that due to a lack of logistical support for a large number of ships off that coast a fleet exercise, due to have been held about August next, has now been cancelled? If this is so does it not indicate the necessity of developing the Cockburn Sound naval base as a matter of urgency? What steps are being taken to speed up the establishment of this base?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– I am afraid I cannot assure the honourable member that 1 remember some naval exercise, which, I think he said, was scheduled to take place before the last election, off the-

Mr Webb:

– I said foreshadowed.

Mr GORTON:

– Or whether one was foreshadowed. The honourable member might know whether it was. I am afraid that this was not a matter which came to my attention. As for the development of Cockburn Sound, the House will remember that this was part of the policy placed before the people by this Government and steps are being taken to develop Cockburn Sound. I suggest that if the honourable member wishes to know what steps already have been taken and what plans are in hand for this project, he should ask the Minister for Defence with whose portfolio it would rest.

page 2039

QUESTION

WHEAT

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I ask the Minister for Primary Industry whether he recently had discussions with major wheat exporting countries. If so, to what extent are those countries holding stockpiles above normal levels? How many countries have imposed production restrictions and to what extent has production been reduced in such countries? How does the Minister see Australia’s position at this stage when related to world market prospects?

Mr ANTHONY:
Minister for Primary Industry · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– At talks at Ottawa involving the 5 major wheat exporting countries - Australia, Canada, the United States of America, Argentine and the European Economic Community - figures showed that last year stock holdings of wheat went up by about 900 million bushels, an increase of almost 50%, to well over 2,000 million bushels. The forecasts for this year are that the increase will be only about 200 million bushels. It is anticipated that in 1971 we may see, for the first time since 1965, a decline in world stockpiles of wheat. We must consider this against the background that Australia has imposed a deliveries quota reducing by 40% the amount of wheat that can be delivered as against deliveries of two seasons ago. It also must be remembered that the United States has its lowest wheat acreage allotment since the 1930s. The allotment is 45.5 million acres. This will be further reduced next year by 2 million acres. In Canada there has been a quota system operating for many years. Canada is now introducing what is known as ‘operation lift’ to try to reduce the inventory by paying farmers not to produce wheat. In fact the Canadian Minister has said that he would be happy if no wheat at all was produced this year. In Argentine there has not been any increase in production because of a number of reasons. In the European Economic Community, although the authorities are not taking action to curtail production, they do have in hand certain reconstruction proposals and they do not expect their exports of wheat to increase in the next 3 years. The situation there will remain stable.

With those facts in mind I am optimistic enough to hope that we might not have to cut back much further our present delivery quotas. However I say that whilst bearing very much in mind that we will have to keep a close watch on our own stock holdings, the world situation and weather conditions, so that we produce only what we can actually sell.

page 2040

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Mr WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. He will remember telling me that Mr L. J. Dooling, formerly Chief Manager for Victoria of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation, was engaged as a consultant to his Department over 3 years ago on particular aspects of the proposal to establish an Australian Industry Development Corporation and that his assignment finished over a year ago. 1 ask the Minister whether, now that the Bill for this proposal is about to come up for debate in the Parliament, Mr Dooling’s reports will be made available to honourable members before the debate commences?

Mr McEWEN:
Deputy Prime Minister · MURRAY, VICTORIA · CP

– No, Mr Speaker, they will not. Mr Dooling was asked to provide advice and information to the Department on a purely departmental level.

page 2040

QUESTION

KANGAROOS

Mr FOX:

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Customs and Excise. He will be aware of the daily petitions calling for a ban on the export of kangaroo products. Because of the flood of these petitions, which indicate the alarm with which the public views the problem, I raise the matter again. Can the Minister tell the House when investigations are likely to lead to action?

Mr CHIPP:
Minister for Customs and Excise · HOTHAM, VICTORIA · LP

– I understand that at the end of this month there will be a conference, which was scheduled some time ago, of State and Commonwealth officials in Darwin on the general question of conservation of fauna. I also understand that, other than the Commonwealth Government, 3 State governments have listed for the agenda of that conference the question of the conservation of the kangaroo, as distinct from other fauna. As I have said in this House, on 2 previous occasions, there are several Commonwealth departments involved in this situation. So an interdepartmental committee has been established under the chairmanship of a representative of my colleague, the Minister for Education and Science. That committee will meet on Tuesday of next week with a view to putting a concerted opinion to the meeting at Darwin at the end of the month. Other departments represented on that committee are the Department of Primary Industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Prime Minister’s Department and my own Department. The enormous amount of information that has come to my attention since I answered the honourable gentleman’s question in this House two or three weeks ago. together with information collected by other depar ments, will be made available to that committee. I think that the honourable member for Henty, the honourable member for Chisholm and other honourable members who have shown an interest in this matter can take some pride in the fact that this is a subject which, hitherto hardly mentioned, is now receiving this sort of priority.

page 2041

QUESTION

OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS

Mr KIRWAN:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Prime Minister. Will the right honourable gentleman confirm that he at one time avoided an official function, or official functions, while on an official visit to Bali, in Indonesia? Is it correct that the right honourable gentleman failed to attend the celebration of the Japanese Emperor’s birthday, even though he had accepted an invitation to attend at the Japanese Embassy for that purpose? Does the right honourable gentleman treat Asian authorities alone with such scant regard or is this typical of his behaviour as the Prime Minister of this country?

Mr SPEAKER:

– Order! The honourable member shall not cast aspersions upon another honourable member. That portion of the honourable member’s question is distinctly out of order.

Mr KIRWAN:

– I am asking how the Prime Minister exercises his office. Does he believe that his cavalier behaviour is calculated to assist his friend, the Minister for External Affairs, in the exercise of his duties?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– The honourable member is quite right when he says that I was unable to attend the function given at the Japanese Embassy recently, a function which is given every year on the occasion df the birthday of His Majesty, the Emperor of Japan. The pressure of business here in the House prevented that, and I have no doubt whatsoever that the Japanese Embassy fully understood that that was so. If 1 ever had any doubt about it, that doubt would have been completely expelled by what I believe 1 can call the success of the visit subsequently made to Japan and of the contacts made between the Australian Government and the Japanese Government. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, it seems to me to be a denigration of this Parliament to ask a question as to whether attendance or non-attendance at a cocktail party has great effects on international affairs.

page 2041

QUESTION

IMMIGRATION

Mr JARMAN:
DEAKIN, VICTORIA

– Has the attention of the Minister for Immigration been drawn to a report of the plight of an English migrant family in Pascoe Vale, Victoria, which it is claimed has been refused accommodation in a hostel by the Commonwealth Department of Immigration? Is there any truth in the report and, if so, will the Minister see what can be done by the Department to assist this family?

Mr LYNCH:
Minister Assisting the Treasurer · FLINDERS, VICTORIA · LP

– My attention has been drawn to the article to which the honourable gentleman refers. I might say that the article was expansive in relation to the problems faced by the Thomas family but not in relation to the efforts made by officers of my Department and of the Department of Labour and National Service to solve these problems. The family was initially accommodated at a Commonwealth hostel in Sydney and subsequently made its own arrangements to move to Melbourne in order to take up accommodation with relatives in that city. In so doing the family placed itself outside the normal regulations governing the readmission of migrant families to Commonwealth hostels. The Melbourne accommodation to which it had moved proved to be unsatisfactory, and officers of my Department made arrangements for the family to move into alternative accommodation at a moderate cost. Efforts to find suitable employment for the husband are continuing, but at this stage the family’s financial difficulties have not yet been solved. In view of this, arrangements have been made to admit the family, as a special case, to a Commonwealth hostel in cither Melbourne or Sydney to enable it to make better provision for its move into the general community. 1 might acid that my Department does everything possible to assist migrants in relation to the provision of suitable accommodation for them, and our efforts to assist the Thomas family will continue.

page 2042

QUESTION

VISAS

Mr CREAN:
MELBOURNE PORTS, VICTORIA

– 1 desire to address a question to the Minister for Immigration. On what grounds has Dr Ernest Mandel, a well known Belgian scholar, been refused entry to Australia? Dr Mandel is a reputable historian and an expositor, in the modern sense, of Marxian economics. He is able to travel freely throughout Europe, and I think this sort of ban makes Australia look ridiculous in the eyes of international groups.

Mr LYNCH:
LP

– From the wide publicity which has been given to some ‘Socialists’ who have been allowed to visit Australia - and the word ‘Socialist’ is a somewhat imprecise euphemism in such circumstances - it will be perfectly evident to all honourable members that the Australian Government’s attitude to the entry of such people is essentially flexible, although careful attention must always be paid to national security. Australia recognises, as do so many countries today, that as a general rule there should be reasonable freedom of travel throughout the world even though the views of visitors may conflict with or be opposed to Government policy.

With that as a background let me refer to the case which the honourable member has mentioned. Let me say that the refusal to issue a visa to Dr Mandel represents no inconsistency with the Government’s flexibility in considering visa applications for temporary entry. It has long been a general rule in immigration cases that the specific reasons for the refusal to grant a visa should not be disclosed. This is partly based on the fact that applications for visa entry are after all confidential between the applicant and my Department, but in certain circumstances the national interest also demands that facts be not stated even though they are established. This is true in the case of Dr Mandel. I would add, for the information of the honourable member, that the decision not to grant a visa in this case was taken only after the most careful, complete and comprehensive . consideration of all of the factors by the Ministers concerned.

page 2042

QUESTION

FLOOD MITIGATION

Mr ROBINSON:
COWPER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for National Development. 1 refer to the projected further programme of flood mitigation works ou New South Wales coastal rivers, the cost of which is proposed to bc financed partly by the New South Wales State Government and partly by the Commonwealth Government. Have negotiations between the Commonwealth Government and the New South Wales Government concerning the provision of $8.3m by the Commonwealth towards this important community disability alleviation project been sufficiently finalised despite long delays to enable the proposal to come before the Government and the Parliament for legislative action?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– I know that the honourable member for Cowper and the honourable member for Paterson have raised this matter on a number of occasions and have a special interest in it. The position is that an application was made by the New South Wales Government to the Commonwealth before the end of last year for consideration of a further grant to assist with the flood mitigation programme which it intended to continue. During the election campaign the Prime Minister did indicate that flood mitigation would be one of the items to be included in the new water development programme. On 23rd December 1969, after the Government had been returned to office, the Prime Minister wrote to the Premier of New South Wales informing him of this decision and asking for advice as to the priority he placed on the proposal. Subsequent to that, officers of my Department and officers of the 2 departments concerned in New South Wales have had quite a number of discussions.

A letter was sent by the Premier of New South Wales to the Prime Minister about the end of last month indicating that certain data which had been requested was being provided. The data which was provided was in fairly general terms and did not conform to the normal criteria laid down for consideration of these proposals. Subsequent to that my Department has been in constant touch with the 1 departments in New South Wales. They have been asked as a matter of urgency to provide the data which is required. I have undertaken already in this House that as soon as the information is received I will give it first priority. The information will be considered by the interdepartmental committee of the Commonwealth and its recommendation will be processed for consideration by the Government immediately. I would anticipate that, as the officers of the 2 departments are meeting at this very moment, within the next couple of weeks they should have the information required in the correct form and we will be in a position then to place the matter before the Government for urgent consideration.

page 2043

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH AND STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS

Mr ARMITAGE:
CHIFLEY, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Has the Prime Minister heard reports that at least some of the State Premiers are concerned at the delay in resuming the talks aimed at negotiating the principles of a new financial relationship between the States and the Commonwealth? Can the right honourable gentleman give an indication as to when these talks will resume? What is his attitude to the proposal that funds should be allocated by the Commonwealth to the States and directly earmarked for developmental projects such as transport, local government works, power, water and sewerage in the fast developing perimeter areas of the great cities?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– In answer to the first part of the question, I would point out to the honourable member that the Premier of Victoria and the Premier of South Australia are both engaged in election campaigns and are therefore not eager to have an early meeting. I would also draw the honourable member’s attention to the statement made yesterday by the Premier of New South Wales in which he pointed out that this is so and suggested that there should be postponement and a delay in resuming the talks about which the honourable member is asking. Perhaps if the honourable member had read the newspaper article he need not have bothered to ask the question.

In reply to the second part of the question, in some cases of course section 95 grants are made for particular purposes. If it is suggested by the honourable member, as I think it is, that all moneys made available to States should be earmarked for particular projects and the States themselves should have no decision as to what way they are to spend their money, then that, I would suggest, could be described as a centralist attitude, and I would not agree with it.

page 2043

QUESTION

WOOL

Mr IRWIN:
MITCHELL, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Trade and Industry. If an acquisition scheme has not been evolved how can all sections of the wool industry be in favour of it? Is he aware that 25% of wool growers produce 75% of the total wool clip and that the majority of the said 25% of producers are opposed to a wool acquisition scheme; that is. that producers of over 50% of the wool clip are opposed to acquisition?

Mr McEWEN:
CP

– The honourable gentleman seems to base his question on the premise that a wool marketing scheme has been decided upon. That is not so. It has never been said that a scheme has been decided upon. The growers themselves through their own organisations have indicated a single principle, which I referred to yesterday. They want a single marketing authority. With the concurrence of all the wool organisations and the approval of the Government, the Chairman of the Australian Wool Board has appointed a very broadly based and very skilled committee to make further studies and to submit a succession of reports containing advice both to the industry and to the Government. We are awaiting, as I think the industry is awaiting, the first of these reports which is expected to be released within two or three weeks or something like that. What is regarded as the voice of the wool industry has been taken to be the voice of the wool growers organisations and all the great wool growers organisations have voted overwhelmingly, if not unanimously, in favour of this principle of a single marketing authority. The great wool growers as well as the small wool growers are represented on these organisations, but the great wool growers have never argued in all my experince of the wool industry that they should be entitled to a weighted voice, notwithstanding that some growers have produced very much more wool than others.

My first experience of a proposed wool marketing organisation was the suggestion of a reserve price plan, which came forward in 1950. The organisation at that time was the Australian Woolgrowers Council, lt has since been transformed into the Australian Woolgrowers and Graziers Council. It proposed the basis upon which the opinion of members of the wool industry should be taken. Its proposal was that any man who owned 200 sheep or produced 5 bales of wool should be entitled to a vole equal to that of any other wool grower no matter how great he might be.

page 2044

QUESTION

GREECE

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

– I ask a question of the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister for External Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to evidence of base, cruel and in some cases depraved ill treatment as well as the denial of basic rights to political prisoners in Greece, which was disclosed late last year in the 1,200 page report of the Human Rights Commission of the Council of Europe? As Ministers of his Government, especially the Minister for External Affairs, have been enunciating passionate concern for the welfare and rights of people in other countries, will he extend this with some consistency by now publicly condemning and denouncing the treatment of these political prisoners in Greece?

Mr GORTON:
LP

– 1 have not had my attention drawn to the reports of which the honourable member speaks in any significant way and, indeed, normally this question would be answered by the Minister for External Affairs. But I would point out to the honourable member that there is a difference between our desire to see that a country is not overrun by aggression and have all its rights taken away and the exercise of non-democratic power in various nations in the world. I have no doubt at all, for example, that in such countries as Communist China and North Vietnam there is far more depravity in the treatment of prisoners, far more baseness, far more whatever other words the honourable member used, thar. can be found anywhere in the world.

Mr Hayden:

– Then let us condemn all of them.

Mr GORTON:

– Just a moment, just one moment.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Oxley has asked his question.

Mr GORTON:

– rf you could contain yourself a little. Clearly, whenever an instance is able to be proven of denial of human rights and depravity then that is a matter for regret by all people who believe in a democratic system.

page 2044

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY: AIR SERVICES

Mr FAIRBAIRN:
FARRER, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Civil Aviation a question relating to air services to and from Canberra. Is it a fact that bookings for some flights out of Canberra have to be made up to 3 weeks in advance because of the inadequacy of air services from Canberra? When does the Government propose that the national capital be regularly served by modern jet aircraft like the DC9s and the Boeing 727s, with their greater speed and passenger capacity? ls it correct that the runways at Canberra Airport are not long enough for modern jets? If this is so, when is the Government going to remedy this situation?

Mr SWARTZ:
LP

– In relation to air services to Canberra I can recall that 2 days after taking over my present portfolio and relinquishing the previous one they lost my luggage. I can also recall that this week they let go an aircraft which my friend the honourable member for Dawson and I had expected to catch. But despite that I feel that there is not a great deal of complaint to be lodged in relation to air services to and from Canberra when we examine the actual situation. The point raised by the honourable member in relation to bookings was recently checked by my colleague the Minister for Civil Aviation and 1 understand that it is not correct to say that there is a waiting list to that extent. In fact I understand that during this week there is seat capacity available on every flight in and out of Canberra. On some occasions there have been a few isolated problems. The position regarding Canberra is, of course, made difficult by the peaks at the beginning of the week and at the end of the week, particularly when the Parliament is sitting. As a result of this the capacity that is provided here by both of the major airlines is greater than that for any other capital city in Australia, and the utilisation of that capacity is only 50% to and from Canberra compared with 70% on the major trunk routes.

I cite that merely to indicate that the 2 airlines are doing their best to provide the services that are required to and from Canberra. Certainly an increasing capacity in jet aircraft is now being provided. Additional DC9 services are coming onto the run as other aircraft are being phased out. The Boeing 727, of course, is not an aircraft that is designed for this run although casual services are provided. At the present time there are some restrictions on the DC9 as far as all-up loading is concerned. As this is a joint user airport for the Royal Australian Air Force and the Department of Civil Aviation, arrangements are now under way to consider planning for the extension of the runway and the upgrading of the Airport to the degree where it will be able to provide complete capacity and utilisation for the major jet aircraft operating at the present time.

page 2045

SITING OF THE HIGH COURT AND NATIONAL GALLERY

Ministerial Statement

Mr NIXON:
Minister for the Interior · Gippsland · CP

– by leave - I have to inform honourable members that the Government has made certain decisions regarding the siting of important buildings within the parliamentary triangle. Following consideration of proposals presented by the National Capital Development Commission, Cabinet has approved the siting of the High Court and the National Art Gallery in the north eastern sector of the parliamentary triangle - that is, in the area between the Administrative Building and the lakeside. In making this decision, . the Government is satisfied that these 2 buildings have a status befitting this location within the triangle and that they would appropriately flank the open areas between the Parliament House and the lakeside.

As a result of this decision, design studies will be put in hand for the National Art Gallery, which, as honourable members will be aware, has already been the subject of an architectural design competition. Preliminary planning will also proceed in respect of the High Court building. The timing of construction will be considered by the Government at a later stage. I present the following paper:

High Court and National Gallery SitesMinisterial Statement, 13th May 1970 and move:

That the House take note of the paper.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– It is a welcome relief that a decision has been made on this important topic. The delay has been much longer than the 4 year* since 1966 when the committee of inquiry deliberated on the subject of a national art gallery for Canberra. The proposal for an art gallery for Canberra is almost as old as federation. The proposal for the inclusion of an art gallery within the development of Canberra was in the list of requirements for the early master plan of the development of this city. It is 4 years since the committee of inquiry reported on this matter. For 4 years not only Canberra - the national capital - but Australia has had to wait for a positive step to be taken towards the construction of a national art gallery, which will be the property of all Australians. We have now taken only a small step.

The 1966 committee made many recommendations. It recommended the early establishment of an Australian national gallery trust fund. The idea behind that recommendation was that people who wished to support the gallery from private resources would be able to contribute money to the trust fund. The hope was expressed in the recommendations that people who made donations to the trust fund would receive a tax concession. Tha: was in 1966. Now, 4 years later, still no move has been made to establish the trust fund. The committee recommended that a body to be known as the Friends of the Gallery Society should be established. This would be a body of people interested in the national art gallery who would work in a public spirited way to assist in the development of the gallery and towards improving its standing and reputation. That society has not been formed. It was proposed that the gallery be given statutory authority. We are still a long way from that. It was further recommended that an interim council should appoint a director. That recommendation was made with some sense of urgency. In paragraph 4.02 the committee reported:

As soon as the interim council of the gallery has been appointed it should do at least the preliminary work on the task of gathering the gallery staff. One of its earliest duties will be to give thought to finding a director.

That was in 1966. Four years later or perhaps a little longer a director has not been appointed. If one can believe the rumours circulating in this national capital it would seem that the interim council has somebody in mind as director and has in fact made a recommendation to the Government. I do not know how long ago that recommendation was made but the position of director for the gallery was advertised as long ago as February 1969. In any event, the initial recommendation for a director was made with a sense of urgency by the committee in 1966. More than 2 years later a move was made to seek a gallery director by calling for applications. More than 12 months after the applications were called the gallery was still without a director. I wish to say more in a few moments about how seriously this bears upon the progress, and is an impediment to the development, of the national art gallery.

The dilatory nature of the approach of the Government to the national art gallery is reflected even in the appointment of the Interim Council. The Interim Council was not set up until 26th July 1968, that is, some 2i months after the original report. Again, this sense of urgency which runs through the whole report of 1966 was apparent in the recommendations of the Interim Council. I quote part of paragraph 315 which reads:

Little time should bc lost in setting up the Interim Council of the Gallery particularly because of the problems associated with appointing staff and with the construction of Gallery buildings.

I come back to this point and the lack of a director, as these bear upon the construction of the building, keeping in mind the general slowness with which the Government has approached this important project. This slowness cannot be justified because in the whole history of the development of the national capital and of federa tion there has always been in mind that a national gallery would be established in Canberra.

Until a director of the proposed national art gallery is appointed we cannot really set about meaningfully to provide a design and then proceed to the construction of a national art gallery at Canberra. The fact is that the architect charged with this responsibility will need to liaise closely with the director. Many factors will need to be taken into consideration by the architect. These can be conveyed to him adequately in the final analysis only by the director of the gallery. I refer especially to the functional arrangement of the gallery. We have waited 15 months after the recommendation of the Interim Council for the identification of the site of the gallery. Do we have to wait another 15 months for the appointment of a director? Mr Madigan, the architect, has travelled around the world viewing various art galleries and gathering a host of data, I should imagine, which will be used for the development of his plans for the national art gallery. But he cannot apply the concepts that he has in mind until a director is appointed.

An emergency exists in relation to the construction of the national art gallery. I refer to the 1966 report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Art Gallery of 1966. At paragraph 5.29, it had this to say:

The Committee believes that the need for an approval to begin soon Ls urgent. The present Collection is inadequately housed and cannot be put on permanent display; its further development is not practicable without an assured prospect on housing; and, of course, buildings of this size and quality cannot be made ready for use in much under 4 years from the date of approval for planning.

Notwithstanding this and notwithstanding the fact that several thousand pieces of art already are housed in unsuitable conditions and in accommodation that is overstretched at the present time, the Government has no really firm date for the commencement of the construction of the art gallery.

One can only feel some sympathy for the members of that Committee of Inquiry in 1966 because they were so unwise and optimistic as to believe that in 1970 the gallery would be open and would be available for public use. Paragraph 5.31 of its report states:

The Committee, having in mind that the 200th Anniversary of the discovery of eastern Australia by Captain Cook will occur in 1970, records its view that the opening of the Australian National Gallery in 1970 could provide the Government not only with a desirable national work but also with a fitting means of recognising in t.e National Capital an anniversary of great national importance.

The Government’s progress on this important national responsibility has been like that of a lawyer towards heaven - at the rate of an inch on each Good Friday.

The national art gallery trust fund, which I mentioned earlier, is a topic which is raised perennially in this Parliament. On 29th September last the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Whitlam) raised a query as to why this delay had occurred, in view of the recommendation in 1966 of the Committee of Inquiry. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) replied - I stress, in relation to a query on why there was a delay in setting up a national art gallery trust fund - that the Government has provided $3m this year for cultural affairs and that was a pretty fair effort. So, apparently exhausted after this contribution, he proposed to do nothing further. 1 feel that the Minister is under an obligation to announce to this Parliament today, concurrent with this announcement, what he proposes to do on these other important recommendations of the 1966 Committee regarding the establishment of the national art gallery trust fund and the body to be called the Friends of the Gallery Society. He should indicate when we will have statutory authority provided in this Parliament for discussion of these matters concerning the setting up of the gallery and, most important of all - because nothing really concrete can proceed until this is done - the Minister should answer the question as to when the appointment of a director for the gallery will be announced.

I do not wish to take much longer on this point concerning the art gallery. I did mention that there has been a long history of expectancy in the Australian Capital Territory regarding the provision of a national art gallery. It is as old as the master plans of the city. A national art gallery appeared in the requirements which were sent out to those people who participated in the design competition for the national capital. Walter Burley Griffin allowed for 2 such galleries. To bring this discussion to a more contemporary stage regarding this point I wish to quote from the September 1955 report of the select committee appointed to inquire into and report upon the development of Canberra. The members of this committee had a rather optimistic view, in the light of the slow pace at which cultural development has grown here, as to what should be done for the cultural development of Canberra. I refer to recommendations (72) and (73). These read:

  1. Thar steps now be taken for the establishment of the following institutions in Canberra:

    1. A National Art Gallery.
    2. A School of Fine Art for the training of artists, the intention being that the Government should so endow the School to enable scholarships to be awarded for the most promising art students throughout Australia each year.
    3. A National Theatre, for presentation of drama.
    4. A School of Drama, established along similar lines to the School of Fine Art.
    5. A Conservatorium of Music.
    6. An Opera House, which should also be suitable for the presentation of Ballet.
    7. A National Museum.

  2. That appropriate sites be immediately chosen and reserved for the various buildings that may be required in connection with these establishments, and that special consideration be given to the site originally selected by Griffin for some of these institutions.

In 1970, 4 years after the 1966 report of the Committee of Inquiry into the National Art Gallery and 15 years after the 1955 report of the Senate select committee from whose report I have just quoted, we have an announcement on 1 aspect of these recommendations to the effect that a site is being reserved for the art gallery.

At least one could say that the Government is consistent in its approach to the treatment of art and cultural matters within the community. I give as an example of the lacklustre attitude of the Government in this field its approach towards the promotion of Australian art, especially overseas. Australia needs to have a reputation overseas if our artists are to expect to aspire to the greatest heights of success that are available to them. A ceiling or a limit exists on what those artists can achieve in Australia. I refer to the Venice Biennale, the key to most international shows, at which pavilions were once available to various countries of the world. Australia was offered land free at the Biennale. It could use this land to establish its own pavilion. This offer was never taken up. In fact, a former Prime Minister, the then Mr Robert Menzies, now Sir Robert Menzies, rejected the offer when it was available to him. Last year the final block of this land went. So no more land is available for Australia to establish a permanent pavilion at the Venice Biennale. If we do not do this we can scarcely expect to establish an international reputation for Australian artists.

The Minister responsible for cultural matters in this country ought to investigate ways in which we might be able to establish some other arrangement, perhaps an ad hoc arrangement, whereby we could regularly see the works of one or two selected and successful Australian artists rather than try to flood an exhibition with a whole range of works of Australian artists. Most international exhibitions are by invitation only and the reputation which attracts an invitation is established at such international biennales as the one in Venice or the one at Sao Paolo. Australia’s contribution at Venice and Sao Paolo was poorly promoted. As an extension of the sorts of things we ought to do to promote art internationally, we ought to have cultural attaches at our overseas legations. We do not have these at present and as a result the promotion of works of Australian artists suffers.

Another example of the lack lustre interest on the part of the Australian Government and its general overall apathy towards the promotion of cultural matters in Australia concerns the Guggenheim collection of art. Some years ago when the Lloyd Wright Gallery was being constructed part of that collection was offered on loan to Australia. Practically every other country was scrambling, shoving, pulling and clawing to try to obtain some of this collection on loan for display. Australia was one of the lucky countries which had an offer made to it but the then Prime Minister, Mr Robert Menzies, refused it

In respect of the proposed art gallery. I conclude by saying that we ought to seek to develop through the Australian National Art Gallery some great international exhibition - an Australian Biennale in Canberra. This is the sort of thing that will give us an international reputation in the art world. The Australian Labor Party, as a government, would set about establishing a national foundation for the arts and humanities so that all these loose ends, these piecemeal things which are done for the promotion of culture here, could be tied together. There would be co-ordination and a more effective, satisfactory and successful promotion of cultural matters within Australia. We would adequately fund such a foundation, but first and foremost we would not proceed on this exercise without fully informing ourselves on the need for cultural development in the Australian community. A proper national inquiry would be instituted for this purpose. This is in distinct contrast to the approach of the Government, which has consistently taken ad hoc decisions, apparently in vacuum, because we have seen no evidence yet of a survey being carried out of these particular matters.

I must hasten on to the other matter mentioned in the Minister’s statement, namely, that a permanent site has been selected for the High Court of Australia building. One gasps and says: Thank God, at last’. For the full time during which there has been legislation covering the High Court of Australia, that is since 1903, there has been provision for a site to be fixed for the High Court. Nothing has been done about this until now; so the High Court has had a somewhat nomadic existence. Section 10 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1950 states and has stated since 1926, when it was amended - before that there was a similar provision - as follows:

On and after a date to be fixed by Proclamation the principal seat of the High Court shall be at the scat of Government. Until the dale so fixed, the principal seal of the High Court shall be at such place as the Governor-General from time to time appoints.

Incidentally, section 67 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904-50 provides that on and after a date to be fixed by proclamation there shall be a Principal Registry situated at the seat of government. In each case no proclamation has been made. Of course, this is understandable because the Government had dragged its feet in proposing sites for the erection of the High Court of Australia and the National Art Gallery and in providing the necessary accommodation for the Principal Registry under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. All one can say is that it is about time this proposal was brought into the Parliament. I sincerely hope that in relation to the Art Gallery, before the end of this month we will have an announcement as to who the Director of the National Art Gallery will be, because no work can proceed until that is done. In relation to the building of both the Art Gallery and the High Court of Australia 1 hope that something more concrete than the extremely brief statement of the Minister will be brought into the Parliament quite soon. [Quorum formed.]

Motion (by Mr Howson) put.

That the debate be now adjourned.

The House divided. (Mr Speaker - Hon. Sir William Aston)

AYES: 58

NOES: 52

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative. Debate adjourned.

page 2049

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

– I have received a letter from the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:

The Government’s refusal to grant Commonwealth employees 4 weeks’ annual leave, pay rales comparable wilh those in private industry and outright equal pay.

I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. (More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places.)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Mr Speaker, for the sake of the record I will read the matter of public importance which the Opposition has submitted to the Parliament. It is:

The Government’s refusal to gram Commonwealth employees 4 weeks’ annual leave, pay rates comparable wilh those in private industry and outright equal pay.

The Commonwealth Government is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, employers of labour in Australia. It employs some 320,000 men and women. It used to be the employer which set new standards and which led the way in improved conditions. It was an employer which, as far back as the beginning of federation in 1901 - nearly 70 years ago - introduced the principle of 3 week’s annual leave. Only one other government at that time had the same provision but very few employers, if any, provided for 3 weeks annual leave then. The Commonwealth Government has allowed the annual leave provisions applicable to o its employees today to remain exactly whore they were in 1901. A New South Wales Labor government introduced 4 weeks annual leave for all State government employees. A South Australian Labor government introduced 4 weeks annual leave for its daily paid employees. Many private employers do’ likewise. Employees in the stevedoring industry now receive 4 weeks annual leave in place of 3 weeks as was the case. Although the Government seeks to explain this away by saying that this is because they work round the clock, it is true nevertheless that the shift conditions in that respect are exactly the same now as they were before. Still’ the Government refuses to do anything about increasing annual leave for its employees to 4 weeks.

After I conclude my speech the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb), who has spent a lifetime in the industrial field, will make a contribution to the debate. He will be followed from this side by the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) who was an officer of the Commonwealth Public Service for many years. The honourable member for Banks will deal more fully with the question of 4 weeks annual leave than I propose to do at this stage. 1 want to refer now to the position of officers of the Commonwealth Public Service whose rates of pay no longer are comparable with those in private industry. The Commonwealth first showed its hand in relation to officers of the professional grades in the professional engineers case. After spending scores of thousands of dollars in litigation the Public Service Board finally agreed to negotiate. The Board made a submission to the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission stating the terms of the salaries which it thought ought to apply. It even nominated a date from which the increase should operate. Although 2 members of the Commission who were then considering the matter had previously indicated that they regarded the offer as inadequate, the Commission accepted the pay scale proposed by the Board as well as the date of operation. No doubt it was acting under the influence of Government pressures. Any denial of this, which will come in a minute from the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), can be completely contradicted or disregarded because the Minister is not noted for telling the truth or for answering straight out the questions put to him on notice or in any other way, as I will prove in a minute.

The professional engineers have now drifted from a position of being somewhere near the middle of the scale of salaries paid to professional officers to within 2 brackets of the bottom of the scale. In 1962 their position was infinitely better in relation to other technical grades than it is now. Their position has deteriorated to the point where the Association of Professional Engineers of Australia, which has never been in favour of direct action or bans on overtime, now has reluctantly come to the view that the only way it will ever get justice from the Commonwealth Government and from the Public Service Board is by resorting to direct action. The architects and surveyors were forced to do this and to impose an overtime ban. As a consequence, ultimately they received an increase over and above that which they had previously been offered. So it is quite clear that the Commonwealth has not set itself up as a leader in industrial standards so that living standards can be improved and so that the general work force can share properly in the increased productivity of the country, but has regarded itself as the barrier between leg timate employee demands for increased wages and the unjust refusals on the part of employers to grant those demands. The Commonwealth Government represents the employing class and acts as though it represents the employing class only. It will not grant 4 weeks annual leave to its employees because it does not want what Commonwealth employees receive to be used as a lever against private employers.

The Commonwealth will not give equal pay to women in its employ because it does not want the wages of women in the Commonwealth Public Service to be used as a lever by the trade union movement to get equal pay for women employed by private enterprise. In every case its concern is for the employer. There is no regard at all for the 4 million people who comprise the work force of the Commonwealth. It is about time that those who have to work for their living, whether they are engaged in manual work, whether they are in the white collar brigade, or whether they belong to the professional grades, realised that the real reason why professional, semi.professional, skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled people in Australia today are not sharing properly in the increase of productivity in the country is that the Commonwealth Government, acting as the agent of the employers in all walks of life, is preventing this from being done.

The Commonwealth Government is the most litigIOUS employer in Australia. It spends more money paying lawyers to appear before the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to fight legitimate claims for increased wages and salaries than ever before in the history of the Commonwealth. It seems a lot of lawyers are hanging on to the coat tails of Ministers, seeking briefs which they cannot get elsewhere. Briefs are being obligingly provided by Commonwealth Ministers in order to fight legitimate claims for higher wages by people in the professional, semiprofessional and unskilled grades. What has happened with the qualified accountants? The Commonwealth has reached the stage where the number of qualified accountants that it requires has fallen so short of the number it can get that it has had to change and to lower the qualification standards which previously were set. It has had to do so in order to attract more people or to be able to get sufficient people to do the work. Instead of offering a cadetship, instead of giving assistance at the tertiary level to people who wish to become qualified accountants so that they could meet the needs of the Commonwealth, it seeks to remedy the situation by reducing the standards. I. have spoken of the surveyors, the architects and the professional engineers.

Nothing has been done by this Government to meet the changes in prices, lt has done nothing at all to see that wage rates of Commonwealth employees contain a fair share of the increase in national productivity. The Government has done nothing to provide appropriate recompense for the proper and just evaluation of skill and responsibility involved in the tasks that are being performed for the Commonwealth, lt has done nothing to provide for equal pay. Indeed, the Government has done its very best to prevent that by putting to the Arbitration Commission a 9-point formula which makes it virtually impossible for a woman to get the full rate of pay if she is doing work that is not normally done by men, such as the work of a triple certificated nursing sister. A nursing aide can get male rates because there are male nursing aides. A women who looks after the cleaning of toilets can get the male rate because males are employed in looking after toilets. But a woman who is employed as a lavatory attendant in a ladies convenience cannot get it because men are not employed as lavatory attendants at a ladies convenience. So runs the stupid reasoning of the Commonwealth Government.

A matron in charge of a child minding centre could not possibly qualify for the male rate because mcn do not act as matrons in charge of child minding centres. The reason for this is that men cannot do it. The reason that there are no male triple certificated nurses is that men cannot become and are not suitable to become triple certificated nurses. They do not have the ability to do that work as well as women. Men do not have the ability, as women have, to be in charge of child minding centres. The Government grasps this slender, miserable reed and says: ‘For these reasons we will not give women the full adult male rate’. The Government in fact refuses to give equal pay to women employed by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd who, according to the Arbitration Commissioner, were entitled to it. Again, the Commonwealth Government appealed to the Commission against that decision. When I asked the Minister to justify the appeal he said: ‘I did not appeal. The Commonwealth did not appeal. What happened is that Commonwealth Hostels Ltd appealed.’ But Commonwealth Hostels

Ltd is completely under his control as the Minister for Labour and National Service. It is a Government instrumentality controlled and owned completely by the Commonwealth Government. Although it is registered as a private company, the Minister knows that it is in fact as much a Government instrumentality as if it was a Government department.

We have these avoidances of the straightout truth by the Minister. When replying to a question he will rarely answer truthfully. He will never answer straightout the questions that are put to him. 1 asked the Minister: ‘Why did the Government approve of the intervention in the postal workers case when it appealed on the question o’ equal pay for women?’ He replied: ‘Oh, the Commonwealth did not appeal. We had nothing to do with it. It was the Commonwealth Public Service Board that lodged the appeal’. This is splitting hairs, lt is a miserable attitude, as if to say: ‘How can 1 dodge that question? How can I avoid answering yes or no? I know. I have discovered a way. Commonwealth Hostels Ltd is not the Commonwealth. The Public Service Board is not the. Commonwealth Government’. Of course it is not technically, but in fact it is. In fact both of them are under the direction and under the influence of the Commonwealth Government.

Do not let the Minister rise to his feet in a few minutes and say that the Commonwealth Public Service Board is nol influenced by the Commonwealth Government. Do not let him get up and try to pretend that it is an independent body and has to exercise its own independent decisions in these matters. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am still waiting to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) deny that the Government directly or indirectly influences the Public Service Board. I am still waiting for the Prime Minister to say whether he disapproved of the action of the Public Service Board in its intervention in the postal workers case. I am still waiting in vain for a reply. However, I do not think I am likely to get a reply. The Government has made no attempt whatever to bring the rates of pay for its Commonwealth employees in line with the improving standards in the level of community skills arising out of technological innovation. It has done nothing to afford proper comparability with standards of remuneration paid both within and outside the salaried area.

If the people employed by the Commonwealth Government were working for private industry they would all be getting over award payments, because nearly everybody in Australia today who belongs to a union with an ounce of fight in it can now get over award payments. The Commonwealth knows that it cannot give over award payments because of the very proper provisions of the Audit Act, but it does nothing whatever to try to make up for its inability to give over award payments by giving a loading so that Commonwealth salaries will be brought into line with the real market value of comparable work outside the Commonwealth Public Service. It does not take into account and it does not adequately provide for the needs and the entitlements of salaried workers living in modern society. The salaries that it pay: do not reflect the standard of over award payments in the community at large.

I wish that 1 had more time to deal with the subject of equal pay. I am still waiting for the Minister to give an answer to my question as to whether the Government gives to women employed by the Commonwealth Public Service a cheaper rate of board and lodging than that for men at the Macquarie pentagon and the various other hostels that it owns. I am waiting for the Minister to explain how it is that men and women have to pay the same fares. If a woman wants to buy a motor car she has to pay the same price that a man has to pay. If a woman wants a radio she cannot go to the shop and say: ‘Look, I am only on a woman’s rate of pay. Will you let me have a radio set cheaper?’ It costs her just as much as it would cost a man. [Extension of time granted.]

I thank the House for the extension of time. This is the point I want to make: Women in the Public Service are now obliged to have their wages fixed by a formula, determined by the Government and rubber-stamped by the Commission which consists of a 9-point proposition which again the Minister tried to disown by pretending that this is the formula adopted by the Commission. What he does not say is that the Commission adopted it because the Commonwealth representative before the Commission asked the Commission to adopt it, and ever since then the Commonwealth in any submissions that it makes to the Commission or to the Public Service Arbitrator on the question of equal pay for females or on the question of female rates of pay generally always sticks rigidly to these 9 points.

If we look at that 9-point formula to which the Commonwealth has adhered and which it persuaded the Commission to adopt, we see that it contains, among other things, a provision that to merit equal pay the work performed by females must be the same or substantially the same as that performed by males under the same award; that the work must have the same range and volume as work performed by males; and that it must be performed under the same conditions as that done by males, lt is also provided that females must be doing work which is not usually performed by females unless a corresponding classification applies to them. We have a ridculous situation arising here. Females have to prove that the work they are doing is equal in volume to the work done by a male and that they are able to put out the same amount of production as a male does; but a male can go to the court for a minimum male rate without having to prove that every male affected by the rate awarded can do as much work as any other male. lt is all right for a male. The minimum rate will apply equally to all males including those who are not able to match the normal standard, but females have to prove that they are capable of do’ng as much work as is normally performed by males. I repeat, the same test, however, is never applied to males.

Now let us look at the last proposition, namely, that the skills and the adaptability of female workers have to be of a character that does not have a corresponding classification of work performed by males. We have the situation in which a female railway carriage cleaner can get a male rate presumably because the Commonwealth would say: ‘In these circumstances males are employed as carriage cleaners, therefore a female who is employed as a carriage cleaner should get the male rate’. I mentioned the position of nursing aides. In a whole range of positions, most of which are of a menial character, work is being per formed by females who can get the male rate because males are doing the same sort of work. But as I repeat, the best example - and there are many of them - is the nursing sister. She cannot get a male rate for the reasons I have already indicated.

The attitude of the Commonwealth is quite indefensible. In the case of Commonwealth hostels, to which 1 would like to again refer, the Commonwealth appealed against the decision to give the females employed by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd equal pay. The Commonwealth secured a stay of proceedings from the Commission against the decision being implemented. The Commission granted the stay of proceedings because of the general case for equal pay, and instead of those who were ultimately to become entitled to the male rate getting the male rate qualifications to date from 1968, they now have to wail until 1972 before they will qualify for the full male rate, because even when the Commission finally agreed that some of the females employed by Commonwealth Hostels Ltd fell within this miserable little 9-point formula which the Government adheres to so strongly the Government still refused to backdate their qualification eligibility to the date on which it first applied, because even the Commission, to its discredit, insisted that no female can ever get the male rate instantly. Females can get it only over a 2-year phasing-in period. They receive a bit the first year and then work for another year before they finally receive the full adult male rate.

Why has the Government not dispensed with the need for a 2-year phasing-in period? There is no need to have a phasingin period at all. The Commonwealth ought to set the example by dispensing wilh the phasing-in period altogether. Even the female Hansard reporter is not being paid the male rate, and nobody is saying that she is not as capable as the men who work alongside her. But here was an opportunity for this miserable employer called the Commonwealth of Australia, representing the people, who are not as miserable as it is, saying to this little girl: ‘You are not to get the full male rate because we have seized upon some technical point. We have been able to discover that we can squeeze a miserable $400 or $600 a year out of you’. What good does it do the Commonwealth?

Is it fair to that iittle lady who sits there and takes the shorthand notes for Hansard reports as well as the men do? - and I am quoting the men themselves. Every member of the Hansard staff to whom I have spoken tells me that she takes the debates as well as any male employee does; yet the Government, because of its miserable penny pinching attitude, has decided that it will not give her the full male rate. Presumably she has to wait another 2. years before she will get the full male rate.

What about the female officers in charge of the Parliamentary Offices in the capital cities? I can speak for Adelaide. The female officer in charge of the Parliamentary Offices in Adelaide, which has some 20 members to attend to, is being paid the female rate of pay for doing exactly the same class of work, except that the volume is not so great, as the 2 men who used to be employed and are probably still employed in Melbourne and at least the same class of work as is being done by the man employed in Sydney. This Government seizes every opportunity to take from its female employees every cent it can, at the same time looking after its own members very nicely, with their VIP aircraft and their big daily allowances, which Ministers seem to help themselves to with great gusto whenever they get the opportunity. It is about time the people of Australia rose up and told this Government, which pretends to represent the people, the thinking of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– The matter of public importance before the House deals with the employment conditions for Commonwealth public servants in 3 areas. One is 4 weeks annual leave; another is pay rates comparable in private industry; and the third is outright equal pay. I will be assisted in argument by the honourable member for Issacs (Mr Hamer) and the honourable member for Canning (Mr Hallett). The honourable member for Isaacs will be dealing in some detail with annual leave and the honourable member for Canning will be dealing in some detail with equal pay. The part which I will deal with in some detail is the middle one of the three, that is, the pay rates comparable with those in private industry.

Firstly, I think that the Commonwealth’s wage fixing structure for public servants should be put in perspective. The Commonwealth is, as is well known to everybody, the biggest single employer if we regard it as a single entity, but of course it is not a single entity in terms of employment, because there are a great number of departments, authorities and commissions that employ people. All these separate employment arrangements are drawn together insofar as that is possible in the Public Service Board. The Public Service Board is the co-ordinator of wages and conditions for all Commonwealth public servants who are employed under determinations. My own Department is the co-ordinator insofar as the wages and conditions are fixed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The wages and conditions of those who are employed under the Public Service Board authority are fixed in the first point of time by the Public Service Board. The Board is a primary wage fixing authority. The way in which it operates is that a claim is made to the Public Service Board on behalf of an organisation. The Board then takes into consideration a variety of different criteria which have built up over a period of years and which are well publicised in the Public Service Board’s annual reports in which it states the basis of its wage fixation.

The purpose of the Board is to negotiate with the respective unions or associations the wage rates that are claimed. If the negotiations fail the parties can take the matter to the Public Service Arbitrator where the matter can be arbitrated. From recollection I think that the Public Service Arbitrator has 2 assistant arbitrators. If the arbitration is not satisfactory to either the Public Service Board or, as is more usual, the associations or the unions then they may go on appeal to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commonwealth’s long stand in relation to the fixing of wages and conditions has been that the parties ought to proceed through conciliation in the form of negotiation and then through arbitration. The honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) may not accept the validity of the position but the Commonwealth’s position is that all major conditions ought to be determined by negotiation if possible, and if not by negotiation then by arbitration.

In the case of a claim for equal pay or for 4 weeks annual leave the Commonwealth has said consistently that it is not able to negotiate such a claim as an individual employer separate from the entire range of the employment field, that as so many other people would be affected by a flow-on which would inevitably occur if the claim were granted by the Commonwealth the claim ought only be granted through the arbitration procedure. Equal pay has been granted, although I know from what the honourable member for Hindmarsh has said that the decision is not satisfactory to him. The decision was given by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission to apply over the broad range of industry. The Commonwealth’s attitude is that that is the proper way in which it should be done. Whether it be a good decision or a bad decision is open for people to argue about, as no doubt they will.

The same thing applies to annual leave. I will mention annual leave very briefly because, as I said before, the honourable member for Isaacs will take it in more detail. Three delegations representing Public Service unions and the Australian Council of Trade Unions have come to the Government to ask for an increase in annual leave to 4 weeks. The last of those delegations was in December last year. The delegation put its arguments to Ministers and officials including the Chairman of the Public Service Board, the Secretary of my Department, and some other officials whose names ] have forgotten. The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and I also were present. The arguments were put and then, in accordance with the undertaking given at the time, the matter was taken to the Cabinet for its consideration. The Cabinet gave very serious consideration to the representations that were made. The honourable member for Hindmarsh knows that I have not had time to turn up all the records on this matter in the short time that has been available - they were not immediately available to me - but my recollection is that the Cabinet considered the very matter that I mentioned earlier, that is, this would have been a major condition of employment change.

We had to take into account the impact that the decision would have had if it spread to the entire work force, for we believed that it could not be looked at in isolation from the remainder of the work force. The cost that would be occasioned by granting the extra annual leave had to be taken into account. The cost would not be confined to the Public Service but would spread into general industry. Consideration had to be given to prices and cost pressures that the increase would have stimulated. The state of Labour pressures at that time, in December, had to be taken into account. Labour pressures have not in any way slackened; indeed they have tightened since December.

I refer briefly to equal pay as that will be dealt with in more detail by the honourable member for Canning. Equal pay is an issue that has been before this House on a great number of occasions, ft has been a matter for great public controversy and debate. Ultimately the matter was pursued before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Full Bench of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down a decision which is now in the process of being applied. Essentially, the decision meant that those women in the work force who were eligible for equal pay would receive it on a stage basis over a period of 3 or 4 years, if my recollection is right. Nine principles were laid down by the Commission in order to give guidance to other arbitral authorities as to what the tests were to decide whether or not a woman in the work force was entitled to that graduated achievement of equal pay.

The middle leg of this proposition of public importance is the Government’s refusal to grant pay rates comparable with those in private industry. It is important to get into context the factors taken into account by the Public Service Board. The simplest way for me to do it is to refer to the 1969 annual report of the Public Service Board, which is the most recent report. Under the title ‘Rates of Pay’ the Public Service Board makes the following statement:

In reviewing the rates of pay for each employment group the Board makes a careful examination of the information available to it on rates paid by other employers for comparable work.

The report then goes on to point out that there are some difficulties in obtaining those comparisons in every case. It says: . . the usefulness of comparisons wilh rates paid outside the Commonwealth Service may be limited, in some cases, by inability to obtain sufficient information on either the rales paid elsewhere, or the duties, responsibilities and organisation of employment groups outside the Service.

I am leaving out some words which are not relevant. The report continues:

Despite these limitations, comparison with rates paid by other employers provides an important first step in determining fair and reasonable pay rates.

At a later point the report says:

In making such comparisons, however, the Board has followed the principle, which has the support of arbitral dicta, that pre-existing relativities between groups do not in themselves provide a sufficient basis for determining new rates of pay.

In two recent examples, which will be well known to those who are concerned with industrial matters, the Board has specifically reached a decision on the rates it would pay having regard to the rates being paid outside the Public Service.

The first of these is what has been called the physical grades review for tradesmen and others which increased all rates by 6.6% as from 1st January 1970. This covered some 60,000 staff in the Commonwealth Public Service and was reached with the full agreement of the ACTU. The new rates were justified on the basis of the Board’s examination of the going rates of pay outside the Service - that is, basic pay plus over-award payments. That would seem to negate at least in that instance the broad statement that the Commonwealth does not pay nates comparable to those in private industry. There was an even later specific instance with the review of the technical and drafting grades which involved increases of 5.8% or 5.9% for particular groups. Some 20,000 persons were involved. The agreement on this was reached within the last few weeks and the new rates were accepted without qualification by the unions involved. Within the last few week.the Public Service Board has received new pay claims covering the Third Division clerical and administrative area seeking increases of 14% in pay. The Board has also received claims from 2 professional engineer associations seeking increases for engineers. These claims rely, as put to the Board, on companison with the rates of pay of other staff employed within the Service, as well as other grounds. The Board will examine them and see whether it is appropriate to increase the rates having regard to the going rates outside the Public Service in general industry.

Perhaps the biggest single argument which shows that the Government or the Public Service Board, which is the proper authority in this case, does not pay claims lower than or that it meets the claims of outside industry is that the vast majority of pay claims made on it are settled without the need for the parties to resort to arbitration. That is an indication in itself that the Board is not following a policy of allowing the rates of pay of Commonwealth employees to fall significantly behind the rates of pay of comparable staff in other organisations. For example, over the last 4 years the Arbitrator determinations as compared to consent determinations were 10 as to 131, 18 as to 116, 9 as to 132, and in the year 1968-69 there were only 14 Arbitrator determinations as to 232 that were reached by consent on the basis of the principle.; which 1 have outlined here this afternoon

Mr WEBB:
Stirling

– The Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) in his reply to the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Clyde Cameron) stated that he was go ng to deal solely with rates of pay. He did of course mention also the annual leave claim of the Commonwealth public servants. 1 propose during the course of my remarks to deal briefly with the 3 points that are at issue in this debate. At the outset I would like to say to the 250,000 or more Commonwealth public servants that they would have achieved their goal if a Labor government had been elected at the last Federal elections. The Labor Party needed to get only 4 more seats in order to form a government and it had already said that 4 weeks’ annual leave would be provided if it were returned to office. Commonwealth public servants would now be enjoying similar annual leave provisions to those which apply to the New South Wales Public Service and have applied to that Service since 1964. They would now have the same 4 weeks’ annual leave provisions which apply to all local government employees in that State. Th s is a practice which has spread to other States where many local governing bodies have granted their employees 4 weeks annual leave as a standard entitlement. It must be remembered that 3 weeks annual leave was established as standard for Commonwealth public servants at the time of federation nearly 70 years ago. At that time it was a standard that was far above any annual leave provisions applying to any other section of the work force. But now the annual leave provisions of the Commonwealth Public Service lag behind the provis’ons which apply to many other groups of workers throughout the Commonwealth.

Last December a joint deputation waited upon the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) and some of his officers. At that deputation were representatives of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Council of Commonwealth Public Service Associations and the Australian Council of Salaried and Professional Associations. They put forward a strong claim to the Prime Minister for 4 weeks’ leave. That claim was refused. The Minister for Labour and National Service stated it was considered that if the claim had been granted it would have spread generally throughout industry. Let me just draw his attent on to the fact that while this body of workers had 3 weeks’ annual leave at the commencement of federation nearly 70 years ago. the standard of 3 weeks’ annual leave did not spread generally throughout the work force until approximately 50 years later. If it takes that long for the 4 weeks* annual leave provision to spread most of us will not see it anyhow.

In their submissions the Commonwealth Public Service associations were able to show that production per head of population had been increasing year by year and this was a significant factor in granting increased leisure to the Australian work force other than Commonwealth public servants. They felt they should receive their share of the cake in the form of increased leisure. The members of the deputation also drew attention to an extract from a judgment of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which, they emphasised, indirectly supported their claim. It is just as well to mention this judgment which was pronounced in the 1963 metal trades case. The Commission said:

We consider it would be fair to increase margins under this award by 10%. We have reached this conclusion in the knowledge that today employees under this award have been awarded an extra weeks’ annual leave.

So metal trades workers and others coming under Commonwealth awards at that time received not only the additional leave but also a 10% increase in margins. The decision of the Commission implied that had not the metal trades received the extra leave earlier there would have been a greater increase in margins. The Commonwealth public servants, of course, received the equivalent increase in the margins but their standard of annual leave remained at 3 weeks, which has been the standard since federation.

Surely Commonwealth public servants rightly claim that they have been denied their rightful share of the benefits of increased national productivity. The Government’s main argument against this, as mentioned by the Minister for Labour and National Service just now. was the cost that would be involved; but the Public Service associations were able to point out that when the additional week’s leave was granted in New South Wales in 1 964 to the Public Service and government instrumentalities there was no increase in the rate of growth of the staff that was employed. They were able to show that to the Prime Minister. The refusal of the Government to grant the claim of the public servants to this request is causing grave discontent in the Public Service. The unions have clearly indicated that they intend to press for this extra week’s leave even if it means stopping work in support of this claim. No-one can say that public servants have a history of militancy. They are the most conservative unionists. In recent years there have been rumblings in their ranks and in the ranks of other white collar workers which indicate that grave dissatisfaction exists in the ranks of this type of worker. We have to remember also that the white collar unions have tremendous strength if they were only prepared to use it. If ever they use this strength to the full, as they have been threatening, the Government will realise it has a fight on its hands. In recent years the ranks of white collar workers have grown out of all proportion to those whom we might call the blue collar workers. Between 1947 and 1961 the proportion of professional, administrative, clerical and sales workers in the work force increased by over 4%. During the same period the blue collar workers were reduced in numbers gradually. It is clear that white collar workers now outnumber their counterparts in the blue collar field.

There are approximately 340 trade unions in Australia, of which 192 are white collar unions. These unions have actively campaigned against some Government members, and the huge vote received by the late Jim Fraser in the Australian Capital Territory a few months ago was an indication of their strength. He received 67% of the vote that was then cast. These workers are again on the warpath and I feel certain that when the Australian Capital Territory by-election takes place on 30th May we shall see a bigger swing against the Government by this group of workers. The Government should also pay close attention to the legitimate claim of its servants that their pay rates are lagging behind the pay rates of comparable workers in outside industry. Over award payments are now the accepted thing in many industries, as the honourable member for Hindmarsh clearly pointed out. The Commission lays down minimum standards. The parties then get together and bargain for over award payments. The President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has referred to this as the collective bargaining area. In the 1966 annual report he said: lt bas long been obvious that arbitration for minimum payments and bargaining of overaward payments must co-exist in this community. . . There is no real incompatibility in the mutual existence of a system for prescribing minimum rates by arbitration tribunals and of bargaining on occasion about over-award payments.

But this Government thinks that the minimum should become the maximum. That is what was indicated by the Minister, who said that the employees first go through the field of negotiation, then go before the Public Service Arbitrator, and after that they may appeal to the Commission. According to him there is no further room for negotiation about award payments. That is exactly what these people are complaining about. In the Commonwealth Public

Service the minimum becomes the maximum rate of pay, and the professional engineers case is a case in point. All these matters have been dealt with adequately by the honourable member for Hindmarsh and I do not want to trespass on that ground any further. One of the matters that reveals the reactionary attitude of this Government towards industrial conditions is its treatment of female employees. Firstly, in opposition to the unions claims before the joint bench the Government intervened-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HALLETT:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · CP

– The matter of public importance submitted to the House by the Opposition is:

The Government’s refusal to grant Commonwealth employees four weeks annual leave, pay rates comparable with those in private industry and outright equal pay.

Labor supporters should explain what is meant by ‘outright equal pay’. Equal pay is being dealt with in this debate, but what is meant by the phrase ‘outright equal pay’? This has not been explained by any of the Opposition members who have already spoken in this debate. The term ‘outright equal pay’ is not normally used whereas the term ‘equal pay’ is common. Members of the Australian Labor Party should explain precisely what is meant by this unusual term and they will have an opportunity to do so when I resume my seat. Earlier, when speaking to this motion the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) outlined the machinery available to the people of Australia, the Australian employee and the Australian employer. For the fixing of wages and other conditions in the Public Service we have available the Public Service Board, the Arbitrator and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission.

I am concerned to hear on so many occasions that the final machinery which is available in this country - the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission - is being downgraded. This is a part of the Australian way of life. It is a part of our life which I think the majority of Australians respect. It is all very well for some of the bigger unions in this country to endeavour to downgrade the arbitration system. But let us have a look at the work force across the board - that is, across1 Australia. Let us be realistic. It is all right for the large unions to bargain in their own right with employers, but what about the smaller unions which represent many workers but which have not the power to do this? What would happen to those unions if there is to be a continual voicing of opinions against our arbitration system and a non-acceptance of decisions made under that system? If that is to continue then I fear the day for the smaller unions in Australia.

I, like many other Australians, believe that the arbitration system has served the nation very well and until we can find a better system let us go on with the system that we have. I now want to deal with the issue of equal pay. The machinery which has applied on this occasion consists of the Public Service Board, the Public Service Arbitrator and the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The Commonwealth Government has endorsed and is carrying out the principles laid down by the Commission on this issue. The decision made was by an independent authority, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, which is available to both employee and employer to put forward their arguments. The honourable member for Hindmarsh referred to the 9 points stated by the Commission and I think he suggested that the Commonwealth put the 9 points. This could be right. But surely in this field the honourable member realises that in a forum of this nature the employee and the employer have every right to put the respective cases to the Commission, and that when the Commission makes its decision we should abide by it because this is the machinery set up in this country to deal with such matters. The Commission has made its recommendations. The Commonwealth has taken those recommendations and is in fact applying them. The principles have now been set down and as far as the Public Service is concerned if memory serves me correctly, 90% of the male wage is in fact being paid to females now; by 1971 it will be 95% and by 1972 it will be 100%.

I appreciate that the work force in Australia today is doing a tremendous job. I appreciate also the fact that in Australia women are playing a big part in the work force. It is a most important part and it is increasing. Of course, this is so in many parts of the world and I believe that this will continue. If there is to be any alteration to the wage scale or if a decision has to be made in relation to these matters it is very important, particularly in some of those areas mentioned by the honourable member for Hindmarsh, that women should have the protection of the arbitration system. They should have this independent machinery to go to because in many areas in which women are being employed their unions do not have the strength of the very large unions. They do not have the strength, to fight a case in the way the large unions can fight. This is one reason why the Labor Party should urge unions to press for equal pay under the conciliation and arbitration system. It would be a sorry day for Australia if this system were no longer available to us. I am deeply concerned at actions calculated to undermine the system.

I have already said that in my view women constitute an important section of the work force. I firmly believe that well trained women in some professions should be better paid than they are today. The nursing profession is one that has been mentioned in the course of this debate. Sisters and nurses are on their feet for long hours of the day and night. They do not work regular hours. There is merit in an argument that these people should be better paid. But I stress that they have at their disposal the arbitration machinery. They are entitled to go before an independent arbitrator and argue their case. They should avail themselves of the existing machinery. Until a better system is devised - I do not know of one - we should support to the hilt our existing arbitration system.

The Opposition should tell us clearly what it means by its expression ‘outright equal pay’. If it has in mind those categories of female employees who perform work that is not normally performed by males, is this not a fitting area to be brought under the scrutiny of the arbitration system? I support to the hilt the arbitration system because in my view it is the right and just system.

Mr MARTIN:
Banks

– I have listened with interest to the contributions by Government supporters. They are still peddling the old line that the Public Service Board is not influenced by the Government. Are we expected to accept this claim? Surely nobody on the Government side would be so naive as to believe that the Public Service Board is not influenced by the Government. Let there be no mistake about this: The Public Service Board is an instrument of Government policy. The Board itself is fully aware of its position and it carries out Government policy. The Government pursues its policy through its agent, the Public Service Board, lt has been the consistent policy of this Government and its predecessors to depress Public Service salaries and leave conditions, particularly salaries in the lower and middle income ranges. The Gorton Government is still pursuing this policy.

Let me firstly argue why 4 weeks annual leave should be granted to Commonwealth public servants. The annual leave provision of 3 weeks in the Commonwealth Public Service has operated for the last 68 years. In that time we have moved forward not one inch. What is the situation with regard to productivity in the Commonwealth Public Service? Productivity is usually one of the bases for improving conditions. It may be said that it is difficult to measure productivity within the Public Service. I propose to give a few statistics to show that productivity has increased to quite a large extent in recent years. I refer to the PostmasterGeneral’s Department, which is responsible for the employment of a large percentage of the Public Service. In J 958- 59 business in the Department increased by 9%; staff increased by only 1.5%. In 1959-60 business increased by 6.5%; staff increased by 1.5%. In 1960-61 business increased by 4.8%; staff increased by 0.7%. Between 1961 and 1967 the number of postal articles handled annually by the Department increased by 32% from 2,048 million to 2,683 million. The number of telephone calls registered each year increased by 36% from 1,700 million to 2,313 million. In the same period the full time staff of the Department increased by only 15% from 86,559 to 98,886. Could any honourable member opposite honestly claim that productivity in the Public Service has not increased?

In handing down its judgment in the 1963 metal trades case the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said:

We consider it would be fair to increase margins under this award by 10%. We have reached this conclusion in the knowledge that today employees under this award have been awarded an extra week’s annual leave.

The clear implication of those remarks is thai increases greater than 10% would have been awarded had increased leisure not been provided at that time. Public servants received only the 10% increase in wages. They received no increase in their annual leave entitlement. Let me answer one of the arguments consistently advanced by this Government and its predecessors. They have regularly said that substantial increases in staff would be necessary if annual leave was increased. There are no mobile relief staffs provided for the great majority of Commonwealth Public Service work situations. The duties of the absent officer, whether he be on annual leave or sick leave, are carried out, partly or wholly, by other staff within his section. In 1965 in rejecting a claim for 4 weeks annual leave Sir Robert Menzies said:

An additional 5.800 workers would be needed.

The claim has been repeated by his successors, but it is a fallacious argument. In 1964 annual leave in the New South Wales Public Service was increased from 3 weeks to 4 weeks and the increase in staff in 1965, the first year in which 4 weeks annual leave was granted, was less than it had been in the preceding 2 years I submit that that fact knocks out the Government’s argument.

What are the annual leave conditions in some of the countries with which we normally compare ourselves? I mention first the United Stales of America. In 1949, 61% of all employees in the United Stales received 2 weeks leave. In 1952, 48% received 2 weeks leave and 46% received 3 weeks leave. In 1957, 64% received 3 weeks leave and 20% received 4 weeks leave and over. In 1961. 49% received 3 weeks leave and 43% received 4 weeks leave and over. In 1966, 60% received 4 weeks leave while 13% received 5 weeks leave. Workers in Norway have received 4 weeks leave since 1964 - and we are supposed to be called a progressive country. In Sweden 4 weeks leave applies generally in industry. Public servants receive from 24 days leave for a 6-day week to 40 days leave, depending on age and their service grading.

In West Germany public servants receive 3 weeks leave with a minimum of 4 weeks leave for all employees over 30 years of age. In addition, 4 weeks leave is provided in many outside agreements other than those relating to the public service. In Holland public servants receive additional leave entitlements, depending on their age, of up to 4 days over the minimum provision of 3 weeks. In addition to that, public servants receive also an extra 2 weeks pay per year as holiday allowance. In the United Kingdom civil servants receive leave entitlements ranging from 3 weeks to 6 weeks according to their status and length of service. The Government should hang its head in shame. Our Commonwealth public servants receive 3 weeks leave and do not look like getting any more leave while this Government is in office.

Let us look to see who is the real architect of the decision of the Government not to grant 4 weeks annual leave to Commonwealth public servants. I go back to 12th October 1966 when the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Luchetti) asked a question of the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, concerning 4 weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants. This is the reply that he received from Mr Holt:

There should be no ambiguity about our position, but I shall see that a copy of the Government’s official statement on this matter is made available to the honourable gentleman. (Extension of time granted)

Mr MARTIN:

– I thank the House. The then Prime Minister, Mr Holt, went on to say in reply to the question from the honourable member for Macquarie:

Some time ago I received a deputation of representatives of the Public Service organisations and I undertook to bring the views of that deputation, which was pressing for 4 weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants, to the Cabinet.

I ask honourable members to note these words from Mr Holt:

A Cabinet submission has been prepared which goes fully into this matter. I should expect it to be considered shortly and a decision to be reached for announcement before the Parliament rises.

What happened the following night in the Senate? The Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate at that time was the present Prime Minister (Mr Gorton). He was then Senator Gorton. The debate in the Senate at that time was on the Public Service Bill 1966. Senator Gorton said this:

The second proposal by the Opposition-

He was referring there to an amendment that had been foreshadowed to grant 4 weeks annual leave to Commonwealth public servants - is that the Government should provide 4 weeks annual recreation leave instead of 3 weeks for Commonwealth public servants. Senator Willesee quite accurately forecast that 1 would have something to say about the cost that such a change would impose on the Australian economy.

This is the present Prime Minister speaking.

He continues:

If an extra week’s leave were granted each year to the total number of Commonwealth employees, an additional 5,800 workers would be required in the Commonwealth Public Service. Of course, the annual wage and salary bill would rise by about ?9m.

He goes on to say: 1

It seemed to me that he was saying-

Senator Gorton was referring to Senator Willesee ; with some justice, that in a particular office at a particular time a man could go away for a week and it would not be necessary to replace him, but the inference to be drawn from the extension of that argument is that this could happen throughout the whole of the Public Service.

He carried on to say that the Government had no intention of giving it.

What happened in actual fact was that the then Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Gorton, beat the gun. That was on 13th October 1966, before any decision had been made by the Cabinet.

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– Is the honourable member quoting from the official record?

Mr MARTIN:

– I am quoting from Hansard. Five days later, apparently after Cabinet had decided the issue and after Senator Gorton had jumped the gun, the then Prime Minister, Mr Harold Holt, refused this request. What I am saying is that the real architect of the decision not te give 4 weeks annual leave to Commonwealth public servants is the present Prime Minister, the right honourable John Grey Gorton.

To bring what he has said up to date - I hope that Commonwealth public servants take note of these remarks - I wish to quote what the Prime Minister said in reply to a question from me as recently as 9th April of this year. Part of my question to the Prime Minister was:

Will he follow the lead of other enlightened employers and immediately grant 4 weeks annual leave to Commonwealth public servants?

The Prime Minister did not say no bluntly, but he covered his reply by a few words of paraphrase. He said:

I do agree with what the Minister for Labour and National Service said yesterday, which was that the question of 4 weeks leave for Commonwealth public servants had been carefully examined by the Government and had been discussed with representatives of the various unions but on the grounds of the cost to the community generally and on other grounds in relation to shift work, which the Minister mentioned, the Government decided not to grant this leave.

I put this point to the House: Commonwealth public servants have never had the chance of getting 4 weeks annual leave from previous governments of the same political colour as this one. They have no chance of getting 4 weeks annual leave from this Government. Is it any wonder that Commonwealth public servants are so bitter on this subject?

Mr HAMER:
Isaacs

– I should like to get away from airy generalities and irrelevant detail and deal with the practical problems of 4 weeks annual leave for Commonwealth employees. I think that we are all in sympathy in principle with the desirability of increased leisure, but the Commonwealth Government also has a responsibility to the community as a whole for the economic and efficient operation of the civil service. The maintenance of the proper balance between these two requirements is one of those difficult judgments that face any government. We must not overlook the fact that there is a very tight labour market at the moment and that the conditions of Commonwealth employees must be such that we continue to attract and to hold people in this vital service.

Various arguments have been advanced in favour of 4 weeks annual leave. The first of these is that the increased complexity of the work and the pressures on public servants make it necessary for them to have additional annual leave so that they will be better able to cope with the strain of that work. This is true in principle. But the situation would not be improved if public servants had to work harder or had to work more overtime in order to cover the absence of staff on additional leave. An additional week’s leave for Commonwealth public servants would cost the Treasury - the taxpayer - $2Sm a year, or more if increased overtime was necessary, which would seem inevitable in the present labour situation. If it flowed on to all Australian employment, as it almost certainly would - and much more quickly than the SO years suggested by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Webb) - the cost of this flow on would be $290m a year.

The second argument advanced is that public servants are entitled to additional leave as one of the benefits of increased productivity. I agree with the honourable member for Banks (Mr Martin) that public servants have kept pace with the rise in national productivity, but the benefits of increased productivity can be and are distributed in many other ways - in higher wages, the avoidance of price increases that might otherwise occur, and increased expenditure on community services such as education and social welfare. These benefits do flow to Commonwealth employees as their share, or part of their share, of increased national productivity.

The third argument it that more annual leave is enjoyed by some other sections of the Australian work force, particularly the New South Wales civil service. There is something in this argument, but strict comparisons would have to take into account such things as differences in working hours and long service and sick leave entitlements. On balance I do not think that Commonwealth public servants are disadvantaged compared with those people who do get additional annual leave. In fact, of course, some members of the Commonwealth Public Service already get more than 3 weeks annual leave; I refer to parliamentary draftsmen, reporters, magistrates and managers of social service rehabilitation centres. Presumably if the general leave of the Commonwealth Public Service were increased to 4 weeks’ these people would wish to see their entitlement further increased, which would cause considerable difficulties particularly, as I am sure honourable members are aware, in the area of parliamentary draftsmen. This is typical of the practical problems which confront the Government in making this difficult judgement. I think that on the whole Commonwealth public servants are as well off overall as are the groups in other areas who receive more than 3 weeks annual leave.

The fourth argument which has been advanced is the need to restore the relative advantage of the Commonwealth Public Service, which has always enjoyed 3 weeks annual leave but which is in the process of losing this advantage over other workers who used to receive 2 weeks and now receive 3 weeks or more. This brings us back again to the fact that conditions of employment must be looked at overall and that we must not merely concentrate on one particular aspect. If this argument of. relative advantage in this particular area is pursued, would honourable members opposite be advocating 5 weeks annual leave for Commonwealth public servants if the general level were raised to 4 weeks? If they do, they should think very carefully about the effect this would have on the economy and efficiency of national and parliamentary administration.

The Government is keenly aware of what the people of this country owe to the integrity and efficiency of the Public Service. There is much to be said in favour of increased annual leave, but there are serious practical difficulties at the moment. We in this House must be watchful to see that the employment conditions of Commonwealth public servants are fair and equitable and likely to attract the number and quality of people we need for this vital service. This, I am sure, we will always do.

page 2063

NATIONAL HEALTH BILL 1970

Declaration of Urgency

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I declare that the National Health Bill 1970 is an urgent Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:
RYAN, QUEENSLAND

The question is:

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

Mr Hayden:

– Can we debate the question?

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

– No debate is allowed.

Question put. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr E. N. Drury) Ayes . . . . . . 57

AYES: 0

NOES: 54

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Allotment of Time

Mr SNEDDEN:
Minister for Labour and National Service · Bruce · LP

– I move:

That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows:

For the Committee stage -

to the end of clause 18, until 8.4S p.m. this day.

to the end of clause 21, until 10.25 p.m. this day. (in) to the end of clause 41, until 3.15 p.m.

Thursday 14th May.

  1. to the end of clause 55, until 4.15 p.m.

Thursday 14th May.

  1. remainder of Committee stage, until 4.35 p.m. Thursday 14th May.
  2. For the remaining stages, until 4.40 p.m. Thursday 14th May.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I have declared this an urgent Bill because it has to pass through this House, go to the Senate, be passed there and then receive the GovernorGeneral’s assent so that the benefits available to the public under it may be made available as soon as is reasonably possible. This Bill confers very considerable benefits upon the public, especially those suffering from illnesses or who are in need of operations, surgical care or general medical care. Because of this it is the Government’s wish that the benefits be made available to them as soon as possible. These are the reasons for the Government’s action in declaring it an urgent Bill. lt is necessary to point out also that the Opposition has circulated 33 proposed amendments to this Bill. If those 33 amendments were moved individually, seriatim, then from past experience I think it rather likely that we would have to have a closure motion on each of them, followed by a vote on the substantive issue. This would mean that 66 divisions were possible. As it takes between 7 and 8 minutes to count a division it will be apparent to every honourable member that we could be faced with division time alone - what one might call dead time - of over 7 hours. Quite clearly it is not in the interests of the Parliament to spend so much time with the tellers counting heads. Over 64 hours are made available under the proposed allotment of time.

Mr Hayden:

– It is Si hours.

Mr SNEDDEN:
LP

– The honourable member for Oxley interjects and says that the arithmetic is wrong. 1 confess that I personally did not do the arithmetic but I will certainly check it if he says it is not correct. I have been informed by my advisers that the proposed allotment totals 6 hours 20 minutes. This assumes that the debate on the Committee stage resumes tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

Mr Hayden:

– I apologise; it is 6 hours.

Mr SNEDDEN:

– My advisers informed me that it is 6 hours 20 minutes. However, if the mathematics are wrong this still does not alter the situation in any great detail. The period involved is over 6 hours. As I understand it, it is 6 hours 20 minutes, assuming that we commence the debate tomorrow at 2.30 p.m. The debate tomorrow may resume earlier and in that situation the period of time allowed would be over 6b hours. However, in that regard I give no undertaking at the moment. I expect the debate to be resumed tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.

In the course of the period of time allotted it would be my intention to talk with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Bass (Mr Barnard), and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who, as the shadow minister is in charge of the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, for the purpose of working out the-

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The Minister’s time has expired.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The Opposition can well appreciate that there are problems involved in handling the business before the House in the time available. In fact we seem to be reaching the unequalled situation that the House could very well sit right through to the Budget session without having the normal winter recess. But this is not the fault of the Opposition.

Before going further into that point I want to mention that the Opposition wants to co-operate with the Government as much as it can but we accept no responsibility for the fine mess that the business of the House is now in. There are 56 items on the notice paper now before the House which are waiting to be concluded. We have considered some; we have concluded none. It is entirely the Government’s fault that this situation exists. In spite of this we do want lo facilitate the business of the House.

The Opposition’s Health and Welfare Committee considered ways in which we could most expeditiously handle the proposed amendments but the time allotted is altogether too short. The Government haallotted 6 hours during which we would have to deal with 33 proposed amendments. There would not be 33 separate occasions on which an amendment would be moved because a number of the proposed amendments are grouped. There would be something like 21 or 22 occasions on which members of the Opposition would be on their feet discussing the amendments that we propose to put. I repeat that 6 hours is altogether too short a period of time in which to discuss these matters. Operating on this basis would permit only one Opposition speaker on each occasion thai the Opposition receives the call. He would have to move the amendment, or groups of amendments, and there would be no succeeding speaker to support them.

I submit to the House that this is a serious state of affairs. The role of the parliamentary chamber is to consider and deliberate upon legislation before it. It is not only the right of honourable members on both sides of the chamber to contribute as constructively as they can to the matters being discussed by the House; it is their obligation. The Opposition is alarmed at the casual and perfunctory manner in which the Government is treating this important measure which proposes amendments to the National Health Act. It is symptomatic o’ the dreadful state into which the affairs of this House have fallen. Because of the shambles which the Government finds itself in at the present time, the Committee stage of the debate on this Bill is thrust upon us suddenly this afternoon. At midday there was some sort of wafflyrumour going about the place - it came from official sources - warning Opposition members to be ready. lt indicated that if the Government could settle a brawl over the National Health Bill in its own Party rooms the House would be discussing proposed amendments in thi Committee stage. Less than an hour later we received a message which indicated that the brawl could not be settled. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) was having a rough time. Accordingly, we had to be ready. This information came from the Government side. Wc did not create this situation. We are pretty much guided by the sort of information that is passed on to us by the Government’s advisers, whoever they are.

We were advised to prepare ourselves to debate the Handicapped Children’s Bill in the afternoon, and then at about 20 past 1 or half past 1 we were advised that it appeared likely that the Health Bill would be discussed. We were informed that some amendments were to be made by the Government as a concession to pressure from the back benchers. But, after all, the back benchers, in spite of their objections to the way in which the Government had handled those amendments, wanted to save the Government from public disgrace and defeat in this chamber and were prepared to make concessions. Any reasonably operated house of discussion, such as a national assembly, a Federal Parliament or a national parliament of any sort ought to have a proper control over the matters which are going to be handled by it. ft should not be in a situation of serious doubt some 2 hours before a matter to be discussed is in fact brought before the House. The House of Commons is able to advise on divisions and on matters to be dealt with by it several days before they are in fact dealt with. The best notice that the Government can give is 2 hours. Frankly, this is a terrible state of affairs into which the Parliament has now sunk. Of course, the sad situation in the Government benches is responsible for this. But we of the Opposition should not be held up. We should not be prevented from discussing the normal business of the House or have our role interfered with merely because there is a brawl in the Liberal Party benches.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr BARNARD:
Bass

– The Opposition cannot accept this motion which in effect applies the guillotine and restricts the Committee debate, as the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden) has pointed out, to approximately 6 hours 20 minutes. The Minister gives as his reasons for applying the guillotine that this is an urgent measure. He has declared it to be an urgent measure. The Minister must clearly understand that if there has been any delay in connection with this Bill it has not been the responsibility of the Opposition. We have co-operated in every way. I suggest to the Minister that he examine the report of the second reading debate. If he does so’ he will find that there were just as many speakers from the Government side as there were from the Opposition side. So whatever reason the Minister has for applying the guillotine, if there is a reason, it cannot be said to be the responsibility of the Opposition. We agree with the Minister on the importance of the Bill. But this is an additional reason why honourable members on this side of the House ought to have a full opportunity to discuss the amendments that the Government will be moving to the Bill. Thirty amendments have been proposed by the Opposition. All of them must be regarded as being of very great importance, particularly to honourable members on this side of the House and to people outside the House who are interested in this measure.

The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), who is the shadow Minister for Health, has indicated to the Minister that Opposition members would not want to take more than the minimum time required to explain the amendments that will be put to the Parliament by the Opposition. I repeat that if there has been any delay the Government is to blame. The honourable member for Oxley was quite correct when he pointed out that at one stage this morning it was thought that the Bill would not be brought back, that we would not be dealing with the Committee stage this afternoon. The reason for this, of course, is well known, not only to honourable members on this side of the House but also honourable members on the Government side. For weeks now Government members have been dissatisfied with the form in which this legislation was presented to the Parliament by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes). There is extreme dissatisfaction on the part of honourable members on the Government side. They cannot agree with the legislation. It is quite clear that the Bill would not have reached the Committee stage this afternoon if the Government at its Party meeting this morning had not been able to reach agreement on the Bill. Apparently the Minister for Health - one would think with the assistance of others who perhaps have more responsibility in his Party - was able to prevail on the honourable members on the Government side to allow the Bill to reach the Committee stage this afternoon.

Having said that, I point out that the National Health Bill is regarded by honourable members on both sides of the House, one assumes, to be of extreme importance not only to members of Parliament but also to people outside who have some interest in these matters. We believe that it is quite reasonable for Opposition members to argue - this applies particularly to those who will be proposing the amendments which have been distributed to honourable members - that they should have the maximum time to discuss the amendments and that all of them ought to be presented for a full and frank discussion by honourable members. But the Minister for Labour and National Service, despite the fact that he has had ample opportunity to bring the Bill forward, has delayed in doing so. The procrastination has been on the part of the Government, not the Opposition. The Government has denied honourable members on this side of the House an opportunity to consider the Bill fully. Now they will deny honourable members an opportunity to consider fully the important amendments that have been proposed by the Health Committee from this side of the House. Therefore for these reasons we oppose the motion moved by the Leader of the House, the Minister for Labour and National Service. We believe that honourable members ought to be given every opportunity to debate this Bill at the Committee stage.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The Opposition can hardly be blamed for putting up such a sham case in relation to this matter. I have looked pretty carefully at most of the Opposition amendments and they are quite frivolous. The Opposition knows perfectly well that there is no hope of having them adopted. They are not in the tradition even of the Labor Party’s health service. At least 2 of the early amendments cannot be acceptable to the Chair because they involve an increase in the appropriation. I suggest that Opposition members stop making a noise and let us get on with the business of the Parliament.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– The reasons given by the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) for bringing this measure forward as urgent are spurious in the extreme. Even as late as today those in the Government ranks cannot agree to support the measure that is before the Parliament. As the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has said, we have been treated to displays of ugly brawling and sordid intrigue in the Liberal Party, in relation to this measure, the appointment of a full time lobbyist by the Australian Medical Association in King’s Hall to instruct and direct Government supporters on this measure and in every way to create the dissension and the dissatisfaction that has forced it to bring the measure into the House. The real reason for bringing this measure before the House now is that the Government wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible. Discussion of the measure contains all the seeds of rebellion in the Parliament. The Minister could not afford to bring the Bill to the Parliament clause by clause because he knows he would be deserted and defeated on the floor of the Parliament by defectors from within his own ranks. I defy any honourable member on the Government side to say that is not true. I defy any member on the Government side to say that he supports the Bill. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) is almost a nervous wreck in regard to the presentation of the Bill. In fact, the doctors have to give him a needle to keep him going because he is so distraught about The whole matter.

What does the Government say now? After a recess of 6 months it brings forward a measure with 55 clauses and 42 pages of schedules to be debated in about 6 hours. Members on this side of the Parliament would have no chance to debate it. Not one member on the Government side will have time to speak in the period allowed for discussion of the clauses except the Minister for Health. That means that the ministry is silencing its backbenchers, and the few rebels among them are sitting as quiet as mice today. They are being gagged by their ministry and they are not prepared to show - at least openly in this Parliament - that dissension exists in the Government’s ranks. Why does the Government want to avoid a debate on the measure? Why does it not allow members to exercise their rights?

Every member on this side of the Parliament and on the other side has the right to speak twice in the Committee stage. It is easily seen that if that were allowed to happen it would bring to light many features of this legislation which should be amended, and therefore the Government seeks at this stage to stop any kind of dissection of the measure whereby we might show the public many of the failings in the legislation. What about the Opposition’s 30 amendments? Each one has been carefully thought out and designed to protect the public interest. All have been prepared by experts in our ranks, including 5 prominent members of the medical profession. The Government knows that penetrating amendments that would have been moved by the Opposition would show up the incompetence of the Minister for Health and the features of this Bill which are not in the public interest. I congratulate the Government for realising the dangers to it inherent in having a decent debate take place in this way, but I would have had more respect for the Minister in charge of the debate had he been honest and said: ‘We are frightened of the Opposition in this matter’.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drury:

– Order! The time allowed for the debate on the motion has expired.

Question put:

That the motion (Mr Snedden’s) be agreed to.

The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker - Mr Drury)

AYES: 55

NOES: 54

Majority

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

In Committee

Consideration resumed from 7 May (vide page 1828).

Clauses 1 to A - by leave - taken together and agreed to.

Clause 5 (Interpretation).

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I wish to move the amendment to clause 5 circulated in my name.

Dr Forbes:

– I raise a point of order. My understanding is that under the Standing Orders it is not appropriate for the Chair to accept an amendment which involves an increase of expenditure without an appropriate message from the Governor-General.

The CHAIRMAN:

– At the moment the amendment has not been moved so there is no motion before the Chair.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I wish to make a few preliminary remarks. First, I wish to voice my protest concerning the way the Government is treating this Chamber in the discussion of this very important Bill. National health was the subject of a great deal of debate up and down the country all through and preceding the last Federal election. The Government has seen fit now to curb the debate. Furthermore, one observes that the

Government is bringing the Bill on for debate, as it did last week at the second reading stage, when the proceedings of the House are not being broadcast.

I now move:

At the end of the clause add the following paragraph: “(c) by omitting from sub-section (4.) the words ‘.other than an attendance at which an examination of the patient’s eyes is made in consequence of which spectacle lenses are prescribed’.”.

I do so with the object of removing the discrimination against patients who use the services of an ophthalmologist where that service involves the prescription of spectacles. Under the Bill persons who seek the services provided by an ophthalmologist will attract certain Commonwealth benefits providing spectacles are not prescribed. If a patient is referred to an ophthalmologist, who is as we know an eye specialist and a highly trained medical man, by an optometrist or a general practitioner, as he is entitled to be, and if that eye specialist comes to the conclusion that part of the treatment required is the prescription of spectacles, no Commonwealth benefit will be paid to the patient.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I point out to the honourable member for Barton that I have looked at the amendment moved by him and I find that the effect of it would be to increase the amount of appropriation required. Accordingly, I rule the amendment out of order.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– In that case I simply move:

That clause 5 be postponed.

I do that as an indication of my Party’s unhappiness about this clause. I was indicating to the Committee the very unfair treatment meted out to patients who go to an eye specialist for an eye examination in the course of which examination, however thorough it may be, the ophthalmologist prescribes spectacles. In such a case no Commonwealth benefit will be paid. I do not know why the Government has this obsession. A patient who is referred to an eye specialist will have to pay $1.50 for the first consultation. Where a patient is referred and spectacles are prescribed as part of the consultation the patient will have to pay not $1.50 but $5.75. A patient who goes to an eye specialist without being referred will have to pay a total of $8.90. Honourable members are well aware of the Government’s promise during the Federal election campaign last October that no patient seeking attention from either a general practitioner or a specialist would have to pay more than $5 for such a visit. Here we have a denial of the Government’s promise. 1 understand that it could be possible for a patient to be asked to pay the full SIO of the common fee charged by ophthalmologists. This is not only a denial of the Government’s promise but also, in my view, a denial of justice.

The Australian College of Ophthalmologists points out that the prescription of spectacles can be merely incidental to the medical examination. The medical examination could be a most exhaustive affair and could involve a full examination of the eye to see whether any kind of disease is present, lt could lead to surgery and after care treatment. In all those situations, providing that no speactacles are prescribed, the patient would be fully covered and would not have to pay more than $5 for all of those treatments. But if after all that kind of treatment is provided the doctor says: ‘Look, besides having this examination and this other kind of treatment you will also have to wear glasses or have your glasses changed’, the patient is prejudiced and will receive no Commonwealth benefits whatsoever. I am told by the College that the patient possibly will not even receive fund benefits. 1 would like the Minister to tell me whether that is correct.

I ask the Minister to tell the Committee why this provision is contained in the Bill and why there is this prejudice involving the provision of spectacles. There is not the same kind of prejudice against a doctor who prescribes drugs that are not on the list of pharmaceutical benefits. There is no such prejudice against a prosthetic surgeon who provides artificial limbs. I ask the Minister: What would be the position if the ophthalmologist had to provide an artificial eye? The patient will receive no Commonwealth benefit if the doctor prescribes glasses to see with but presumably if, in the course of his treatment, the patient is provided with an artificial eye then he will receive the whole benefit at no greater cost than $5. T am told that the elimination of this discrimination would not cost more than Sim.

The number of people estimated to be affected by this provision would amount to about half a million. About 500,000 services are involved annually. If the Bill goes through in its present form, those 500.000 services will not attract Commonwealth assistance. Obviously, the health of the community will suffer. Many people will not be able to afford to have the examination because the ophthalmologist may have to prescribe glasses and the patient will be denied any Commonwealth benefit. The Bill needs to be amended in the way suggested by the Labor Party to eliminate the discrimination where spectacles are prescribed and to provide encouragement, first of all, for the medical man. There are about 400 ophthalmologists in Australia today. There is a great need for more of them. The kind of discrimination and prejudice involved in this particular clause will not be an encouragement to them. Certainly it will not be an encouragement to the many patients who will require the services of an ophthalmologist. lt is said that many people can be saved from going blind by going at an early date to have their eyes examined fully by a specialist. This applies especially in the case of chronic glaucoma. There are many other eye diseases where early detection by a qual’fied man could preserve the patient’s sight. The clause under discussion gives no encouragement to people who might be in fairly necessitous circumstances to go along and receive such eye treatment from highly qualified people. These doctors are medical men with at least 6 years of undergraduate training plus at least 4 years of postgraduate training. They are not quacks. We are talking about highly qualified medical services. The Government is denying these people the freedom to prescribe glasses without in some way deterring the patient.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– Mr Chairman, the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) asked why the provision he mentioned has not been included in the Bill. I direct his attention to section 15.5 of the report of the Nimmo Committee, which states:

The fac) that spectacle lenses are prescribed both by ophthalmologists and by optometrists gives rise to special problems under the scheme. It is c’..’imcd by optometrists that unfair discrimination arises from the fact that subject to special conditions medical benefits are payable for consultations with ophthalmologists but not with optometrists.

In section 15.6 the report says:

The Commonwealth has sought to remove discrimination by a provision in the National Health Act under which consultations with medical practitioners in consequence of which spectacle lenses are prescribed are not eligible for Commonwealth benefits. This provision penalises ophthalmologists’ patients and it is claimed that devices are employed to circumvent it. While it is an unsatisfactory provision the Committee is unable to suggest any other means of achieving the result sought.

As I say, the Nimmo Committee had this aspect under review and came up with that conclusion. I have today received a deputation from the Ophthalmological Society, as I have done on many occasions in the past, and it has placed before me new information on this question which I have undertaken to consider. If it seems to change the situation, which has proved a problem to the Government over many years, I have undertaken to take this question to the Government and, if the Government agrees, to sponsor an appropriate amendment next time the National Health Act is amended. There has not been time and there would not be time within the next week or two for this new information to be analysed and properly assessed in the light of these considerations.

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– If the report of the Nimmo Committee is to be cited to use as an authority for simple things like this we will find it very hard to come to any conclusions about what should be done with a health scheme. The Nimmo Committee did not get any more of an answer to this problem than the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) has. He professed not to know why this clause was in the Bill. I thought he would have known, having had some experience in this Parliament on previous occasions, that the purpose is to try to prevent optometrists from putting pressure on the Government to get benefits for their patients. They put up an extremely good case many years ago - I think it was 1964 - and it was thought at the time that it might be a good idea to give a benefit to the people who went to optometrists and obtained spectacles. But the Prime Minister of that day circum vented this proposal by inserting a clause which prevented people who went to an ophthalmologist from getting a benefit in order to deprive the patients of optometrists of a benefit. This is an injustice which has been perpetrated ever since.

The Minister has said he will have a look at it because he has now heard from the ophthalmologists. I know he has heard from them before; we all know that. There is no reason why this provision should not have been included on this occasion and there is no reason at all why it cannot be put in as an amendment in the Senate. A little while ago when we were debating whether the guillotine would be adopted I said that most of the 30 amendments which would be proposed by the Opposition were frivolous, and this is one of them. Opposition members know perfectly well that it is not in their province to ask for this amendment to be accepted by this Committee now. I would have thought they had enough gumption to put forward the proposal that the Minister should consider this, which is what I now suggest. The honourable member for Barton raised another point but I did not quite follow his figures because there is a little difference in the common fee between the States. Item 9 of the table contained in the Schedule provides that patients who receive professional attendance from a specialist in the practice of his speciality where referred are entitled to a benefit. The Commonwealth benefit is $4.25 and it is matched by the fund benefit of $4.25. The excess required to be met by the patient in New South Wales is $2.50; in Victoria it is $1.50, because of the difference in the common fee.

Let us consider the position of a family that unfortunately has a child with a squint. They go along to a specialist, referred by their local general practitioner who said: You had better see a specialist about this’. The specialist examines the child, and it is as thorough an examination as that made by any other specialist in any part of the medical profession. At the end of it he says: ‘The only thing we can do is prescribe some lenses to try to correct the condition*. That family is not entitled to a rebate. This is wrong. If there are 4 in the family it is 4 times as wrong. I have heard over the last fortnight very much said about the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) that no procedure would cost the patient more than $5. Here we have a provision in the Bill for a consultation with a specialist under which the cost to the patient would be $2.50 in New South Wales and $1.50 in Victoria. Yet if as a result of this consultation the ophthalmologist finds he has to prescribe spectacle lenses the patient gets no rebate whatsoever. The patient will have to pay $11 in New South Wales and $10 in Victoria. The common practice in this unfortunate ailment, commonly known as a squint - I am afraid 1 do not know the medical term - is for the child to be required to come back in 3 months time when the specialist will again examine him. The doctor mav need to prescribe a different strength of lens. Again there will be no rebate.

I agree entirely with the intention of Opposition members but 1 would have thought the best approach to this problem, in which I join them and in which I ask them to join me, would be to ask the Minister to look at it very quickly and to eliminate what is a complete anomaly, lt does not need any extensive inquiry by his Department which is fully aware of what is happening. If, as I have been told often in the last fortnight, we intend to honour the promise that no procedure will cost more than $5, this anomaly must bc removed in the Senate.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to a point of order. There is a clear understanding between the Opposition and the Government, I would expect, that there is a limited number of speakers. If Government members are to jump up willy nilly and speak to this Bill the self-imposed discipline which the Australian Labor Party has accepted to try to expedite the business of the Committee will be jettisoned. There is a responsibility on the part of the Government. We are prepared, as honourable members will see from the amendments which have been distributed, for only one member of the Opposition to speak to an amendment, but this is on the clear understanding that Government members do not jump up in succession and try to exploit this situation. If they do we will immediately use every available form of the Committee to indicate to the

Government quite forcefully that we will not accept this. I ask honourable members opposite to be fair about it

Mr Buchanan:

– I rise to a point of order. I object violently to the fact that the Opposition thinks that it can get all the credit for putting forward suggestions which I myself have been putting forward for a long time.

Dr Klugman:

– Suggestions.

Mr Buchanan:

– Yes, but I still want to talk to them.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member will resume his seat.

Sir Wilfrid Kent Hughes:
CHISHOLM, VICTORIA · LP

– I will be very brief. I thank the Minister for saying that he will have another look at this matter. I support the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Buchanan) in what they have said about it. The provision can be included as an amendment in another place. Spectacles are provided free in repatriation cases, and I cannot see any reason at all why the provision should not apply under these conditions in the case of the health scheme.

Question resolved in the negative.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 6a.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

That the following new clause be inserted in the Bill: 6a. Section 9 of the Principal Act is amended by adding al the end thereof the following subsection: - “(3.) The Minister shall not disseminate infor mation under the last preceding sub-section in a form that is designed to influence public opinion on a matter as to which the publicly declared policies of political parties represented in the Parliament differ unless those other political parties are given equal facilities at public expense to disseminate their views on that matter.”.’

The Committee has less than 2 hours, as I understand it, to debate 18 clauses of the Bill and I add my protest. This is why it is necessary for me to be brief in respect of this matter. Nevertheless, the amendment is a simple one and I believe that it ought to command the support of the Government. Section 9 (2.) of the Act states:

The Minister may disseminate information relating to health or the prevention of disease.

We of the Opposition have no equivocation in saying that provision is justifiable. There is some evidence that the provision has been utilised to good advantage in the past. What we are concerned about is the prospect of propagating at public expense information which is not of a neutral nature from a public standpoint. We uphold the need to disseminate information as it is regarded necessary for the purpose of understanding this very complex Bill. There is no question that it will be necessary to advise general practitioners and specialists, for example, about the discrim:natory fees that will operate. It is also essential that the patients be informed in respect of their benefits. But a very unhappy trend has been developing in recent years and we would not like to see it applied to the National Health Bill.

I may say as an aside that some honourable members here will recall what was probably a precedent, the occasion when the Government circulated material at public expense through the schools of this country in regard to a matter which was even more controversial than the National Health Bill, namely, our intervention into the Vietnam war. It has already happened on one occasion and we do not want to see it happen again. That material went to schools, universities and sim’lar institutions throughout the country. Many hundreds of thousands of documents were distributed putting the Government’s point of view - sheer political propaganda - at public expense. We took a dim view of that and we would similarly take a dim view of any extension of that princ’ple or denial of the important principle to which I have referred. After all, compounding this unfortunate trend were the incidents of last week.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I do not think that the honourable member should refer to that matter.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I am not going to talk at length about this and I appreciate what you say, Mr Chairman, but perhaps I may finish the sentence. Last week was an occasion when there was a tendency to suppress-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I advise the honourable member that it might be wise not even to finish his sentence.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– The Minister in a statement on health benefits on 4th March, under the heading ‘Dissemination of Information concerning Medical Fees and Benefits’, said:

In the immediate future, a booklet describing the new arrangements, together with a list of the common fees for the more frequently rendered medical services, will be widely distributed.

If this is all that is proposed it is very apparent that we are not likely to have any objection to it. I cannot at this point of time anticipate what opposition the Government could have to the amendment that has been proposed. If the Minister’s intention is only as he has stated there could be no reason why he would be not prepared to support the amendment. If on the other hand there is some sinister intent, if it is the intention of the Government to utilise the provision which operates in a very general form now, it is clear that the Government would want to oppose us on this matter. We are calling for an embargo on influencing public opinion on a matter as to which the publicly declared policies of the parties differ.

There has been a great deal of speculation about the material which will be circulated by the Government. We have read in the Press that millions of copies are being printed somewhere in some secret printery. It is top secret. Nobody knows - even members of the Government are unaware - of the terms of this material. We are told ths/ the printers have been standing by ready to churn out this material. When we put this with the guillotining that is going on and the suggestions that are being made around the lobbies that this printed material of the Government in connection with the National Health Bill might be brought out in such a way as to be used to the Government’s advantage at election time, there is good reason why the amendment that we have proposed should bo enthusiastically supported and carried.

We would hate to think that the Government is to use this technique to disseminate and propagate information in regard to basic philosophical matters concerning national health. After all, there are very great differences of opinion about these matters. A short time ago as I left the Library I glanced at a publication giving the result of a public opinion poll as to whether it would bc better to have voluntary insurance or a health scheme based on taxation. There was a strong difference of opinion in the community on that matter. The results showed that those polled were substantially in favour of the proposals advanced by the Labor Party during the last election.

It would be very undesirable if matter of that kind were to be the subject of printed material circulated at government expense. Similarly, I do not think the Government should use printed material to justify the exclusion of certain provisions from this legislation. The Country Party would not want to exclude reference to the regionalised hospital services of this country and the need to overhaul them. I would not want the Government to seek to justify its exclusion under the National Health Act of such services as dental and optical services. Whenever wc have had a referendum in this country the procedure has been that the Government has not been at an advantage in putting its view to the voters at public expense. The long established precedent is that every political party is entitled to put its view at public expense at the time of referendums. But here the Government has embarked on the process of putting its view exclusively at public expense. If the Government does not accept the amendment the only conclusion to be drawn is that it intends to use this provision in the legislation for miserable partisan political advantage. In my view it is bad enough to have a Dr Forbes running the national health scheme of this country without also having a Dr Goebbels. Our amendment, which gives all political parties, including the Country Party, equal opportunities to advance their points of view, should be warmly embraced bv every honourable member who likes to think that he is a democrat. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– The Government cannot accept the amendment. I do not think I have seen a more extraordinary amendment in the time I have been in this Parliament. I wonder whether the Opposition has fully considered the consequences of such an amendment becoming law in the unlikely event that the Opposition ever became the Government of this country. However, it is not on that basis that the Government raises objection to the amendment. Section 9, which the amendment is designed to amend, has a very wide application. It is not confined to medical and hospital benefits or to the other benefits provided under the National Health Act. The proposed amendment is directly specifically to sub-section (2.) of section 9, which reads:

The Minister may disseminate information relating to health or the prevention of disease. lt would appear that section 9 (2.) places beyond doubt the authority of the Minister to issue Press statements, make speeches, publish annual reports, issue books about medical and pharmaceutical benefits to doctors, pharmacists or registered organisations and generally to issue publicity material such as pamphlets to explain medical and hospital benefits, pharmaceutical benefits and the operation of the pensioner medical service. The sub-section has a very wide scope. The present medical benefits scheme has been in operation for 17 years and it is obvious that a special effort is needed to inform the public of the new concepts involved in the scheme to which this Bill will give effect. The proposed publicity about the new health benefits plan will not be of a political nature. It will follow the pattern of ordinary departmental publicity directed to ensuring that the general public is fully aware of the health benefits plan and what the individual needs to do in order to participate in the plan. In other words, the publicity will continue the tradition which, without exception, has not been departed from by my Department or, to my knowledge, any other department as far as the proprieties are concerned.

If the amendment were carried the Minister would probably be prevented from disseminating information of the kind proposed to be disseminated or he may be required to obtain the approval of other political parties before disseminating such information. This would impose a restriction of such severity on the activities of the Minister as to make it doubtful whether the normal activities of the Department could be carried on. Further, why should a restriction of this kind be proposed only for the National Health Act? If it is suitable for the National Health Act it could be argued that it is suitable for all legislation, because a great deal of legislation carries through it in basic principle the philosophical approach of the party which forms the government. So if the Opposition’s proposal is appropriate to this Act it should be written into every other Act. Such a situation would, I suggest, place an impossible restriction on government administration and could not be tolerated. The Government opposes the amendment.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Sitting suspended from 5.57 to 8 p.m.

Clauses 7 to 18 - by leave - taken together.

Clause 8.

Section 13 of the Principal Act is amended - (a)……

  1. by omitting from sub-section (I.) the definitions of “professional service” and “the Committee” and inserting in their stead the following definitions: - “ ‘medical service’ means a service that is specified in an item in the First Schedule to this Act; professional service’ means -
  2. a medical service that is rendered by, or on behalf of, a medical practitioner; or
  3. a prescribed medical service that is rendered in an operating theatre of an approved hospital by a legally qualified dentist or dental practitioner approved by the Director-General for the purposes of this definition;

Clause 9.

After section 13 of the Principal Act the following section is inserted - “13a……

Clause 14.

Section 18a of the Principal Act is repealed and the following section inserted in its stead: - “18a. Where a person becomes a contributor on or after the proclaimed date (not being a person who, immediately before he so becomes a contributor, was a contributor within the meaning of Part III. of the National Health Act 1953-1969 and had been such a contributor for a period of two months or more), Commonwealth benefit is not payable in respect of medical expenses incurred by the person during a period of two months commencing -

  1. in the case of a person who, immediately before becoming a contributor, was a contributor within the meaning of PartIII. of the National Health Act 1953-1969- on the day on which that person became a contributor within the meaning of that Part; or
  2. in any other case - on the day on which that person becomes a contributor, unless, under the rules of the registered medical benefits organization concerned, fund benefit is paid by the organization in respect of those medical expenses.”.

Clause 15.

Section 19 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (2.) the definition of “ professional service “ and inserting in its stead the following definition: - “ ‘ professional service ‘ does not include a medical service covered by item 631, 641, 651 or 661 inthe First Schedule to this Act or by any item in Part 7 or Part 8 of that Schedule;”.

Clause 16.

Section 21 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-sections (1.) and (2.) and inserting in their stead the following sub-sections: -

Clause 17.

Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from sub-section (1.) all the words after the word “contributor” (second occurring).

MrHAYDEN (Oxley) [8.0]- Mr Chairman, we find ourselves in a position where we must move a group of amendments together.I do so formally because of the guillotine which has been applied by the Government.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!It will be necessary for the honourable member for Oxley to obtain leave to move his amendments.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I will speak first and make my point on the need for this action and then I will ask for leave to move the amendments.If we did not take this action we would not be able to move these amendments. I hark back to what I said whenI opposed the motion moved by the Leader of the House (Mr Snedden) for the introduction of the guillotine. This is supposed to be a debating chamber where we seriously, with maturity, consider every point brought to the Committee. This is especially so with a complex Bill such as the National Health Bill 1970 which is one of the more important and complex

Bills with which we will be required to deal. We are being denied this right. It is more than a denial of this right to the Opposition. It is a denial of that right to the Australian public which expects adequate representation within this chamber. Having made that protest, I now formally ask for leave of the Committee to move the amendments which have been circulated in my name and in the names of other Opposition members.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.

Mr HAYDEN:

– I move:

  1. In clause 8, paragraph (b) (b) omit ‘in an operating theatre of an approved hospital’.
  2. At the end of clause 9 add the following proposed section: ‘13B. The schedule of fees shall be reviewed at least once every two years.’.
  3. In clause 14, omit all words after ‘repealed’ to the end of the clause.
  4. In clause 15, omit all words from and including ‘amended’ to the end of the clause, insert ‘repealed’.
  5. In clause 16, after ‘amended’ insert ‘(a) - ‘.

  6. At the end of clause 16, add the following paragraphs: “(b) by omitting from sub-section (3.) the words ‘may, in his discretion,’ and inserting in their stead the word ‘shall’; and

    1. by adding at the end thereof the following sub-section: (6.) There shall be a right of appeal on the determination of the Minister under the last preceding sub-section by a contributor to the jurisdiction which determined or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage.’.”.

  7. Omit clause 17, insert the following clause:

    1. Section 23 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting sub-section (1.) and inserting in its stead the following sub-section: (1.) Commonwealth benefit is payable to any person for medical treatment of a nature covered by the First Schedule.’.”.

The first amendment thatI have moved, which is No. (3) on the circulated list, relates to clause 8. We propose to amend this by omitting the words: ‘in an operating theatre of an approved hospital’. This clause relates to specialist dental treatment. It is incredible that the Government should wish to proceed with the inclusion of these words. A number of reasons, which are readily apparent, exist as to why these words ought to be withdrawn. First, it is quite clear that dental specialists covered by the Act providing treatment for patients will tend to encourage their patients to enter hospital for treatment simply because in those circumstances they will attract the fund benefit. If they do not enter hospital they will not attract the fund benefit.

This is a stupid anomaly to write into the Act. I am assured by dental specialists that many of the specialists - probably most of them, if not all of them - have adequate equipment within their own surgeries to provide the forms of treatment which would be covered by the schedule. Particularly are we opposed to this clause and that is why I have moved the amendment.I might point out also that we will get anomalies such as the one where a patient requiring a certain type of treatment, if he is healthy could have that treatment provided inthe private surgery of the specialist. If the patient has. for instance, a cardiac problem, and some apprehension exists about his welfare, he would go into hospital for that sort of treatment. This could be a relatively minor procedure. Clearly this is an anomaly which ought not to be written into the Act.

I am not suggesting that any of the amendments that we have proposed and those which I have moved already are indicative of the way in which the Australian Labor Party would write its National Health Bill. Our approach would be quite different. All we are trying to do is to eliminate - at the least, to reduce - the deficiencies of the Act which are falling rather harshly on the same people who will be seeking benefits from the Act in future.

I turn to the amendment that I have moved in relation to clause 9. This is circulated amendment No. (4). We propose in this amendment that the schedule of fees proposed in the Bill shall be reviewed at least once every 2 years. This amendment has been moved as a matter of common justice. The reasons for moving it scarcely need any development. Practically every other group in the community earning salary or income has some sort of tribunal which considers the adequacy of its remuneration periodically. Doctors should not be deprived of this right.

I turn now to circulated amendment No. (5) which seeks to amend clause 14. Our amendment, if carried, will mean that there will be no waiting period qualification regarding the period when a person enters a fund and the time when he establishes eligibility for cover by benefit from that fund. Presently, a contributor entering a fund must wait 6 months to become eligible. If he becomes ill in that period, or has a preexisting illness, he in fact gets no benefit. The proposal from the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) is to reduce that period to 2 months.

We believe that if the Government is genuine about trying to establish a national health insurance scheme it will cover people who are ill, whether they have pre-existing illnesses or illnesses which arise within that period of 2 months. If a person is sick, that person is entitled to this sort of protection. That person is entitled to the benefits of the scheme. The Australian Labor Party’s scheme would not discriminate against people in this way. We would give comprehensive cover to all people in the community including all those who have pre-ex ‘sting illnesses. This is a ridiculous bar to apply against people, lt should not be tolerated in an enlightened civilised society because it is a discrimination against those who suffer ill health and. in effect, imposes a greater burden upon them.

J come now to our circulated amendment No. (6) which relates to clause 15. This clause deals with professional services provided at hospitals. A person who attends an outpatient section of a hospital for treatment, although he has to pay for that treatment does not obtain any benefit under the present Act. lt is our proposal that such a person should obtain a benefit. We can think of no cogent argument why it should be otherwise.

Circulated amendment No. (7) deals with clause 16. This clause is concerned with compensation payments. The present situation is a most unhappy one. In some cases at least, persons with compensation claims pending have been deprived of any hospital or health benefit. The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) has, I believe, had some cases where this has been so. Quite serious hardships have been imposed on the persons concerned. Because of this pract’ce these people have been unable to pay hospital and medical bills. What happens in effect is that medical practitioners and hospitals must bear the burden of this cost which is built up until the compensation claim is met. Hospital insurance funds have reserves totalling $76m. 1 think that this amount represents about 10 months contributions. Medical insurance funds hold $44m in reserves. This is all dead money. That $44m represents 8 months contributions. There is no reason why these funds should not cover these people. The amendment that we seek to have written into this Bill is that the Minister for Health in fact shall arrange that these people can be provided with the fund benefit.

I turn now to a further provision in the Bill with which we are not dealing by way of amendment but to which I wish to refer. This provision makes allowance for a person who receives a benefit, while a compensation claim is pending, to refund, upon the settlement of the claim, the amount of the benefit paid. This will still apply under the Act as amended. This is quite a reasonable and humane approach to this problem.

The Opposition is proposing a new subparagraph (6.) to paragraph (c) of clause 16. This is the subject of circulated amendment No. (8) which relates to clause 16. This reads: (6.) There shall bc a right nf appeal on the determination of the Minister in relation to what amounts should be paid by a recipient of compensation payment’s or repaid by a recipient of compensation payments to cover funded benefits.

At the present time there is no determination as to what amount of the total amount is to cover medical and hospital expenses: An arbitrary power is placed within the hands of the Minister. No right of appeal exists against the decision of the Minister. It is our proposal that there should bc such a right of appeal and that the right of appeal for the contributor concerned should be to the jurisdiction which determines or would have otherwise heard his claim for compensation or damage.

Finally I turn to circulated amendment No. 9 which deals with clause 1 7. Clause 17 relates to section 23 of the Principal Act. We are proposing that the Commonwealth benefit should be payable to any person for medical treatment of a nature covered by these items detailed in the First Schedule. This is public money which is used for Commonwealth subsidy. A system of using public money should not be developed in a way to coerce people to join private funds. This is public money raised from the taxpayer which is made available for some people only. Those people who bow to the pressure that is written into this legislation and join a private fund are those to whom I refer. This is completely wrong. It is our firm belief that every person who requires medical treatment should be entitled to the full Commonwealth benefit. If they decide to join a private fund, that is a matter for them. They should then get the fund benefit. But the Government should not fulfil the role of coercive agent forcing people into inflated, inefficient and unnecessarily costly health insurance funds. Incidentally, this is not our scheme. The amendment is not the sort of provision we would write into our scheme, which is completely different, as we have discussed on other occasions. 1 should like to discuss our scheme to some extent during this debate but all we are being permitted is to have 2 speakers from the Opposition each with 10 minutes to discuss these important provisions. This is a quite unreasonable requirement of the Government. However, these are the amendments which the Opposition presents and which I have formally moved.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:
LYNE, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Order! The question is:

That the amendments be agreed to.

Before calling on the Minister for Health I point out that amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, the first part of amendment No. 8, and amendment No. 9 on the Opposition’s circulated list are out of order because they would increase the amount of appropriation required. Therefore, the amendments before the Committee are those numbered 4, 7 and the second part of 8.

Dr Everingham:

– May 1 speak briefly on a point of order? My understanding is that if the effect of an amendment is to require a specific appropriation of revenue it is out of order. I submit, that that is doubtful in respect of these amendments because it is unlikely that any additional appropriation of revenue would be necessary.

The CHAIRMAN:

– In my opinion all of the amendments that I have ruled out of order would increase the appropriation required. To that degree they are out of order.

Dr Klugman:

– Mr Chairman, to enable me to discuss the amendments that you have ruled out of order would it be in order for me to move that we postpone consideration of a particular clause as we did in respect of amendment No. 1 on the Opposition’s circulated list?

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are considering clauses 7 to 18 together, and we are therefore considering all of the amendments together. The remaining amendments are Nos. 4, 7 and the second part of No. 8

Dr Klugman:

– So that I may speak to amendment No. 3 is it in order for me to move that the particular clause be postponed?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. I have ruled that amendment out of order. The only amendments before the Committee are those that 1 have not ruled out of order.

Mr Hayden:

– On a point of order, Mr Chairman, will the honourable member be in order in discussing the particular clause?

The CHAIRMAN:

– The honourable member will be in order in discussing the clause.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I refer to paragraph (b) (b) of clause 8 which seeks to amend the definition of professional service’ in the principal Act to provide, among other things, for a prescribed medical service that is rendered in an operating theatre of an approved hospital by a legally qualified dentist or dental practitioner approved by the DirectorGeneral for the purposes of this definition. In some way this amendment indicates the complete lack of thought behind the legislation. Let us examine what it refers to. No doubt this arises out of the Nimmo Committee’s report in which there is special reference to oral surgeons who carry out many of the procedures which medical practitioners also carry out.

If a person is a patient of a medical practitioner and the medical practitioner carries out the procedure the patient is entitled to a rebate from his fund, but if the procedure is carried out by an oral surgeon - and in many cases the patient has no choice - he is not entitled to a benefit. I think that this is wrong. Nowhere in the Act is it stated how these oral surgeons will be declared. Will every dentist be approved by the Director-General for the purposes of this definition? 1 am not sure what will happen. Will the person who receives treatment by an approved dentist or dental practitioner receive a rebate at the specialist rate or at the general practitioner rate? Many of the procedures appearing in the schedule come under 2 headings, specialist and general practitioner. 1 am sure that the Minister for Health has not thought about this, ls the dentist to be regarded as a specialist in this particular instance? For example, is the dentist who removes a foreign body from the mouth entitled to a higher rebate than a medical practitioner who performs the same service? Should he be treated as a specialist? I do not know, and I should like to hear what the Minister’s thoughts are on this matter.

Over 100 of the items covered in the schedules are performed by oral surgeons, so I am informed by oral surgeons. In fact, there are only a limited number of oral surgeons in Australia. In New South Wales, for instance, there are 20 to 30 who are recognised as oral surgeons. Will they be the only ones recognised for the purposes of this legislation? I certainly have no objection to - indeed I welcome - the aspect of the legislation which encourages people who require an anaesthetic for a particular procedure to be admitted into a public hospital and for the procedure to be carried out in an operating theatre. Far too many procedures involving anaesthetics are carried out outside public hospitals and outside operating theatres and this increases the risk to the patient. But it is also obvious to those of us who know something about these procedures that many of them do not involve the use of a general anaesthetic. In many cases they may require the use of a local anaesthetic and, in some cases, no anaesthetic is necessary. Will it become necessary for people to be admitted into a public hospital and to have the procedures performed in the operating theatre just to get a refund? The Government has proposed this clause and it could result in cluttering up our public hospitals.

Let us consider a case where an oral surgeon is performing some particular procedure connected with a fracture of a mandible. If he has to take an X-ray - and as I understand it, unless the X-ray is taken inside the operating theatre the patient is not entitled to a refund - does he take the X-ray machine into the operating theatre? If he takes the X-ray outside the operating theatre - and it is the dentist rather than a medical practitioner who reads the X-ray - the patient is not entitled to a refund. I feel that the Minister and his officers in drafting this legislation have not thought clearly about the outcome of a literal application of this type of amendment

Amendment No. 4 on the Opposition’s circulated list proposes a review of the schedule of fees. 1 would strongly support some fixed time of review. When I was in medical practice I objected to the adverse publicity that arose when medical fees were raised. One had difficulty in obtaining any sort of agreement with the funds or with the Government to increase their contributions. I am sure that this is one of the main worries facing medical practitioners at the present time. I think the same kind of thing applies in my new occupation. I strongly argue that there ought to be some fixed method of reviewing the Schedule as it applies to members of Parliament. 1 turn now to the proposed amendment referring to eligibility and whether members have to belong to a fund for 6 months or 2 months and so on. I think it important that the Minister look closely into this aspect. Many people are being discriminated against. I cannot ascertain from this legislation whether this is still likely to happen. As we all know a significant number of females in Australia conceive their first child outside marriage. Therefore they are at most members of a medical benefits fund contributing at the single rate. Many medical benefit funds have adopted the line that contributors are not entitled to the maternity benefit or the benefit for a confinement if they subscribe at a single rate, even though the husband also may be a member contributing at the single rate. I think this is obviously wrong. I hope the Minister will assure me that when he examines the rules of these funds he will make sure that rules of that sort are not applied and that a determination on matters of this kind is not simply left to the good graces of the people at the desk who are interviewing these poor girls. That is not the way this should be determined. It is nobody’s business whether a girl was married or whether she contributed to a fund at the single rate at the time she conceived. She should not have to show that she was contributing to the fund at the family rate for 10 months before giving birth to a child. I have not had much time to deal with the large number of amendments proposed.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock)Order! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

- Mr Chairman-

Dr Gun:

– I raise a point of order. Is the Minister going to take all the time available?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Kingston will resume his seat. The point of order is not valid.

Mr Hayden:

– I rise to order. There is limited time available. Under the guillotine arrangements we have only until S.45 p.m. to discuss these clauses. The Minister ought to give some of his own supporters an opportunity to speak now. The Opposition has co-operated.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no valid point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– It is a matter of fair play. If the Minister is going to reply to every speaker-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There Ls no valid point of order. The honourable member for Oxley pointed out that the time available is very limited. I call the Minister for Health.

Dr FORBES:

– I have already allowed 2 members of the Opposition to speak. I did not rise. I departed from the normal custom in the Committee stage of a Bill. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) decided to move the remaining proposed amendments in this group at once. Some of them were accepted by you, Mr Chairman, as proposed amendments but others were not. I think it quite reasonable for me to speak on behalf of the Government and deal with those proposed amendments which were accepted in the same way as the honourable member leading for the Opposition did. In order not to use up the available time

I will confine myself to the proposed amendments that were accepted by you, Sir, and be as brief as possible. 1 shall deal first with proposed amendment No. 9 which was moved by the honourable member for Oxley and accepted by you. lt would have the effect of having the schedule of fees reviewed at least every 2 years. The Government can not accept this proposition and does not believe that it is necessary. I have already stated on behalf of the Government that it is desirable for an arrangement to be negotiated with the Australian Medical Association for a review of the common fees on which the medical benefits are based. The Government has given an undertaking that it will pursue this matter to the point where there is an agreed method of arriving at a review of fees at regular intervals. The Australian Medical Association has put a particular proposal to the Government as to the way in which this should be done. The Government has not yet made a decision on that proposal but hopes to do so shortly. After it has made its decision there will be, inevitably, quite a bit of negotiation with the Australian Medical Association. I have no doubt at all that there will be a satisfactory method of updating common fees agreed upon but we have not yet reached that point. Nor do I believe, as a matter of general principle, that it is appropriate that either that or the sort of provision moved by the Opposition should be incorporated in this legislation. Therefore the Government opposes this amendment.

Sir, the next proposed amendments accepted by you were Nos 7 and 8. Both proposed amendments relate to clause 16. You accepted proposed amendment No. 7 in whole and proposed amendment No. 8 in part. These proposals refer to the power given for the Director-General to make a provisional payment of Commonwealth benefit in those cases where it is possible but not certain that there will be compensation paid in third party or workers’ compensation cases and where the amount of compensation paid would reduce the Commonwealth medical benefit. If the compensation received is high enough to reduce the amount of Commonwealth benefit that should be paid below the amount actually paid provisionally, the difference is repayable by the contributor. The effect of the proposed amendment would be to force the payment of Commonwealth benefit in all possible compensation cases where the patient had not established entitlement. The present Act allows the Director-General to investigate and to make an assessment of the situation. It permits him to use his judgment as to whether payment of compensation is probable and as to tha amount that will be paid. This achieves much greater accuracy in the amount of benefit paid. If the Commonwealth benefit were paid in all cases, as proposed, there would be difficulty in recovering the amount over paid to the contributor, not to mention the inconvenience caused to the contributor.

Proposed amendment No. 8 refers to the power of the Minister to determine how much of a payment made in settlement of a claim under workers’ compensation or third party is attributable to medical expenses. The amendment proposes an appeal to the court that either heard the case or would have heard the case if it had not been settled out of court. The practice of the courts varies in that in some cases the amount attributable to medical expenses is specified whereas in others a lump sum is awarded. In some cases there is a settlement out of court. The effect of this proposed amendment would be to force the courts indirectly to make an assessment of medical expenses in each case heard and, if the contributor desired it. also in those cases settled out of court. The proposed amendment would seem to serve little useful purpose as the court could use only the same criteria as the Minister would use in making his determination. For that reason I oppose it.

Having replied to the amendments which have been accepted, I would like to answer the question raised by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) with respect to the proposal to provide benefits in the Government’s plan for certain items which related to oral surgery. It is not intended to prescribe services of a kind which will normally be given in a dental practitioner’s surgery. The remarks of the honourable member for Prospect w?re directed at the special situation which arises when a patient is given a procedure of a kind sometimes performed by a doctor and in other circumstances performed by an oral surgeon. The emphasis in this matter is on the question of what services are prescribed. We have not yet reached the point of actually prescribing these services. They are certainly not prescribed in the schedule. We have received from the Australian Dental Association only in the last few days details of the services which it suggests are appropriate within the context of the Government’s intention. These suggestions went no further than to remove an anomaly in the existing Act in circumstances where services could bc done equally well by an oral surgeon and a medical practitioner. At present there is a working party of my Department and the Australian Dental Association examining this situation in detail.

There are a number of other matters’, including that raised by the honourable member for Prospect in relation to the persons who will be recognised under the Act for these purposes, which have to be worked out by negotiation. Until that is done it seems appropriate for the Government to restrict this to the recommendation contained in the Nimmo Committee report, that it should be restricted to services performed in the operating theatre of an approved hospital. After all this is worked out that would appear to the Government to be the appropriate time to consider whether this restrictive provision recommended by the Nimmo Committee is unduly restrictive.

In relation to the point made by the honourable member for Prospect about unmarried mothers, it is the intention of the Government, as I indicated in a statement that I made originally on this matter, to introduce as a condition of registration of the funds uniform conditions of registration, which will cover the point that he made, for all funds in Australia. I think that will answer the point that the honourable member made.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– After listening to the comments of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) on these amendments and on various aspects of thi Bill, it almost looks as though this Bill is as open ended as the original contract for the Fill aircraft. Although previously I have indicated that I reject the principles on which this whole legislation is founded, one thing is certain, and that is that it is not going to work unless the most common fee concept is accepted. We all know that there is a considerable disquiet about this. Not only is there disturbance in the Australian Medical Association and in the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, but the high fee group - I believe they call themselves the General Practitioners Society in Australia - is also in the act. So we have a situation where there is still enough doubt about the common fee schedule for us to be concerned. There is no firm composition for regular review of these fee schedules. 1 think this amendment should actually use the word ‘schedules’ because there are 7 schedules relating to fees.

With respect to a previous amendment, the Minister placed a great deal of reliance on the Nimmo Committee recommendations. I invite the Committee to consider paragraphs 4.65 to 4.72 of the Nimmo Committee’s report where it deals with fee reviews. The report of the Committee states: . . one of the difficulties the medical profession has found in accepting the principle of a ‘fee schedule’ relates to the question of review of the schedule . . . in a period of rising costs and incomes.

Certainly the medical profession cannot control this and it would be unreasonable to expect the medical profession to give an open cheque on this. That is why the Nimmo Committee recommended in paragraph 4.71:

It is clearly desirable that common fees once established-

We hope they are established, although we have some doubts about that:

  1. . should be stabilised for reasonably lengthy periods - we suggest 3 years. Frequent adjustment to contributions jar the system and make it very difficult for insurance organisations to operate effectively.

We accept that. The report mentions 3 years. We have decided that 2 years would be a more suitable time factor. But in the preceding paragraph the Committee describes the necessity for the review of these fees at regular intervals. In fact, the need for this review was 1 reason why the Committee put forward the concept of a national health insurance commission. Obviously a body would have to be responsible for gather ng together all the factual material and statistics on which adjustments to the schedule could be made. So if we consider this need for a fee review, as was suggested by the Nimmo Committee, if we accept its suggestions that there is a procedure that could be used to allow for this regular adjustment, and if we accept that the Government has accepted and used it as the Nimmo Committee has, as an argument in relat’on to many other aspects of the Bill, 1 think we of the Opposition are entitled to inquire why these recommendations have been totally disregarded. As 1 have said, judging by the Minister’s remarks it looks as though we have an open ended Bill. If this legislation is be ng introduced wilh no firm commitment, with no firm assurance that the common fee schedule will be adhered to, we have no attraction for the members of the medical profession in the sense of guaranteeing to them a regular fee review. Do we know for certain that the AMA will be the responsible body to negotiate on this point? In that case, the introduction of this legislation al all is negligent in the extreme, particularly when we get to this stage and find it is lo be hurriedly rushed through the Committee singe when these details could be discussed.

It is not my intention to deal at any greater length with these amendments, because I believe this review of the common fees schedule is the most important aspect in stab lising this Bill - that is. if the Bill is desirable. I do not think that it is. Another matter which reinforces this opinion is the comment the Minister made in relation to dental procedures. We have him admitting that he has a definition ‘n the Bill lo cover dental procedures, but as yet the Government does not know what dental procedures the Bill will cover. Docs this seem a responsible way of presenting legislation to the House and then p itting it before this Committee? I suggest that on those aspects alone the Government should bc condemned for a negligent attitude to this legislation.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise to a point of order. I ask you, Mr Chairman, whether it is in order for this debate to continue while the Liberal Party is still thrashing the matter out in the Party room.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr Lucock:

– Order! There is no substance in the point of order. [Quorum formed.]

Mr BUCHANAN:
McMillan

– The proceedings of the last 40 minutes have been quite farcical if we are to give the impression that this Parliament is trying to consider a health Bill. I sympathise entirely with what has been said by the Opposition about the fact that some arrangement has been made about the allotment of time for the discussion during the Committee stage. A couple of speakers from the other side - nobody from this side - have spoken on the clauses we are considering at the moment. I would like to remind everybody that I gave notice during the debate on the second reading that 1 was prepared to move an amendment relating to oral surgery. I believe that in fairness to everybody there should be some opportunity for discussing this. Speakers from the opposite side have twice received the call when I have stood up to speak. I want to register a most emphatic protest. There does not seem to be much use in going on with the things I wanted to say about oral surgery. lt is quite incomprehensible to me why the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), the Government, the Department of Health or whoever else is responsible would put into a Bill such a provision relating to prescribed medical services rendered by a legally qualified dental practitioner or approved dentist, i presume that immediately this Bill is passed the patients of oral surgeons will be eligible to receive a benefit. Yet here we have a whole schedule of practices which oral surgeries use every day, and there is no way that the patients of oral surgeons can receive a benefit for these procedures even if they are done in a hospital, because there is no prescribed medical service. I think it is a disgrace that a government would come out so completely unprepared about something which it has put into a Bill. I realised only a very short time ago that it was so restricted.

It is absolutely reasonable to say that the whole range of procedures which oral surgeons will be putting into practice in their daily rounds will attract benefit. There are about 25 or 30 oral surgeons in Australia, and I do not think it will be very difficult for the Department, if necessary, or somebody else to say whose patients are to be eligible and to bring out a specialists list. There are about 25 or 30 oral surgeons, but about 6 or 7 of them also have medical qualifications. The patients of those with the medical qualifications will receive the benefits but not the patients of the other men, who may have things referred to them by the first group because some people are regarded as being better at it than others. The patients of those men without medical qualifications will be denied benefit.

It is completely ridiculous that government should come out with something that has not been thought out even in its first principles. The Bill provides that the patients of an oral surgeon will become eligible for benefit, but they will be denied by the fact that none of the procedures has yet been laid down. The Minister talks of a working committee doing this. Surely common sense would indicate that it is inevitable that the list of all the procedures which are conducted in everyday life by oral surgeons should be known.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The time allowed in the Committee stage for consideration of the Bill to the end of clause 18 has expired.

Amendments negatived.

Clauses agreed to.

Clause 19.

After section 29 of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted: - “29a. - (1.) There shall be, in respect of -

  1. each State;
  2. the Australian Capital Territory; and
  3. the Northern Territory, a Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee. “(2.) Each Committee shall consist of four medical practitioners appointed by the Minister from among six medical practitioners nominated by the Australian Medical Association. “(3.) A member of a Committee holds office during the Minister’s pleasure. “(4.) A member of the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee is not eligible to be nominated or appointed under this section to a Committee. “(3.) At a meeting of a Committee three members form a quorum. “(6.) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the procedure of the Committee. “29b. - (1.) There shall be a Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee, which shall consist of four medical practitioners appointed by the Minister from among six medical practitioners nominated by the Australian Medical Association. “(2.) A member of the Committee holds office during the Minister’s pleasure. (3.) A member of a Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee is not eligible to be nominated or appointed under this section to the Committee. “(4.) At a meeting of the Committee thi, members form a quorum. “‘(5.) The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the procedure of the Committee. “(2.) Before considering a question referred to it under the last preceding sub-section, a Committee may co-opt another medical practitioner who has qualifications, experience and standing in the medical profession in the specialty to which the question before the Committee relates to be a member of the Committee for the purpose of considering, and making a recommendation on, that question. “29d. - (1.) Where the Director-General notifies a medical practitioner that the Director-General has determined that the medical practitioner is not to be recognised, lor the purposes of this Act, as a consultant physician, or as a specialist, in a specialty, the medical practitioner may, within one month after the receipt of that notification, lodge an appeal with the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee. “(2.) Before considering an appeal, the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee may co-opt another medical practitioner who has qualifications, experience and standing in the medical profession in relation to the specialty to which the appeal relates to bc a member of the Committee for the purpose of considering and determining the appeal.
Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

- Mr Chairman-

Mr Reynolds:

– 1 take a point of order. Will I be required to vote on these clauses that 1 wanted to seek clarification about, such as the definition of professional service and how the allocation of specific access is to be made, without having had any elucidation from the Minister? If it is good enough for the Minister to seek consultation with the medical fraternity for 6 months is it right that I should have to vote after 6 hours on all of these clauses?

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no valid point of order. It is a decision of the House governing the allotment of time for the Committee stage. At the moment we are dealing with clause 19.

Mr Hayden:

– Also on a point of order, Mr Chairman. We have not agreed to this. Quite frankly we come to a point of eruption on this procedure. If the honourable member for Barton has some technical questions he wishes to raise I think it is in the interests of the general community that he should be allowed io Jo so. Mr Chairman, the Minister will remember - and I put this to you in support of my claim - that the legislation introduced before the last election covering subsidised contributions for low income earners ran into trouble because not enough consideration had been given to the movements in the cost of living reflected in wage increases. The honourable member for Barton putting forward a perfectly legitimate point. The Australian community, and especially the people who are to administer this Bill, should be allowed lo have some explanation of technical definitions.

The CHAIRMAN:

– There is no substance in the point of order raised by the honourable member. The guillotine has been agreed to.

Mr Hayden:

– It has not been agreed to. It has been imposed on us.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The allocation of the time for the discussion of this National Health Bill in the Committee stage was a decision of the House, and it is not for the Chair to question or alter a decision of the House.

Mr Hayden:

– Then I propose to move that so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Barton raising the queries he wishes to raise.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The suspension of Standing Orders cannot be moved in the Committee stage.

Mr Hayden:

– Surely it is the duty of the House, which should transcend everything else, to seriously consider-

The CHAIRMAN:

– We are not in the House; we are in Committee.

Mr Hayden:

– This seems to be legal fiction to an ordinary person. Surely we have an obligation to iron these questions out. If there are any weaknesses in the legislation it is in the interests of the Minister as much as anyone else to have these questions raised so that his advisers can inform him.

Dr FORBES:

– I move:

In proposed section 29a, omit sub-section (2.), insert the following sub-sections: “‘(2.) Each Committee shall consist of five medical practitioners appointed by the Minister in accordance with section twenty-nine ba of this Act. “ ‘(2a.) The exercise or performance of the powers or functions of a committee is not affected by reason only of there being a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Committee.’”

The Bill provides that the Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee and the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee will comprise medical practitioners appointed by the Minister for Health from the panel of names supplied by the Australian Medical Association. This provision was proposed in accordance with the longstanding arrangement under which the Australian Medical Association confers where necessary with the specialist bodies in the profession in relation to matters such as this where a number of specialist groups in the profession would need to be consulted. We had in mind that the end point of the Australian Medical Association’s consultations with its specialist groups would be the submission of a panel of names to the Minister from which the Minister would appoint committees representative of the various specialist groups whose advice would be desired. However, the Australian Medical Association has now advised that in this instance it believes that it would be more appropriate for the Minister to make direct approaches to the colleges comprising the specialist groups concerned. From the panels of names the Minister will nominate the recognition committees and the appeal committees whose advice will form the basis of the listing of specialists for the purpose of the National Health Act. The Government accepts this point of view, which was also presented by the Royal Australian College of Genera! Practitioners. The amendment as circulated proposes the rewording of the clause so that the committees will be appointed in the manner proposed by the Australian Medical Association and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– The amendment proposed by the Minister for Health encompassed practically everything that the Opposition foreshadowed in its amendment. I would like to persist with a couple of points that the Minister omitted. Before I do that, I express agreement with he basic reason behind the amendment.

I think it has something to do with the brawl that is going on over the schedule. The basic problem is one of standards. For this reason it is necessary to recognise that the Australian Medical Association is not basically concerned with standards. It is a political organisation representing the doctors as a whole. For the purpose of the Bill and the proposed committees it is quite clear that what is aimed for is some measure of the standards of the various practitioners in their various specialities. For that reason the amendment is perfectly logical. I am glad that even the AMA woke up. 1 would like to persist with Labor’s suggestion that perhaps there could be a clause (f) in proposed new section 298A to include someone nominated by the State Health Departments. The committees will be established in each State and they ought to work in collaboration with and not be separate from the State health authorities. I hope that that is not a partisan point of view. The State Health Departments will be responsible for or should play a large part in keeping an eye on the registers of various specialists. We must not forget that the State Health Departments are responsible for the employment of most of these specialists, because they are working in the large public hospitals which are the responsibility of the State Health Departments as well as of the Commonwealth. Therefore [ feel that it is reasonable to include on the committees someone nominated by the State Health Departments. The Minister has also conceded the possibility of appointing specialists outside the specific precincts mentioned in the 5 groups. I would mention the anaesthetists who form part of one of the other colleges. Their interests are so different that it would be worth inviting an anaesthetist to join the committee if one is considering the problem of anaesthetists. They are encompassed in the overall umbrella of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. The Minister has conceded this in his last section where he states that a consultant medical practitioner with the appropriate qualifications and experience can be brought on to the committee. The Opposition certainly agrees with that.

The group that he has omitted - although he may concede that they would be covered by the wording of the last couple of amendments - are the oral surgeons.

I am at a bit of a loss to know what an oral surgeon really is. I think that the Minister is in the same position at this stage. Regrettably, this is a sphere that has not been defined properly by anybody. At the moment it seems that we have 2 groups of oral surgeons; we have oral surgeons who are trained dentists and also trained medical practitioners. They are in essence a specialised branch of surgeons who would be encompassed partly by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. What concerns me is the misty area of oral surgeons who are qualified dental practitioners and not qualified medical practitioners. I am a bit worried about how far they can extend themselves into the sphere of oral surgery. That is a necessary part of the definition, lt harks back to the point that I started out by mentioning - the whole question of standards.

The same problem exists in the brawl relating to the 2 levels of fees depending on whether a service is provided by a general practitioner or a specialist. We have an overlapping area with general practitioners doing some things and surgeons also doing the same things. I ask: Are general practitioners properly qualified to do all those things? If they are, why should surgeons be entitled to charge more for doing the same th:ng? if general practitioners are not properly qualified to do those things, why are they doing them anyway? They should not receive any fee for doing it. They should not be allowed to do it. lt should be the prerogative of surgeons only or of people properly qualified. This is an unsatisfactory situation. Quite frankly, I do not blame the Government for it; I blame the medical profession itself. 1 think the med:ca profession has been too concerned about politicians on both sides of the House intruding into its affairs and has not been concerned enough to worry about its own affairs in terms of standards of medical practice.

I cannot give a ready answer to the problem. I am simply indicating the doubts and sowing the suggestion that the Minister might consider including in Hie committees someone representing the oral surgeons. I must confess that I cannot give a clear definition of who they might be. The Labor Party had proposed members of the Australian Dental Association. ] think that we should all think about it a bit more, mainly because the professional groups need to think about it a bit more. In summary, the Opposition is not unhappy with the Minister’s suggestions. For the sake of completeness I would suggest that the State Health Departments ought to be incorporated and that the Minister, in his further deliberations, ought to think about the oral surgeons and who they really are.

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– I would like to persist and to go back to clause 8. lt is stated in the Bill that a professional service is a medical service that is rendered by or on behalf of a medical practitioner. What I want to know and what thousands of people in the community want lo know-

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! I would suggest to the honourable member for Barton that the Committee has already decided and agreed to the clause to which he is now speaking. The clause that we are now discussing is clause 19.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– Not a syllabic has been uttered on the definition.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Barton has been in this place long enough to know that at this given moment the clause before the Committee is clause 19. Clauses 1 to 18 have been agreed to by the Committee.

Mr Daly:

– I raise a point of order. What the honourable member for Barton is endeavouring to point out to the Committee is that this Bill is inter-related and that clause 8 must be discussed in conjunction with the one under discussion now; otherwise we would be seeking to discuss the Bill and discarding the first half of it.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! There is no substance to the point of order.

Mr Hayden:

– I would like to dissent from your ruling, Mr Chairman.

Mr CHAIRMAN:

– Order! The honourable member for Oxley will resume his seat. No ruling has been given. The Committee has agreed to clauses 1 to 18. That is what I pointed out to the honourable member for Barton and 1 told him the Committee was now discussing clause 19. No ruling has been given; that is a statement of fact as to the matter before the Committee. The question now is that the sub-section proposed to be inserted be so inserted.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– One of the reasons 1 have risen here is to give some of my colleagues a breathing space. They have been taken by surprise by this decision that they are unable to canvas the proposed amendments in a way that is traditional in Committee. In the short time available to me I would like to ask the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) whether he could explain to the Committee the reason why he has departed from his own proposals in the Bill so far as the composition of this Committee is concerned.

Dr Forbes:

– Do you mean to mention this now?

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think the Minister has given any explanation as to why-

Dr Forbes:

– Were you not listening? That was the whole substance of what I said.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I do not think the Minister has given any explanation as to why he has jettisoned his previous prejudices and commitments. I think it is important, in view of the fact that the Opposition has not had the opportunity to outline clearly the amendments they propose to put and discuss, for the Minister to say what he has rejected, if in fact he has rejected, the proposal that the State Ministers for Health participate in these committees. I take it the Minister’s silence means acquiescence and that the State Ministers are not to be included in these committees. I hold the view that for the Commonwealth to act in isolation in this matter is the very height of folly. The States could easily go off on a tangent in the classification of people in the medical profession with respect to specialities and general practice. This could cause all kinds of problems in the State legislatures.

I think the Minister would bc aware that the Opposition proposed to develop this point and in the confusion that has followed the guillotining and the manner of handling this legislature it has not been amplified in the way that might have been expected. I had not intended to speak on this point but 1 was impressed by the idea that State Ministers should be included. It is apparent to me that the whole thing is a complete shemozzle. It is very difficult for this Parliament to deal with this legislation when it is being amended by the Minister himself at this late hour. When honourable members have gone to work formulating amendments, for the Minister to come into the debate in this way makes a complete shemozzle of any approach to major legislation. We are entitled to some sort of comment on the amendments we have proposed, especially the one that deals with the involvement of State Ministers. I believe it is worthy of some explanation by the Minister for Health.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– I take it we are still on clause 19. When we are talking about different kinds of specialists I would like to raise one matter which in some ways is interrelated with a later stags of the Bill - that part covered by the last stage of the guillotine. In effect, it refers to the Schedules which contain some thousands of items that we are supposed to discuss in 25 minutes tomorrow. There is no provision for the recognition of psychiatrists or the r representation on this committee. 1 would like to make the point that in those 25 minutes tomorrow we have to discuss 1,030 items for which there will be differential payments for specialists and general practitioners. The Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) :n his second reading speech I think referred to something like 300 items. He was wrong by only 736 as I counted them, and that was not a bad percentage. I suppose the same people who did the costing for the plan originally also counted the items.

There is no provision for the recognition of specialist psychiatrists in the sense of hav’ng a psychiatrist represented on this committee. And what do we find? We find that attendance by a psychiatrist will be treated, according to the Schedule, as professional attendance by a specialist, and for a second or subsequent attendance his patient is entitled to a refund of S4 in the State of New South Wales. The second and further attendance of a patient attending a psychiatrist are usually lengthy attendances, of at least 1 hour. The cost is about S 1 5 and the refund is S4. Yet according to the Minister who drew up this Schedule there will only be a specified excess of Si. 50. When he can show me the psychiatrist who will see a patient for an hour and only charge S5.50 1 will be very interested to meet him. He will certainly not be one of the specialist psychiatrists whom we will be recognising under clause 19. 1 think th s again shows that the people who drew up this Bill just tossed all specialist attendances into 1 big box to get the results from the computer. They did not realise that psychiatrists were in a different position. They did not realise that in some cases the second attendance is longer than the first attendance. They just assumed that the first visit to a doctor takes a long time and the second visit takes a short time. In the case of some specialists this is not so. We again have the farcical situation where nothing is done to help the people who attend repeatedly for treatment. I would like to know who the Minister’s psychiatric adviser will be. I. do not mean that in any personal sense but in the sense of consultant psychiatrists who will be helping to decide who the specialist psychiatrist will be who sees patients on the second and subsequent occasions and charges only $4 an hour.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– A number of points have been raised by the honourable members for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) and Hughes (Mr Les Johnson). They asked why we do not include a representative of the Stale departments of Health. Contrary to what they would say, the reason is that it would appear to me to be inappropriate to include such representatives when we are only establishing a specialist register purely for the purposes of the National Health Act. This is all it is, a specialist register for the limited purposes of the National Health Act. State departments of Health play their parts in the committees set up in the States to perform a similar purpose where there is a State register of specialists. The honorable gentlemen will notice from the Bill that all medical practitioners placed on the State specialist register are automatically recognised for the purposes of the National Health Act, the health benefits plan, as specialists.

On the other point that was raised, there are currently 2 States - South Australia and Queensland - which have registers of specialists. Western Australia has a specialist register for the purpose of the Workers compensation Act. The 3 other State Ministers for Health have indicated to me that they propose introducing State registers in the near future. 1 would expect that in the State committees particularly at least some of the medical practitioners nominated under the procedures which we have laid down will be people who have been associated with the State committees doing the same job and who are responsible for standards. The honorable member also raised the question of recognition of oral surgeons. I make the point immediately that there was no intention and it is not proposed that these committees should deal with the matter of recognition of oral surgeons under the Act. In relation to specialist dentists the discussions which are being arranged with the dental profession are expected to lead to the adoption of suitable arrangements for agreements between the Government and the dental profession on the recognition of dental practitioners for the purpose of oral surgeon benefits. In the light of these discussions appropriate amendments will be proposed at a later date if it is considered that the arrangements being worked out ought to be formalised by legislative provisions.

Dr Gun:
KINGSTON, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

– It will be a hotchpotch.

Dr FORBES:

– You cannot have it both ways. A little while ago the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds) and the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) were complaining that they had not had an opportunity to raise matters that they wished to raise with me. Tn this case some Opposition members raised matters about which I believe they were sincerely interested in getting an answer and this is what I am trying to provide. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), as I understand it, raised 2 points in respect of psychiatrists. The first was: Who is going to be responsible for recognising people who will be registered as psychiatrists under the Act? Of course, they will be registered in the broad group of physicians but the provision which enables a consultant in the specialist group involved to be added to the committee, if appropriate, would apply to that. The answer to his question is that undoubtedly in this case - in this case perhaps above all for reasons which he would well know - it would seem to be very important to have a clearly recognised member of that specialist group added to the committee in order to determine this question.

The second and, I think, unrelated point that he raised was the question of determination of common fees for psychiatric services. This was done in exactly the same way as common fees were determined for all other items under the Schedule and based on figures provided to the Government as a result of information obtained from medical benefit funds, from their records and from doctors’ bills, and examined by the AMA. All the other groups - the 15 to 17 sub-specialists - are contained in the physician group. In this respect psychiatrists are no different from, for instance, neurologists who have the same sort of arrangements. The point I make is that we produced the best results in relation to common fees that were possible in respect of the available information. Undoubtedly, as I have said many times, when new or additional information becomes available this will be considered by an anomalies committee and we hope that the House will approve the taking of power under the Act to make by way of regulation changes in the Schedule. When factual information about fees charged by doctors becomes available and is considered by an anomalies committee we will be only too glad to make appropriate amendments to the Schedule.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– In respect of clause 19 I wish to take up the point made by my 2 colleagues with regard to the registration of specialists. This whole matter of appointing these committees arose out of the differentiation of Schedules for specialists and general practitioners. It is a totally new concept which came in at the last minute. These committees of approval and appeal had to be worked out at the last minute - so much at the last minute that the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) has now had to move an amendment. Honourable members on this side of the House considered this anomaly and came up with a very similar amendment, not on the basis that the Minister has quoted that the Australian Medical Association decided, but on the basis that common sense decided. The Government should not be asking the AMA - an essentially politically organised organisation - to decide on specialist qualifications. The Royal Colleges, the academic bodies, should be asked to do this sort of thing.

If we had an Australian Labor Party health scheme, of course, this whole sorry business of differential rebates could very quickly be tipped into the ashcan, because we propose to make specialist services at a high level of efficiency available free to those who want them free - not by pushing anybody into any kind of conscription, not by forcing specialists to accept salaried services, but by making conditions so attractive for them that that is what they would want to do, as 1 explained in the second reading stage of the debate. This has been proved the most efficient, the most popular, the most economical and the most sensible way under the Kaiser scheme in America. The question is not: Can the GP do this job or can the specialist do it better and should he get a higher fee? It is the whole subject of the standards of medical practice. We have had statements by the AMA itself and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners that standards ought to be set. They said this as long ago as 3rd April last year in the AMA gazette and I have no doubt that they consulted with the Minister or his advisers on this.

This whole business of quality of care has been gone into. Why is there not something in the Bill about this? Why do we have to have stopgaps and makeshifts to block up the leaks in a scheme that has only been half thought out? Why do we not have a fundamental reappraisal of the sort of standards we want in specialised care in this country? Why do we have to try to get in the Committee stages of this Bill some sort of answer from the Minister as to what he thinks about the policing of standards by the profession? This is no system of policing standards, deciding whether a fellow is a specialist in this field or that field. What we want to say is: Is this doctor capable of performing one of those thousand-odd procedures that we will discuss in 25 minutes tomorrow? I realise that it is ridiculous for this Committee to have to go through every one of those procedures and decide exactly whether or not it should bc listed as a specialist procedure.

What we should be doing is setting up highly specialised academic committees to advise this Government on a proper health service for this nation, on proper health standards for this nation, on the accreditation of doctors, on quality control, on accreditation of hospitals and on the audit of medical care in clinics, private or public. This is the sort of thing going on overseas. It has been a burning quest’ on for many years in America, but this Government says nothing about it. The excuse it gives is that this is a State matter. It says that it will leave this to the States because it is primarily their responsiblity. An honourable member opposite interjects to say: That is right’. Of course it is. So what does the Government do when we suggest that those very States whose responsibility it is to achieve standards of medical care should have 1 nominee on this committee for each State? The Government says that it does not matter because already one of the appointees to one of these royal colleges will have had experience on the specialist register of that State. What kind of quality control do you get with an arrangement like that? lt is the old story of the dog chasing its tail. All the Government is doing is resorting to stop gap measures - attempting to plug the leaks in th:s leaky ship and hoping that it will stay afloat. No doubt it will for a while, because we have nothing better. 1 would like to develop this theme because it is vital to the whole concept of a national health scheme. Unfortunately, by doing so I will prejudice the right of my colleagues to d’scuss other clauses up to clause 21, for we have only 64 minutes remaining in which to discuss those clauses. I submit that the Minister has no valid reason for rejecting the Opposition’s suggestion that a State appointee be allowed to sit on the State committees which will decide spec:alist qualifications. Specialist qualifications are not an important issue but if you are to include them, for heaven’s sake allow the people who have been responsible for the quality of medical care over all these years and whom Government supporters say are responsible for this matter to appoint at least one of their number to this committee of 5 or 6 doctors.

Amendment agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– The question now is:

That clause 19, as amended, be agreed to.

Does the honourable member for Maribyrnong desire to move amendment No. 11 standing in his name?

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– In my earlier remarks I conceded that the amendment moved by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) covered most of the points in my amendment. Since quite clearly the Minister’s amendment will be accepted, there seems no point in pressing my amendment. I accept that it is irrelevant in view of what has transpired. The same remarks apply to my amendment No. 12. I will not proceed with them.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I was under the impression that I had moved all of the amendments to clause 19 standing in my name. If I did not, I now move the remainder:

In proposed section 29b. omit sub-section (1.), insert the following sub-sections: - “‘(1.) There shall he a Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee, which shall consist of five medical practitioners appointed by the Minister in accordance with the next succeeding section. “‘(1a.) The exercise or performance of the powers or functions of the Committee is not affected by reason only of there being a vacancy or vacancies in the membership of the Committee.”,

After section 29b insert the following section: - “ ‘ 29ba. - (1.) Before making appointments to a Committee, the Minister shall request each of the following bodies to nominate a panel of not less than three medical practitioners for consideration for appointment to the Committee: -

the Australian Medical Association;

the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons;

the Royal Australasian College of Physicians;

the Australian Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; and

the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. “ ‘ (2.) When, in accordance with a request under the last preceding sub-section, each of the bodies referred to in that sub-section has nominated a panel of medical practitioners for consideration for appointment to a Committee, the Minister shall appoint to the Committee one medical practitioner from each of the panels. “ ‘ (3.) Where a member of a Committee dies or resigns or the appointment of a member of a Committee is terminated, the Minister shall request the body by whom the member was nominated to nominate a panel of not less than three medical practitioners for consideration for appointment to fill the place of the member, and the Minister shall appoint one of those medical practitioners to fill that place. “ ‘ (4.) In this section, “ Committee “ means a Specialist Recognition Advisory Committee or the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee.”.

In proposed section 29c, omit sub-section (2.), insert the following sub-section: - “ ‘ (2.) Before considering a question referred to it under the last preceding sub-section, a Committee may, with the Minister’s approval, engage as a consultant a medical practitioner who has qualifications, experience and standing in the medical profession in the specialty to which the question before the Committee relates.”.

In proposed section 29d, omit sub-section (2.), insert the following sub-section: - “ ‘ (2.) Before considering an appeal, the Specialist Recognition Appeal Committee may, with the Minister’s approval, engage as a consultant a medical practitioner who has qualifications, experience and standing in the medical profession in the specialty to whichthe appeal relates.”.

Add at the end thereof the following section: - “ ‘ 29E. A medical practitioner engaged as a consultant under either of the last two preceding sections shall be paid such professional fee in respect of his services as the Minister determines.’.”.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Am I now precluded from moving the amendment circulated in my name after clause 19?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No.

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Amendment No. 6, moved by the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) seeks to insert a new section 29E, which will read:

A medical practitioner engaged as a consultant under either of the last two preceding sections shall be paid such professional fee in respect of his services as the Minister determines.

This relates to the common fee concept. I ask the Minister shortly but bluntly - I urge him to reply fully - what steps he proposes to take where a medical practitioner does not adhere to the common fee concept whichthe Government proposes. There will be cases where a patient will go to a doctor not knowing that he is not adhering to the common fee. That patient will not attract the benefits which the Government promised at the last elections. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the common fee is upheld by all doctors, particularly in view of the statement published in the most recent issue of the journal of the General Practitioners Society that members of the Society have been given an undertaking by the Director-General of Health, Sir William Refshauge, that the common fee concept is just a guide and that doctors are not obliged to uphold it? That is, they may exceed the common fee if they wish. Is this true? What steps will the Government take to ensure that the common fee is upheld.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has taken a rather tenuous peg on which to hang his question. The amendment to which he referred has nothing to do with the common fee.

Mr Hayden:

– Will the Minister answer the question?

Dr FORBES:

– I would like first of all to clarify the meaning of the amendment. The Commonwealth has a range of payments prescribed for statutory committees which would apply to the members of the specialist committee. Unless something was written into the Act this would not apply to a consultant. It is a pretty common practice when we engage various people in the medical profession to do things on an ad hoc basis to determine a professional fee for that purpose. This has nothing to do with the common fee.

If you will permit me, Mr Chairman, I would like to answer the specific question asked by the honourable member. I emphasise - andI think it is important to do so - that it had nothing to do with the peg on which the honourable member hung the question. All that I or my Director-General have done is make a statement of fact. It will be clear to anybody who has examined the Bill that there is no legal obligation on a medical practitioner to charge a certain fee. When doctors have asked me whether they would be under a legal obligation to charge the common fee I have answered that there is no legal obligation. I was not present when my DirectorGeneral made the statement to which the honourable member referred, but it is a fact that medical practitioners are not under a legal obligation to charge the common fee. However, I have also said on many occasions that unless a substantial proportion of the medical profession does in fact charge the common fee our health benefits plan will not achieve the degree of patient satisfaction which is the Government’s objective. I have said also that I can see no reason why the great majority of the medical profession should not charge the common fee for the very reason that the definition of what the common fee is, is precisely what the majority of doctors are charging at the present moment. So 1 would expect that at least until the time when we normally would expect the regular review of their fees, of which I have spoken already tonight, there is no reason why the medical profession should not go on charging the fees which it has been commonly charging until now.

Mr Hayden:

– The medical profession can exceed the common fee if it wishes to?

Dr FORBES:

– I have answered that question. No legal obligation exists in this Bill to require a medical practitioner to charge a particular fee.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

– Did I understand the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) to say that his circulated amendment No. (6) was proposed because, if it were not to be included in the Bill, no provision would have been available to pay the consultants employed by these 2 committees? If so, does this not increase the cost of this legislation? Should not this amendment be ruled out of order in the same way as many of our amendments have been ruled out of order? Surely if this amendment, if carried, would increase the cost of the legislation, because we would pay some consultants, it should be ruled out of order as half of our amendments have been ruled out of order.

Dr Forbes:

– I am not responsible for ruling things out of order.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! In answer to the point raised by the honourable member for Prospect in regard to circulated amendment No. (6) being ruled out of order, I point out that section 137 (2.) of the National Health Act does provide:

Expenditure o£ a capital nature and expenditure in respect of administrative expenses (including the remuneration of members of committees established under this Act) incurred by or on behalf of the Commonwealth for the purposes of this Act shall be paid out of monies from time to time appropriated by the Parliament for the purpose.

That is a separate appropriation and is not affected by the appropriation that has been set aside already in relation to this BilL

Therefore, to that degree the amendment is in order.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new clause 19a.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

- Mr Chairman, I move:

Section 32 of the principal Act, with which the Committee is dealing now, as 1 understand it is headed ‘Pensioner Medical Service’. lt makes reference to the fact that the Minister for Health on behalf of the Commonwealth may enter into an agreement with the Australian Medical Association for and in respect of the provision by medical practitioners of medical services for pensioners and their dependants. In relation to this general provision I have moved an amendment the effect of which is that this agreement be reviewed at least every 2 years.

The Opposition feels that it is an open ended arrangement to leave this provision as it is at the present time. If the Bill is perused one will start to identify the importance of this matter. Among other things, the agreement defines the scope of medical services to be rendered by medical practitioners. It sets out the terms and conditions of the agreement that the DirectorGeneral may enter into with a medical practitioner for and in respect of his rendering of these services at such fees and allowances as are prescribed. So it is fair to say that this provision covers all the most important matters that pertain to the pensioner medical service. The Opposition would not be content to have the agreement go on ad infinitum without any opportunity presenting itself to bring the matter under review.

One of the reasons why I refer to this matter is that at the present time the pensioner medical service in our view is totally inadequate in that it provides for services of a general practitioner nature but not those of a specialist nature. We would hope that, well within 2 years, but in certainly no longer than 2 years, we would be taking the opportunity to extend specialist services to pensioners. In fact, one gains the impression - the Minister may care to correct me if I am wrong - that pensioners are being relatively disadvantaged under this legislation. Specialist services are readily available under the new arrangement. But the pensioner medical service remains limited to services of a general practitioner nature and is not to be updated or upgraded in any way at all.

Five weeks ago the Minister for Health in a letter to the Australian Medical Association dealt with this matter. He was referring to the updating of common fees. This is a relevant matter. In his letter to the Australian Medical Association the Minister said:

The Government acknowledges that an equitable method of updating most common fees has to be worked out. The AMA has already proposed a method of updating and the Government is currently considering the proposals. I am confident that, in the near future, a form of updating can be agreed which will protect the interest of doctors, patients and the Government.

Then, indeed, the matter was referred to in a letter from the Secretary-General of the Australian Medical Association dated 1st May 1970. The profession, through the AMA, has made it quite clear that it regards this matter importantly.

From my own standpoint, I can say that every doctor to whom I have talked about this scheme feels that it is imperative that we make an agreement to review periodically the arrangement under which they participate in the scheme. These doctors are well aware of the fact that an enormous deterioration has occurred since the scheme was introduced. In the letter of 1st May to which I have referred we read:

The AMA has asked for an assurance f-o-i the Government that an agreed mechanism t’.ir updating medical benefits in relation to justifiable periodic variations in medical fees will be introduced.

It has also asked that anomalies in the new schedule of benefits should be dealt with expeditiously by a reconstituted Anomalies Committee, which will start work as soon as possible.

I will not quote all of the remaining paragraphs of the letter, but it concludes:

Without an updating mechanism and rapid correction of faults in the benefit schedule, contributor satisfaction will not be achieved.

I am quite prepared to speak for the needs of the medical profession in this “Utter. I certainly speak for the require ments of contributors. 1 agree with the views of the Australian Medical Association: Contributor satisfaction will not be achieved until there is written into this Bill specific provision for periodic reviews. After all, the rate at which inflation is taking place in this country probably is unprecedented. We know what happened when the national health scheme of this Government was first introduced after the decent legislation that operated under the Chifley Government was disposed of by this Government. Sir Earle Page proposed that contributors would receive by way of refund up to 90% of the cost of all health services. The net effect of all that has happened in the interim is that the patient today must find, on the average, I think approximately onethird of the amount that he expends in respect of medical services.

As the provision stands at present it is highly unsatisfactory. It is completely open ended. It will not be to the satisfaction of the contributor or of the medical profession unless a specific provision is written into this legislation which will guarantee that the Government periodically will look at the terms and conditions under which the medical practitioner works. I commend this amendment to the Committee. I regard this matter as one of the most important facets of this legislation. I am satisfied that those members opposite who have had any contact with the profession, either on an individual or group basis, will substantiate my claim that doctors feel that they are going to become the captive of a fairly neglectful government, as history has it - a government that has not given satisfaction to either contributors on the one hand or to doctors on the other. Doctors are reluctant and pessimistic about coming into this scheme unless the Government is prepared to show its good faith by writing into the scheme a specific proposal that the conditions under which doctors are going to work are to be reviewed from time to time. For that reason I commend the amendment to the Committee.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I regretfully say once again that the Government must reject this amendment, largely because I believe it to be meaningless in relation to the practicality of the way these things happen. J was not quite clear from what the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) had to say precisely what he was directing the amendment to. On the one hand he said that the review should take place to benefit people who received medical services under the pensioner medical service and on the other hand he spoke as though it were necessary to benefit the medical profession which worked under the pensioner medical service. The first point, that is, the necessity to have a review every 2 years in order to ensure that the pensioner medical service is functioning properly in respect of the needs of pensioners, I would regard as being unduly restrictive. Indeed, if I had confined myself in the conduct of my administration of this portfolio to having a look at the pensioner medical service from this point of view only every 2 years I would believe that I had failed in my responsibility.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I rise on a point of order. The Minister is misrepresenting the amendment, which is in specific terms. It is printed and it says quite precisely that a review is required at least every 2 years.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!

Dr FORBES:

– I still believe that once we provide for a period of 2 years this becomes an excuse for looking at it only every 2 years. The practice has been to keep the provisions of the pensioner medical service under continuous review. I take as a case in point the matter that he raised as an illustration. We have had almost continuous discussions with the medical profession over the last year or 18 months on the possibility of extending the pensioner medical service to domiciliary specialist services. The definition of the way in which this could be provided has not reached the point where it would be possible for me to take it to the Government. All I say is that this is a continuous process and therefore in respect of that particular aspect I just do not believe the amendment to be necessary and it could prove to be restrictive. Just to put the record straight, I might add that pensioners are not denied the services of specialists under the pensioner medical service because of arrangements made by the State governments in relation to both inpatient and outpatient services at public hospitals.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– With all governments?

Dr FORBES:

– Yes. All State governments in Australia operate under this arrangement and therefore, as I say, pensioners are not denied under the pensioner medical service the services of specialists. As to whether this is necessary in respect of pensioner medical service fees, again I deny the necessity. In fact since 1965, as a result of an agreement between the Government and the Australian Medical Association, we have undertaken a biennial review of fees paid under the pensioner medical service. Since 1965 fees under the pensioner medical service have been moved and increased every 2 years in accordance with this agreement on the basis of looking at economic indicators. I know that there is dissatisfaction in the medical profession about the level of pensioner medical service fees, but I make the point that that is not due to this cause; it is not due to the fact that there has not been continuous review. Since 1965 there have been 3 reviews under the 2-year arrangement and on each occasion pensioner medical service fees have been increased. On each occasion they have been increased by considerably more than the increase in the consumer price index in the period.

Not only since 1965 but since the inception of the pensioner medical service I have taken out some figures which may be of interest to the Committee. Since the inception of the service pensioner medical service surgery consultation fees have increased by 208% and fees for domiciliary visits have increased by 213% as opposed to an increase of 88% in the consumer price index and as compared with an increase of 200% in average weekly earnings over the period of the scheme. So I claim, on behalf of the Government, that not only would the amendment be unduly restrictive but that it is unnecessary. In addition I again make the point that I made earlier, that it is proposed to negotiate with the Australian Medical Association an updating arrangement - if I can use that term - in respect of the movement of common fees on which our medical benefits schedules should be based. It seems to me to be entirely appropriate that the same procedures that are worked out in respect of the updating of common fees in the medical benefits schedules should be applied to the updating, where updating is appropriate, of pensioner medical service fees. For these reasons the Government rejects the amendment.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– The Minister for Health spent much of his time tonight looking at his reflections. He ought to be dubbed the looking glass Minister because he scarcely proceeds beyond this point. It is quite reasonable for the Opposition to propose that there ought to be at least a 2-yearly review. L stress to the Minister that the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Les Johnson) said ‘at least a 2-yearly review’, and there is no reason at all why the review should not be more often than that if it is required. But 1 want to pick up a point which the Minister made and in which he seemed to invest great value. He made a comparison between the consumer price index movements and the expenditure on the pensioner medical service.

Dr Forbes:

– 1 also mentioned average weekly earnings.

Mr HAYDEN:

– Quite clearly the comparison is fallacious because in that period there have been alterations to the means test and more people have been brought within the ambit of the age pension and within the area which benefits through the pensioner medical service. There is no valid reason for this comparison to be made.

Firstly, let me reiterate the point made by the honourable member for Hughes. It is quite unfair for doctors to be asked to place themselves in a position where no regular determination is made and where legislation does not guarantee the amount of remuneration they receive from the subsidy - that is what it is - for the pensioner medical service. This matter has not been raised in the proposed amendment but it seems highly desirable that there should be some arbitrating body which could act in the event of a dispute between the Government and the medical practitioners as to the amount of remuneration to be provided.

The Minister will remember that on the last occasion an adjustment was made to the remuneration there was a fairly serious eruption amongst the medical fraternity. Doctors felt that they were being discriminated against. I must say that some members of the medical fraternity were a little extravagant in their assertions. One spoke about a pensioner who had driven to his surgery in the latest American model limousine and had asked for vaccinations fairly quickly because he was going on a world trip. On the other hand I have a deal of sympathy with medical practitioners so far as this aspect is concerned. From what they tell me there is a fair burden cast on them and there ought to be a regular determination of this matter. Some avenue of arbitration should be available to them. The Government should not be Caesar so far as this aspect is concerned.

There is one other point I would like to raise with the Minister for Health. He spoke about the advantages gained by pensioners through an arrangement with the States which enabled pensioners to obtain specialist treatment. I am often placed at a disadvantage because of what happens in my own State of Queensland. The range of services available in the non-paying public hospitals in that State are so different and the services are readily available. A State parliamentarian from Western Australia has told me that he has had cases of a pensioner going to a hospital for public ward treatment and being unable to obtain accommodation in a public ward. The treatment required was of a fairly serious nature and was fairly urgent. The pensioner accordingly accepted treatment in another ward, presumably a private ward, and thereupon lost any entitlement to the Commonwealth bed subsidy as a pensioner. Such a situation is a serious one for a pensioner. Where the evidence clearly establishes that it was not the fault of the pensioner patient that he or she accepted private ward treatment, the full subsidy ought to be available.

But then again, does this not raise a query about the adequacy of hospital facilities in Australia? There are 5 medical practitioners in the Australian Labor Party sitting on this side of the House as distinct from a total absence of medical practitioners from the Government Parties opposite. The Minister, in reply to questions which those medical practitioners put to him, said that Australia had the best hospital services in the world, or amongst the best at the very least. He then set about roundly condemning the hospital services in the United Kingdom. By some tenuous sort of argument he tried to identify the Australian

Labor Party proposals with the health policy in the United Kingdom. He set out on quite a fallacious exercise. He set up a straw man and then set about kicking the stuffing out of it.

The Australian Labor Party has no association with the United Kingdom health system. I am referring the Minister - and I ask the Committee to keep in mind what I said earlier because the 2 matters are related - to the problem of those pensioners who have to pay for private ward treatment in Slates other than Queensland. 1 am putting to the Minister that last year, in answer to a question on notice, he indicated that on a population ratio basis there were more hospital beds available for the population in the United Kingdom than there were in Australia. Here again, quite clearly, is evidence of the wrong-headedness of his approach in condemning the United Kingdom health services. Incidentally, 1 have never heard of a patient condemning that service but that is another matter. Secondly, his reply to that question on notice seems to be an indication that, in spite of all the failings he asserts are in the United Kingdom health service, it is still superior in providing hospital beds for the public.

In any event the United Kingdom health service is able to obtain 78% of public support at national opinion polls whereas the latest opinion poll shows only 38% of public support for this Government’s health policy. I am certain that that figure will remain static at best. More likely it will drop even further when the public discovers after today that the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) at the last election that the common fee proposed by the Government would he adhered to by the medical fraternity, that the general public need not fear that they would have to pay more than the set scale of excess charge established by the Government, is rubbish. The Minister tonight completely dispelled any illusion that the public might have had. In spite of the tremendous expensiveness of the proposals now before us - expense which was 69% understated by the Prime Minister and the Minister during the last election campaign - the public in fact will be saddled with the quite significant cost problems which have been the blight of the system in the past.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– Because I have suffered from this process in the past, I desire to pick up the point made by the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) and settle it once and for all. On at least 2 or 3 occasions in the period 1 have been a Minister I have suffered from this Goebbel’s technique. Through continuous repetition, something which I have not said is claimed to have been said by me and has thus become part of the folk lore. I describe this as the Goebbels’s technique. I have suffered from this and I intend to make the matter absolutely clear because the honourable member for Oxley is indulging in precisely this technique. He began it some weeks ago in a telegram to mc. The tactics he is adopting stick out as plain as a pikestaff. He is asserting that I established tonight that the Government, in this Bill, is introducing something different from the promises made by the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton), during the election campaign, in respect of the benefits which the public would receive.

Mr Chairman, I deny that assertion. I have never said that and the Prime Minister did not say it in his policy speech. The policy speech was carefully drafted, as was my statement to this House in March; as was my second reading speech on this Bill; and as was every public statement that I made on behalf of the Government or that anybody else made on behalf of the Government. We have said that the benefits which would be made available in this Bill would relate to the fees most commonly charged by doctors.

Mr Hayden:

– Did he not say-

Dr FORBES:

– On every occasion-

Mr Reynolds:

– No more than $5.

Dr FORBES:

– Before you start this lie going-

Mr Reynolds:

– It is not a lie. It was in the headlines.

Dr FORBES:

– I am not talking about headlines.

Mr Hayden:

– I raise a point of order. This is offensive. I suggest that the Minister contain himself and not be offensive to the House.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr Drury) - Order! The expression is unparliamentary.

Di FORBES - 1 will withdraw that remark if it is offensive to the honourable member and still more because it is unpailiamentary Every statement made officially on behalf of the Government has emphasised that the benefits - the promises abou! S5.80 and $1.20 for a domiciliary visit and so on - are clearly related to doctors who charge the common fee. Let nobody suggest otherwise, because it would not be possible to provide otherwise. The only other thing I want to say on this is that when the Opposition comes clean, when it comes out into the open and stands up and says thai it is going to provide that ali doctors in Australia charge a common fee and tells us how it is going to do this, thou we will take it seriously in relation to any charges it makes about us in connection with this Bill.

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

– I will begin by partly answering the last challenge because it will help me to explain what I want to say about the pensioner medical scheme. Of course, our view is that the whole concept of fee for service is the most expensive way of providing a medical service. I think there is no doubt that upon studying the results of the fee for service and salaried medical services in a countrysuch as the United States of America, one will find proof of that point. So much for that. Let me now come-

Dr Forbes:

– Does that mean you are going to introduce salaried services?

Dr CASS:

– That is my inclination. I would go further. I also think one would find in hospitals proof of my contention. What is more, the medical profession will work under those conditions. For instance, nearly 40% of doctors in this country are working for salaries of one sort or another, not on a fee for service basis. The figure is well above that in America where the most popular schemes are tending to be those where doctors are paid a salary. These schemes are the cheapest whilst at the same time being the most efficient in terms of quality. 1 want to speak of the quality of medical care provided for pensioners. I am here accepting the Governments’ proposition that it shall be provided on a fee for sei vice basis: 1 am not now putting my view in relation to salaried services. Let us accept the proposition, because that is what we have here, that it should be on a fee for service basis.

In terms of our amendment, the concept of reviewing the agreement, I would take it further than our proposal does. I suggest that the fee paid for medical services to a pensioner should have a definite and constant relationship to whatever the fee might be for a non-pensioner. There should not be a discrepancy. It does not have to be identical. I am not saying that either, because I concede that the Government in paying the doctor for the pensioner service eliminates the need for a lot of his administrative cares and so on. He has no bad debts. I acknowledge that the fee the doctor receives can be less, but it should have a definite relationship. So far as the doctor is concerned the differential should be between the value of providing a service for a private patient, and what he gets for that, and what he gets from a pensioner patient. It should not be based on the possible proposition that a medical service provided to a pensioner is somehow an inferior service to the same service provided to a nonpensioner.

The next part of the amendment deals with the problem of doctors who overtreat pensioners because it is easy money. A doctor goes into a pensioner’s home and looks at somebody else in the family and gets the pensioner to sign a little chit. He gets money for that visit too. I have heard of those cases, and I may be prepared to concede that that occasionally occurs. But what worries me in relation to the majority of pensioners treated honestly by the majority of general practitioners who give them the same standard of medical care is that those doctors are paid less than the fee they would receive from an ordinary private patient who has received the same service. Tn other words, they are in a sense subsidising. I am not making a cry for doctors to earn more money. That is not the point either. What I am trying to suggest is that in terms of quality there should not be a differential. If there are some doctors who make a lot of money out of overtreating patients and so on. that is a different problem and techniques must be devised to overcome it. The honest doctor and the honest pensioner patient should not be victimised for the sharp practices of a few on either side.

I am also aware that some pensioners quite happily go along and pester doctors more than they should because they have no social life anyway. That raises another question. It is humorous but sad that often doctors are asked to visit pensioners because pensioners are lonely. I am putting a serious case for looking into the whole aspect of pensioner medical care in the broad sense. There is a strong case, in my view, for providing pensioners with home visits of some sort so that in fact doctors do not have to fulfil that sort of requirement. This is something they do now because they need to do so medically. It is the only way of keeping these poor people sane.I hope honourable members appreciate the point I am trying to make. I hope honourable members opposite do not feel that I am getting at them politically as a member from this side of the House. That is not the point I am trying to make at all. The point is that we must guard against any feeling by either the pensioners or the doctors that the medical services provided for pensioners are somehow second rate. For that reason I think there should be a definite relationship established between the fees for pensioner medical services and the fees for ordinary medical services so that there is no possible feeling that anyone is being victimised or underpaid.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Proposed new clause 19b.

Dr KLUGMAN:
PROSPECT, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-I move:

This amendment seeks the insertion of a new clause after section 35 of the principal Act. It refers to the right of appeal by a medical practitioner against the decision of the Minister in disallowing part or all of his claim. If honourable members refer to the principal Act they will note that sections 34, 35 and 37 are relevant to this amendment. Section 34 refers to the disallowance of a claim after a report by a committee of inquiry. Section 35 refers to the termination of an agreement following a report of a committee of inquiry. Section 37 refers to an appeal by a medical practitioner who have been affected by the termination following a recommendation by the committee of inquiry in accordance with section 35. It strikes me that this is unfair. I have heard many statements from medical practitioners who have been involved with committees of inquiry. They claim that it is unfair that there is no method of appealing against decisions made by the committee. The committee of inquiry conducts its hearing in secret. It has certain rules of which in many cases the petitioner who comes before this committee is not aware.

There have been disputes as to whether the petitioner can be represented by counsel. There have been all sorts of court cases for the purpose of trying to bring the Minister, the Director-General or the Deputy Director-General of Health to the court so that a doctor who has his claim disallowed may have some avenue of appeal. This amendment provides for the same method of appeal on the question of disallowances of a claim and the termination of an agreement, both resulting from the report of a committee of inquiry to the Minister, as is already provided for. It seemed reasonable to me, in preparing the case for this amendment, to allow the same type of appeal. When 1 was preparing this case I rang the medical practitioners who I thought might be associated with these committees of inquiry, but was unable to find anybody who is on a committee of inquiry. 1 even asked the local branches of the Australian Medical Association. I always finished up with somebody who had been on a committee of inquiry some years ago. Some of the propositions I am putting up now may or may not be true any longer, but nonetheless the reports circulated among medical practitioners indicate that they are still true. Therefore they deserve an answer from the Minister; but, more importantly, 1 think that some method of appeal should be provided.

What happens at present is that if a pensioner is seen on numerous occasions - I do not know how many occasions that would involve, but it would involve significantly more frequent visits than to the average pensioner - a committee of inquiry may be set up to investigate the medical practitioner concerned. The medical practitioner has to supply the name of the patient together with the dates on which he has claimed to have seen him. He then has to give some reason why he has seen that patient on those days. It is often some years after the date of the medical service having been rendered and it is often very difficult to remember the exact details, even with the help of notes, of why a person had to be seen twice on one day. AH the doctor might write down is the word ‘asthma’. He does not know whether the 2 visits on the same day were for asthma or for some other condition or complication.

What happens is that a medical practitioner has to confront a committee of inquiry to answer a suggestion that 20 pensioners, say, have been over-visited. The committee of inquiry may find that in fact he should have visited those pensioners on only half the number of occasions on which he saw them. His payments are then reduced by 50% but, as I understand it, it is not only the payments in respect of those pensioners, but the whole of the amount for the period covered that is reduced by 50%. That seems quite ridiculous to me, because in the vast majority of cases he would have seen some of the pensioners on only one or two occasions and he obviously did not over-visit those pensioners.

I am not suggesting that the people who have been dealt with by these committees of inquiry are necessarily innocent, because I do not know, but I think that in the ordinary interests of justice and in accordance with the general proposition which we put up and which the Minister himself puts up in clause 37, in which he allows this type of appeal, some right of appeal should be given against the decisions of the committees of inquiry.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– I would like to say immediately that the impression that the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) had about what is done in respect of the reduction of payments is not correct. The committee has to find that particular medical services should not have been claimed for, not that they should not have been performed. The amount that the doctor has to refund is directly related to the views of the committee about the degree of overvisiting. In other words, if the committee felt that a doctor should have seen a patient only 30 times and the doctor saw that patient 50 times, the amount to be refunded would be the amount of the vouchers he submitted for 20 visits, that is, the difference between 50 and 30.

Dr Klugman:

– ls this a change that has come in?

Dr FORBES:

– Not that I am aware of, although there was a court finding a number of years ago - I forget the names of the doctors involved in the case - which made it necessary for the committees to present their findings in a different way. What the honourable gentleman was referring to may have related to that. But let me say that there are few matters for which I have been responsible as Minister for Health which have troubled me and my Department more than this question. 1 have had many discussions with the medical profession and many discussions with my colleague the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) in an endeavour to find some appropriate form of appeal to a court in these cases. We have not yet succeeded in doing so. One of the reasons is thai the original inquiry set up is so beneficial lo the doctor.

I would like to tell the Committee how these committees are composed. They are composed of 5 medical practitioners. Four of them arc nominated by the Australian Medical Association in the State concerned and one of them, who is also a doctor, is nominated by the Commonwealth Minister for Health. The 4 nominated by the AMA are always people who have had experience of the pensioner medical services themselves. The hearings are traditionally conducted on an informal doctor to doctor basis, the committee endeavouring to ascertain the reasons for the doctor’s high attendance rate and to determine whether the attendances were necessary, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Normally a doctor does not have legal representation, but if he wants lo have it he can, and in that case an officer of the AttorneyGeneral’s Department assists the committee.

The reasons for the difficulties in providing an avenue of appeal - and 1 would like to place this on the record - is that the committee system itself, as 1 have explained, provides for the examination of the conduct of a medical practitioner by his peers, and it is considered that this is the system most favoured by the profession generally. The provision of a right of appeal to a court would involve, as I said, both legal and practical difficulties. If I could take first the legal aspects, it must be kept in mind that a judge could not make any judgment on the correctness of the committee’s recommendation, or on the decision of the Minister to disallow or reduce claims in accordance with the report of the committee, without calling expert witnesses to give evidence as to the necessity or otherwise of the visits made to the pensioner patients. There is the undesirable feature that particular cases would be examined and pensioners could and probably would be called on to give evidence. In both cases there could be a serious intrusion into the privacy of the doctor-patient relationship.

Dr Klugman:

– Does this not also apply to the appeal which is provided for at present following a report from the committee of inquiry?

Dr FORBES:

– Yes, but this is a much higher degree of seriousness and something which in this case it is probably appropriate to accept. As I say, if the decision of the Minister is based on the committee’s assessment of the level of services necessary for the medical needs of the patient, a court would not decide an appeal without calling expert witnesses to inform it. The most important practical considerations, as compared with legal ones, involved in providing an appeal to a court are: Firstly, if an appeal to a court were provided it would be difficult to get suitable medical practitioners to serve on the committee. A medical practitioner would be unwilling to serve if he knew that the judgment of the committee could be examined and questioned in open court. This is partly the answer to the honourable member’s interjection. In very few cases is the agreement terminated. Since the pensioner medical service was introduced there have been 12 cases, which represents 1 % of the total. The effect of that proportion of cases going to court will probably not discourage medical practitioners from serving on the committee, but if this became the rule rather than the exception I am quite certain that it would discourage them.

It may be equally difficult lo obtain expert witnesses to testify in open court against fellow practitioners who were willing to serve on a committee. In any case the criterion laid down in the proposed amendment, that the court should consider whether the medical practitioner has been guilty of failure to discharge conscientiously his obligations under the agreement entered into with the Director-General, is inappropriate and inadequate. I am so advised bv the Government’s legal advisers. The committee may recommend disallowance of a claim on the basis that a doctor was being over-conscientious in providing more services than were necessary for the medical needs of the patient. The Slate branches of the AMA did nol unanimously support the concept of appeals against decisions based on the committee’s recommendations. The only State branch of the AMA which has had very, much to say about this matter at all is the New South Wales branch. It is understandable that the honourable member for Prospect is interested in this as he comes from New South Wales.

The debate on this Bill, concerned as it is with the major changes to the medical benefits arrangements, does not seem to me to be the appropriate time to consider the complex question of appeals against decisions made in relation to the pensioner medical service. Nevertheless, it could well be possible to develop a system of appeals to an administrative tribunal or to the proposed Commonwealth Superior Court. A committee known as the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee has been established with terms of reference which include consideration of the jurisdiction to be given to the proposed Superior Court to review administrative decisions. The report of this committee may well express views concerning administrative appeals other than to a court. In the Government’s view it would therefore be advisable to await the report of the committee. The Government must reject the amendment, but it sympathises with the objective sought and will certainly, after it receives the report of the Administrative Review Committee, give further consideration to the question as to whether it is practicable to find a form of appeal to a court or, alternatively, to an administrative tribunal in this case.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 20 agreed to.

Proposed new clause 20a.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I move:

This is a hangover from the time when hospital treatment in Australia was free. In 1948 80c was payable for every bed day. The patient was subjected to no means test and no charge. Subsequently, in order to advance the voluntary insurance scheme, a so-called incentive of $2 a day for voluntarily insured patients was introduced by the Government. As mentioned by the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Donald Cameron) recently, the Queensland hospital system has been able to exist while supplying free public ward accommodation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order!I point outto the honourable member for Scullin that the amendment he has moved is out of order. The time allotted for consideration of the Bill to the end of clause 21 has expired.

Mr Hayden:

– May I ask for your direction, Mr Chairman? As amendments Nos 16, 17 and 18 in the Opposition’s circulated list will not even be aired in this chamber is there any way in which we can take the opportunity of raising them?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Those amendments will be dealt with next. The last amendment dealt with was amendment No. 15 which was moved by the honourable member for Scullin. The immediate question is: That clause 2 1 be agreed to.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Proposed new clause 2 1a.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– I move:

Clause 21 of the Act deals with the payment of Commonwealth benefits in the event of suspension or cancellation of registration of an organisation.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! That amendment also is out of order. We now move to amendment No. 18 in the Opposition’s circulated list.

Proposed new clause 21b.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– I move:

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! As this amendment would have the effect of increasing the expenditure I rule that it is out of order.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– In that case may 1 move that the clause be postponed?

The CHAIRMAN:

– No. The amendment sought to insert a new clause.

Mr REYNOLDS:

– May I speak to the point I would like to have spoken to?

The CHAIRMAN:

– Clause 21 has been disposed of and proposed new clauses 21a and 21b are out of order. We now move to a consideration of clause 22.

Clauses 22 and 23 - by leave - taken together.

Mr HAYDEN:
Oxley

– lt seems to me that this is an opportunity to discuss the points which would have been made in the amendments proposed by the honourable members for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) and Barton (Mr Reynolds) in discussing the amendments. We feel it is wrong to impose on the public the provision that those people who are not in a medical benefits fund do not obtain the $2 a day hospital bed subsidy from the Commonwealth. The honourable member for Scullin commenced lo make the point that uninsured patients receive only 80c a day. As I represent Queensland, 1 feel some exasperation with this practice and wonder why the Government did not take the opportunity of upholding the Nimmo Committee’s recommendation on this point in relation to Queensland. It was that those people in the non-paying public ward beds of the hospital system in that State should attract the S2 a day bed subsidy instead of 80c as at present. It has been frequently pointed out that this practice deprives Queensland of about SI. 5m each year, money which is sorely needed. Professor Saint, Dean of the Medical Faculty of the University of Queensland, recently announced publicly that unless something was done to provide more money for the hospital services in Queensland a critical situation would arise in which the facilities available just would not be capable of handling the demands placed upon them.

We feel - and I mentioned this principle earlier - that it is wrong for the Government to use public money for this purpose. The money is raised from taxpayers and paid into Consolidated Revenue, which is the source for Commonwealth subsidy. The Government says to the public after raising it from them - after extracting it from them, because they do not have any choice - ‘We will refund it to you in the case of ill-health but only provided you join some of these health insurance schemes that we are propping up’. They are terribly inefficient schemes. Over 100 health insurance schemes operate in Australia today. I think I will take this opportunity, wilh the forbearance of the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes), to reply to a proposition made, but not fully, by the Minister in the closing stages of his second reading speech. He said the problem with the Opposition is that it speaks of a single large fund as though this inherently will be more efficient than the present multiplication of funds. He went on to say - this point was mentioned by the Nimmo Committee - that the experience of the Committee in its investigations was that some of the smaller funds were more efficient than the bigger funds. This is quite true. I am prepared to accept it but it would be a fallacy to compare the present practices with what we have in mind. lt is understandable that a small fund, under the present situation would most likely be the more efficient scheme because most of these are closed schemes and apply fairly stringent entry conditions. People are in fairly good health when they join these schemes. Because they are closed schemes they do not indulge in competition, do not pay commission rates for agencies, and do not have high expenditures involved in building up status symbols which are all pari and parcel of the big schemes. The larger open schemes operating in Australia are inefficient because they in fact do these things which we criticise, lt is inherent in their nature. They compete against one another; they have expensive radio sessions; they advertise extensively. This is all expenditure that has to be borne unnecessarily by the contributor. There is a fair bit of duplication. There is inefficient use of administrative facilities available; that is, there is a surplus capacity in the arrangement of the organisation. All in all there are fairly large diseconomies in the way they operate because of this general inefficiency which is part and parcel of the nature of the competition between these funds. Indeed, this was identified by the Nimmo Committee. It pointed out that the activities of the open schemes should be regionalised. The aim quite clearly was to try 10 eliminate some of. these unattractive practices which have to be borne at the contributors’ expense. Our scheme is based on a universal contribution to a single health insurance system.

Before I divert from that on to the further points on the subsidy I would like to refer to statements made by the Minister in his second reading speech in the House in which he claimed there had been substantial cuts in the expenditure on health in Canada last year. Yes, indeed there were. The first thing he referred to was a 25% cut in the votes for emergency health and emergency welfare services which were effective during this financial year. What he forgot to mention was that total expenditure in these services is extremely small in relation to civil defence expenditures. He next referred to cuts in expenditure in general health gi ants. I do not know what he has in mind. 1 have done a fair bit of work to try to track down what he is referring to but it is a bit difficult to find exactly what he has in mind. I put it to the Minister that any cuts occurring in Government expenditure in Canada today are of a general nature and arc part of the austerity measures introduced by the Trudeau Government in that country. In spite of that - and the Minister will be well aware of this because I brought this point to his notice as a result of communications I had with the Minister for Health in Canada - the health services in Canada operate on a provincial basis and their nature varies from province to province. In fact there will not be a reduction in the expenditure on provincial health services and this is the essential nature of the point T was discussing.

The London Times’ on 15th September 1969 pointed out that in spite of the austerity programme introduced by Mr Trudeau Government expenditure would continue to rise. It said:

This is due primarily to cost escalations beyond the control of the Federal Government such as statutory Federal contributions to spending programmes by the provinces

This covers health expenditure. The system in Canada is that there is a statutory commitment by the Federal Government to fund the health programmes operated by the provinces. This is a scheme which benefits the more efficiently operated schemes with the aim of giving an incentive to the less efficient ones to improve their efficiency.

In any event, the point I am making to the Minister is that what he pointed out the other day, while I am sure it was pointed out in good faith, did not fully investigate health expenditure in the provinces. What I am quoting now clearly explodes the assertions he made that the universal health system operating in Canada had failed. The provincial health schemes have not slashed their expenditure at all.

I will now revert to what I was talking about earlier. It is wrong in our opinion that a person should be compelled to join a private health insurance fund. These funds are expensive. Hospital funds have over $80m salted away in reserves and medical funds have over $40m salted away as dead money in reserves. The funds incur unnecessary expenditures in operaing. Of every $4 contributed to the schem $1 is dead money. It is diverted to administrative costs which are a high proportion of contributions or else it goes into reserves. By international standards and for example compared with the American scheme, which is similar to the Australian scheme, we have an inordinately high retention rate. This is public money that is raised from the public. It is extracted from the public and it ought to be available for all members of the public who go to hospital. If they want further protection they should be allowed to become members of a health insurance scheme - that is, while we have the system as the Government presently operates it.

I am certain it is clear to honourable members and the public that this is not the system the Labor Party would operate. But we are trying to make some improvement and provide some alleviation for the public under the present deficient scheme which the Liberal Government persists in imposing on the public. We propose that allowance of $1.50 for handicapped children should be $2. It is quite wrong for it to be less than this.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

– There has been a lot of discussion about special account contributors and the matters of registrations of medical benefit organisations. The honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden) has mentioned a number of factors with regard to hospital insurance and the basic amount that could be payable for the ordinary patient and the mentally handicapped patient. One assumes that the special account fund is meant to be protection not only for those persons who are put into it but, more particularly, for the benefit organisation itself. One assumes that the terms laid down for the registration of medical benefit organisations are protective to the contributor. I have already spoken on another occasion about the very small role which contributors play in running these organisations, particularly the major ones. One would feel that under the terms of registration of such organisations there should be more clearly denned requirements for representation of contributors on the management body of these organisations. 1 have previously stated that there is a possibility that the Hospital Benefits Association in Victoria, which is a well recognised medical and hospital benefit fund, will have 52 members on the Board which runs the organisation, but of those 52 only 4 would be representatives of the contributors. Only 4 would represent three-quarters of a million persons who belong to that fund. This provision would give to the contributors a greater degree of protection. There is another factor. If the registration is cancelled and the organisation is ineligible for the Commonwealth benefit I can find nothing to cover what happens to the contributors’ funds that are already in that organisation. Is any protection given to them against the disadvantage they will suffer? These are 2 points concerned with the registration of those organisations: What protection is given the contributor by way of representation in management of the funds? What protection is given him with regard to his share of the funds in the organisation if the registration is cancelled?

Mr REYNOLDS:
Barton

– In clause 23 reference is made in several places to a professional service. I tried to raise this matter earlier in the debate. At this stage 1 ask the Minister to clarify the issue for me. Clause 8 defines ‘professional service’ as:

  1. A medical service that is rendered by, or on behalf of, a medical practitioner; . . .

I am wondering how far that can be taken. I am mindful of all those people who go along to, say, a Macquarie Street, Sydney specialist who, after examination, states that the patient has to have physiotherapy. 1 know of such cases where a person has been referred to a quite eminent physiotherapist located in Macquarie Street, and subsequently has made a claim for the physiotherapy services provided. The fund organisation stated that in the circumstances no payment could be made. Apparently the benefits could be paid only if the medical specialist himself, or someone under his immediate direction - presumably within his own surgery - had carried out the phys:0.therapy treatment. But mindful of the fact that he was not nearly as capable of carrying out the physiotherapy as the person who specialised in that field he directed the person to go to the physiotherapist, and as I indicated, the subsequent application for benefit payment was refused. I am thinking also of the same sort of thing and the same kind of referral that might be made by a medical specialist to, say, a speech therapist or any one of a number of people who provide what we term ancillary medical services. I ask the Minister to indicate to me at this stage the limits of that definition of professional service to which T referred?

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– In answer to the honourable member for Barton (Mr Reynolds), that matter has been interpreted administratively to apply to treatment under the immediate supervision of a medical practitioner. In fact, administratively it has been interpreted to include, for instance, the services of a nurse under the direction of a medical practitioner where a nurse gives an injection or something like that. It has not been interpreted administratively to apply to the case that he represented because it is the policy of the Government that physiotherapy does not come under that part of the scheme for which benefits are paid.

The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) raised 2 points regarding contributor interest in the funds. All the funds have different rules on this matter and it is something to which my Department always pays attention in examining the rules of the funds. We would find it difficult lo register an organisation if there were no contributor representation, but the Department has not laid down rigid and precise rules in respect of this. I think that we can go too far in relation to these matters, lt should be remembered that many of these funds were in existence long before we brought this scheme into being and they had an entity of their own. I think there is a good case, where it can be demonstrated that the fund is performing its functions satisfactorily so far as the distribution of Commonwealth money is concerned and acting in the interests of contributors, to leave the funds as far as possible to manage their own internal affairs. All the funds have rules.

The next point raised by the honourable member was what happened to the contributors’ funds in the event of deregistration The answer is that it depends on the circumstances of the deregistration. This Bill makes provision for certain funds which have branches interstate to register separately in each State, and there are provisions for the State branches of funds which are on separate registration to be deregistered, and no doubt that is the particular circumstance about which the honourable member is thinking. In all these cases and in the event of deregistration they would be deregistered because they were not operating economically and efficiently within that State. They would all have been heavily subsidised by the contributors of the parent organisation of the State and in the event of that fund being deregistered any funds available in it would be paid back to the parent organisation in the State. But with regard to deregistration in general or dissolution, all of the funds have arrangements which ensure that the interests of contributors are protected and that any surplus funds go to the people who have provided such surplus. This is a condition of registration.

Clauses agreed to.

Proposed new clause 23a.

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– I move:

Section 69 (1.) of the Act states:

The regulations may make provision for and in relation to the manner and form in which applications for registration are to be lodged and the documents and information which are to be furnished in support of, or in connection with, applications.

The operative word is ‘may’. Sub-section (2.) reads:

The Director-General may refuse to entertain an application for registration unless the applicant organisation furnishes, in accordance with the regulations, particulars relating to the affairs, finances, rules and conduct of the organisation.

Again the operative word is ‘may’. The purpose of the amendment is to substitute in sub-clauses (1.) and (2.) the word ‘shall’ for the word ‘may’ in each case. The Opposition feels that this matter should not be optional, lt should be obligatory on the funds to meet these requirements and for the Government to impose them. All honourable members will be aware that the Nimmo Committee was loud in its condemnation of the loose manner in which the funds have been allowed to operate. An enormous disparity exists between the reserves of one fund and those of other funds. There is good reason to comment on the management expenses of some funds. In the case of medical benefits funds, they have gone as high as 28% of contributions. A similar situation exists in the case of the hospital benefits funds. In his second reading speech the Minister for Health (Dr Forbes) indicated that there will be some tightening of supervision of hospital funds. We agree that there should be. In fact, we are obsessed with the idea that the Government has been enormously lax in not exercising the disciplinary powers with which it has been equipped under the Act. I cannot recall any occasion when action has been taken against a fund and there has certainly never been public disclosure of the very many misdemeanours in which the Nimmo Committee reports that they have engaged.

In a statement to the House on 4th March last the Minister said:

While it should be stressed that many funds operate at very low and entirely acceptable expense rates, the Government accepts the Committee’s finding that there have been some practices of a wasteful character, particularly those arising out of the undesirable competitive activities between some major ‘open’ funds - that is, those in which membership is open to the general public.

The Minister continued:

As proposed by the Nimmo Committee in recommendation 3), registered funds will bs required to restrict their management expenses to specified limits.

The only way to ensure that the Minister means what he says is to have his statement written into the Act. For the life of us we cannot see why the Government has chosen to leave section 69 optional. After all, in this matter the Government is the custodian of an enormous amount of public money contributed under compulsion, in effect, since members of the public cannot receive the Commonwealth benefit unless they contribute to a fund. If members of the public do not belong to a fund they cannot receive the benefits of the contributions paid by way of taxes to the Commonwealth’s health scheme. It is incredible that compliance with section 69 should be optional and not obligatory. Again in his statement to the House the Minister said:

The Government supports the Nimmo Committee’s view that the adoption of standard forms of accounting by health insurance funds is desirable in order that the activities of the funds may be better compared and so that areas where economics are possible may be identified.

Many other extracts could be taken from the Minister’s speech and from the Nimmo Committee’s report to demonstrate the unsatisfactory situation that has prevailed to date with the large number of funds in existence. There is plenty of room for criticism of the funds, of the wasteful expenditure of public money by the funds, of the size of reserves and of the manner in which funds have been invested. For all these reasons it seems to me that the Government should be most pedantic with regard to regulations covering the administration of the funds. The condemnatory remarks of the Nimmo Committee take up several pages. In paragraph 3.3 of its report the Committee states:

For example some health insurance organisations by excessive self-promotion have paid insufficient attention to the object of the ‘non-profit’ feature of the scheme. . . .

So for the reasons I have given and for others which I choose not to go into because it is late in the day, I strongly urge the Minister to accept our amendment and thereby give peace of mind to the Opposition and, I believe, also to Government supporters - certainly to contributors to the hospital and medical insurance organisations. If the Committee agrees to the amend- ment we will ensure that the Government accepts its responsibilities with regard to regulations which will be in the best interests of the community at large.

Dr FORBES:
Minister for Health · Barker · LP

– Section 69 provides the power for the making of regulations for the registration of organisations. The use of this power is at present discretionary. To substitute the word ‘shall’ for the word may’ as proposed in the amendment would make it obligatory for the regulations to be made. Such a course would tighten this aspect of the Act with regard to organisations but to little practical effect, having regard to my Department’s experience of the administration of the health scheme over the years. There is no secret about the details which the application forms require from organisations. I would be happy to supply copies of the forms to any honourable member requiring them. Because the amendment would introduce unnecessary rigidity into the scheme the Government cannot accept it.

Proposed new clause negatived.

Clause 24 agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN:

– Order! It being 1 1. o’clock, in accordance with the order of the House of 16th April I shall now report progress.

Progress reported.

page 2105

ADJOURNMENT

Vietnam Moratorium Campaign - Social Services - Aircraft Noise - Newspaper Article

Mr SPEAKER:

– I propose the question:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

- Mr Speaker, may I come back to the events in this House last week, especially on Thursday evening, 7th May. I am referring to what could be called euphemistically a debate on the Vietnam Moratorium Campaign, which had taken place in this House over the last few weeks and reached its peak on Thrusday evening. I am speaking as one who accepts the general proposition that from a democratic point of view the Govern nent of South Vietnam is preferable to that of North Vietnam. I suggest that very few - even on the Government side - would argue that the Thieu Government is democratic in our sense of the word. Many excuses can be made for it, some justified and some not. But 1 would argue that the North Vietnamese Government is an effective, at least fairly efficient, totalitarian regime.

In the South something approaching this existed during the Diem regime, but not since that regime. Now there are opposition parties and publications. There are courts which occasionally reject the propositions put forward by government prosecutors. There are groups such as students, Catholics, Buddhists and veterans which occasionally at least demonstrate in the streets against the South Vietnamese Government. I emphasise the word ‘against’. There is what many commentators call political instability. Surely this is essential in any state even approaching democracy.

The only really stable government is one that has no opposition and controls, or more than likely is controlled by, the armed forces. None of this is intended to imply that I would support a Thieu Government even in Vietnam let alone in this country. But I do believe that, either because of the existence of large pressure groups or possibly of a public relations exercise insisted on by the United States of America, there do exist some symptoms, some signs of democracy in South Vietnam. Therefore, put at its minimum in contrast with North Vietnam, the South Vietnamese Government is not as effectively or efficiently totalitarian. I have put this at some length to indicate that I am not to be dismissed as a supporter of a North Vietnamese victory.

Let us return to the Moratorium debate. For most of the time, it was fairly good natured. Government supporters tried to make political capital from it. Most of them made rather hypocritical statements about the Moratorium, obviously hoping to arouse public feeling against the Australian Labor Party. We in this House could tell that the bright ones among them, like the Attorney-General (Mr Hughes) and the Minister for Labour and National Service (Mr Snedden), were addressing the Press rather than the House. They obviously did not believe what they were saying about the Australian Labor Party being under

Communist control or about the packraping of democracy. I would be surprised if they did not continue their friendly personal relations with some of the leaders on our side whom they alleged to be nonsecret agents of Hanoi.

The less bright ones, such as the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser), did not even know their history. The Minister for Defence referred to the ‘Reds’ in the Australian Labor Party attacking Prime Minister John Curtin in 1939. Well, John Curtin was nol Prime Minister in 1939. I suggest that the Minister for Defence should go back to his job of school prefect. There was the honourable member for Evans (Dr Mackay) who was no doubt concerned about the battering his oil shares had received on the free enterprise stock market and who was unwilling to. or maybe unsuccessful in. asking for divine intervention. He therefore developed a rather brilliant doc.torial thesis for the Bob Jones University in the United States of America that, alas, Lenin’s predictions for Australia were coming true after only 50 years. He was kind enough to supply me with a photostat copy, footnotes and all.

Then suddenly, last Thursday, the position changed - or, at least, the atmosphere changed. The Government Parties started to believe their own infantile propaganda. Democracy in Australia was in danger because a few thousand people were going to march the following day. The Leader of the Country Party, the Minister for Trade and Industry (Mr McEwen), and the Minister for Defence ranted about the Communist threat. Government supporters packed in behind the Ministers and gave a terrifying exhibition of the law and order mentality. They cheered, stood up, congratulated the speakers and jeered at the Opposition. Tt was the Nuremberg Rally again. The Minister for Defence, allegedly the heir apparent in the Liberal Party, abandoned the role of head prefect and became the embodiment of a rather arrogant stormtrooper. As be stood there with his cheering minions one could picture him with the army boots and the armband. It was a disgusting exhibition. All the Government supporters had to wear badges depicting Australian flags to show that they were patriots ready to defend democracy against this imminent threat of Red invasion. In retrospect it may sound funny; but, at the time, it was terrifying. After all, democracy everywhere is a fairly fragile institution. I think that those of us who are in this House at least should do our utmost to keep it alive and growing.

The Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) of course was away. Maybe honourable members opposite felt that they should make a concession to the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Fairbairn), the super patriot, who has unerring instinct rather than logic. I emphasise that it is purely instinct in his case rather than logic. May I quote from Professor D. M. Armstrong, Philosophy Professor at Sydney University and a strong supporter of Government policy in Vietnam. He is here criticising a small section - and 1 repeat, a very small section - of Moratorium supporters who had suggested that some violence might be justified. He said:

Violent action on social issues tends to bring into existence the very enemy that is feared. There has been recent talk in American left-wing circles of using violence to force society ‘to show its fascist face’. The trouble with this tactic is that it is all too likely to be successful. The extraordinarily aggressive nature of man ensures that democracy is a somewhat fragile affair, even if it does not appear fragile to us living in Australia. There are powerful authoritarian and even totalitarian forces potentially, if not actually, present in all societies, including our own. Violence could activate such forces.

As has been mentioned before on the question of Vietnam he conceded - 1 will quote him - and, further, I hope that everybody thinks about this:

Vietnam is u controversial issue, and it is a controversial issue among democrats; among those who value and seek to maintain an ‘open’ and pluralist society. Men of good will and intelligence are to be found on both sides of the debate. Indeed, in view of the complexities of the problems of Vietnam it is better to say that men of good will and intelligence are to be found in every position in the multi-dimensional continuum of possible views about Vietnam. The facts, including both what happened in the past and what is happening now, are difficult to establish. They are still more difficult to interpret. The likely result of different policies that might be attempted: For instance, leaving substantial forces in Vietnam for an indefinite period, Vietnarnising the war, trying to force a coalition government with the NLF on the South Vietnam government, withdrawing totally and absolutely, are all exceedingly difficult to weigh and assess. The moral decisions involved must appear agonisingly difficult to all except those who have very simple minded views of the nature of man and society.

I wish to emphasise those words. It is only the people who have extremely simple minded views of the nature of man and society who will see this clearly as black and white.

I conclude by appealing to those Government supporters who value democracy not to be trapped again into exhibitions of mass hysteria. When they are watching or participating in the jockeying for position regarding who will be the next leader of the Liberal Party I hope that they will give the highest priority to the question whether the contender has faith in or contempt for the democratic processes.

Mr BONNETT:
Herbert

– I rise on a matter which, to me, is of extreme importance and in which I have spoken many times before in this House, namely, the age pension. I have been reared in a hard school and I reckon I have seen my share of hardship and suffering. In the normal course of living such experience should probably harden a person’s feelings towards the distress of others, but I find that J. am unable to disregard the enforced conditions in which so many of our older citizens exist. These people are fellow Australians. They are as much Australians as is every member of this House, and the aged persons in the category I speak of tonight are probably more entitled to be called good Australians than many of us.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and ot his family, and the right to security in the event of old age and other circumstances beyond his control. I submit that the event of growing old is most certainly beyond anyone’s control. Why then should so many of our elderly citizens be discarded because age has dictated that their useful productive life has finished? Why should they be forced to exist under conditions which they would never have tolerated in their earlier years when they had the strength and the physical ability to battle circumstances? The elderly people I speak of are mainly those who reared their families during the depression years; who, because of circumstances beyond their control, fought every inch of the way for years in order to feed, clothe and educate their children in a world that at that time was sick with poverty; who, many times denied themselves food so that their children could eat: who would have given anything within their power to have owned their own homes; and who worked 44, 48 and more hours a week at their jobs to earn a meagre living - and when I say worked, I mean worked, not just filled in the hours, because at that time there were 6 men ready to fill 4 men’s jobs.

I know many men who displayed exceptional courage during World War II, but I know many more men and women who displayed even greater courage during the depression years; for their type of courage was both physical and moral, and the odds against them were consistently present. These are the people I mean when I talk of age pensioners. The society in which we live today has been classified as an affluent society. There is work for everyone who can work. Our development as a nation is expanding as never before, and will continue to expand. When we talk of our economy we express it in thousands of millions of dollars. All this is good and full credit should be given to the Government for reaching this desirable state, but what of the old timers who helped up reach this situation? In my opinion if their efforts during their working lives had not been productive we could not have made it as we have done at present.

This thought leads me to express my contempt for those people of a younger generation who classify the age pensioners as a drag on the community, a bunch of nohopers and damned old nuisances. I have heard these expressions uttered. Others airily dodge the pension problem by suggesting that these people should all be put in homes. For some people it is easy to forget that if it was not for the work done by the older generation they would not be enjoying the life they lead today. In case they have not thought of it, I remind them that one day they, too, will be old people.

Another problem associated with the age pension which 1 fail to understand is the situation that exists where a man has married a lass some 6 to 10 years younger than himself. When he reaches the pensionable age of 65 years his wife has not reached her pensionable age of 60 and consequently we find them trying to live on his pension pki* his wife’s allowance. Some 12 months ago when I mentioned this to an officer of the Department of Social Services he said that there was nothing to stop the wife from working. This was an answer that I did not appreciate because it does not take much thought to realise that there would be very few people who would employ a woman in her late fifties even if she were capable of working after devoting most of her life to rearing a family. I feel that there is a definite need to have a look at this situation also. 1 have watched age pesioners in my electorate, prior to my coming to this House and during my term here, working out their budgets, in some instances I have assisted them with this task. Honourable members can believe me when I say that after such a task I was not the happiest of men. In fact, it is an extremely depressing business. I make this request: Let us take politics out of the age pension problem. Let us allot the pensioners an amount that is real and reasonable and do away with the handout we give them each Budget - a sum, which in the final analysis, amounts to something nothing. The care of our aged people is a government responsibility and the present Government is to be commended for the assistance it has provided so far - assistance such as medical service and free medicine, cuts in television and radio licence fees and telephone accounts, reduced fares on pub’ic transport and the easing of the means test.

Mr Webb:

– Why are you so worried? Your Government is responsible.

Mr BONNETT:

– I ask the honourable member to listen. When one realises that about 70% of our pensioners rely completely on the pension they receive, which is $15 to $17 a week, one must realise that few of these people would have television sets or telephones or would bc capable of travelling very much. The subsidy granted by the Government for Meals on Wheels is also of valuable assistance, but there is a limit to what Meals on Wheels can do for aged people. I believe that in assessing these problems we have started at the wrong end. I was solidly behind the Prime Minister (Mr Gorton) when he said that his concern was for the aged and the needy, for this is as it should be. I am hopeful that the Government will go down in history as the government which recognised and gave justice to its elderly citizens who contributed so much to the affluent society we now enjoy.

These aged people do not need much. All I ask for them is enough to live out their lives with dignity; enough to ensure that they can afford 3 meals a day; enough to know that they can meet their rent or rates without depriving themselves of food or clothes to do so; and enough so that they can maintain their self respect and independence. I ask that in the next Budget we share with them the prosperity of this nation which they have helped to create.

Mr DALY:
Grayndler

– I am certain that all members of the Parliament sympathise with and support the point of view expressed by the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) about the need to look after and protect the welfare of our aged people. Members of the Opposition have clear consciences but the honourable member and those members who sit behind him have much to answer for because of their neglect of this deserving section of society and their failure to give aged people an adequate income during this age of affluence and -prosperity about which the Government boasts. However, I did not rise to discuss this matter but to deal with the problem of aircraft noise, representing as I do the suburbs of Leichhardt, Annandale, Petersham, Newtown, Marrickville, Sydenham, St Peters, Erskineville and Lewisham. I suppose that my electorate would be right on the flight path of planes entering and leaving Mascot. I am concerned with the increased traffic over this district in recent weeks. Undoubtedly it has intensified in a way that is difficult to understand.

I should like to ask the Minister for Civil Aviation (Senator Cotton): What instructions have been given to the pilots of aircraft regarding their arrival and departure from Mascot aerodrome? Have they been instructed to fly over residential areas or to avoid them wherever possible? Have they been told to use the entry from the sea, or are they given no instructions at all? I have gained the impression from complaints that I have received from people living right under the flight path that if instructions have been given to pilots to safeguard the welfare of people by flying around residential areas the pilots have ignored the instructions or not carried them out. The Minister should have an inquiry made immediately into whether instructions have been given, whether aircraft are flying over my electorate in defiance of orders that have been given to avoid thickly populated areas, and to see whether pilots are doing as they are instructed in respect of these matters or are taking the easy way out. I will quote from a few of the hundreds of letters 1 have received on this subject. The first is from a resident of Leichhardt. This is what the writer stated:

I noted with interest that Mr Ansett is desperately seeking 24-hour landings in the name of progress. I have recorded these shattering experiences on several days last week; there were 94 passed directly over my street from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. 1 am asking is it possible that all of these planes are passenger flights, or how many are cargo, and if so why can’t the cargo flights be diverted to another strip. 1 have another here from the Managing Director of a factory at Sydenham which states:

At approximately 3 p.m. on Monday 20tb April a plane leaving Mascot caused so much vibration when flying low over our factory that a three foot fluorescent tube was again dislodged from the ceiling, fortunately as previously no-one was injured.

Here is another letter from a resident of my district which states:

It is a most wicked and impudent imposition to inflict on society; and for the law to allow such pests to ply their transport money making business at the expense of the suffering public is ridiculous and stupid and must be stopped by those in power to do so. Jets and airplanes flying overhead every few minutes are a constant danger to life and property. This is proved as we pick up the papers daily, to say nothing of the injury that is being caused to people’s health; and it is mainly for this reason I am writing-

A lady from the Marrickville section of my district stated:

We have been here 3 years and in this time the noise has increased 500%. It is almost unbearable for very young, very old, the sick and convalescents, workers 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. each day.

I am referring to just a cross section of the letters I have received. I have here another from the Reverend Hawkins, Director of the Leichhardt Methodist Homes and Institutions, a very prominent citizen in that part of my electorate. He said:

In the first place, let mc tell you that it is almost impossible to conduct divine worship in Leichhardt without having at least four or five distinct breaks in the service. Yesterday in preaching a 20 minute sermon at the morning serviceI had to completely stop on four occasions, the same thing happening in the evening.

Planes pass over here between 6 a.m. and 10.30 p.m., on an average of two every quarter of an hour. As one is passing overhead, another is in sight. This happens sometimes 3 or 4 days in succession, and then we will get a break.

The Minister at the table on one occasion made one of his orations at Leichhardt - it was a rather good one on that occasion -and had to pause in the middle of his great contribution while several planes passed overhead. The fact is that the Grayndler electorate includes many rest homes, factories, aged persons homes, schools and colleges. It is one of the most heavily populated areas of Sydney. It is time the Government did something to ascertain whether pilots are ignoring their instructions or are taking the easy course and flying wherever it suits them. I must confess that I am a pioneer in this campaign against aircraft noise. Tonight I turned up Hansard and found this entry in the report of proceedings on 9th September 1953:

Mr Daly presented a petition from certain residents of Mascot, New South Wales, praying that action be taken by the Department of Civil Aviation to alleviate danger and noise from lowflying aircraft in that vicinity.

I suppose that so slowly and deliberately does this worn out old Administration move that it is still studying that petition. I raised the question again in the Estimates debate in 1953. On that occasion I said: . .I wish to inform the committee of a complaint that I have received from a number of residents in the Mascot area of New South Wales concerning low-flying planes, civil and otherwise, in that district.

On that occasion the Government gagged me. It did not want me to proceed with this great problem. The Government was inclined to laugh about planes flying low over Mascot. I remember one honourable member saying: ‘Where else would they fly low?’ This is not a laughing matter now; it has become one of the major problems of this day and age. Therefore tonight when I say that pilots are doing this I do not want to see Government supporters nodding their heads or smiling about it. I want the Government to do something. Not to be put off, on 21st October 1953 I said–

Mr Turnbull:

– What a man!

Mr DALY:

– The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) was present and heard what I said. He took no notice then and he is taking no notice tonight, which is his normal attitude in regard to anything intelligent. On 21st October 1953 I said:

I wish to raise a matter that I have raised in this House previously. It relates to a petition I received from more than 350 residents of. my electorate, who protested in it about low-flying aeroplanes in the vicinity of certain streets in the Mascot area of Sydney. That petition brought hometo me the fact that the people in that area are in such fear and trembling as a result of the danger of lowflying aeroplanes that they were movedto collect signatures for a petition to Parliament asking that some action be taken by the Department of Civil Aviation . . .

I expounded at some length on this subject and the speech spreadto 2 pages. Every sentence in that speech contained information which an intelligent government would have heeded. Long before the problem was generally recognised, I was bringing to the notice of this Government that aircraft noise would be a major problem. Instead of taking notice of me the Government expanded Mascot airport. The Government’s action even prompted the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Turner)to rise in his place and say mat such expansion was a waste of money. However, aircraft had to begin flying over the wealthy homes in his electorate before he realised how some of the poor people inmy district were suffering. Thank heavens that such power and influence is now coming from the Government side of the chamber; perhaps something will be done about aircraft noise in districts such as mine.

I have raised this matter tonight on behalf of the 125,000 people in my electorate. I believe at this stage that all of them are being affected. In recent weeks particularly the Government seems to have increased the number of planes that fly over that district. I suppose it is trying to save some of the Liberal members here suffering from this noise because it might mean that they will not again be elected to this Parliament. I know that just prior to the last Federal election pilots were instructed to fly over my electorate in order to try to save Barton and St George for the Liberal Party. However this was not possible. Those electorates were not saved for the Liberal Party even by that action. I do not wish to see aircraft again flying over the electorates of Barton and St George because people in those areas are entitled to protection as well

There are other ways to and from Mascot airport. Aircraft can come in over the sea.

I ask the Minister for Civil Aviation to look into this matter. No doubt the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aircraft Noise in due course will bring down appropriate recommendations. In the meantime the people in my electorate want to stay alive. Tonight I suggest that the Government, through the Minister concerned, is responsible for doing something about it. He should instruct pilots, where necessary, about their responsibilities and should protect residents of electorates like mine. A local council can put a person out of business for making noise; Ansett can cause people to be sent into a mental asylum and fly higher, brighter and later.

Mr TURNBULL:
Mallee

– It is my intention to supply certain newspapers in the Mallee and Riverina electorates with a statement. Therefore I think it fair that I should first read it in this House. As every honourable member knows, I do not read my speeches but I read statements and I am now going to read this statement. It is as follows:

On returning to my home at Boort from the Parliamentary sittings at Canberra at 10 p.m., on Friday, 8th May, 1970, I had the first opportunity to read the Swan Hill Guardian of the 6th May and was amazed at an article I read in it headed Stormy midnight wheat debates followed Grassby’s action’.

On Monday morning J phoned the Editor of the Swan Hill Guardian, Mr Murphy, and asked him from what source had his paper received this article, and especially that portion of it attributed to me. He said that the whole of the article had been received from Mr A. Grassby, Federal Member for Riverina, and that the Swan Hill Guardian, which has its base and circulates in the Mallee electorate, had printed it in good faith.

What concerns me is that the part of the article attributed to me was taken out of context and gave a completely different meaning to that of the authorised Hansard report of my speech.

The article read ‘The member for Mallee, Mr Turnbull, said that the uncertainty had always been that way for primary producers. They knew they would get a 20% cut. lt is of no use calling on high heaven in such things, but we must keep our heads’.

Mr Grassby had been referring to the Quota System in his article when he attributed this statement to mc. Naturally anyone reading it would think it was my reply to what he called the uncertainty of quotas’, but this was not so. Reference to Hansard of 16th and 17th April-

It was after midnight on 17th April- reveals that in quite a different part of the debate, in answer to Mr Grassby saying ‘Nothing has been done to give wheat growers any indication of what they should grow’, I replied ‘lt has always been that way’. When he puts a crop in a wheat grower does not know whether he is going to have 5 bushels to the acre or 30 bushels to the acre or a drought. This is why the farming position has always been precarious and why the position of the primary producer is different from that of the wage earner. This is why we in the Country Party support through thick and thin the primary producer. The wage earner knows exactly what he gets every week-

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Sturt has been consistently interjecting throughout this adjournment debate. I remind him that since the commencement of this Parliament he has been warned to refrain from interjecting on more occasions than any other honourable member. I suggest that he control himself and cease interjecting.

Mr TURNBULL:

– My reply continues:

The wage earner knows exactly what he gets every week, and it is generally rising, but the primary producer has no idea of what his return will be when lie sows a crop. If the Government were to say that a farmer had to grow, say, 10 bushels or 5 bushels to the acre, when the crop had been planted there would be no indication of what return would come to the wheat grower. These are practical considerations.

My statement that uncertainty has always been that way for primary producers had no connection whatever with the quota system, as the article would have us believe. The next thing that the honourable member for Riverina attributes to me in the article is that I said-

Mr Daly:

– I rise to order. Is it in order for an honourable member to make such a bitter and unprovoked attack on the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! That is not a valid point of order.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The next thing that the honourable member for Riverina attributes to me in his article is that I said:

They knew they would get a 20% cut. Hansard on page 1308 of 16th and 17th April - it was after midnight - reveals that I said:

The other thing I want to say is that the great indication that has been given is that there is to be about a 20% cut, I understand, in the quota that was fixed last year. The fixing of the quota came about because wheat growers, quite rightly, wanted $1.10 a bushel first payment. The Wheat Growers Federation met over in Western Australia and decided on the quota system, but the motions that gave legislative authority to the quotas did not come into this House. Quota legislation has never been debated here. It went through the State Parliaments and they gave the legislative authority.

The honourable member for Riverina has consistently endeavoured to create the impression that the quota system was implemented by the Commonwealth Government. I have given him facts and figures which undoubtedly prove the point made by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), when answering my question on th s subject. The Minister said:

The Commonwealth has no rights at all in imposing production controls. If growers feel there is an injustice or anomaly this is a matter which should be taken up with their own State Government; the Commonwealth has no hand in it whatsoever.

I suggest that the honourable member for Riverina should cease trying to create a wrong impression. The honourable member immediately followed his statement that I had said: They knew they would get a 20% cut’ by quoting me as saying: lt is no use calling on high heaven in such things hut we must keep our heads.

Surely, as the honourable member for Riverina put it directly after my statement regarding the 20% cut, everyone would think it referred to this, but I said this in quite a different part of the debate. There had been wild interjections and heated statements by honourable members,, including the honourable member for Riverina, and Hansard reveals that I said:

I am treating this matter calmly tonight because one cannot do any good for wheat growers or anyone else if one loses one’s head, starts calling to high heaven about things and forgets logic.

It has been said that omission is even more to be deplored than commission and, of course, the honourable member omitted the chief sections of my speech. I . then said, again quoting from Hansard:

I further want to say thai the Chairman of the Grains Division of the Victorian Farmers’ Union, Mr Meehan, said he was delighted that the Federal Government had announced that $1.10 a bushel would be a first payment on the quota wheat next year. Perhaps there are 1 or 2 things that honourable members do not know and I must tell them. In other years the amount of the first payment has not been made, with the exception of last year, before 1st November This year it has been a.m’v need at least 6 months before the normal dab..

In summing up I say that the action of the honourable member for Riverina in supplying to the Swan Hill ‘Guardian’ quotes out of context, said to be from my speech, is unworthy of a member of this House. It is contrary to all approved parliamentary conduct and in all the years I have been a member of this House I have never heard of another member adopting such an attitude. Surely there is plenty of opportunity for a member to state his case without attributing to another member, through the Press, opinions that he does not hold.

Although I have mentioned only the Swan Hill ‘Guardian’ I have ascertained that the article also appeared in the Barham Bridge’, and they accepted it in good faith. And it probably has been forwarded to other newspapers in Victoria and New South Wales. Perhaps Mr Grassby can tell us whether that is so. I wish now to quote what Mr Grassby said in this House.

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will refer to the honourable member as the honourable member for Riverina.

Mr TURNBULL:

– The honourable member for Riverina said, in one of his flamboyant moments:

I do not mind who disagrees with me, Mr Speaker.

He does not mind at all. He went on:

I will debate with them at any time and at any place.

I ask the honourable member whether that is true. Will you debate at any time in any place?

Mr Grassby:

– Why not?

Mr TURNBULL:

– That is not the question. Will the honourable member for Riverina stand by what he said as reported in Hansard? Will he debate with them at any time in any place?

Mr Grassby:

– All right.

Mr TURNBULL:

– All right. I accept the challenge. I name the place as outside the office of the ‘Bridge’ newspaper in Barham, New South Wales, and the time as 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26th May 1970. I have ascertained that if there is not enough room at that spot we can move to an adjacent vacant block of land. T expect to see thi honourable member for Riverina live up to his statements in this House by appearing in front of the ‘Bridge’ newspaper office in Barham at 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 26th May 1970. In that way he will live up to his promise to debate this subject with anyone at any time.

Mr FOSTER:
Sturt

– I had intended tonight to deal with a statement on the Fill aircraft which was made last night by the Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser). Before I deal with this subject I wish to refer to the speech of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Bonnett) in this debate tonight. I understand that he has since left the chamber. He saw fit to refer to the deplorable living conditions of age pensioners, who number about three quarters of a million. They live on the poverty line. 1 address myself to the few honourable members who are present on the Government benches at this hour. I cannot understand why the honourable member for Herbert made a plea for these people tonight. Perhaps he was speaking to impress the people in his electorate. He deplored the very small pension upon which age pensioners are forced to live. That position is the result of the disgraceful way they have been treated by honourable members opposite. The honourable member for Herbert is a member of the Government party. Surely he can make his voice heard. Perhaps he would bc a voice in the wilderness in seeking better conditions for the people about whom he so hypocritically states he is concerned.

I now direct the attention of honourable members back to 1963, the year of the charge against the Labor Party Executive of having 36 faceless men and the year in which President Kennedy of the United States of America was assasinated. Sir Robert Menzies, who was then Prime Minister, saw fit to go before the people of Australia and to lie to them in a most blatant fashion. He prevailed upon the electors of the Commonwealth to believe that their lives were at stake.

Mr Giles:

– I rise on a point of order. I do not think that the honourable member for Sturt should say that a previous Prime Minister lied.

Mr SPEAKER:

– I would suggest that the honourable member for Sturt use a little more temperate language in the balance of his speech. I would suggest to him that temperate language is of the essence of good debate in this Parliament.

Mr FOSTER:

– He most certainly stretched the meaning of the word ambiguity’ because he went before the people of Australia and implied that their very lives were at stake unless they were prepared to re-elect this Government to the Treasury benches. His Government wanted to provide the Royal Australian Air Force with a type of aircraft which would defend us from the hordes of Indonesia and from the hordes of China. Since that date various Ministers for Defence have no doubt sent little notes to Mao Tse-tung saying: ‘Wait a little while. We are not quite ready yet’. But today Malik is the No. I pin-up boy with the Government, although this was not so in those days because he was not in the position in those days that he is in at this point of time.

I also want to say that this is one of the most shocking scandals that has ever been put before the Commonwealth of Australia. I hesitate to surmise what criticism would have been levelled at honourable members on this side of the House if during the period when they were responsible for saving this country from invasion they had wasted money in such a scandalous fashion. It is all very well for the honourable member for Angas (Mr Giles) to laugh. He evidently sees fit to deride the capability of the armed Services to defend the people of this Commonwealth. I laid a wreath on behalf of fallen members of the services during Coral Sea Week, and my mind went back to the first occasion on which the Japanese were ever repelled. It was at a place called Milne Bay, and they were repelled by Australian troops. Let us not forget that.

Had we on this side of the House been in government we would not have put this country to such shockingly wasteful expenditure for no result whatsoever as that for which members on the other side of the chamber must accept irresponsibility. Not only have they wasted this amount of money in the most shocking manner but they have infact denied this country any form of defence from the air. They have not even provided us with any capable reconnaissance aircraft. They are as guilty as their opposite numbers in the United

Kingdom Government were just prior to 1939 and let them not forget that they bear as much guilt. The amount of money that this Government has expended on defence since it has been in office in comparison to the amount of hardware we have to defend this country with is nothing less than absolutely scandalous. It is shameful. The Government goes into the highways and byways of the world to get foreign exchange to develop this country, but it has wasted more money than has ever come into the country.

Members of the Australian Country Party may well laugh because they suffer from an inferiority complex in regard to this matter. They are just as guilty because they are members and supporters of the Government. Not only have they failed this country in the matter of defence but they have failed the very people whom they purport to represent, that is, the members of the farming community of Australia. They have failed them dismally. They have led them by the nose and have in fact misled them and treated them in the most shocking fashion. Their day will come.

Do honourable members opposite ever stop to reflect? The Minister for Defence (Mr Malcolm Fraser), this tall, aristocratic, wealthy gentleman from Victoria who never has to pay any regard to his own personal budget sees fit to pay less regard to the budget of the taxpayers of this country. That is what it means. It can be measured in no other terms. Have honourable members opposite ever stopped to think of the needs of most people in our community, to consider what could have been provided for them with the money which has been wasted on the Fill aircraft, how many schools could have been built, how many pre-schools might have been constructed or what burden could have been lifted from the pensioners, to refer to one narrow field of welfare?

In this place today I heard a question directed to the Minister for Social Services (Mr Wentworth) who said in reply: ‘It is the policy of the Government’. I say to him that if that is the policy of the Government, it needs to have a long hard look at its policy. I have said before in this House, and I repeat for the benefit of honourable members opposite, that if they had any shred of feeling at all they should get out of this establishment when the House is in recess and look at the poverty that they have inflicted and continue to inflict on many members of the community. I ask them to consider the miserly amount of money that the Government pays to a widow with a couple of dependent children and to consider the educational needs of the children and the pittance that the Government keeps them on. I ask honourable members opposite: Where is your sense of equity? You do not have any. Why he so hypocritical as to pay lip service to it? You dodge your responsibility as men and you dodge your responsibility as politicians. I have been in this place a short time only. I have sat here rather quietly listening to some of the greatest tripe that one ever could be expected to listen to. I wind up on this note and hope that perhaps I can continue with the subject tomorrow night and draw attention to even more areas of dire need in this community. Honourable members opposite should go to bed tonight and think about the $500m that they have wasted for nothing and how well they could have spent it.

Mr GRASSBY:
Riverina

– I want particularly to refer to the remarks made tonight by the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) who, I am sorry to say, has disappeared. One would hope that he will reappear shortly. The origins of the debate on the subject 1 shall deal with, which was initiated tonight by the honourable member for Mallee, lie in the fact that I rose in the Parliament and actually had the temerity to point out that there were wicked inequalities in the wheat rationing system which was introduced in panic by the Government in the 1969-70 season. The honourable member for Mallee has now entered the chamber. I warmly welcome him back to the House. I am delighted to see that he is here, complete with head. In the midnight debates on wheat, which I jocularly referred to as the continuing story of ‘Wheaten Place’ - I see that it is almost midnight again - I suggest seriously that the money already earmarked by the Treasury to cover the deliveries of wheat in the 1969-70 season should be used for the purpose for which it was earmarked, that the whole crop should be taken in and the SI. 10 paid as a first advance on the whole wheat yield for 1969-70.

The penalty for putting this very reasonable point of view was a tremendous tirade of abuse, by comparison with which the remarks of the honourable member for Mallee tonight were quite mild. But not only was there a tirade of abuse here; there was also quite an interesting series of broadsides fired later. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) was able to fire across the State one broadside of probably 100 shots in the form of Press announcements. Then another broadside of about 100 shots was fired by another Government supporter. Then the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Anthony), using his full panoply of power, issued a statement, as was his entitlement, in which he questioned the statement which I had made and put his own point of view. All this great weight of abuse and criticism swept across my electorate, as well as the electorate of every other honourable member. In case anyone might have missed it, there were 300 shots. In defence of my point of view, and the view of the constituents whom 1 represent and who had asked me to put it, I issued a modest statement of about 20 shots strong. It was 20 against 300; David versus Goliath. But apparently I had the temerity to do this, and it was actually published in one or two places. I made a very mild reference to the honourable member for Mallee. This is what I said, in case anyone has a doubt about it:

The honourable member for Mallee (Mr Turnbull) said the uncertainty has always been that way for primary producers. They knew they would get a 20% cut.

He then referred lo me, as he did again this evening and said:

No use calling on high heaven and such things. We must keep our heads.

I was very kind to the honourable member because I might say that he misrepresented me in the very first moments of his speech on that night. He said: 1 think that all honourable members will realise that he put on an act . . . The Speaker had to call him to order. He said: ‘I feel it so much that I can hardly control myself. I can control myself . . .

He was all right. This magnificent paraphrasing was of a statement that I made. This is a little bit of misrepresentation for which I accept the honourable member’s apology. What he based the statement on and what I said was:

If 1 speak with some emotion on this subject it is because of the situation of the people 1 represent.

Having misrepresented me the honourable member then dealt with the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Foster) and talked about a drunk that he had met in a railway carriage. I was not very happy with that but I did not publish that in his electorate. I might say that he got off very lightly indeed.

The only other honourable member whom I quoted in the statement was the honourable member for Gwydir. I gave him full credit for all his flow of adjectives. I did not want him to feel that his attack had gone unnoticed, so 1 used all the words that he attributed to me - wild and emotional, theatrical and hysterical, and ranting. What a wonderful selection that is. 1 give my compliments lo the honourable member for Gwydir. This was his response to a plea on behalf of wheat growers. We find that we have a situation where in a series of debates we have as a substitute for action, as a substitute for mature consideration, a tirade of abuse; that is all. ‘The problems of the countryside,’ said the gentlemen concerned, are that the honourable member for Riverina is wrong.’ This was the level of the 3 debates.

Mr Turnbull:

– What about your taking my remarks out of context?

Mr SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable member for Mallee has spoken in the debate.

Mr GRASSBY:

– If the honourable member for Mallee is terribly worried about this I tell him right now that if he wishes I will forward any copies of Hansard to which he has referred tonight. I think that he should make them generally available. They would make fascinating reading. They would change the habits of the population away from Peyton Place to Wheaten Place; I am certain of that. They would be very interested to read the constructive suggestions that have been put forward.

I cannot quite hear the Minister for Repatriation (Mr Holten) but I seem to remember that he also interjected on that evening. I hope that he is proud of the part that he played. After all, this was a serious matter raised on behalf of growers in relation to a difficult situation. The answer that they received was abuse. Tonight another attack has been made in a more subtle way. Those honourable members should not apologise to me for being intemperate but they ought to apologise to the country people for not taking notice of their needs and not doing something about the crisis as it is at the present time. This smokescreen of words, this exercise of diversion will not do. That is the message that should go forth from this Parliament tonight.

Mr Holten:

– What would you suggest?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I am grateful for that interjection. I have said previously in an adjournment debate exactly what Labor’s policy is for 1969-70. For the benefit of the Minister I will repeat it with the full support of every one of my colleagues here. The common sense and just thing to do with the wheat for 1969-70 would be to take it into storage and pay the $1.10 first advance for which the Treasurer has earmarked the money. If honourable members opposite need any assurances, the honourable member for Dawson (Dr Patterson), who is the Chairman of the Rural Industry Committee of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Partv, will be delighted to give them a lecture on what can and should be done. The truth is a very hurtful thing at times. I think that the exercise tonight was one of those continuing exercises of diversion. I have said this, and I repeat it. Quite frankly, I feel, though, that in justice to the honourable member for Mallee I should refresh honourable members’ minds as to what he said. He referred to losing one’s head. I want to quote what he said. He said:

  1. . one cannot do any good for wheat growers or anyone else if one loses one’s head

I agree with that. Then he starts calling to high heaven about things.

Mr Turnbull:

– What was I referring to?

Mr GRASSBY:

– I was just quoting the honourable member’s speech. I think it was a very interesting one. If the honourable member has something to say about the problems of the wheat industry, he has all the opportunities in the world to say it. I said my piece and I was criticised for it. I was abused for it inside and outside the House. I took the one commonsense step that I should take in defence of my position, in defence of my colleagues and in defence of the policies that we espouse. Against an avalanche from honourable members opposite and an avalanche of paper from outside the House, I made a modest issue to all those concerned in my own electorate - 20 against 300. As I say, it was like David against Goliath. I think that the end result will be exactly the same.

Motion (by Mr Chipp) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question resolved in the affirmative.

House adjourned at 11.57 p.m.

page 2117

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Port Development: Ministerial Conference (Question No. 907)

Mr Whitlam:

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. What is the title of the portfolio held by each Commonwealth and State Minister who attended the meeting in Sydney in April to discuss a programme of co-ordinated port development.
  2. What requests or suggestions were made at the meeting for legislative or administrative action by the (a) Commonwealth, (b) Territories and (c) States.
Mr Sinclair:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. In addition to myself the following Ministers attended :

Commonwealth

The Hon. R. W. C. Swartz, M.B.E., E.D., M.P., Minister for National Development.

The Hon. P. J Nixon, M.P., Minister for the Interior.

The Hon. C. E. Barnes, M.P., Minister for External Territories.

Senator the Hon. R. C. Wright, Minister for Works.

State

The Hon. N. T. E. Hewitt, M.M., M.L.A., Minister for Conservation, Marine and Aboriginal Affairs, Queensland.

The Hon. W. Davis Hughes, M.L.A., Minister for Public Works. New South Wales.

The Hon. R. J. Hamer, E.D., M.L.C., Acting Minister of Public Works. Victoria.

The Hon. L. H. Bessell, M.L.A., Minister for Transport, Tasmania.

The Hon. W. A. Rodda, M.L.A., Minister for Works and Marine, South Australia.

The Hon. R. Hutchinson, D.F.C., M.L.A., Minister for Works and Water Supplies, Western Australia, was unable to attend. He was represented by Mr J. McConnell, Under-Secretary to the Minister.

  1. No such requests or suggestions were made. Ministers discussed ways and means on how an exchange of views on future port development could best take place between the Commonwealth and States’ Governments. Points of common concern were raised and it was agreed that Ministers would meet again after States’ Ministers had the opportunity to refer the question to their respective Governments.

Papua and New Guinea: Tradesmen’s Salaries (Question No. 814)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

Why is a basic salary of only $107 1 -$1180 per annum paid to qualified New Guinean tradesman when the actual salary and allowance for expatriate tradesmen working in New Guinea is $3660-$3949 per annum for single men, with an additional allowance of $360 per annum for married employees.

Mr Barnes:
Minister for External Territories · MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · CP

– The answer to the honourable members question is as follows:

The basic salary of $1071-$1180 per annum was fixed by the Public Service Arbitrator in 1967 for qualified Papuan and New Guinean tradesmen in the Territory Public Service. That decision dealt with the salaries of local public servants generally. Copies are available in the Parliamentary Library. Overseas tradesmen receive the same basic salary plus an overseas allowance to bring their remunerationto a level comparable with that payable for corresponding kinds of work in Australia, plus a Territory allowance. The allowance of $360 per annum is an additional payment for married male overseas employees. A new claim in relation to the salaries of local public servants is currently the subject of proceedings under the Public Services Concilialion and Arbitration Ordinance 1969.

Commonwealth Railways: Salaries (Question No. 884)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Shipping and Transport, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Commissioner for Commonwealth Railways can and does fix salaries for certain officers employed by the Commonwealth Railways. (2)If so, what isthe rate now applicable to each such officer and what was the rale in 1961.
  2. Is the Commissioner obliged by any law to seek the approval of the Public ServiceBoard before fixing such salaries.
Mr Sinclair:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) Section 46(2) of the Commonwealth Railways Act 1917-1968 provides that the Commonwealth Railways Commissioner shall pay such salaries, wages and allowances to employees as he approves and as the Parliament appropriates for that purpose. However, officers’ salary rales and ranges are governed by determinations of the Public Service Arbitrator. These determinations are made pursuant to the Public Service Arbitration Act, which applies to the railway service in accordance with section 47 of the Commonwealth Railways Act.
  2. The Commissioner is not obliged by any lawto seek the approval of the Public Service Board before approving salary rates or ranges. However, salary awarding procedures are as outlined in replyto parts (1) and (2) ofthis question.

Adult Wage Earners (Question No. 601)

Mr Hayden:

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

Can he state from the latest relevant data available, the number of adult wage earners in each State and the Commonwealth earning (a) less than the minimum wage, (b) the minimum wage and up to $10 a week above this level and (c) more than $10 a week above the minimum wage.

Mr Bury:
Treasurer · WENTWORTH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

No. There are no statistics which directly classify wage earners into these categories. Any estimates relating to a recent period would have to be based on a number of assumptions and judgments applied to particulars of movements and levels of earnings and award rates, together with either income tax statistics of grade (by size) of actual income or with the results of the special survey conducted by the Commonwealth Statistician in October 1965 showing estimated numbers of adult male employees in earning groups (by size).

Wages and Employment Conditions (Question No. 851)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. Is it a fact that the Bureau of Census and Statistics is unable to produce a reliable, comprehensive and up-to-date index on productivity in the various classifications of Australian industry.
  2. If so, by what means does the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission accurately adjust wage rates, standard hours and conditions of leave in such a way as to ensure that labour is given its fair share of increased productivity.
Mr Bury:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. Yes, see my answer of 16th April 1970 to Question No. 525 asked by the Honourable Member.
  2. The Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has made numerous references to the fact that it takes into consideration movements in national productivity. For example, in the reasons for decision diven on 12th September 1966 in the case of the Vehicle Builders Employees Federation of Australia and others and General Motors-Holdens Pty Ltd the Commission said :

It is of course a fact that the Commission does pay serious regard to the trends in national productivity when fixing national standards which we consider to be preferable, and fairer to all, than to attempt . . . individual assessments embracing separate employers or even separate industries. It seems to us impossible and unjust for the Commission to attempt to mix the two concepts - national and individual.’

In its reasons for decision in the National Wage Case 1969 the Commission said:

The increase we propose is above the trend line movements in national productivity . . . ‘ and under the heading ‘Principles of wage fixation’ the Commission made the observation:

Each award of the Commission will each year be brought up to date for economic consideration (including regard to movements in prices and productivity) by the decision of the national wage bench. . . . ‘

Approximate estimates of national productivity as distinct from productivity in a particular industry are made on the basis of the Commonwealth Statistician’s estimates of trends in gross national product at constant prices and in the work force and are made available to the Commission by the Commonwealth during cases of national importance.

Papua and New Guinea: Salaries of Natives (Question No. 815)

Mr Clyde Cameron:
HINDMARSH, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · ALP

asked the Minister for External Territories, upon notice:

  1. On what basis did the Administration of the Territory of Papua and New Guinea make the assessment that an expatriate patrol officer is worth four times the amount paid to a native patrol officer.
  2. Why are native teachers, education officers, nurses, co-operative officers, artisans and stenographers paid less than one-third the wage rates of their expatriate counterparts.
  3. Can natives in the abovementioned categories purchase food, clothing and household goods and appliances at lower prices than are available to their expatriate counterparts.
  4. If so, what is the extent of the reductions.
Mr Barnes:
CP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) The salaries paid to local officers of the Territory Public Service as determined on the re-construction of the Service in 1964 were related to the conditions of Papua and New Guinea.

In the course of hearings before the Public Service Arbitrator in 1965-66 some adjustments were made by the Administration. The Arbitrator’s decision of May 1967 awarded further increases.

Copies of that decision are available in the Parliamentary Library.

Salaries now paid to local officers are in accordance with the Arbitrator’s decision except that in some categories further upward adjustments have been made under the provisions of the Public Service Ordinance.

The remuneration of overseas officers consists of the same rate of salary as for local officers plus an overseas allowance to bring their remuneration to a level comparable with that payable for corresponding kinds of work in Australia plus a Territory allowance.

All salaries and allowances are open to arbitration under the Public Services Conciliation and Arbitration Ordinance 1969.

  1. and (4) No.

Pig Meat (Question No. 697)

Mr Hansen:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Treasurer, upon notice:

  1. What quantities of pig meat in carcass and processed form were imported into Australia over the past 2 years.
  2. What were the countries of origin.
  3. What was the value of these imports.
Mr Bury:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

The Acting Commonwealth Statistician has advised that during the years ended June 1968 and 1969 and for the period July 1969-February 1970, all imports of pig meat in carcass or processed form were recorded under the item ham and pork shoulders’ except for 15 lb of bacon, ham and other pig meat, salted in brine, dried or smoked’, valued at$1 3, which were recorded as imported from Hong Kong during the eight months ended February 1970.

He has supplied the following table showing details of imports of ‘ham and pork shoulders’ for the year ended 30 June 1968 and 1969 and forthe eight months ended February 1970.

National Service: Specialist Medical Examinations (Question No. 270)

Mr Foster:

asked the Minister for Labour and National Service, upon notice:

  1. Is he able to say whether distress or anxiety is sometimes causedto parents and their sons who are called up for national service when, after initial medical examination, the youths are referred, by letter from his Department, for a specialist medical or eye examination.
  2. If so, will he endeavour to avoid this anxiety by directing his Department to inform the inductee of the reason for the specialist examination.
Mr Snedden:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

  1. and (2) I am not aware that any undue concern is being caused to men, or the close relations of men who are referred to a consulting specialist by an examining Medical Board, nor should there be. A national serviceman must be fit physically and mentally for all service duties under full combat conditions anywhere in the world and no man can be enlisted for national service while there is any doubt about his fitness. That a man does not meet the required Army standards does not necessarily mean that he is unfit by normal civilian standards or that he is unable to pursue his normal civilian occupation or that he should be unduly concerned about his health. Where an examining Medical Board is of the opinion that a young man should in his own interests obtain medical advice or treatment, he is informed of this and advised to consult his own doctor. This advice is repeated in the official notice sent to him by my Department.

Petrol Prices (Question No. 919)

Mr Stewart:
LANG, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for

Customs and Excise, upon notice:

What method is used to establish the standard price of petrol in Australia.

Mr Chipp:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows:

It is my understanding that the oil industry throughout Australia bases its wholesale pricing structure for petroleum products on the determinations of the South Australian Prices Commissioner.

I am informed that the oil industry regularly submits details of its costs to the Commissioner for examination. If considered necessary the South Australian Prices Commissioner, after examination of changes in costs incurred by the oil industry, determines fresh wholesale prices which the oil companies by agreement apply throughout Australia.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 13 May 1970, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1970/19700513_reps_27_hor67/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant