Senate
25 October 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session



The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke) took the chair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

page 1561

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP

– I inform the Senate that the Minister for Trade and Resources (Mr Anthony) leaves Australia today for China to have discussions over a wide range of trade matters and to attend Australia’s National Day at the Peking Foreign Agricultural Machinery Exhibition. He is expected to return on 5 November. During his absence the Minister for Special Trade Representations (Mr Garland) will act as Minister for Trade and Resources.

page 1561

PETITIONS

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator SCOTT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 8 1 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator GIETZELT:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I present the following petition from 279 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled-

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index figures; and whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November; it is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics of democratic government and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the undersigned Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that the trustworthiness of governments should at all times be above question, and to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian pensioners by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of pension rates.

And Your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 55 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60.000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Education Funding

Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 1 1 citizens of Australia:

The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents ‘Clubs respectfully showeth:

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled should arrange for:

. Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.

An increase of a minimum of 5 percent in real terms on base level programmes for 1979.

Restoration of the $8 million cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.

Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools. and your Petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray.

Here follow the signatures:

Petition received and read.

Metric System

Senator TOWNLEY:
TASMANIA

– I present the following petition from 22 citizens of Australia:

To the Honouable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:

The petition ofthe undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions: Lone Parents

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

-I present the following petition from 77 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully say that we are concerned about the discrimination which exists against the children of those parents who are in receipt of the Supporting Parents Benefit in comparison with children of Single Parents who receive the Widows Pension. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Parliament take’ immediate steps to ensure that this year’s budget allow for Lone Parents to be given the right to receive a pension with the same benefits as are given with the Widows Pension, and we also request that Parliament take immediate steps to instigate one ( 1 ) category of Lone Parent Pensions to eliminate the discrimination currently experienced.

And you petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Pensions

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 61 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate, in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

Review the current Budget (1978-79) decision to index pensions annually after November 1 978 by retaining six monthly pension C.P.I, automatic adjustments as originally legislated and applied by Parliament here-to-for; in order to prevent cost-of-living hardship to all Pensioners.

Review the current Budget (1978-79) decision to Means Test age 70 pensioners ibr automatic C.P.I, after November 1978 by retaining previous legislation (six monthly C.P.I. adjustments) as here-to-for; for all pensioner equity.

Equalise automatic C.P.I, pension adjustment six monthly (in lieu of current Budget decision 1978-79) in line with the recent Commonwealth Arbitration Commission’s decision for wage and salary six monthly hearing periods. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

Petition received and read.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator GEORGES:
QUEENSLAND

-On behalf of Senator Robertson I present the following petition from 1 1 6 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance ( No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator ROCHER:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 102 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator LEWIS:

– I present the following petition from 1 80 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition ofthe undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-I present the following petition from 1 78 citizens of” Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-On behalf of Senator Davidson; I present the following petition from 85 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator TEAGUE:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I present the following petition from 85 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition ofthe undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator HAMER:
VICTORIA

– I present the following petition from 85 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

2 ) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator BONNER:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 235 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members ofthe Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

Any your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

Senator WALTERS:

– I present the following petition from 62 citizens of Australia:

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition ofthe undersigned respectfully showeth:

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the ACT.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:

1 ) retain this Ordinance, and

reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the ACT.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.

Petition received.

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows:

Budget 1978-79: Pensioners

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate assembled the petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That the people of Australia having taken part in the government of Australia through universal suffrage in December 1975 and again in December 1977 and that on the basis of their expressed choice at the ballot box the people of Australia gave authority to the LiberalNational Country Party Coalition to form a federal government to bring into affect specific policies promulgated throughout the length and breadth of Australia by the said Coalition and that, whereas by virtue of being elected through universal suffrage, the Government Members now sitting in the House of Representatives were authorised to implement their state objectives by legislation and that such authority did not extent to acting otherwise or to enact legislation not previously submitted to the will of the people, namely: o Revoking the legislation for twice-yearly pension payments. o Imposing a freeze on the free-of-means-test pension. o Unemployed divided into those with dependents and those without. o Imposing income tax on pensions under age pension ageinvalid and repatriation service pensions; rehabilitation allowances and incentives; sheltered employment and allowances for tuberculosis suffers (civilian and service) and any other impositions.

Your petitioners submit that all or any of the foregoing proposed legislation of the Lower House, if implemented, will greatly disadvantage many thousands of citizens as either against their expressed will or not submitted to universal vote as the democratic right of the Australian people, therefore,

Your petitioners call on the Senate as the House of Review to take appropriate action to release these persons from burdens unfairly placed in order to finance a deficit not of their making.

And your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jessop, Missen and Hamer.

Petitions received.

Education Funding

The Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the Victorian Federation of State School Parents ‘ Clubs respectfully showeth: -

That as citizens of Victoria and parents of State school children, we are most concerned that the quality of education available in our school be of the highest possible standard.

We believe that this can only be achieved if adequate Federal funds are provided. The recently announced policy of direct cuts to Government schools for 1979 must have an adverse effect on them.

Your Petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate, in Parliament assembled, should arrange for:

  1. . Withdrawal of the Guidelines to the Schools Commission for 1979 and acceptance of its recommendations for Government schools.
  2. An increase of a minimum of5 per cent in real terms on base level programmes for 1 979.
  3. Restoration of the $8m cut from the Capital Grants for Government Schools.
  4. Increased recurrent and capital funding to Government schools. and your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Evans.

Petition received.

Abortion: Medical Benefits

To the Honourable, the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth.

That the provision of payments for abortion through items of the Medical Benefits Schedule is an unacceptable endorsement of abortion which has now reached the levels of a national tragedy with at least 60,000 unborn babies being killed in 1977.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will so amend the Medical Benefits Schedule as to preclude the payment of any benefit for abortion.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will every pray. by Senators Jessop, Scott and Withers.

Petitions received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth:

That whereas the Fraser Government was elected in December 1975 after promising that pensions would be adjusted instantly and automatically in relation to quarterly Consumer Price Index Figures;

And whereas that Government subsequently announced that pension adjustments should properly be made half yearly each May and November;

It is the current intention of the same Government to legislate for pensions to be adjusted only once a year, and this constitutes a serious breach of generally accepted ethics, of Democratic Government, and also deprives many needy pensioners of increases that are essential to their Subsistence.

The foregoing facts impel the under-signed Petitioners to request the Australian Government to uphold the principle that trustworthiness of Governments should at all times be above question.

And to appeal to the Parliament to prevent the imposition of further economic hardship upon Australian Pensioners, by rejecting any Bill which has for its aim the introduction of annual adjustments of Pension rates.

And your Petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Withers.

Petition received.

Australian Capital Territory Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:-

That the Termination of Pregnancy Ordinance (No. 16 of 1978) has the effect of prohibiting the operation of private abortion clinics in the A.C.T.

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Honourable Senators should vote to:-

  1. 1 ) retain this Ordinance, and
  2. ) reject any move to disallow this Ordinance since its disallowance would enable private abortion clinics to operate in the A.C.T.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Colston, Evans, Grimes, Puplick and Young.

Petitions received.

Pensions

To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled.

We, the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government:

  1. Review the current Budget ( 1978-79) decision to index pensions annually after November 1978 by retaining six monthly pension CPI automatic adjustments as originally legislated and applied by Parliament here-to-for, in order to prevent cost-of-living hardship to all Pensioners.
  2. Review the current Budget (1978-79) decision to Means Test age 70 pensioners for automatic CPI after November 1978 by retaining previous legislation (six monthly CPI adjustments) as here-to-for; for all pensioner equity.
  3. Equalise automatic CPI pension adjustment six monthly (in lieu of current Budget decision 1978-79) in line with the recent Commonwealth Arbitration Commission’s decision for wage and salary six monthly hearing periods. and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Withers.

Petition received.

page 1565

ABORIGINES: ADMISSIBILITY OF CONFESSIONS

Notice of Motion

Senator BONNER:
Queensland

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

That leave be given to introduce a Bill for an Act relating to the admissibility of confessions made by Aborigines and Islanders and related matters.

page 1565

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 1565

QUESTION

OVERSEAS SALES OF MINERALS

Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Is it not a fact that in the past 24 hours both the Premier of Queensland and the Premier of Western Australia have complained about the lack of consultation on the new controls on companies negotiating to sell minerals abroad announced by the Government yesterday? Is it a fact that the States were not consulted on the contents of the statement of the Minister for Trade and Resources? I ask the Minister also whether that lack of consultations is consistent with his comment on 8 April 1 976, in response to a question from me, in which he said:

Federalism is a co-operative matter and it aims to have discussions between the States and the Commonwealth on matters that are mutually of concern.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– Through reports in the media I am aware of complaints registered by the two Premiers referred to by Senator Wriedt that the Minister for Trade and Resources had not consulted them in full. I am not in a position immediately to respond as to the extent of consultations. I know that over a period the Commonwealth and the States have been aware that, because of an oversupply of a number of minerals, overseas buyers have been dividing and conquering; that, indeed, a number of Australian businesses have sought to overcome being picked off one by one.. I think that the matter has been in the focus of the States and the Commonwealth. I am not aware of the extent of consultations. I will find that out for Senator Wriedt. My statement of April is impeccable. We hope to achieve the aim outlined in it.

page 1565

QUESTION

NATIONAL ANTHEMS PLAYED ON OFFICIAL OCCASIONS

Senator BONNER:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Prime Minister and draw his attention to the visit yesterday to this Parliament by His Excellency, Mr Walter Scheel, and in particular to the fact that upon His Excellency’s arrival, quite correctly, the national anthem of West Germany was played. However, to my surprise, this anthem was not followed by our national anthem. Will the Minister inform this chamber who was responsible for this oversight? If it was not an oversight, will the Minister ensure that in the future our anthem, of which we as Australians are extremely proud, is played on such official occasions?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I was not present on that occasion because of another important commitment, so I accept Senator Bonner’s statement that one anthem only- that of the Federal Republic of Germany- was played. I have to confess that I do not know the protocol regarding the playing of our anthem on such occasions. It may well be that the protocol is that one anthem, that of the visitor, is played out of respect to the visitor. If there was an oversight, I will certainly draw it to the attention of the appropriate authorities. If the protocol was correctly observed yesterday, I will inform Senator Bonner accordingly.

page 1565

QUESTION

EXPORT CONTROL POLICY

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Trade and Resources, and I refer to the new export control policy for minerals announced yesterday by the Minister for Trade and Resources. I ask: Were there any particular contracts negotiated recently or other special circumstances which led to the Government’s change of policy? Alternatively, has the new policy been dictated as a result of consideration of the balance of payments?

Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– The position is that for some time the Minister for Trade and Resources has been concerned about the problem to which the Leader of the Government in the Senate has already referred- that of buyers uniting in relation to the sale of Australian resources. In particular, he has been concerned about the recent negotiations between the iron ore producers and the Japanese buyers.

Senator Button:

– What is new about that?

Senator DURACK:

– Certainly the problem has been around for some years. Any negotiating is a problem. I am not saying that this is the first time any such problem has arisen, but the fact is that in relation to the last iron ore contracts there were particular problems that were of concern to the Minister. He initiated consultations with the producers as a result of that concern, and it was arising out of the consideration he made of that experience and also of the forthcoming coal contracts with Japan that he formed the view that it was necessary to take the steps he announced yesterday. They were not dictated by any particular balance of payments problem. As I said, they were dictated by concern for the national interest as a result of the Minister’s recent experience.

page 1566

QUESTION

RETAIL AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRIES

Senator ROCHER:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Treasurer. In view of the continued importance of the retail and construction industries to economic recovery, will the Minister inform the Senate of the latest indicators in relation to those two vital industries?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I think there is available now a considerable amount of evidence which gives some reassurance on this matter. The fact is that retail and construction industries are vital to Australia’s strategy for economic recovery. The latest indicators are contained in the Treasury’s Round-up of Economic Statistics’ for October, and I think I referred to the frontispiece of that document recently. Those statistics show that retail sales in August, seasonally adjusted, rose by one per cent above the level of” the previous month so as to be 1 1.4 per cent higher than a year earlier, and that is a healthy sign. There is strong evidence of increasing activity in the construction industry through private investment. Private dwelling approvals rose by 4.7 per cent in August after seasonal adjustment. Seasonally adjusted, housing finance approvals by major lenders for construction or purchase of dwellings rose to an average monthly level of $4 13m over the three months to August, a rise of 12.4 per cent over the monthly average for the three months to May. The value of private nonresidential building approvals totalled $379m for the three months to August compared with $327m for the same period last year, an increase of 15.9 per cent.

Statistics of work done by private contractors on construction contracts other than building contracts valued at $100,000 or more put the value of commencements of such private sector projects in the June quarter at $ 1 1 9m compared with $90m for the same quarter last year- an increase of 32.2 per cent. The value of work done in the June quarter was $130m compared with $91m for the same quarter last year- an increase of 42.9 per cent. These are cautiously optimistic signs of recovery.

page 1566

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

Senator GRIMES:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-Can the AttorneyGeneral clarify the situation of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Tasmania? In particular, how much is the Office in debt? Are solicitors and other legal practitioners in Tasmania not being paid money owed to them? How many people are being refused assistance because of the shortage of money in this Office?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I cannot give an immediate clarification of the position of the Australian Legal Aid Office in Tasmania. I have asked for a briefing on the situation because I have been alerted to problems which it is experiencing and to which Senator Grimes is probably referring.

Senator Wriedt:

– It has been going on for 12 months.

Senator DURACK:

– I answered a question at some length yesterday about the general problems of the Australian Legal Aid Office round Australia. Senator Wriedt was probably not listening because it did not concern Tasmania. I do not intend to repeat the answer I gave to Senator Evans yesterday.

page 1566

QUESTION

FOREIGN AID

Senator TEAGUE:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer to the Australian aid program for the South Pacific region and Papua New Guinea.

Is the Minister aware of the mischievous allegations made last Friday by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr Lionel Bowen, when he attempted to undermine the Government’s aid program for countries in the South Pacific region? What are the facts? What has been the track record of the Liberal Government in regard to aid to our Pacific neighbours? What was the track record of the previous Government? I also ask the Minister whether there will be a renewed three-year program of aid for 1979-8 1 for the South Pacific? Will this program shortly be announced?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– The interjections from members of the Labor Party no doubt indicate that the Labor Party will be enthusiastic to receive the answer. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was quite wrong. The facts are against him. The facts indicate a healthy position. I will give them to the Labor Party and the Senate. In 1976 this Government announced the present long term commitment of economic and social aid to Papua New Guinea, thereby both raising the level of aid and establishing it on a five-year basis. Subject to normal parliamentary procedures of appropriation, Australia guaranteed to provide a minimum of $180m in social and economic aid to Papua New Guinea for each of the five years beginning on 1 July 1976 with annual supplements in the light of circumstances. The agreement put to an end the previous arrangements under which Australia had been involved in Papua New Guinea’s budget making. This aid relationship reflects Papua New Guinea’s independent status and has provided a firm basis for that country’s long term forward planning. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has appointed Sir John Crawford to advise him on means by which the aid arrangements with Papua New Guinea can be developed further.

As to the South Pacific, during the first year of office of this Government the decision was taken to introduce innovations in the aid program for the South Pacific, other than Papua New Guinea, to meet its particular requirements. These included staffing assistance arrangements and grants to governments which have set up development banks to enable them to take up additional equity in those banks. The new procedures also involved agreement to meet the local costs of projects in appropriate cases and to make grants to enable governments to take up equity in joint ventures with the Australian private sector. This Government announced at the South Pacific Forum in Suva on 12 October 1 976 that it had allocated $60m for the South Pacific for the next three years, which was more than a fourfold increase on the previous program. Aid to South Pacific countries and regional bodies in the present financial year is programmed to complete the first overall three-year commitment of S60m. Every effort is being made both in the countries concerned and by the Development Assistance Bureau to ensure that these funds are applied to priority needs. A new program for the South Pacific for the three years beyond 1978-79 will be announced. Its timing is still a matter for consideration by the Government. In the meantime there is no sense of hiatus in the program. Perhaps with the Senate’s approval, I could incorporate in Hansard the figures of aid to Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific which are pertinent to the answer.

Leave granted.

page 1567

QUESTION

PENSIONERS: SUPPLEMENTARY ASSISTANCE

Senator MCINTOSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Social Security. It relates to the payment of supplementary, that is, rent assistance to pensioners. Will the Minister arrange for a sample survey to be conducted by her Department of unemployed, sickness and special beneficiaries to ascertain the numbers of people who are paying rent so that the cost of paying supplementary assistance to them can be estimated? As the Minister’s Department has found that 98.6 per cent of single unemployed and 90 per cent of married unemployed persons have less than $3 a week apart from a pension, will she consider this a priority matter?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have noted the question and the suggestion that has been raised by the honourable senator. I will certainly give it consideration and I will seek advice from my Department as to what information is available with regard to the numbers of people who are paying rent. If there seems to be a need for some survey or analysis of this matter to be undertaken, I certainly will give it some priority.

page 1568

QUESTION

CLOTHING INDUSTRY

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

-Has the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce been drawn to an article in the Melbourne Age of 23 October in the ‘Monday Job Market’ feature? Has his attention been drawn to the headline which states that clothing industry workers are exploited and that this information is the result of a survey? As the article states that the information was provided by a survey that was carried out by the Australian Council of Social Service and commissioned by the Federal Government’s study group on structural adjustment, can the Minister advise whether the information would be used or disregarded in view of its total distortion of the position, its basic inaccuracies, its completely non-representative selection, and conclusions which are very damaging to the positions of employers and employees of the industry alike? Would the Minister agree to take up the matter with the editor of the Age and ask him to have the clothing industry and its employees given space to rectify the very severe wrongs that the article implies?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Education · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The article to which the honourable senator referred in his question was mentioned to me and I have seen it. The article points out that the survey was commissioned by the study group on structural adjustment. The report has to be looked at against the specific aims with which it was commissioned. It is not a report on the whole of the clothing industry; it is really a very narrow report. The aim of the survey was to look at the aspects of structural adjustment, the perspective of the unemployed and the experiences of those people who had been retrenched. The survey covered the experiences of 60 people who had been retrenched from four small firms in the inner and western suburbs of Sydney, which were nominated by a clothing trade union. The report on the survey acknowledges that it could not even be said that the sample is representative of the clothing trades industry. In fact, a significant proportion of the workers who were surveyed had been retrenched from a single firm which closed down in 1 976.

The report is one item of input- I stress that it is only one piece of input- against a large body of evidence and submissions that have been placed before the study group. How the study group uses the report is a matter for its judgment. I am sure that it will take into account the acknowledged unrepresentative nature of the sample on which the report is based. In a policy statement in August 1977 the Government made it clear that it regards an efficient clothing sector along with textiles and footwear as important and continuing parts of Australia’s manufacturing industry. With the aim of maintaining activity and employment levels in these industries, import quotas will continue to apply up to mid- 1980 as the central element in a three-year assistance program.

The honourable senator also asked me to take up the matter with the editor of the Age. I am quite happy to refer a copy of the question and a copy of the reply to the Age. I am very taken by its propensity to print the headline ‘We Were Wrong’ and put under that headline an explanation where it believes that is the case. I am sure it will examine the article and the information which I have put before the Senate and take appropriate action.

page 1568

QUESTION

PUBLIC BROADCASTING

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– I preface my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications by pointing out that as a result of the Minister’s statement in April of this year setting out the Government’s policy on the development of public broadcasting, there is now tremendous enthusiasm on the part of many groups who wish to respond to the Minister’s statement; further, that test broadcasts are of great value in enabling such groups to build themselves up to broadcasting standard. I ask the Minister whether a decision has been made on the allowing of test broadcasts by groups that intend to apply for public broadcasting licences.

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I acknowledge the developing enthusiasm for public broadcasting that has been referred to by the honourable senator. I do not know whether any decision has been made on it and will seek from the Minister information as to whether test broadcasts can be made available.

page 1568

QUESTION

THOMAS WATLING PAINTING OF SYDNEY COVE

Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs. I refer to the article in the Bulletin of 17 October 1978 claiming that the Thomas Watling painting of Sydney Cove- said to be Australia’s first painting- has been declined by Australian galleries and has now been sold to a British art investment trust for $150,000 and returned to London. I ask: First, are the facts claimed in that article substantially correct and does this mean that this unique pan of Australia’s history has been lost to Australian viewers? Secondly, did the Bureau of Customs, as has been alleged, attempt to impose an export ban on this national treasure, and was this attempt unsuccessful? Thirdly, why did not the Australian National Gallery acquire this national asset while it was in Australia? Finally, does the Minister have any proposals for retrieving this painting and repairing the damage done to our heritage?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-The Minister for Home Affairs has indicated that the article has been viewed by him. He has informed me that it contains a number of substantial inaccuracies; for instance, the Australian National Gallery did bid at the auction in London but was unsuccessful in obtaining the painting at the price that it considered it to be worth. The Department of Business and Consumer Affairs did not attempt to impose an export ban. Therefore, Mr Hawkins did not persuade the Customs officials to change their minds. The work is not the oldest Australian painting. As is the normal practice in relation to applications for export licences in respect of historical material, the request was referred for advice to the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs by the Department of Home Affairs. That Department established that the painting was not the oldest known painting of Sydney Harbour. It has been located in the United Kingdom for many years and was brought to Australia only for the purpose of selling it at a high price.

Further, it was jointly owned by an Australian and an English firm and an export ban would have deprived the English firm of its property. The painting was not in good condition and there was some doubt about the quality of the extensive restoration that had been done. At the price offered, it would not be purchased by any Australian gallery. On the basis of this information, the Minister for Home Affairs agreed that no objection should be raised to its exportation. The Australian National Gallery did consider buying the work, but its council decided against the purchase. It is not customary for galleries to disclose why particular works are not acquired. As the painting had been in England for many years and was brought to Australia only for the purposes of sale, it is not proposed to pursue the matter further.

page 1569

QUESTION

RHODESIANS: ENTRY VISAS

Senator GIETZELT:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to a statement that was issued by the Minister on 29 September, which I read in part:

Australia is conscientiously honouring its obligations under the UN Resolution concerning the travel of Rhodesians. This obligation is to refuse entry to Australia of anyone who has furthered or encouraged the illegal regime.

Applications for entry to Australia from Rhodesia are processed by immigration officials in the Australian Embassy in Pretoria. In every case, applications are carefully screened for information which would indicate that the person concerned has encouraged or furthered the illegal regime. In all cases applicants are required to sign an affirmation that they have not furthered or encouraged the regime.

I ask the Minister: Is it a fact that an officer ofthe Rhodesian Army, Lieutenant-Colonel Leaver, was recently in Australia and actively campaigned in support of the Smith regime? Did Colonel Leaver have discussions with the Minister for Defence, Mr Killen; and, if so, why? Did the officer succeed also in having discussions with the racist of all racists in Australia, the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen? Further, is the Minister aware that Colonel Leaver sought interviews on the television program This Day Tonight and other Australian Broadcasting Commission current affairs programs? If it is government policy -

Senator Carrick:

– I raise a point of order, Mr President. In the question Senator Gietzelt reflected upon a Premier in another place and attributed to him objectionable qualities of racism. I ask that that reflection be withdrawn.

The PRESIDENT:

– Yes, as has been indicated, what Senator Gietzelt said is a transgression of the Standing Orders.

Senator GIETZELT:

– I will rephrase that portion of the question. I ask: Did the officer succeed in having discussions with the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, who is known for his views on racism? I ask further: If it is government policy to refuse entry of active Rhodesian officials, how did it happen that Colonel Leaver came to Australia with the approval of the immigration authorities? What steps does the Government contemplate taking to ensure that future Rhodesian visitors do not break undertakings such as those given in this case?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I am not able to answer the many questions raised by Senator Gietzelt. May I suggest that the question be placed on notice, and I will draw it to the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs.

page 1569

QUESTION

RIVER TORRENS

Senator MESSNER:

– My question is addressed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Is it a fact that Adelaide’s River Torrens was entered on the interim register of the

Australian Heritage Commission about 15 months ago? Has the Heritage Commission now settled its final register of items to be preserved? If so, does this list include the River Torrens? If not, is this due to representations made by the South Australian Government to exclude it so that the Torrens Valley might be used as a route for the controversial and unpopular tramway called NEAPTR which is to be built from the north eastern suburbs to the city of Adelaide? Would the inclusion of this river on the final register preclude the provision of Federal Government public transport development funds in respect of the tramway? Has the South Australian Government provided the Commission with an environmental impact study covering this development? If so, will the Commission release this document for public inspection?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate that a scheme which is aimed at preventing our dwindling national heritage from disappearing should cover the River Torrens. I am advised by the appropriate Minister that in fact a nomination was received for a section of the River Torrens in March 1977. That nomination, which was received from the South Australian Department of Environment and which was prepared by the State Government River Torrens Committee, set out the relevant areas to be preserved, namely, the riverbed and bank from source to mouth but excluding the section of the river in the City of Adelaide. The proposed area included the adjacent land to a distance of 60 metres from each bank.

The Commission then proceeded to deal with the matter in the normal way and advertised its intention to enter the Torrens River, subject to the exclusion, on the register of the national estate. This was advertised in the Adelaide Advertiser and the Australian newspapers on 2 1 June 1977. However, subsequently the South Australian Government, in a letter to the Commission dated 7 September 1 977, requested that the time for lodging objections be extended and that the River Torrens not be included on the register pending a review of the application by the Government. As yet, there has not been any formal response to that letter; but, as I understand it, the Commission has been requested to defer consideration of the whole matter. However, I have no advice on whether there is any coincidence between a route for a tramway and the area that was to be included on the register of the National Estate. I will seek advice on those matters that were raised by Senator Messner and let him have a further reply.

page 1570

QUESTION

INDUSTRIAL LITIGATION

Senator HARRADINE:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Attorney-General. It refers to actions commenced in the Australian Industrial Court, as it was then known, in November 1974, by Mr B. T. Egan against the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association officers involving four years’ litigation and costing over $300,000. Incidentally, Mr Egan is now no longer the national secretary of the SDA. Is the Minister aware that the costly litigation would have been unnecessary had the Government accepted union submissions for amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to remove validation of so-called Moore and Doyle problems from a judicial to an administrative tribunal such as the Industrial Registrar who regularly and efficiently handles registrations and might just as well handle re-registrations? In view of the obvious importance of this matter to a large number of unions registered under the provisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, will the Minister consider the call of the national president of Australia ‘s third largest union for an inquiry into the course of those protracted proceedings and whether amendments or repeal of any provision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act is indicated to avoid a repetition of such protracted and costly proceedings?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I am well aware of the litigation to which Senator Harradine referred because I have another problem arising out of what I hope is the end of that litigation firmly on my plate at present. Indeed, I thought Senator Harradine was going to ask me a question on that matter. It has been very long and costly litigation- very costly for the Government because it has been footing the Bill. I do not know that there could have been a simple answer such as that suggested by Senator Harradine- that litigation would have been avoided by amending the legislation. I think there are constitutional difficulties as well in this area and the solution to the problem has escaped the large number of people who have been looking at it. However, I think the question Senator Harradine asked me more directly concerns the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, although in view of the legal problems concerned I also am involved. I have not seen the call for reform tt which the honourable senator refers. I would be interested to read it and to hear any suggestions that might come forward about how this problem could be overcome. I will certainly take notice of what Senator Harradine has asked and refer the matter to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations.

page 1571

QUESTION

COMMONWEALTH CAR FLEET

Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Administrative Services. As a means of giving effect to the need to conserve petroleum fuel, will the Government give consideration to increasing the proportion of lower horsepower four cylinder cars within the Commonwealth car fleet?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think that is an excellent question because in fact that is precisely what the Commonwealth is doing. I cannot give the honourable senator exact figures but over the last couple of years there has been a substantial move from six cylinder to four cylinder vehicles. A large number of self-drive vehicles in use in Canberra are of the four cylinder type. I will get more detail and make it available to the honourable senator so that he can see the trend and follow it up further if he wishes.

page 1571

QUESTION

MOVEMENT OF DEFENCE PERSONNEL

Senator COLSTON:
QUEENSLAND

-My question to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence is prompted by anxiety amongst Gympie and Maryborough residents about rumours that there will be a movement, on a permanent basis, of significant numbers of defence personnel to the Gympie or Maryborough areas. A number of rumours prevail, a persistent one being that troops from Brisbane are to move to the Gympie or Maryborough areas. These rumours are causing considerable uncertainty in the real estate business in both cities. Therefore, could the Minister indicate whether any troops are to move to the Gympie or Maryborough districts on either a permanent or semi-permanent basis?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– My advice is that the Army operates a training area at Tin Can Bay, which is located in the general area of Gympie and Maryborough, and that this area is used regularly for battalion-type exercises of two to three weeks duration. I am further informed that this training area will continue to be put to use. However there are no plans to base, either permanently or semi- permanently, any Army personnel in the Gympie or Maryborough areas.

page 1571

QUESTION

HOBART AIRPORT

Senator TOWNLEY:

– I direct a question to Senator Chaney in his capacity as Minister representing the Minister for Transport, not Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. No doubt he is aware of the questions that I have asked over past years relating to the upgrading of the Hobart airport and the possibility subsequently of flights from Tasmania to New Zealand. As such flights would most probably require reciprocal rights to be granted to the New Zealand Government and as, to my knowledge, the only suitable aircraft for such flights that are owned by New Zealand are DC8 aircraft, will the Minister say what alterations will need to be made at Hobart airport so that DC8 aircraft will be able to land and take-off with reasonable loads, and what navigational and other services would have to be altered or upgraded for that airport to meet the standards laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organisation? I have been advised previously that it would be possible to site at Hobart airport an additional runway which could be at least an extra 2,000 feet in length- I say ‘feet’ for we non-metricated people- and therefore a lot safer than the present runway, which is fairly short. As there are many people out of work in the Hobart area, will the Minister urgently set up an investigation team to look at all aspects of the suggested new runway with a view to starting any alterations as soon as possible in an endeavour to help the unemployed persons in that area?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– My very passing knowledge of psychology indicates to me that I will have to be very careful not to answer a question relating to STD telephone calls. I ha,ve had a great deal of conditioning on this matter from Senator Townley over the last couple of weeks. Turning my mind to the question that Senator Townley has put before me, it is true that he has taken a great interest over quite a considerable period in the upgrading of the Hobart Airport. I know that late last year Mr Nixon wrote to him with a great deal of information about the problems with respect to that airport. As to the use of the airport for DC8 aircraft and the further matters which the honourable senator has raised, I could not provide him with the information immediately. I will have to seek a reply from the Minister for Transport.

The second part of the question asked whether the Minister will set up an investigation team to look at all aspects of a new runway. My understanding is that the present airport is quite satisfactory and quite adequate for present domestic services. Therefore there would be no justification on safety grounds for providing a new runway to meet existing needs. That is a matter which may need to be looked at in the light of the other matters which have been raised by Senator Townley.

page 1572

QUESTION

METEOROLOGICAL STATION AT LEARMONTH

Senator COLEMAN:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister for Science. I am seeking information about the new meteorological station at Learmonth in Western Australia, which I understand will be opened very shortly. I would like the Minister to indicate whether technical staff will be employed on site or whether the staff at Perth will be responsible for maintenance of the station. I am given to understand that one of the most important functions of the station is to be the monitoring and tracking of cyclones. If the staff at Perth is to be responsible for the maintenance of the station, will the Minister advise how that is to be achieved when at the very time that the services of that station are most required it may not be possible for Perth staff or Port Hedland staff to fly in to Learmonth? Is it not true that there are 12 technical positions in Perth and that, because of the staff ceilings restraints placed on his Department by the Government, only 10 of those positions are filled and, further, that each of those 1 0 people has already spent an average of 50 days this year away from the Perth office?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– The honourable senator is correct in saying that one of the important constributions which this Government will make to Weather Watch in Western Australia will be the development of a series of radar links along the western coast. On Wednesday of next week I hope to commission a Weather Watch radar at Learmonth. Due to problems concerning the installation of the equipment or some other matters, I understand that the unit will not be working on that day, but it is thought that it will be commissioned within a week or two later. The honourable senator raises questions which I am unable to answer from a technical point of view. She asked whether staff on the site will conduct certain technical work or whether it will be done from Penh. I understand that some technical staff will be on site but I am unable to comment at the moment on the limits of the work which will be done. Certainly the radar will be used for the monitoring of cyclones. I believe that the upgraded radars will provide advanced scientific information on winds and wind directions for the next year or so.

I am unable to comment on the 12 technical positions in Perth of which only 10 have been filled. The Bureau of Meteorology is tightly restricted on the number of staff it can employ. The Government has decided that that should be so.

This creates difficulties for some areas of the Bureau. I will attempt to seek a more technical response for the honourable senator. I recognise her interest in such an installation in the beautiful State of Western Australia.

page 1572

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION: PROFIT

Senator LEWIS:

– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, is about the massive profit of the Australian Telecommunications Commission for the year ended 30 June 1978 which totalled $ 184.9m. This brought the profits for the past four years for Telecom to almost $600m. I refer to page 12 of the annual report of Telecom Australia in which the Chairman has placed great emphasis on the benefits of the profits of Telecom being used as interest free money by the Commission. I ask: Does this mean, in effect, that Telecom is using the public’s money interest free rather than going to the open market to borrow from the public at a fair rate of interest? Should the Government not require Telecom to pay these profits into consolidated revenue for the benefit of all Australians?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I think that the short answer to Senator Lewis’s question is that if the profits were paid to consolidated revenue the whole body of taxpayers would receive benefits from charges levied on those who are using Telecom services. At least the present system ensures that those who are paying for the services reap the benefit. I assume that Senator Lewis appreciates that Telecom is required by its governing legislation to provide from internal sources, which include trading profit, at least 50 per cent of its capital funds in any one financial year. The profit level to be achieved in any year is dependent on government funding decisions which are taken in the Budget context, and which include approval of the level of borrowings from the semi-government loan market. I do not consider that the Telecom profit could be regarded in any way as a tax on subscribers. The requirement that Telecom return a trading profit does in fact involve present subscribers contributing towards the cost of the development of the network which is available to them.

The suggestion that, instead of making a profit, Telecom should borrow an equivalent amount from the local loan market raises a range of important issues. The approved borrowings on that market for the Commission this year total $190m. Senator Lewis is suggesting that these borrowings should be roughly doubled to about $3 80m. This would have a severe effect on semigovernment authority borrowings generally. Many other authorities, both local government and State government, seek to raise significant capital borrowings on the loan market each year. If Telecom doubled its presence in the loan market it could in fact be denying funds to other instrumentalities for their capital needs. I do not believe that telephone subscribers should be equated with the public generally. Whilst six out of ten homes now have a telephone service, many people do not have a private telephone service. 1 think that my introduction adequately dealt with the last point raised. So the answer to Senator Lewis is: No, I do not agree.

page 1573

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Senator PRIMMER:

– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development: Is it a fact that staff ceilings have placed in jeopardy a wide range of safety checks at the Australian Atomic Energy Commission research establishment at Lucas Heights? If so, what action does the Government contemplate taking to ensure that full and proper safety standards are maintained?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I am being told from behind me that that is totally incorrect. I must say that it seems inherently improbable that the Government would permit that situation to arise. However, I do not have detailed information from the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. I will refer Senator Primmer’s question to him and get a more detailed reply.

page 1573

QUESTION

COMPULSORY STUDENT UNIONISM

Senator PUPLICK:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– I address a question to the Minister for Education and refer him to my earlier question asked on 13 September concerning the case of a student, Michael Farrell, at the University of New South Wales. I now ask the Minister: Can he inform the Senate of any new information he has regarding Mr Farrell ‘s case? In particular, can he inform the Senate whether this student in fact has been prevented from reenrolling at the University of New South Wales; whether that University has taken steps to have Mr Farrell declared bankrupt; and whether the attitudes of the University have been modified in any way?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I well recall Senator Puplick ‘s question on 13 September concerning

Michael Farrell. Indeed, I sought to get some additional information on the matter. My understanding, as a result of the information recently supplied to me by the University of New South Wales, is that the University has not taken action to declare Mr Farrell bankrupt, as had been suggested to Senator Puplick prior to his asking his earlier question. I understand that the facts are that the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales did rule that Mr Farrell would be required to lodge security of $2,000 before it could proceed to hear his appeal against the judgment in favour ofthe University that was handed down in the Equity Division of the Court. However, the Court of Appeal has not ruled that Mr Farrell must pay the University’s costs of the lower court hearing before his appeal will be heard.

I understand further that it is incorrect to suggest, as some reports have suggested, that the University has denied Mr Farrell permission to complete his studies. I am informed that the results obtained by Mr Farrell in his session one subjects this year have been released to him and that he is still enrolled as a student. I trust that this information is of assistance to Senator Puplick.

page 1573

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator WRIEDT:

-I ask the Minister representing the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister propose to follow his own precedents which were set when he asked Ministers Garland, Robinson and Lynch to stand down while investigations were being made into allegations about matters of possible impropriety? If, as it now appears, the Minister for Primary Industry could have breached certain provisions of the New South Wales Companies Act, will the Prime Minister ask Mr Sinclair to stand down until such time as the inquiry being conducted by Mr Finnane is completed?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I will refer that question to the Prime Minister.

page 1573

QUESTION

ADELAIDE AIRPORT

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– Is the Minister representing the Minister for Construction aware that complaints have been lodged about the inefficiency of air conditioning in the administrative section of the Adelaide Airport? I am sure that my colleagues have suffered recently in the environment there. Will the Minister investigate these complaints with the object of correcting any fault that may be present in the air conditioning system?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

– 1 am advised by the Minister for Construction that the air treatment at West Beach provides heating and evaporative cooling; it does not provide refrigerated air conditioning. Evaporative cooling is generally effective in the Adelaide climate, except on very few days of the year when it is both very hot and very humid. The present buildings were planned in 1967. Evidence given to the Joint Committee on Public Works was to the effect that the buildings were planned as temporary buildings with a nominal ten-year life. The non-ducted evaporative coolers, rather than refrigerated airconditioners, were chosen as the best compromise for what was then deemed to be a temporary building. It is interesting to note that the approximate cost of the evaporative system was $120,000 in 1967 and that refrigerated airconditioning would have cost an extra $ 1 70,000 at that time. The Department of Transport operates and maintains the whole of the airport and the Department of Construction has no knowledge of operational difficulties or passenger complaints.

page 1574

QUESTION

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Senator CAVANAGH:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In March of this year did a boatload of Vietnamese refugees which arrived at Darwin include 30 people who had previously been rejected for entry to Australia by Australian immigration officers in Thailand? If so, what has happened to those refugees? Have they been permitted to stay in Australia or have they been repatriated?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I will need to refer that question to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to seek the information required by Senator Cavanagh.

page 1574

QUESTION

ALICE SPRINGS RAIL TERMINAL

Senator KILGARIFF:
NORTHERN TERRITORY

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Is it a fact that Australian National Railways has decided that the rail terminal for the new standard gauge line is to remain at the present site of the narrow gauge terminal at Alice Springs, with minor variations? If so, what are the proposals in regard to the railhead? Is not the decision taken by ANR contrary to the course proposed by the Government, which was that there would be adequate consultation with the people and the Government of the Northern Territory? In planning the proposed railhead, has consideration been given to the possibility of extending the new line north of Alice Springs to Darwin?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-The Minister for Transport has assured me that no Government decisions have been taken in relation to the site of the new ANR terminal in Alice Springs. The matter is still under study and there will be full consultation between the Commonwealth Government and the Government of the Northern Territory. The views expressed by Australian National Railways at this stage represent the Railways own point of view, based on its managerial responsibility to operate on a commercial basis. With respect to extension of the new line north of Alice Springs to Darwin, I have no information on that and I will have to seek it from the Minister.

page 1574

QUESTION

MINISTER FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRY

Senator WALSH:

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. In answer to a question from Mr Hayden yesterday the Prime Minister stated, as he has done before, that Mr Sinclair had properly reported irregularities discovered when he became executor of his father’s estate. I ask: Does the Minister know that the Kinnane letter published in full in today’s Bulletin details prima facie breaches of the New South Wales Companies Act by Ian Sinclair after his father, George Sinclair, had died? Will he convey that new information to the Prime Minister, along with the question asked by Senator Wriedt?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-As all honourable senators would know, Mr Sinclair is overseas on Government business. All honourable senators will be interested to know that he has provided first-hand comment, which no doubt they will now all be interested to hear. Speaking from London, Mr Sinclair said that he had been advised of the article published in the Bulletin, to which Senator Walsh referred, concerning the investigation of the companies with which he is associated. I quote Mr Sinclair

That article seems to me to be a breach of privilege of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Those are Mr Sinclair’s words. I quote again:

The questions included in the letter published are questions to which I and my solicitors have responded in full.

I believe there are no matters outstanding in this investigation. I am of course available for further discussion with the Special Investigator if and when he requests it.

Mr Sinclair said further that in all matters pertaining to the investigation he had endeavoured to remain at arms length from the New South Wales Corporate Affairs Commission, the Commissioner of Taxation and others so that no suggestion of ministerial persuasion could be advanced. He went on to say:

In these circumstances I find it incredible that the present examination should be made a matter of public comment in this way.

I believe there is no matter in this correspondence which in any way reflects to the credit ofthe Bulletin.

Indeed, it would seem it, like the Labor Party, is completely devoid of responsible comment on the Government’s attitude and policies. Rather, it has concentrated on false accusations and personalities.

Contributions such as that published today and last week deserve to be treated with contempt.

I will be considering what action to take on my return to Australia and will be referring the matter to my legal adviser.

The advice of my solicitors and accountants is that the company matters under examination in no way affect the general public. There are no monies outstanding, the companies are trading profitably and the shareholders are satisfied that this is so.

I will be returning to Australia later this week, having left only last Wednesday, after contributing significantly, I believe to the promotion of Australia ‘s stance in the MTN and in stating our position with respect to the US beef import legislation.

As I have said in the past, I shall make a full statement at the appropriate time and after consultation with the other people concerned in this matter.

Mr Sinclair has provided the answer.

Senator WALSH:

– I ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister representing the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister, guarantee that such a statement will be made in the House of Representatives immediately Mr Sinclair returns to the country and that the statement will be debated in the House of Representatives?

Senator CARRICK:

- Mr Sinclair has provided a first-hand reply. If Senator Walsh has not listened, that is the defect not of the Senate but of the person.

page 1575

QUESTION

AUS STUDENT TRAVEL SERVICE PTY LTD

Senator PETER BAUME:

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Did AUS Student Travel Service Pty Ltd make the repayment due to Trans-Australia Airlines, Qantas Airways Ltd and its other creditors on 30 September 1978? Is he able to say whether the repayment of these amounts has been waived? How much should AUS Student Travel have repaid to its creditors by now under the original scheme of arrangement? How much has it repaid?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

– I understand from information I have received from the Minister for Transport’s office that AUS Student Travel Service Pty Ltd has not yet made the September repayment under the scheme of arrangement. I further understand that the airlines involved in the arrangement have the matter under consideration. I do not know whether they have agreed to waive the September payment. That is a matter which would be decided by the creditors, that is the airlines, and not by the Commonwealth Government. The total amount which AUS Student Travel would have repaid to its creditors since December 1977, if it has made the arranged payments, would be $635,104. It is not known how much has been repaid to creditors other than Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd. The payments to those airlines up to September have been $54,007 and $29,718 respectively.

page 1575

QUESTION

RELEASE OF SPIRITS FROM BOND BEFORE BUDGET

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. What section of the Customs Act gives the Government power to curtail the release of spirits from bond prior to the presentation of a Budget? Does that section of the Act specify a certain period of time for the curtailment of such releases of spirits or is it at the discretion of the Minister responsible? What was the date set as the deadline for the release of spirits prior to the presentation of the 1978-79 Budget?

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I will refer that question to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs and endeavour to obtain an early answer for the honourable senator.

page 1575

QUESTION

EMISSION CONTROL PROCEDURES FOR MOTOR VEHICLES

Senator YOUNG:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware that it is estimated that current emission control procedures for motor vehicles reduce efficiency and increase fuel consumption by as much as 8 per cent? Is he also aware that stage 3 of Australian Design Rules 27A, relating to emission control, is estimated to add another 5 per cent in fuel consumption? As South Australia and New South Wales, to my knowledge, are the only States intending to introduce stage 3 early in 1979, will the Government support the stand of the other States so that stage 3 will not be enforced on all Australian motorists and New South Wales and South Australia will have to go it alone in penalising motorists in their own States with added fuel consumption costs and other general cost increases?

Senator CHANEY:
LP

-Neither of the Ministers to whom the question was addressed seems anxious to pick up the ball but I think the matter probably comes within the responsibility of the Minister for Transport. My understanding is that it is difficult to enter into arrangements on a State by State basis because of the Australia-wide nature of the whole vehicle industry. I further understand that this matter is under review by the various States. I would have thought that unless there was agreement it would not be possible to move on to a next stage. I will refer the question to the Minister for Transport and get a specific reply for the honourable senator.

page 1576

QUESTION

MEDIBANK

Senator SIBRAA:
NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. It concerns the staff of Medibank and arises out of a question that was asked yesterday by Senator Douglas McClelland. Will the Government increase the offer of a lump sum payment to redundant staff to make it more realistic and more equitable in relation to the income maintenance provisions that have already been agreed to and already passed by the Public Service Arbitrator? Will the Government’s publicity make it clear that not only does Medibank Private still exist but also that people can register for the 40 per cent benefit with that fund?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP

– I undertook to have information with regard to the staff available when we are debating the health Bills which, I understand, will take place later today. I will seek the further information that is now being required by the Senate and I hope to have that information available at that time. As far as the publicity is concerned, I will also find out what arrangements are made with regard to this matter.

page 1576

QUESTION

SUPERANNUATION (ALLOCATION OF PREVIOUS FUND) REGULATIONS

Senator CHIPP:
Leader of the Australian Democrats · Victoria

– I wish to withdraw the Notice of Motion standing in my name. I seek leave of the Senate to make a short statement regarding it.

Leave granted.

Senator CHIPP:

– I thank the Senate for its courtesy. Yesterday I moved:

That the Superannuation (Allocation of Previous Fund) Regulations, contained in Statutory Rules 1 978 No. 1 56 and made under the Superannuation Act 1 976, be disallowed.

In moving that motion, I gave as my reason the fact that I did not disagree with the recommendations of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, but I said:

Because of the number of representations I -

And other honourable senators- have received, 1 believe it would be responsible for the Senate to have a day or two to read and consider the report. I have given notice of the motion today because I understand that today is the last day on which under the Standing Orders such notice can be given.

The history of the case is that yesterday before Question Time was the last time that a motion for disallowance could be received; yet the report of Senator Missen’s Committee, under Standing Orders, could not be received by the Senate until after Question Time. I thought it was appropriate for the Senate to have 24 hours in which to contemplate the implications of the report. Those reasons seem to have been vindicated although I confess to be more confused about the situation now than I was 24 hours ago. Last night’s Melbourne Herald featured a story on the matter. It stated that an estimated $120m refund is to be shared by Commonwealth public servants who were in the old superannuation fund. It went on to state that the Returned Services League had protested about the way in which the money would be divided and that the League had been joined in its protest by the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Federated Clerks Union. Prima facie there would seem to have been a great number of people disadvantaged because of the implementation of this ordinance.

However, I have received telegrams, and this is why I am more confused. Although the Herald states that the ACOA and the Federated Clerks Union joined with the RSL, I have telegrams here from the ACOA stating that any such claims are false and that the regulations should be allowed to proceed. Hence my wish to withdraw the motion. My first inclination was to move today that this motion standing in my name be postponed until Tuesday, 7 November, so that honourable senators would be able to debate it and receive representations from the various organisations. It would seem that something like 200,000 public servants will be advantaged by the ordinance and something like 20,000 or 30,000 will be disadvantaged. It is a Catch 22, no-win matter. If the Senate had debated it, it would have been a most useful debate, but where would we have been then? If we had resolved to disallow it, another report would have had to be prepared, and another actuarial examination would have had to be made. That would have delayed further, by about a year or more, payment to these people who have already waited for such a long time.

Therefore, on balance, I have come to the view that although a minority will be disadvantaged, it is better to disadvantage a minority than to disadvantage a huge majority who have waited two years or more for it to be implemented. I am told also that if we did have a debate on 7 November the Department of Finance would be thrown into a frenzy in its attempts to get the computers and payments ready, thus unnecessarily delaying payment even more. Therefore, I do withdraw my motion and thank the Senate for giving me leave to do so. In passing, I would express the hope that the Government would look sympathetically upon the requests of those thousands who, because of this ordinance, have been disadvantaged in regard to their application for compensation in some way or another.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I rise on a point of order. Whilst I recognise the right of a senator to withdraw his notice of motion for disallowance, I think that under the Standing Orders it is equally the right of anyone else to take it up. If not, we are left in a position where Senator Chipp will have prevented anyone who may desire to move for the disallowance from putting his motion on notice, the last day for doing so having past and everyone having assumed that the matter would come before the Senate for discussion. I do not want to move such a motion, nor do I have to apologise as did Senator Chipp, to those who have made representations that I feel I may be letting them down; but I think that there should be a right on the part of other senators to take up such a motion and advance the views of a particular group which thinks that its views should be considered.

The PRESIDENT:

– The senator raises a good point. It has been examined before, but I assure him that it will be examined again.

page 1577

AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING COMMISSION

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

The PRESIDENT:

– I have received a letter from Senator Ryan proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion, namely:

The disruption caused to the national broadcasting services by the Government’s attacks on staffing and standards within the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

I call upon those senators who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.

More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places-

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– I raise as a matter of public importance today the following subject:

The disruption caused to the national broadcasting services by the Government’s attacks on staffing and standards within the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

As honourable senators will be aware, today 1,900 members of staff employed in the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s head office are engaged in an industrial action. This is a most serious action, involving as it does the disruption of a national service on which millions of Australians depend for news and information. So honourable senators must ask what has led professional broadcasters to an action that is not lightly taken, given the commitment of ABC staff to providing the highest standard of radio and television programming for the Australian public.

I claim that this disruptive action has been provoked by the savage cutbacks which have been imposed by this Government- cutbacks in funding and staffing which have a clear political intent, that of limiting the independence of the ABC, of hamstringing its ability to provide the independent comment and news that are essential to Australian democracy. Finally, this action has been provoked, of course; by the Government’s denial to the staff association ofthe opportunity to elect a commissioner from the staff. That decision to deny a staff-elected commissioner was taken against the wishes of the ABC Staff Association, many members of the management, other members of staff and some commissioners.

I shall now briefly review the basic facts concerning the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the Fraser Government. Since 1975-76, the ABC’s total Budget has been reduced by 23 per cent in real terms. Since 1 975-76 staff has been reduced by 1 , 1 00 persons, from 7,400 to 6,400- a decline of 14.4 per cent. The ABC’s share of total government expenditure stands at its lowest for 20 years. This is occurring at a time when, because of new technologies, new styles of programming and increased and more vocal consumer demand, its share ought to be increasing. The Government cannot deny the impacts that these cuts have. They are all too obvious to the listener and to the viewer. This year, less than half of the 1975-76 output of Australian drama will go to air. That means that there will be no more programs like

Power Without Glory or series of such consistently high quality as Rush or Seven Little Australians.

In radio, the situation is equally bleak. The frequency modulation service- a service which has been so long denied the Australian publiccannot be further developed by the ABC. Lack of funds preclude program makers from exploring the exciting possibilities of this medium. Fraser Government policy limits FM broadcasting to the eastern States. A particular and strong demand has come from the State of Western Australia for FM radio but that State is to be denied this service. In the course of this debate I might ask the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney) to explain to the Senate and to the people of Western Australia why the people of Western Australia always seem to have to miss out on these new developments and, in particular, extension of the FM service.

The deterioration in services to the public is obvious and it is becoming daily more so. Who is responsible? It seems to the Opposition that the Government and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) are responsible for this deterioration. As happened when I raised a similar matter in the Senate in May of this year, no doubt the Government will say that my claims are unjustified and unsubstantiated. I remember that during the debate in May Senator Carrick pointed out that the Commission consists of 1 1 independent commissioners. Senator Carrick suggested that nothing could happen in the ABC without the Commission deciding upon those actions. Yet clearly the ABC is being seriously restricted in its activities to the detriment of the public interest. The Commission collectively has allowed this to happen and has allowed the Fraser Government’s policy on the media to be implemented in the ABC.

What is the media policy of the Fraser Government? It is, in part at least, a policy designed to limit dissent and comment on the coalition Government’s unwelcome and illconsidered activities. When Malcolm Fraser seized power in 1 975 he made his views on the public’s right to information quite clear. He promised that he would put sport back on the front pages of the newspapers.

Senator Teague:

– He did not seize power; he was elected.

Senator RYAN:

– I remind the Senate that when he was Acting Prime Minister after the coup d d’etat and later after he was elected, he said that his idea of a properly run media was to have sport, and sport alone, on the front pages of the newspapers. What this meant was that it was the intention of Malcolm Fraser that there be less news about government, less information for the public and less comment about his dealings and those of his colleages. That has been the media policy of this Government. I ask honourable senators to note that the ABC, as the only national source of informed comment and as the only independent and open forum for debate, other than this Parliament, has been affected by this policy.

The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has not been an effective Minister in defending the independence and high standards of the ABC. He makes well-intentioned and seemingly authoritative statements about his and the coalition’s goodwill towards the ABC. But the Minister is not in the Cabinet. Mr Staley waits patiently and forlornly outside the Cabinet room for Mr Fraser, Mr Anthony, Mr Sinclair and Mr Nixon to decide what they will do in relation to his portfolio.

The Commission cannot be excused from all blame for the quality of day to day programming on the ABC. It is the Commission which is charged under the Broadcasting and Television Act with the statutory obligation to provide adequate and comprehensive programs. It is on the opinion of the Commission that the development of suitable broadcasting and television programs depend. The Commission acknowledges its powers in its report which was tabled only yesterday. On page 6 it states:

The Commission feels obliged to point out, however, that under the provisions of section 43 (2 ) of the Broadcasting and Television Act the number of staff employed by the ABC is a matter Tor determination by the Commission, having regard to its statutory obligations and the funds appropriated to it.

Certainly, as the Commission points out in its report, the Commission should determine the staffing of the Commission. But in fact it has been the Government, not the Commission that has made staffing decisions about the ABC. I claim that the Commission collectively has not insisted strongly enough on exercising its statutory rights. Why has it not insisted on this? I suggest that partly the reason is that the Commission as a whole, collectively, is not broadly representative of the Australian community that it is there to serve. Of course, this is the fault of the Government, not of the commissioners. I point out that all eleven current commissioners are appointees of the Fraser Government. I do not wish to criticise individual commissioners but rather to criticise the Government of the lack of balance and continuity of service by commissioners. The Commission has now had 2 1 members in three years. This high rate of turnover is hardly in keeping with Minister Staley ‘s public comments which have suggested approval of a bi-partisan approach to the appointment of commissioners. I point out that not one Labor appointee to the Commission was reappointed. I make it clear that I welcome the most recent announcement in regard to three new appointees to the Commission. I believe that the decisions on those appointments were sound but I still say that the Commission as a whole is too heavily biased toward the political and social values of the coalition parties.

To bring the debate back to today’s industrial action, which is the reason why I am speaking on this subject, I draw the attention ofthe Senate to the present major imbalance on the Commission caused by the Government’s denial of the appointment of a staff elected commissioner. It is that decision which has provoked today’s industrial action. The Minister’s public comment on the This Day Tonight program some weeks ago represented to me an evasion of ministerial responsibility. The Minister claimed that he would not appoint a staff elected commissioner because such a decision somehow would interfere with the independence of the ABC. He said that if he were invited by the commissioners to consider the appointment of a staff elected commissioner he would do so. He also claimed that there was no need, in the view of the Government, for the appointment of a staff elected commissioner because trade unionists were appointed to the Commission. All of these claims by the Minister do not answer the arguments raised by the ABC Staff Association in favour of the appointment of a staff elected commissioner.

It is true that two commisioners with backgrounds in the trade union movement are currently on the Commission. But what happened last Wednesday when one commissioner moved that a delegation from the Staff Association be heard by the Commission in order to present the case of a staff elected commissioner? The two commissioners with trade union backgrounds, Mr Short and Mr Glastonbury, the two commissioners which Mr Staley claims are there in a general sense to represent the employees of the Commission, voted against the motion to allow a delegation of the Staff Association to discuss this most important matter with the Commission. So I think it is clear from the action of those two commissioners that Mr Staley ‘s view about having trade unionists appointed to the Commission does not answer the case put strongly by the Staff Association for a staff elected commissioner. I must add that the Minister is evading his responsibility by trying to suggest that somehow it is the responsibility of the other members of the Commission to invite the Minister to appoint a staff elected commmissioner. In the words of another commissioner, the Minister should not use the Commission in this way to get himself off the hook with regard to the staff elected commissioner position. I endorse the view of that commissioner.

The decision not to allow a staff elected commissioner to be appointed is bad because the Commission cannot discharge its responsibilities properly without information about the day to day concerns of its staff. The Commission will not have this day to day information about the staff without a commissioner elected by the staff. At this point in the debate I express the hope that at a future meeting the newly constituted Commission will reverse the decision of the Commission announced last Wednesday, will reopen the question ofthe appointment of a staff elected commissioner and accept Mr Staley ‘s invitation to put such a proposal to him.

I turn now to that other great conservative lever against the ABC, the complaints of left wing bias and the need for the ABC to be balanced in its programming. We should ask what conservatives mean when they talk about lack of balance and left wing bias in respect ofthe ABC. It seems to me to mean any programming which expresses a view different from Government policy; any programming that is more adventurous or serious than the norm set by the superficial and sensational current affairs reporting of commercial radio and television. As evidence of that claim I have just made I refer to the recent statement made by Mr Anthony regarding the ABC and the uranium debate. On 24 September Mr Anthony complained that the ABC had held up the commencement of uranium mining by broadcasting anti-mining views or the antimining side of the uranium debate. It would seem from Mr Anthony’s comments that the ABC had a responsibility to present only the Government’s view with regard to uranium mining.

However, balance is defined in the Broadcasting and Television Act as ‘adequate and comprehensive programs’. I would say that that means, among other things, giving the Federal Opposition, which represents about 40 per cent of the Australian people, full and fair coverage, as well as giving coverage to Government representatives. In the last Vh years there have been times when the ABC has done that. I have many examples and will cite a couple. The Prime Minister (Mr Fraser) was given 30 minutes on AM to discuss the Budget with members of the public who wanted to telephone the ABC. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) was given Vh minutes on AM to discuss the Opposition’s alternative Budget. There were two debates on the question of the cost of air fares- one on 16 June this year and one on 28 June this year- in which the Opposition spokesman, Peter Morris, was given no time at all. The shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Dr Doug Everingham, was given no time to put the Opposition ‘s view on the Aurukun and Mornington Island controversies.

With cuts in staff ceilings there is a real threat to the news service and other vital elements in the ABC’s programs output. One could catalogue this deterioration in standards but the ABC report tabled yesterday is testimony to the assault which staff and funding cuts represent. ABC senior management acknowledges these difficulties in its annual report, and it underlined its concern in an Estimates committee hearing last week. A number of very serious matters were raised at that meeting- for example, the matter of educational material. The ABC can no longer afford to publish and to make available to the public transcripts of educational programs such as The Science Show. Senator Watson- questioned ABC officers on this matter. In the Hansard record of the evidence given to Senate Estimates Committee F on 1 9 October an officer replied: lt takes quite an effort to produce even a simple publication.

Transcripts were being referred to. He continued:

You need staff and as you know there has been a very large reduction in the staff of the ABC. That was one of the areas in which it was decided to cease the service.

Another area in which services have been cut back is the area of overseas reporting. The ABC has an obligation to provide to the nation reports of news events overseas. In the course of my discussion with Mr White- I ani referring to the same Hansard record- it was revealed that there has been a cut in the staff of the ABC’s New York and London offices. There are no offices in places such as Africa and the Middle East- the very important and distressing events that are taking place there have to be covered from the London office-and the offices in Wellington and Hong Kong have been closed. This is a most serious matter and I look forward to what comments the Minister will have to make on it. There have also been cuts in training. Again, it was revealed by one of the officers-Mr Bourke- that technical training is not taking place in the ABC at an adequate rate to replace the staff wastage which is occurring. Mr Bourke said:

We do have concern that we are not really providing for the wastage that we could have, looking ahead a few years . . .

Now I come to the most serious information that was revealed during that Estimates Committee F discussion. I refer to the effects of the. Government’s cutbacks on programming. Mr White, the Assistant General Manager, Television, said:

The prospect of further reductions in staff will have a very marked effect on the ABC television’s capacity to produce Australian-made programs. We have four major network production studios and we have no activity in two of those at present. The other two large network production studios, which are in Melbourne and Sydney, are working between a four and a half and five day week. Further reductions in staff this year will lead us to consider reducing program output in many areas and it will also possibly lead to considering our ability to provide the level of coverage of outside events, including sporting events. Whereas we have maintained transmission hours at a minimum level which is considerably below that of the commercial sector we have maintained a fairly high degree of Australian content. However, we face the prospect of a much lower percentage of Australian content in ABC television in this upcoming year and a reduction in certain services which we think are very important.

That was said by Mr White.

Senator Rae:

– On what page does that appear?

Senator RYAN:

– It is recorded on page 772 of the Hansard report of the proceedings of Estimates Committee F of 19 October. I now quote Mr Mackriell, Assistant General Manager, Radio. He said:

Radio is also facing quite serious problems. I can best illustrate that by saying that the head of the Radio Public Affairs Department wrote to me recently saying, that if his Department were to be significantly eroded … he would find it difficult not to ask that AM and PM, for example, be off the air for a month at Christmas. That is a combination of staff wastage and a recent award which has given increased leave to people in the area for which he is responsible. It is symptomatic of the quite serious problems which the ABC is going to face in meeting this new target.

He was referring to the new staff ceiling target. He continued:

Also, it is not my direct responsibility but it is important to let you know that in the area of our assets . . . we are now reaching the point where there has been some criticism of the way our assets have been maintained. It is not a criticism of the staff which is there; it is a criticism of the staffing level. It would be wrong for us not to refer to the seriousness which confronts the ABC at the prospect of further reduction.

Mr Bourke said:

The same situation really applies in the technical operations area, the engineering department staff area.

I would like to make quite clear that I and other Opposition members have made criticisms of this kind before, but what I have just presented to the

Senate is the considered view of the senior management of the ABC. In conclusion. I refer again to the disruption of the services which has been provoked today by Government action. I call for adequate funding. I call for the Government to review its funding decision in relation to the ABC and to provide adequate funding to the Commission and adequate staffing, which should be determined by the Commission itself and not by a blanket staff ceiling approach of government. I call for a balanced Commission, which must include a staff elected Commissioner. Finally, in order to achieve such a major review and such restructuring, which is clearly required now in respect of our national broadcasting service, I call again for a full inquiry- a royal commissioninto the ABC.

Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Administrative Services · LP

– We have just heard a speech from Senator Ryan which expressed considerable concern about the state of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and, perhaps more importantly, the prospective state of the ABC. A good deal of what Senator Ryan spoke about in the last five minutes or so of her speech, particularly when she was quoting Mr White and Mr Mackriell, was referable to what the position might be in the event of further staff cuts. I will come back to that matter a little later.

The fact that the Opposition is concerned about the ABC is a matter of which I heartily approve and of which the Government would heartily approve. I use the word ‘concerned’ in the sense that the Opposition ought to be interested in the welfare and standards of the ABC. But I think that it is true to say that practically everybody in Australia has concern about the state of the ABC. I do not wish to be misunderstood in using that expression. I think everybody in Australia has an interest in the ABC. It is a very great national organisation, it is an organisation which affects the lives of most Australians and it is an organisation which receives very substantial payments from the taxpayers. The payments this year are of the order of $ 1 40m. That is a substantial amount of money in anybody’s language. The importance of the service provided by the ABC is that it extends nationwide. The ABC is really the only truly national media organisation. It provides news services which are very much a part of most of our lives. It provides services in the country and in the city. Wherever I go in Australia I find that it is held in very high regard. So I welcome the opportunity for the Senate to consider what has been put forward by

Senator Ryan, namely, the proposition that disruption has been caused to it.

No apology needs to be made for subjecting the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the same sort of disciplines as have been imposed on other areas of government and the provision of services. Other statutory corporations, such as Telecom Australia and the Australian Postal Commission, have similarly been put under stiff staff ceiling requirements and they, of course, have given rise to some difficulties. But I would suspect- in fact, I know- that many people in the Australian community believe that in many areas of government and in many areas of the provision of services by independent commissions there are areas of waste. It is important that those bodies which are not subjected to the normal commercial factors which lead to efficiency are subjected to some financial disciplines. I do not believe that the Government has to apologise for imposing some discipline on the ABC and I do not believe it has to be apologetic to the Australian community for doing so.

The fact of the matter is that the ABC is continuing to receive increasing amounts of finance year by year, although it is true that if we simply apply a gross inflation rate to those figures there has been some drop in the real amount allocated. It is also true that the number of people employed by the ABC has declined. Again, 1 do not think that that is a matter of critical importance. Let us look at the matters which were specifically referred to by Senator Ryan in her closing words. It is fairly important to stress what Mr White and Mr Mackriell said when they were commenting on ho,w bad things might be. Mr White said:

The prospect of further reductions in staff will have a very marked effect on the ABC television’s capacity to produce . . .

He was talking about the prospect of further reductions taking place from now. Mr Mackriell said that he had been told by the head of the Radio Public Affairs Department that if his Department were to be significantly eroded he would experience difficulties. I emphasise the words ‘if his Department were to be significantly eroded’. What is the position with respect to staff ceilings? The truth of the matter is- Senator Ryan did not bother to quote this-that as recorded on the same page of the Hansard record I gave some information to Estimates Committee F about that fact. I pointed out that when the staff ceiling was fixed for June the Government approved a September review of the Commission’s staff ceiling. I informed the Committee that that review had taken place and that the Commission, had made a recommendation to the Government. That recommendation is still under consideration. This is a situation where the Commission, in fact, has done what Senator Ryan has claimed it was not doing. It has come forward and acted on behalf of the ABC. Senator Ryan during her speech said the Commission had not insisted on its rights. The Commission has requested a review of its staff ceilings by the Government. That review has taken place. A decision is yet to be made by the Government. In the circumstances I think that this is an appropriate time for this debate to take place. The concern expressed by Senator Ryan can no doubt be drawn to the attention of the Government, and that will be done by me. It is simply not true to state, as Senator Ryan did, that the Commission has not played its role. It has done so. That fact was before the Estimates Committee and is before the Senate today.

I really am fascinated by Senator Ryan’s suggestion that the Commission is unrepresentative. It seems to me that the Australian Broadcasting Commission contains a pretty diverse and representative selection of Australians. I do not know all of the commissioners. Senator Ryan may know them all. What I know of them suggests to me that the present commissioners are at least as representative, or perhaps even more representative, of the Australian community than those they replaced. Senator Ryan has acknowledged that the Commission has two representatives of trade unions, although she seems to think that they are not as representative as they might be because they voted in a way she did not approve of in respect of meeting a delegation of staff. I suggest that that is a matter upon which the commissioners are entitled to make up their own minds. It is interesting that Senator Ryan drew to our attention that they were not representatives of capitalism or of any other interests but two trade unionists who voted in that way.

The Commission also has three businessmen on it. I would have thought that that was an extremely valuable quality to bring to the Commission which has $ 140m to spend and which it should spend efficiently. The Commission also has two women on it, Professor Kramer and Mrs Roe. We did not hear from Senator Ryan whether she thinks those women are unrepresentative and not fit to be on the Commission. A number of academics are on the Commission. We do not know whether they are regarded as not being fit to be on it. I was pleased to see that Senator Ryan committed herself with respect to the recently appointed commissioners who I would have thought could be held up in any company as being people not of any particular bias and people thought of in the community to be representative of the sort of interests which are catered for by the ABC. Again, I do not know all of the new appointees. I know Mr Herb Elliott of Perth who had a very notable sporting career and who has followed it by a successful academic and business career. I think that he now works for the State Government Insurance Office in Perth. This fits him perfectly to understand an important element of the audience for which the ABC caters. Whilst anyone who has played squash with me here would realise that my sporting attributes are rather limited, I regard the sporting service provided by the ABC as very significant. I would have thought that Mr Elliott was a fine addition to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and that Mr Tribe, with his association with music- he is the President of Musica Viva in Australia- was very much the sort of interest which the Opposition wanted represented on the Commission.

Senator Ryan:

– We have no criticism of those appointments.

Senator CHANEY:

– It is very interesting that the Opposition apparently has no criticism of anybody. Nobody except the two trade union representatives has been specifically criticised. It seems that Mr Short and his trade union colleague are in some way not representative and not fit to be on the Commission. Senator Ryan keeps protesting that the people I name are satisfactory, representative and the sort of people who ought to be on the Commission. I am pleased to accept her judgment.

The point I make to the Senate is that the group of people on the ABC have st atutory authority. They are in a position where they can exercise authority. They do, in fact, exercise it. Unless the Labor Party can indicate that in some way some of these people are not fit for the office to which they have been appointed, I think it must be conceded that the Opposition is merely window-dressing to match the strike which is going on today because Mr Marius Webb has not been reappointed. I will be interested to hear whether Senator Button, who will be following me in this debate, regards Mr Marius Webb as in some peculiar way being more representative of the community that the ABC is supposed to serve and which owns the Australian Broadcasting Commission than Mr David Williamson, Mr Elliott or Mr Ken Tribe.

What apparently exercised the staff into having a strike today and what apparently exercised the Opposition into bringing forward this matter of public importance is the fact that a staff elected commissioner has not been reappointed by the present Government. In fact the one staff elected commissioner, Mr Marius Webb, was appointed by the previous Government. The Opposition spokesman has very kindly outlined the position of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) with respect to a staff elected Commissioner. The Minister has thrown the ball back to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and suggested that it should bring forward a suggestion which it thinks is appropriate. It is important to distinguish between the concept that there be some trade union representation on the Commission, a principle which the Government accepts, and that the staff itself should be represented on the Commission. In my view the two positions are quite distinguishable. The staff has no particular property in the Commission. The Australian community is no better represented by a staff member than it is by some other suitably qualified person. I believe that we are better off without a staff appointed commissioner because of the potential for conflict of interest by a person who is appointed from the staff as compared with a person who is appointed from outside.

A number of other specific matters were raised by Senator Ryan. She referred, for example, to the lack of frequency modulation radio in Western Australia. She asked for some comment to be made on that matter during the course of this debate. It is true that some people in Western Australian would like to have FM facilities. Other people in Western Australia would see that as not having priority for the extension of ABC services within that State and particularly in the non-metropolitan area. Considerable complaints are made in some areas because only one ABC service is available. If the decision were mine, which it is not, my inclination probably would be to favour the extension of services to those remote areas as against the provision of FM services in Perth. Having said that as a personal viewpoint, the fact of the matter is that a threeyear program has been devised for the extension of FM radio in Australia. Within that three-year program it is planned that FM radio will be available in all States. An existing program proposes the provision of FM radio in Perth.

The general allegation which Senator Ryan made that in some way the Government was seeking to impose on the ABC a limit on its ability to criticise and comment on the Government is, in my view, wrong. I believe the allegation can be judged as wrong by those who listen to the ABC. I have often admitted that my own chief sources of current news information are the news service and current affairs programs of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Rae:

– They are recognised as being of a very high standard in comparison with the rest of the world.

Senator CHANEY:

– I thought they were generally recognised as being of a very high standard. I have not very often listened to them and thought that they were showing any particular bias towards the Government. I would have thought that a careful listening to AM, PM and other programs would have satisfied the most ardent Labor Party supporter that a considerable amount of criticism was made of the Government. The fact that Senator Ryan shakes her head merely tends to illustrate that the way one listens to the radio and the effect it has is very much coloured by one’s political outlook.

Senator Chipp:

– Are you suggesting it is biased the other way?

Senator CHANEY:

– Of course I am. I am suggesting that all of us suffer from that problem in assessing just what the bias is. I often talk to people who say, for example, that Broadband is full of nothing but anti-government propaganda. I think it was described by Paddy McGuinness as being predominately Marxist in its outlook and in what it put forward over the radio.

Senator Button:

– It is anti-government. It is a very thoughtful program.

Seantor CHANEY-Senator Button makes the point perfectly when he claims that it is a very thoughtful program because it is antigovernment. The simple fact of the matter is that for politicians to try to assess the bias or otherwise of the ABC is something of a joke because I do not believe that any of us, not even Senator Chipp, would be capable of making a truly objective assessment of the news service. I am sure that if they pick him on a bad day, broadcast his comments on a bad day and follow with some unkind comment he is hurt. I am sure that even Senator Button is hurt if the ABC transmits some unkind comment about him. But my assessment, biased as it is and biased as Senator Ryan’s assessment is, is that the Australian Broadcasting Commission, to the best of its ability, presents news fairly and makes a fair attempt to provide a balance of views in its public affairs program. 1 do not believe that an attack by the Opposition on the Australian Broadcasting Commission, claiming that it is a creature of this Government, is a credible attack. I do not believe that the Opposition can sustain that stance. The listening audience of the ABC, which is a great number of Australians, simply knows that that claim is not in accord with the facts. They listen to the programs. They hear them. They hear the Government criticised, they hear the Opposition criticised and they know that there is a fair degree of balance.

The general allegation that the present Commission has not insisted on its rights, that it is not representative and that it will not stand up to the Government is an allegation which has not been supported by any factual presentation by Senator Ryan. It is simply not sustainable and the Government rejects it. I think that it is unfortunate that we should have to deal with the ABC in the manner in which we have in this debate. I believe that it is an institution which both the Government and the Opposition wish to see continue. I have said before in the Senate that long after all of us are gone- even Senator Button, who looks almost as if he is a permanent fixture on the Opposition benches- the ABC will still be here. I would have thought that the sort of discussion that we had during the hearings of Estimates Committee F was a far more useful contribution to improving the position of the ABC than this debate this afternoon is likely to be. As little passages of the transcript of those proceedings have been read to the Senate, I commend the study of the whole transcript to any honourable senator who is interested in the Australian Broadcasting Commission because I believe that most honourable senators will be heartened by the fact that Mr Mackriell, for example, defended the standard of news presentation or the ability of the ABC to continue to present news, notwithstanding staff ceilings and so on. I refer honourable senators to page 755 of the Hansard transcript of the Estimates Committee’s hearings on 19 October 1978. Mr Mackriell is recorded as saying:

  1. . it is very difficult for anybody, I believe, to put a tape measure against it. If I were pressed I would say that I think it has not deteriorated to any marked extent.

The overall balance of the evidence which was given before the Estimates Committee, in my view, clearly shows that the ABC, although in common with other areas which are funded by government is facing difficulties in ensuring the maintenance of services under staff ceilings and with the limited increase in its annual budget, is continuing to provide the very valuable national service that it has always provided, and it will continue to do so, notwithstanding the predictions of Senator Ryan.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The Senate is debating a matter of public importance, namely:

The disruption caused to the national broadcasting service by the Government’s attacks on staffing and standards within the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

In some ways this debate has the flavour of a great ABC radio program called Blue Hills. I think that in some sense we have been through it all before. Today the debate was characterised by an interesting contribution from the Minister for Administrative Services (Senator Chaney), who told us that this matter of public importance which has been raised by the Opposition had his total approval. I really estimated that it would be six months before my friend and colleague, Senator Chaney, as a Minister made a statement as pompous as that. In fact, it has taken only six weeks. I find that incredible and I am very glad that it will be recorded in Hansard. The Minister in the course of his speech invited me to make some odious comparisons between the various persons who are commissioners of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. He invited me to say whether I thought that Marius Webb was a better or worse commissioner of the ABC than are some of the newly appointed commissioners, such as John Landy and David Williamson. Who was the third one?

Senator Chipp:

– Herb Elliott, if you do not mind.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, Herb Elliott, not John Landy

Senator Ryan:

– Ken Tribe.

Senator BUTTON:

-Yes, the third appointee was Ken Tribe. I do not propose to make any comparisons of that kind. I recall Marius Webb as a very likable man, a man of great creative capacity and of unique character. He would be very good to have on a body such as the ABC. I think he would be very good also to have in the Senate. He is not associated with either of those bodies any more. I think that that is probably Australia’s loss. I do not have any objections to the new commissioners whom the Government has appointed. I think that the Minister had intentions of appointing some others, but he was overruled by Cabinet. However, that is an unfortunate by-way of history.

The disruption which is the subject of this matter of public importance is a matter of growing public concern in Australia, a matter of growing public dissatisfaction. Indeed, the standard of the Australian Broadcasting Commission programs is a matter of disappointment to the public. I used the word ‘disappointment’ very advisedly because traditionally the ABC has been held in high regard by the Australian public, or at least by a significant section of it. It has provided a service of which Australians generally have been proud. I will refer to the nature of some of those services in a minute. Of course, it still provides programs, particularly radio programs, of which many Australians are justifiably proud. I suspect, in a very subjective way, that there has been a perceived decline in the quality of a number of ABC programs. Perhaps my concern reflects generational considerations. As I grow older I miss programs such as Bellbird. I miss Terry Lane and others who have disappeared from the ABC scene. I miss State of the Nation and I miss This Day Tonight as a high quality current affairs program, which it no longer is, with respect to those who are associated with its production.

There is a declining standard in ABC children’s television programs. I say that vicariously because I am told about that by others. I do not watch children’s television programs, however much Senator Martin was tempted to say by way of interjection that I should. I am concerned also about an apparent decline in the standard of some so-called educational programs which the ABC presents. I have a gut feeling about it all and I think many Australians have a gut feeling about it all. Certainly, that is so if my mail is a reflection of what many people in the community think about the ABC now as distinct from a few years ago. Of course, there are still many programs of which we can justifiably be proud, as I said earlier. They are in particular radio programs, programs such as the Science Show, AM, PM, some of the rural programs and programs such as Broadband, which Senator Chaney mentioned. It might be described as a thinking man’s program and, because of that description, the program is offensive to the Government.

The decline in the standard of many of the programs to which I have referred has resulted from cuts in funding and the attitude of this Government towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which were described by Senator Ryan. In the past three years the Budget allocations for the Australian Broadcasting Commission have been $1 19m in 1976-77, $128m in 1977-78 and $136m plus supplementary appropriations for the current Budget period. The figure of $ 119m that I first mentioned was the figure that Sir Henry Bland, the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Commission for a period of about six months before he resignednot a person who endeared himself to me in that role, or I suspect to anybody else- described in 1 976-77 as having cut the ABC to the bone. Subsequent allocations to the Australian Broadcasting Commission have not reflected any effect of the words of the then Chairman on the current Government. The cuts represent a 23 per cent cut in real terms over that period, and there has been no change in the cut-to-the-bone policy in respect of the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

Senator Ryan referred to the substantial reductions in staff that have taken place and things of that kind. Of course, Senator Chaney has said that there is no reason why the ABC should not be disciplined in the same way as everybody else in this community- a stern prefect attitude stemming from Nareen, no doubt. He has said that there is no reason why the Australian Broadcasting Commission should not be disciplined in the same way as every other body, and, of course, it is the Government’s right to have priorities in regard to these matters. But the same Government, which says that the ABC ought to be disciplined, is talking about putting a satellite in the sky at a cost of several hundred million dollars, probably, and is giving the people of Australia very little understanding of the social implications of putting that satellite in the sky. If one wants to know, one could perhaps begin by asking Mr Doug Anthony, who has suddenly become concerned about the satellite because of pressure from rural television stations. The Government, which says that the ABC should be disciplined, is still talking about erecting a university at a cost of some $ 100m for 1,400 military personnel. Apparently that is a priority of this Government, and it talks about disciplining the ABC! Discipline should have universal application if it is to be applied. It should not be a matter of priorities of the kind that I have just indicated.

Some of the difficulties in which the ABC finds itself are very well illustrated by its last report, a commendable black and white document with colour in the middle, which sets out in some detail both the role of the Commission and the difficulties it is encountering. I draw honourable senator’s attention to the wide provision of ABC services referred to on page 4 and the comment that the cost of the ABC averages less than 4c a day per Australian, which is a net figure. The report then lists all the services that the Australian Broadcasting Commission not only provides but is expected to provide. It is expected to provide for the government of this country an overseas news service in the form of Radio Australia. It is expected to provide symphony orchestras for the population of this country in the major cities. It is expected to provide regular AM and FM broadcasting services. It is expected to provide quality programs, educational programs and written publications. These things are all set out on page 4 of the Commission’s report. That is a hell of a lot that the Australian community expects from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, and it is very little that the Australian community pays, 4c a day, for all those services.

I wish to draw the Senate’s attention to one or two comments in the report about the difficulties of staffing and so on encountered by the Commission. At page 6 of its report, referring to the question of staff wastage in the ABC, it points to the difficulty of the same sort of disciplines being applied to the ABC as are applied to a body such as the Australian National Railways, to which Senator Chaney referred. The report states:

Redeployment and retraining of staff are possible, but to a limited extent only. As the General Manager has stated: ‘In the short term, and even in the long term, when you are concerned with groups of highly specialised people, redeployment is of limited application. You cannot redeploy a journalist to the technical area, for example; or a cameraman to a vacant position in the first violins of one of the symphony orchestras and, what’s more, you cannot overcome the problem by retraining! ‘

That is an important comment because it draws attention to the different types of creative services that the Australian Broadcasting Commission provides to the Australian people as distinct from the sorts of services that the Railways provides, for example. Secondly, at page 19 of the report there is an interesting comment which I do not intend to quote but which refers at some length to the difficulty that the ABC has in relation to capital appropriations and their effect on ABC buildings.

In the Estimates committee hearings to which Senator Ryan alluded reference was made by Mr White of the Australian Broadcasting Commission to the reduction of Australian content in our television programs. At the same time as the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is’ saying, with the approval of this Government- the explicit approval of the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley)- that Australian television should have an Australian look, the only organisation in this country that has ever attempted to provide an Australian look in its television programs, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, has to reduce its Australian content. Some 58 per cent of ABC programs on television were of Australian content in the last year, the subject of this report. There is no commercial television channel in this country which could boast a figure anything like that. The Government talks glibly about the need for an Australian look on television but the one organisation that provides it cannot do so any longer, according to some of its senior officers. Similarly, comments were made about the decline in quality, as Mr Mackriell put it; the decline in what he termed the richness of radio programs for Australian children. In addition, we are promised no extension to Western Australia of the FM service of the ABC, quite contrary to the promises that were being made at the time of the last election.

I want to deal briefly with the point taken up by Senator Ryan about the composition of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the question of a staff-elected commissioner. I am not stuck with the notion of a staff-elected commissioner being vitally important, but when the Minister appeared on television with Senator Ryan a few weeks ago to discuss this issue he dismissed the whole question glibly. He said: ‘There are already trade union representatives on the Australian Broadcasting Commission.’ Representatives of what? What he meant was that there are token trade unionists on the Commission. They are not representative of anybody. The only people who could be on the Australian Broadcasting Commission who are representative of anybody who has anything to do with the ABC would be people concerned with the unions in the ABC. The Minister then went on to say: ‘It is not my business to interfere with the staffelected commissioner. That is a matter for the Commission itself.’ With respect, that is not so. The Minister did not hesitate about interfering when it wanted to put station 3ZZ off the air in Melbourne. But when it comes to the question of a staff-elected commissioner, the Minister has a totally different approach.

What is really happening is that when it suits the Government it takes a supine and waffley attitude to these questions. When it does not suit the Government to do that it adopts a different attitude altogether. For example, when it talks about a consultative council for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation to deal with staff matters, it is not talking about the same thing as it proposes for the ABC. I really think that the Government has to get to a position of bipartisan appointments to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, as has been Labor Party policy for some time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Collard)- Order! The honourable senator’s time has expired.

Senator RAE:
Tasmania

– The Senate is discussing a matter of public importance submitted by the Australian Labor Party which reads:

The disruption caused to the national broadcasting services by the Government’s attacks on starring and standards within the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

This amounts to an attack by the Opposition on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s current performance. What it is saying is that the ABC has been disrupted to the extent that its standards and performance have fallen. I do not believe that that is borne out by anything that has been said by Senator Ryan or Senator Button or from a proper perusal of the evidence given to Estimates Committee F when the estimates for the Australian Broadcasting Commission were being considered.

I think it is important to look at this matter in its proper context. Why is the ABC receiving less money than it may wish to receive and which many of us may wish to see it receive. It is related to the question of inflation and the economic policy ofthe Government in overcoming inflation. It is related to a problem which involves us all throughout the whole community, that is what can be done to ensure that an economic policy can be pursued which will reduce inflation to a level which is manageable so that the economy can be brought out of the period of recession which world economies have experienced and into a position of growth whereby growth in the ABC and various other areas will then be able to take place. I note that the Australian Broadcasting Commission entirely accepts the position. In this year’s annual report it stated:

In common with other statutory bodies and departments of Government, the ABC has been required to economise throughout the year and, by effecting savings elsewhere, to absorb increases in the cost of goods and services. This has been done to conform with the Government’s anti-inflation policies. The economies effected have brought some measure of discomfort to the organisation but this, we believe, has not been apparent to our audience.

There is the denial by the ABC in its report for the current year of what the Opposition is claiming this afternoon by way of an attack on its performance. The report continues:

The Commission’s objective throughout the year has been to maintain the quality and diversity of its program output.

I believe that it has done this admirably. It is to be congratulated for what it has achieved. It is important to understand that the Government’s policy is not an attack on the ABC but an attack on inflation. The ABC along with many other statutory authorities, government departments and various other sectors of the economy, has been asked or required to play a part in achieving a result. To show that this is not something peculiar to Australia I will quote from a recent speech by Mr van Lennep, the SecretaryGeneral of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, on 3 October, a few days ago, when he spoke to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. He said:

The strategy that the OECD countries have been following over the last three years has been based on the premise that, except over the very short run, higher employment cannot be bought at the cost of accelerating inflation. It was recognised that this meant that we should seek to achieve a moderate but sustained expansion of demand in the OECD area as a whole, strong enough to permit a progressive reduction in unemployment, but not so strong as to rekindle inflation. It was also recognised that the position of individual countries varied considerably, and that if we were to succeed in steering the OECD economy along this so-called ‘narrow path’ some countries would need to concentrate primarily on bringing inflation under control, while others would carry a particular responsibility for maintaining the momentum of the recovery.

I think it is relevant to point out that at a recent meeting of the OECD it was accepted that Australia was still one of the countries which fell into the category of having to concentrate at this stage on bringing inflation under control and that nine other member countries of the OECD were recognised as being in a position to play a more expansionary role in bringing the world economy into better shape. It is not a matter of the Government acting in a way which can be said to be out of kilter with what is expected by those who are managing the economies of the major part of the developed world. From what Mr van Lennep said it is clear that the OECD entirely endorses the policy which has been adopted by this Government in endeavouring to achieve, first of all, the control of inflation and, when that has been achieved, growth.

It is quite strange that the Australian Labor Party is almost alone amongst the socialist parties of the democratic world in believing that what we should be doing is continuing the same sort of situation which it created in 1973, 1974 and 1975. It is quite extraordinary that members of the Labor Party cannot recognise what was made quite clear by the President of the Federal Republic of Germany when he spoke in Parliament House yesterday. He made it clear that the German socialist Government believes that it is important, firstly, to overcome inflation and then to bring about the growth necessary to overcome the recession. It seems that the Australian Labor Party has been too cut off from the thinking of the rest of the world and has never got out of the situation into which it got itself with a wave of enthusiasm when in 1972 it took over government. It has never learnt the reality of the lessons. If it wants us to spend a lot more money on the ABC and in various other areas of government expenditure it has to recognise that the deficit will go up, income tax rates will have to go up, growth will be likely to be adversely affected and the rate of reduction of inflation will be adversely affected.

It is unfortunate that the Labor Party is not paying attention to some of the much more important things which concern the ABC and a number of other areas of our total community. These include the impact of technological change and the restructuring of our economy and our economic activities. The role of the ABC is to make people aware of the existence of the problems and the importance of giving consideration to them, encouraging debate on them and generally encouraging the review and assessment of what we are going to do as a world, as developed nations and within Australia in relation to these problems. It would have been much better if the Labor Party had used the time being taken up by the debate on this matter of public importance to discuss some of the real issues and not to raise on a party political basis a matter which the ABC itself denies.

I believe that we should look at the reality of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s situation., The impression was given that the Government would continue to reduce the staff ceilings in relation to the ABC. The truth is the very opposite. The ABC has requested a review upwards. The Government has agreed to that review being undertaken and it is being undertaken at the moment. I understand from further information which has just been supplied that the Public Service Board is fully appraised of the information necessary. One hopefully anticipates that the review will reveal that there are some areas, even within the current economic policy in which improvements can be made in relation to staff ceilings. Staff ceilings have created what was described to Estimates Committee F as a serious management problem but not a disruptive problem. It has simply meant that management has had to determine what it can do to bring about the provision of services, as was said in the annual report, on a basis which maintained the quality and diversity of its program output. In the report, which I think was tabled yesterday, the ABC claims that it has achieved that.

Large scale dismissals have not taken place. In fact, as I understand it, there has been a staff reduction through natural wastage and not through dismissals. Another matter that I think is confusing is that Senator Ryan tended to pick out from the Hansard of the Estimates Committee a whole lot of the various possibilities and options to which the officers of the ABC referred when they were giving evidence. Quite clearly, not all of those options will apply. They are alternative options. Some of them may apply; some of them may not apply. To the best of my belief, the ABC is in good shape even though tough decisions have had to be taken; decisions which were taken on a value judgment basis and probably the ABC would have preferred not to have to take them. But along with everybody else in the community it has had to take those sorts of decisions.

As far as standards are concerned, obviously, to some extent, they can be a function of expenditure. For instance, as I understand it, research for such programs as AM and PM has had to be reduced. I think most of us would have to agree that AM and PM are still most worthwhile programs; they are programs which I think add considerably to the discussion of public issues in Australia. Even if there has been some curtailment in that area, nevertheless they are highly successful. Australian content has been reduced by about 2 per cent. It has been substituted by the need to take some British Broadcasting Corporation transcription programs. I think we can all agree that the BBC, like the ABC, over the years has achieved a very high standard. The sorts of programs which are being used by the ABC and taken from the BBC are most worthwhile. They add to the general knowledge and culture of people of this country. I do not think that is a matter for criticism.

I would like to sum up my contribution to this debate by saying that it is acknowledged that the ABC, any more than anybody else in the community, has not had it easy over the past two or three years while this attempt to bring the economy back under control and get it going in the right direction has been taking place. It cannot be said that the ABC is in disarray; it cannot be said that the ABC is not any longer giving to the Australian people an extremely worthwhile diversity of programs, on both television and radio. I would like to support strongly the concept which probably underlies what Senator Ryan said, that is, that the ABC is important to Australia. The ABC should continue and should develop. I look forward to the day, which is coming, of the obvious success of the Government ‘s economic policies in overcoming inflation and getting growth going again in accordance with the general concept that has been agreed to by all the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development countries- not just this Government; not just Australia; but all the

OECD countries. When these policies are successful in Australia as they are being successful in other countries, I believe that we will see the growth and development of the ABC taking place again at the rate and along the lines that all of us would agree is desirable.

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-The Minister for Administrative Services, Senator Chaney, has proved to us all this afternoon that he is a very astute lawyer because, by turn of phrase, in his mind he has been able to alter the words of the matter of public importance that has been moved by Senator Ryan to read into its terms the notion that the Australian Labor Party was attacking the Australian Broadcasting Commission and not the Government. The Opposition does not say in this matter of public importance that the ABC is a creature of this Government, as Senator Chaney seemed to suggest we were saying. We do not say that the ABC .should not be doing certain things in the national interest. What we say is that, because of the policies that have been adopted by this Government towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission, the Commission is unable to do the things effectively that it should be doing in the national interest. In other words, it is not flying across the air waves of this country as it should be. It virtually is being grounded or has to crash land as a result of government policy.

Senator Ryan is to be congratulated on raising this matter of” public importance today relating to the Government’s direct attack on the Australian Broadcasting Commission.

The Minister for Administrative Services has already said that the ABC is a great national broadcasting instrumentality and I might add that it is a great international broadcasting instrumentality. It is a tragedy for Australia to see what is happening to this great national organisation. As the Minister for Post and Telecommunications (Mr Staley) said when he was interviewed on the radio last March:

The ABC is so important to life in this country that I can hardly feel that life in Australia would be worthwhile without the ABC.

If I might suggest, that statement appears to be a statement from a likable academic rather than an effective Minister who is responsible to this Parliament and a Minister who is determined to see that the standards of the ABC in every way are maintained, expanded and developed. I suggest that the Minister should have amended his radio statement in March last year to state that he can hardly feel that life in Australia would be worthwhile without a well-funded and completely independent ABC. Very sadly, the

Commission has been severely hit as a result of this Government’s policies and the hard-headed and callous attitude of the Ministers against the ABC. One could quote statements made by the Minister for Transport, Mr Nixon, when he was the caretaker Postmaster-General who wanted an arbitrator to review the affairs of the ABC; one could quote the former leader ofthe Government in this chamber when he made a heavy handed attack on the staff of the ABC in 1 976; one could quote other Ministers. Because of their hostility to the Australian Broadcasting Commission, it has been severely hit in its funding arrangements; its standards necessarily have had to be lowered; it is losing its influence; it is losing its strength; and indeed it is losing its independence.

Witness, for example, the present Minister for Post and Telecommunications sheltering behind the commissioners of .the ABC for not having offered him advice regarding the reappointment or- otherwise of a staff-elected commissioner when Cabinet Ministers had made up their minds that so far as they were concerned they would not have a bar of the appointment of a staff-elected commissioner. If it is thought that the standards of the ABC have not been lowered since this Government came into office, let me put the record straight. Let me compare the record of the Liberal Government in 1971-72 with the records of the Whitlam Labor Government, and two Fraser Governments. In 1971-72, the year in which the McMahon Government went out of office, the ABC stated in. its annual report:

The Commission intends to expand its Australian Production to the limits of its resources; but those limits have very nearly been reached. This year has again been a difficult one financially, with increased expenditure being absorbed almost entirely in meeting increased salaries and wages and inflated costs, so that once again worthwhile plans for new developments in programs have not been implemented. While total expenditure increased by 12.5 per cent over the previous year, only one-tenth of the additional funds were available for new programs.

A national broadcasting service, especially in Australia, must experiment and innovate to maintain its initiative and leadership in new program developments.

The report went on to state that the ABC had tried to do that. It continued: . . However, unless more money is made available for the development and exploitation of these resources of expertise and experience, they will be largely wasted. Deterioration in the quantity and quality of Australian programs because of a continued lack of adequate funds for program development would be unfortunate.

What I am saying is that after 33 months of two Fraser Governments, the Australian nation and the ABC virtually are back to the situation that existed in 1971-72 before the Labor Government came to office.

Senator Rae talked about the Australian content of ABC programs having fallen by a mere 2 per cent. I implore Senator Rae and his colleagues to read the latest annual report of the Commission, for the year ended 30 June 1978, because from the graph at page 7 he will note that for the period June to September 1974, the Australian content of ABC television was 73.5 per cent of the total. I proudly interpolate that at that time I was the Labor Minister for the Media. I repeat, an Australian content of 73.5 per cent was attained in 1973-74 when the Labor Government was in office. Page 1 1 of the same report which was tendered only yesterday shows that during the last financial year the ABC television devoted a total of 58 per cent of program time to Australian production. That is a drop of not a mere 2 per cent, as has been suggested by Senator Rae, but of some 14 or 1 5 per cent over a mere 33 months.

What is the situation in regard to radio broadcasting? Take station 2JJ? I might note that insofar as Australian programming arrangements are concerned, one of the first acts of Labor upon assuming office was to make available immediately to the ABC an additional $350,000 for the development of Australian programming arrangements. That was done before the first Crean Labor Government Budget was introduced. Before we came to office not one radio station had been added to the broadcasting spectrum of any of the capital cities of Australia for 40 years. We said that that monopoly had to be broken. One of the first things that we did was inquire as to how we could give the ABC additional transmission facilities. We found that by the use of stand-by bearers we could put two more radio stations on the air- 2JJ in Sydney and 3ZZ in Melbourne. They proved to be very successful broadcasting stations.

Senator Messner:

– Humph!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– My friend from South Australia laughs and grins, but I suggest that he ask the young people of New South Wales about the ratings and influence of 2JJ. Today, four years after those stations went to air, 2JJ still operates on a stand-by bearer out near Liverpool, in the south western area of Sydney. 3ZZ, the access station of Melbourne, has been completely taken off the air by the Fraser Government. Labor also decided to expand the activities of Radio Australia. We asked the Public Service Board to conduct an inquiry into its administration. The Board recommended that a number of advisors be appointed to the board of Radio Australia to give advice annually on programs, funding and things of that nature. Upon the suggestion of the Public Service Board, its board included a person elected by the staff. I note that my friend Senator Bishop is in the chamber. All of those things were initiated- and I have mentioned only a few of the many that were done- at a time when Senator Bishop the then Postmaster-General and I were able to persuade our Cabinet colleagues that broadcast listeners and television viewers’ licence fees should be abolished.

Therefore, at a time when we were relieving the Australian people of a tax burden we were also expanding and developing the facilities of the ABC.

Senator Messner:

– Ha, ha!

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

-Our friends opposite laugh, but they do not like to hear the facts. Today, after nearly three years of Liberal-National Country Party government, the Australian content of programs has dropped from 73.4 per cent to a mere 58 per cent. Station 2JJ virtually has been smothered. Station 3ZZ has been taken off the air. From the last annual report of the ABC one notes that the Commission virtually has been obliged to go cap in hand to the State governments, indeed to local government, for the maintenance and continuation of Symphony Orchestra activity- orchestras that employ Australian musicians, artists and performers. The Government in adopting a hostile attitude towards the Australian Broadcasting Commission and the service that it provides to the Australian people, has made an attack not only on the ABC but also more importantly, an attack on the people of Australia. It is they who are the real sufferers- the people for whom the service was established and for whom the programs were produced. It is in the interests of those people that the Opposition has raised this matter of public importance, in condemnation of a government that is callous towards and indifferent to the requirements of the Australian Broadcasting Commission. It is for that reason that, as long as this Government adopts its parsimonious attitude towards the great national and international broadcasting organisation, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, that the Opposition will continue to be strongly critical of the Government.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– If we had been on air today- of course, as a result of an Australian Broadcasting Commission industrial dispute we are not- and the Commission could hear what was actually being said in this chamber, I think that by now even it would be confused about what it thinks, or is alleged to think, on this subject. We have had all manner of statements, notably from Senator Douglas McClelland, as to what the attitude of the ABC is supposed to be, alleged to be and quoted to be. A number of quotations have been made on the subject and I shall allude to one or two of them. I begin by putting the record straight, as Senator Douglas McClelland said that he would do. Early in his speech he said that he would put the record straight on certain matters, but he then proceeded to laud the Whitlam Government’s funding of the ABC and its attitude towards it, meanwhile damning the current LiberalNational Country Party Government.

I turn to the very report that Senator Douglas McClelland mentioned, the annual report of the ABC for the year July 1 977 to June 1 978, at page 7 of which there is a graph showing allocations for national broadcasting, expressed as a percentage of total Federal Government expenditure- a point on which the Opposition, and Senator Douglas McClelland in particular, made great play. I note that the greatest proportion of Federal Government expenditure ever allocated to the ABC was allocated during the year 1962-63 which, as we recall, was one of the Menzies administrations. Expenditure next peaked, a little lower in proportional terms, under the McMahon Government of 1 972-73. It then went into a very rapid and steady decline under the Whitlam Government. I emphasise that this graph appears in the ABC’s report. It seems to indicate something different from the rather frenetic message that Senator Douglas McClelland has just sought to give us.

Senator Messner:

– That expresses money spent, in real terms.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– Yes, as a percentage of total Federal Government expenditure, so it is on a proportional basis in relation to something else. I repeat, it indicates something rather different from the dire sort of message that Senator Douglas McClelland was seeking to present. Anyone- and not just the ABC- might be excused for wondering during the honourable senator’s speech just what the debate was really all about. I note that the subject that Senator Ryan wished to have debated concerned an alleged disruption caused to the national broadcasting services- a disruption which, she alleges, has been caused by the attacks of the Government on staffing and standards. So the central issues involved are whether the national broadcasting service has been disrupted and whether this has been brought about by alleged Government attacks on staffing and standards. I have a view on that which I would now like to put.

The alleged attack on the ABC, which was referred to again by Senator Douglas McClelland, is of course, even in his own terms, nothing of the sort. There is a very particular situation which obtains in this country- and I do not intend this afternoon to waste any of my precious time on it by canvassing it yet again- which has meant that certain cutbacks in Government expenditure have been made. The ABC, as a broadcasting service, has had to face its own responsibilities in relation to these cuts. The alleged consequences of the decline in revenue are just not borne out by the actions of the Government or the statements made by representatives of the ABC.

I am informed that when the ABC was submitting its estimates for the 1978-79 financial year it was invited to indicate those levels of expenditure which it believed necessary to maintain its current level and quality of operation. The ABC was granted the appropriations it asked for. It decided what it needed, it indicated that to the Government, and it was successful. I accept that there has been a decline in the proportion of total annual expenditure, but I emphasise that that has not happened this year. It is not even something which started to happen under the Fraser Government. That decline was well under way in the early days of the Whitlam Government. The ABC just has to accept, as do other instrumentalities, that it is in a particular position in relation to government funding and that when government funding is tight as it is now- it never appeared to be tight under the Whitlam Government but it is tight now as a consequence of that laxity of budgeting by the Whitlam Government- it has to play its role.

That leads us, of course, to a consideration of whether standards will be affected in the manner forecast by Senator Ryan. I will talk about standards later. The Government has the right to determine its own financial policy for the country and, in that context, the level of funds which will be provided to the ABC. Nobody can dispute that. The ABC is in the same position as is any other government financed agency. It must see its funding in the context of the national Budget. The national Government has the right, which the ABC accepts, to decide what the priorities are within that national Budget. I daresay that that is a point of view which Labor senators would have advanced very vigorously when the Whitlam Labor Government, during its brief term in office, was exerting its right in exactly the same way towards the ABC. I notice that at the hearing of this famous Estimates Committee, the evidence of which has been quoted so often in this debate, Mr Mackriell made a statement which I think gives that indication. I refer to page 755 of the Hansard report of Estimates Committee F of 19 October 1978. Mr Mackriell is reported as saying:

I would like to be able to say that we could set aside economics.

We all would. We are all human. However, Mr Mackriell went on to say:

I am afraid I cannot.

That is the human condition too. He continued:

We are limited by a budget; we are limited by staff; and we have to make decisions with regard to priorities . . .

That is the normal human condition and it is a normal governmental agency condition. It is also a normal government condition. Governments are constrained by the amount of money available to them and by economic circumstances. If the ABC sees itself as being in that position, that is a very healthy sign.

Much comment has been made about staff cuts. We are hearing quite a lot about them at the moment, and we are experiencing some of the effects of staff cuts. I suggest that the true situation has been put out of all proportion. Senator Ryan makes a particular reference to staffing in the terms of her matter of public importance. As we mentioned earlier in this debate, the simple fact is that the situation is under review. The staff ceilings as at 30 June 1978 was 6,300. In March 1978 that figure was increased to 6,400, a ceiling which was to apply until 30 September 1978. I am informed, however, that the bureaucratic mysteries of life in Australia required that a staff ceiling be set for 30 June 1979 and that this has caused some sort of heartache. The fact is that the review has been agreed to by the Government. The review is proceeding and nobody knows what the outcome of it will be. I am certainly optimistic that the Government will be sympathetic, because I think the Government clearly wants to maintain a high standard national broadcasting service. At this point in time nobody can say that it has not; in fact, the evidence is to the contrary. It clearly understands the particular problems of a national broadcasting service. It has had long experience of them. I believe with great confidence that the Government will make the right staffing decision in that review. Senator Ryan, I understand, on behalf of the Opposition, indicated that there should be some sort of royal commission into what is happening in the ABC because of Government action.

Senator Ryan:

- Mr Staley thinks so too.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

- Mr Staley probably does think so. I would not disagree with him. He is the Minister responsible for the ABC. That is his right. I say to Senator Ryan that I intend to have my two bob ‘s worth as a senator. I point out that the Green report had something to say about it too. The Green report, which followed an inquiry into the ABC, stated that the services provided by the Commission should be subject to independent periodic review by public inquiry, with the first such review being scheduled , for 1980. 1 am informed that the ABC supports that recommendation. So it might appear to be just a little precipitate at the moment for Senator Ryan to be pushing that angle so hard. Nobody is opposed to inquiries being conducted into the ABC, but the overtones of great urgency and the allegations that because of Government attacks the service is in danger of collapse are, of course, quite false, and exposes the whole Opposition charge as a trumped up case.

The third aspect of the debate has been standards. Senator Douglas McClelland said that he intended to put the record straight on standards, but he did nothing of the sort, as I indicated earlier in my speech. There has been a decline in the Australian content of ABC programs. In the context of the so-called sustained attack that we are making on staffing and conditions as well as standards via funding, it is interesting to note that in the period June 1976 to June 1977 there was approximately 60 per cent Australian content in ABC programming. In the subsequent year, which of course is the year ended June 1978, it had declined dramatically to 58 per cent. That hardly indicates the sort of collapse that the Opposition would like the people of Australia and maybe even the Senate to believe is under way. It does not indicate anything of the sort.

Senator Peter Baume:

– It is nothing like that.

Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP

– It is nothing like that, as Senator Baume has just indicated in vigorous agreement with me. I wish to make just one other point. So far in this debate the ABC’s annual report for the year ended June 1977 has been extensively quoted for its references to the subject of standards. This year’s report also has been referred to. Extracts on the same subject from the Estimates Committee hearings also have been quoted. I wish to make a brief reference to some quotes myself. In the 1977 report the Chairman of the ABC indicated that the Commission was confident of its ability to adapt to new circumstances while maintaining the character and quality of the ABC’s program output. I refer again to the evidence given to the Estimates Committee by the now well known Mr Mackriell on the subject of output over the last year. Mr Mackriell was asked by Senator Watson about the effectiveness of ABC reporting as a result of the staff cuts to which Mr Mackriell had referred earlier. Mr Mackriell said:

My own feeling is that it would be very difficult for anyone to quantify just how far the quality has or has not fallen.

I expect that he includes even Opposition senators in his assessment that it is difficult for anyone to quantify that matter. He went on to state:

It is exceedingly difficult. While we have been under enormous pressure with regard to staff in particular, it being a very labour-intensive business, I want to assert that for the most part the quality of ABC reporting, whether it be news, public affairs or science, has not deteriorated.

Senator Watson then ventured the further question:

In quality and diversity.

Mr Mackriell said:

Indeed. As I say, it is very difficult for anybody, I believe, to put a tape measure against it. If I were pressed I would say that I think it has not deteriorated to any marked extent.

That evidence, of course, complies with the following statement made by the Chairman of the ABC in this year’s annual report.

The economies effected have brought some measure of discomfort to the organisation but this, we believe, has not been apparent to our audience.

The ABC is not saying that the economies which have been necessary have resulted in any disruption to or decline in the national broadcasting service. Indeed, all the evidence that we can get on the record on the subject seems to indicate that the ABC, while accepting that it has had to try harder to maintain its standards, nevertheless has managed to achieve that objective under the sort of constraints which apply to it. I reiterate in the final seconds of my speech that they are constraints which apply to all areas of government at the moment, and indeed to private areas as well in this country, as a result of economic necessities. I suggest that, interesting though the debate may have been, the allegations put forward by the Opposition in relation to the national broadcasting service are not based on fact. No facts have been presented to justify the claims made in the terms of the subject matter of this debate.

page 1593

LEGAL AID

Ministerial Statement

Senator DURACK (Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral) by leave- For some time I have been concerned that the operation of the means and needs guidelines of the Australian Legal Aid Office, which were fixed in 1976, has become increasingly severe. This has been because there have been rises in wages and in pension rates without changes in the guidelines. The result of this has been that many persons who would have been eligible for legal aid in 1976 are not now eligible, and legal aid is being refused to persons in real need. The Government has given this matter close consideration, as a result of which I now announce certain changes. These changes will apply to all decisions to grant legal aid made by the Australian Legal Aid Office on and after 30 October 1978.

I seek leave to incorporate two documents in Hansard. One is headed ‘Means and Needs Test and Contributions Guidelines’ and the other is entitled ‘Solicitors ‘ Fees in Matters under Family Law Act 1975’.

Leave granted.

The documents read as follows-

Circular

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

MEANS AND NEEDS TEST AND CONTRIBUTIONS GUIDELINES

The Government has approved the introduction of new guidelines for the Australian Legal Aid Office means and needs test. The object is to liberalise the means test to enable more persons in need to obtain legal aid in classes of cases in which legal representation is essential.

The new guidelines will increase eligilility for assistance primarily by increasing the permissible disposable income. New features include the increase ofthe permissible disposable income from $40 to $52 per week and the limitation on grants of aid in all dissolution matters unless special circumstances of hardship exist.

Guidelines

The means and needs test for eligibility for assistance from the Australian Legal Aid Office is the inability of the applicant to afford the cost of representation in the particular case. The guidelines are intended to provide a general standard for measuring ‘inability’ but they are to be applied with discretion in the individual case. Where proceedings are costly, there will be a greater need to keep in mind the basictest. Approval of assistance is to be reconsidered where there is a change in financial circumstances.

An applicant comes within the guidelines if neither his disposable weekly income nor his assets, exceed the amounts in the following paragraphs.

Disposable Weekly Income

The income guidelines are:

Applicant without dependant $52 per week

For one dependant-add $ 1 5 per week

For each additional dependant- add $ 10 per week

The disposable weekly income of the applicant is calculated by deducting from gross weekly income the following items, calculated on a weekly basis:

income tax

superannuation contributions

one half of any board paid by applicant

rent or mortgage payments for dwelling house in which applicant resides

municipal rates and water rates for dwelling house in which applicant resides

maintenance payments to spouse and children of applicant

payments under hire purchase agreements and credit sales contracts for household goods and furniture used by applicant in his home.

Family allowances are not to be taken into account in determining the eligibility of persons seeking legal aid from the Office.

Assets

The asset guidelines are:

Estimated cost of proceedings less than $300-5500

For each dependant- add $400

b ) Estimated cost $300 or more-$ 1 , 000

For each dependant- add $400.

Assets include money that is immediately available such as bank, building society and credit union deposits, or that can readily be obtained, for example, by loan, or by selling a marketable assett or converting negotiable securities such as shares and debentures. Assets do not include wearing apparel, tools of trade, household furniture or interest in a dwelling house in which the applicant resides unless the value is unusually high.

In the case of a married applicant, the combined incomes and assets of both husband and wife are to be taken into account, provided that they are living together. Ordinarily, couples living together in a de facto relationship will be regarded as husband and wife.

Guidelines for Dissolution Proceedings

Aid will no longer be granted in dissolution of marriage unless circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the Australian Legal Aid Office, render it imperative that the marriage be dissolved and the applicant is in a position of special hardship.

Contributions

  1. A minimum contribution of $20 will be imposed in all cases as a matter of course unless the applicant can demonstrate that this would impose a real financial hardship. A contribution in excess of $20 will be required in appropriate cases when the applicant is able to afford it.

  2. A contribution may be imposed or increased having regard to the outcome of the proceedings. A person who could not originally afford to bring proceedings may well be in a different position after settlement of a dispute relating to property or a claim for damages.

The contribution is to be paid by the legally assisted person to the private practitioner at the time he is taking instructions and, in any event, no later than at the time the case is set down for hearing. Contributions are to be paid in a lump sum or, at most, by two payments and retained by the private practitioner as part of his fee.

Merits

  1. The question to be answered is whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to grant aid, regard being had to all relevant matters including-

the nature and extent of any benefit that may accrue to the applicant from the provision of the assistance or of any detriment that the applicant may suffer if the assistance is not provided; and

in the case of assistance in relation to a proceedingthe likelihood of the proceeding terminating in a manner favourable to the applicant.

Date of Operation

All decisions made on and after 30 October 1978 concerning the provision of legal aid are to accord with these guidelines.

Australian Legal Aid Office. 30 October 1978.

AUSTRALIAN LEGAL AID OFFICE

SOLICITORS’ FEES IN MATTERS UNDER FAMILY LAW ACT 1975

Courts ofSummary Jurisdiction

Basic composite amount- $ 108.

When hearing extends beyond one hour, $36 per hour for each additional hour with maximum of $240 for full day (including the basic composite amount).

Additional hearing days: $36 per hour with maximum of $90 for half day (3 hours) and $ 140 for full day.

Family Court, a State Family Court or a Supreme Court of a State or Territory

Basic composite amount- $ 1 80.

When hearing extends beyond one hour, $36 per hour for each additional hour with maximum of $3 12 for full day (including the basic composite amount).

Additional hearing days: $36 per hour with maximum of $90 for halfday (3 hours) and $ 140 for full day.

Basic Composite Amount

The basic composite amount covers all necessary steps in the action, including all conferences, attendances at court on mentions, adjournments etc., and including attendance at court on the hearing of the action for one hour.

Instructing Counsel

No fee will ordinarily be allowed for instructing in courts of summary jurisdiction. In other courts mentioned above, fees for instructing counsel are as follows:-

Hourly rate $30 with maximum of $75 for halfday (3 hours) and $ 120 for full day.

If Clerk instructs, half of above fees will be paid.

Waiting and Travelling Time

No fee will ordinarily be allowed for time spent in court waiting for a hearing to commence or resume or time taken in travelling to and from the court.

Briefing of Counsel

Counsel may not be briefed unless approval has been obtained in writing from the Australian Legal Aid Office. Approval to brief Counsel extends only to Junior Counsel unless otherwise specified. Approval to brief Counsel will not ordinarily be given except for contested hearings in the Family Court of Australia, a State Family Court or the Supreme Court of a State.

Additional Fees

If a solicitor considers that substantially more than the usual amount of work was involved in a particular matter, consideration will be given to payment of additional fees if full details of the additional work are submitted.

Calculation of Time

In preparation of accounts, time is to be calculated to the nearest hour, i.e., periods of up to 30 minutes are to be disregarded, and periods of 30 minutes or more are to be taken as one hour.

Senator DURACK:
LP

– I thank the Senate. Some ofthe changes will effect savings which will allow the guidelines to be significantly liberalised in relation to the permissible disposable income. The first change relates to eligibility for aid in dissolution cases. At present a sum in excess of $2m is being spent each year on dissolution cases referred by the Australian Legal Aid Office to private solicitors. The need for legal aid is not as urgent in dissolution cases as in many other family law proceedings, such as custody, access, maintenance, property settlement and injunction matters. The funds that are at present being provided for dissolution cases can be put to better use in these other areas. In future, therefore, aid will not be granted for dissolution of marriage proceedings unless circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the Australian Legal Aid Office, render it imperative that the marriage be dissolved and the applicant is in a position of special hardship. I envisage that those special circumstances would arise only on very rare occasions. The procedure to dissolve a marriage is now very simple and I believe that most people will be able to handle the work themselves with assistance where necessary from the Family Court staff. In addition to that assistance, lawyers of the Australian Legal Aid Office will be available to advise and assist.

Another change relates to the contributions payable by assisted persons. At present the Australian Legal Aid Office requires contributions to be paid in only about one-third of the cases. This is because the guidelines at present provide that a contribution of less than $25 will not be required. The Government believes that all assisted persons should contribute except where it can be demonstrated that payment of a contribution would impose a real financial hardship. Accordingly, a minimum contribution of $20 will be imposed in all cases subject to such demonstrated hardship.

A court fee of $100 is payable to the Family Court in respect of proceedings for dissolution of marriage, but where the applicant has been granted legal aid for those proceedings the applicant is exempt from payment of the fee. As legal aid will no longer be generally available in dissolution proceedings most persons instituting proceedings will in future be required to pay the court fee. This change will not, however, operate where it would impose a substantial hardship on persons instituting dissolution proceedings. The Family Law Regulations at present provide for the fee to be not payable where the Registrar of the Family Court is satisfied that payment of the fee would impose substantial hardship on the applicant and that provision will remain.

Solicitors who act for clients who are in receipt of legal aid from the Australian Legal Aid Office are paid 90 per cent of the fees payable under the Family Law (Costs) Regulations. In future those Regulations will not apply to matters receiving assistance from the Australian Legal Aid Office. Payment to solicitors in such cases will instead be on the basis of a special legal aid scale which I shall now describe. Under the new scale a fee will not ordinarily be allowed for time spent by a solicitor in court waiting for a hearing to commence or resume or time taken in travelling to and from court. This is expected to result in an annual saving of $500,000 to the Australian Legal Aid Office.

The basic composite amount in the new scale will now cover all necessary steps in the action, including, among other things, all conferences, preparation of affidavits, attendances at courts on mentions, adjournments and attending at court on the hearing of the matter for one hour. I recognise that in some matters the work done by the solicitor, if costed on the present basis, would attract fees in excess of those payable under the new scale. But many matters are settled or otherwise concluded quickly and easily and the real value of the solicitor’s work does not justify full payment on the present basis. Under the new scale cases where solicitors are underpaid will be counterbalanced by those where payment of the basic composite amount is more than generous recompense for the work involved. In these matters solicitors are to ‘take the rough with the smooth’.

Where the hearing of a matter goes beyond one hour, the present hourly rate of $36 paid by the Australian Legal Aid Office will continue to be paid. However, if the hearing lasts a day or more some reduction in the flat hourly rate should be made. Therefore for a hearing lasting one day or an additional four hours the maximum extra payment will be $ 132. For additional hearing days the payment will be $36 per hour with a maximum of $90 for a half day of three hours and $ 1 40 for full day.

Generally speaking, the conduct of proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction should be well within the competence of solicitors and it should not ordinarily be necessary to brief counsel in these proceedings. Also, in the Family Court and other superior courts much of the work can properly be handled by solicitors. Therefore, in future, aid will not be provided to brief counsel unless approval has been given by the Australian Legal Aid Office. Approval to brief counsel will not ordinarily be given except for contested hearings in superior courts.

Where counsel is briefed in a matter in a court of summary jurisdiction it should not ordinarily be necessary for the instructing solicitor to attend court. The new scale accordingly provides that fees will not be allowed to solicitors for attending courts of summary jurisdiction to instruct counsel. In other courts a solicitor who instructs counsel in court will receive a fee of $30 per hour, with a maximum of $75 for a half day of three hours and $120 for a full day. But only half of these fees will be payable if an unqualified clerk instructs counsel. I am aware that in some cases, for example, long defended actions, fees calculated on the basis of the new scale may not provide adequate remuneration for a solicitor. If a solicitor considers that substantially more than the usual amount of work was involved in a particular matter, the Australian Legal Aid Office will give consideration to payment of additional fees if full details of the additional work are submitted.

The savings which will result from the changes I have just announced will enable the permissible disposable weekly income to be significantly increased. The present guidelines permit a disposable weekly income of $40 for a person without dependants, with additional allowances for dependants. With the savings resulting from the changes it has been possible for the Goverment to raise the amount of the permissible disposable weekly income by $12. This brings the permissible disposable income for a person without dependants to $52. The adjustment of $ 12 will flow through to persons with dependants, but there will be no change in the allowances for dependants.

It is desired to encourage as far as possible the settlement of ancillary matters under the Family Law Act; that is, custody, access, injunction and property settlement matters. By this means not only will legal aid funds be saved but also the burden on the courts will be reduced. It is proposed therefore that legal aid for custody, access and injunction proceedings will initially be granted by the Australian Legal Aid Office only up to the filing of a defence. Further aid will be considered on submission of copies of pleadings and any other relevant material so that the merits of the matter can be assessed as far as possible. Aid for property applications will initially be granted up to the stage of a conference under regulation 96 of the Family Law Regulations. Further aid will depend upon the outcome of the conference.

The Law Council of Australia has offered assistance and co-operation in regard to the implementation of these new guidelines. Arrangements are being made for officers of the Australian Legal Aid Office to meet with representatives of the law societies in each State except Western Australia where legal aid is now administered through a statutory commission. These joint on-the-job committees will have the task of keeping under review these new provisions and consider if further changes can or should be made to them from time to time. I present the following paper:

Legal Aid: Revised Australian Legal Aid Office Guidelines and New Scale of Solicitors’ Fees, Ministerial Statement, 25 October 1978 and move:

That the Senate take note of the paper.

Senator BUTTON:
Victoria

-The statement which was just made by the AttorneyGeneral (Senator Durack) is important for a number of people in this country who are either recipients or potential recipients of legal aid. It has been made against a background of public concern about hardship, delays and the growing work load of the Australian Legal Aid Office in those places where that body exists. That public concern has been reflected by the questions which have been asked in the Senate on a number of occasions by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. Those questions have been asked in response to public pressure about the matter. It is interesting to note that in making this statement the Minister carefully avoided any commitment in respect of an increase in the Australian Legal Aid Office’s vote. The document is what one might describe as a package deal whereby there is a giving with one hand of a small increase in relation to the minimum disposable income and a taking away with the other of what I would regard as important legal rights. It is in respect of the last matter that I want particularly to make some comment.

The Minister has brought down this statement purportedly as a response to the hardship being experienced. At the commencement of his speech he specifically referred to the fact that many people who would have been eligible for legal aid in 1976 are not now eligible and that legal aid is being refused to persons in real need. That is so. It is a matter of fact. It is a matter of concern to a variety of honourable senators other than the Minister.

Senator Lewis:

– On both sides.

Senator BUTTON:

– I repeat what has been said by way of interjection, that is, that it is of concern to honourable senators on both sides of the chamber. Whilst I am fully aware of the Government’s responsibility to fix the overall parameters of any government service in economic terms, there is a real Scrooge element about this statement. I will explain briefly why I take that view. The Minister dealt, firstly, with the question of eligibility for aid in dissolution of marriage cases. He said that the sum of $2m is being spent each year on dissolution of marriage cases referred by the Australian Legal Aid Office to private solicitors. He went on to say that the need for aid in this area is not as urgent as it is in other family law proceedings, such as custody, access, maintenance and property settlement. That is a conclusion with which one could not help but agree. The fact of the matter is that the priorities in relation to aid in the family law jurisdiction are quite clearly spelt out in the Minister’s statement. As I have said, one cannot disagree with those priorities.

In dealing with the question of legal aid for dissolution of marriage proceedings in the Family Law Court, the Minister went on to say that legal aid will not be granted unless circumstances exist which, in the opinion of the Australian Legal Aid Office, render it imperative that the marriage be dissolved. I say, with the greatest respect, that that is an extraordinary statement. It almost creates an additional ground for divorce in Australia- the opinion of the Australian Legal Aid Office that an applicant really needs a divorce if he happens to be poor. It substitutes the discretion of a litigant on this matter, which is most vital in the life of every citizen involved in proceedings of this kind. It substitutes the opinion, the discretion, the wishes and the desires of the potential litigant seeking a divorce, if he happens to be poor. His view on that matter is taken over by a bureaucrat in the Australian Legal Aid Office. That is to say, it now becomes a question for the Australian Legal Aid Office to determine whether that person really needs a divorce or only thinks he does. With the greatest respect to the Minister’s attempt to juggle the books in relation to legal aid, that is an extraordinary statement to make, lt means that one needs to have the approval of the Australian Legal Aid Office to obtain a divorce as well as needing to establish a situation of special hardship. I regard that as an extraordinarily reprehensible statement to be made by a Minister. It shows that the concept of the Legal Aid Office as it was first envisaged has not even got through to the Attorney-General of this Government when that sort of statement appears in an important announcement of this kind.

I shall go through the Minister’s statement seriatim. In referring to the next paragraph of it I simply make the point that although the divorce procedure is now very simple and people can get assistance from the Family Law Court staff, no commitment has been made about increasing the size of the Family Law Court staff in relation to these matters.

Senator Evans:

– Or the ALAO staff.

Senator BUTTON:

-Or the ALAO staff. That, of course, is dealt with in the final sentence on page 2 of the prepared statement. Again that matter is in an area of great concern to citizens who are involved in family law proceedings. The whole question of equality before the law, of equal opportunity in relation to this most important matter in the life of a person, is not dealt with or adverted to by the Minister in this statement.

A new provision is to be introduced in relation to contributions by clients of the Australian Legal Aid Office. The new exclusion provides that all assisted persons should contribute except where it can be demonstrated that the payment of a contribution would impose a real financial hardship. That means that somebody who is seeking legal aid and who is probably in a fairly desperate sort of situation- somebody who is already subject to guidelines about eligibility for legal aid- will have to go to some faceless bureaucrat and demonstrate to him that he, the potential litigant, belongs to a particular category of persons. As a result of this proposal one human being is being asked to go to another and say: ‘I am a particularly poor person. I am here to demonstrate to you that I am poorer than anybody else. I am poorer than pensioners and others who get the legal aid service. I am in a desperate situation and therefore I should not have to pay this particular amount’. I think that in social terms that is a very bad sort of criterion for the Australian Legal Aid Office to apply and a very bad sort of criterion to appear in a Minister’s statement.

Reference was then made to the current court fee of $ 100. Again, the same point applies. In this case, the potential litigant- the person seeking the divorce- has to go to the Registrar and put himself in the position of saying: ‘I am a person who would suffer particularly substantial hardship in my divorce proceedings if I had to pay this fee’. Again, I think that is a reprehensible sort of social criterion to Ke put in a statement of this kind. It all arises from the desire to balance the books financially. The offsetting figure is the whole set of social judgments which the Attorney-General apparently has made on these matters. I think the judgments which have been made and which are set out in the statement are very expensive social judgments.

Part of the statement refers to payments to private practitioners. As a former lawyer- I say former lawyer’ hoping that 1 will not have to go back to the occupation- I find a number of comments quite extraordinary. I refer particularly to the Minister’s pronouncement that these matters have been discussed with the law societies of Australia. Later parts of the statement say all sorts of things about the legal profession in this country which I would have thought would have sent a chill down the spines of the members of the law societies in the various States. I congratulate the Minister for making the statement. He has outlined something that 1 suspected for a long time. A lot of the work done by solicitors and a lot of the attendances which solicitors make and for which they charge private clients are, in the judgment of the Government of Australia, redundant services and should be abolished. The Government says that it will not pay for these services any more. I think the Minister is to be commended on what I would regard as the first socially important statement which has been made in the course of this whole debate.

Senator Missen:

– Your cynical grin will not appear in Hansard.

Senator BUTTON:

– But your interjection will. That interjection shows how adept Senator Missen has become after four years in the Senate. It was very clever. A nice judgment is made here which relates in the broad to the whole question of delivery of legal services at a proper charge. I think that the document is interesting to that extent. The Commonwealth from now on will be in a different position in relation to services rendered by solicitors from other bodies and from other people in the community. This is all summed up in the delightful phrase which occurs in quotation marks that in legal aid matters solicitors are to ‘take the rough with the smooth’. We can only assume that in the ordinary course of private practice solicitors just get the smooth. I think that that is an important observation.

The statement also makes an observation about what is within the competence of solicitors should it be necessary for them to brief counsel on certain matters. It states that it is not necessary for solicitors to attend court in certain matters. As a result of those comments a proud statement appears about the savings which will result from these changes. The savings will enable the permissible disposable weekly income for qualifications for legal aid to be significantly increased. The increase is S12. That represents- this is a matter of analysis- a restoration of the permissible disposable income to the figure it was in real terms in 1975. If one takes regard of the increases in the consumer price index since then the increase only restores the previous figure. This action of the Government is long overdue. It has been the cause of great social concern. It is a sad thing that the review does not go a little further. The last part of the statement puts forward a magic carpet view of the proposals and states:

By this means not only will legal aid funds be saved but also the burden on the courts will be reduced.

That is a portmanteau statement of what the Minister thinks the effects of the proposals will be. I hope that the burden of the courts will be reduced. I hope that costs will be saved. The important point which I am concerned to make is that undesirable social criteria have been introduced into the legal aid system by this statement. The essence of the undesirable social criteria is the explicit statement that if a person who is poor seeks the assistance of the law in a divorce matter or in various other matters which are referred to different standards will apply from those which apply to other people. If a person is particularly poor and is prepared to go to a bureaucrat and tell the bureaucrat that he is particularly distinguished in that regard and poorer than anyone else he may get the benefit of the alleviation of certain fees and so on which are now charged.

I think that the whole philosophy of this statement is reprehensible and contrary to the philosophy of the Australian Legal Aid Office. If the Minister had to make trade-offs between the sums of money and social values I would have applauded the statement much more had he given much more time to the social values and less attention to the money. I am sure that another sum could have been done which would have brought a better result in human terms for the recipients of legal aid in this country.

Debate (on motion by Senator Peter Baume) adjourned.

Motion (by Senator Durack) proposed:

That the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting.

Senator GEORGES:
Queensland

– 1 wish to speak to the motion. The Opposition has at its command certain devices by which it can, if it so desires, continue a debate. I make my remarks to indicate that it is desirable to allow honourable senators to express an opinion on important matters at the time a statement is made unless some arrangement is made for the resumption of the debate to take place at a later hour of the day. I make it clear that the important rights which back bench senators have at times when statements are brought down should not be limited by any prior arrangement.

If, because of the time taken up in such debate, some important legislation may be delayed, other means exist by which we can expedite the legislation and make up for the delay. It is not the prerogative of a Minister or an Opposition spokesman to believe that they can be the only speakers in such a matter. I have spoken to this motion for two reasons. The Opposition can, if it so desires, debate the matter in spite of the action taken either by the Minister or someone else on the Government side. The Opposition has one or two devices by which it can prolong the debate if it believes it to be necessary.

Senator MISSEN:
Victoria

– I will speak very briefly to the motion. Many members on this side of the Senate wish to take part in this debate. They regard it, as does Senator Georges, as being of extreme importance. They are concerned about having the opportunity to read and to study the statement before debating it. Senator Button has had that privilege but I, for example, have not. As one who is concerned and as one who in recent times has received a lot of correspondence and representations on the matter of legal aid, and who is determined to obtain a lot more information during next week, I hope that this matter will come on for debate at a very early date. I will do what I can to ensure that this happens.

I hope that the debate will be resumed as a matter of urgency because I think that what is in the statement is extremely important, as are the ramifications of what is not in the statement. I add those remarks lest it be thought that there are honourable senators on the Government side of the chamber who take an extreme interest in legal aid but who, by not speaking or endeavouring to speak this afternoon, do not want to speak on the matter. That is not the case. We do indeed want to speak on the matter, but first we want to give the statement proper attention and have the facts ready so that we can make a proper response to it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I move as an amendment to the motion:

Leave out the words ‘next day of sitting’, and insert the words ‘at 8 p.m.’

Every honourable senator agrees that the matter should be debated; the question is when. If the motion to adjourn the debate until the next day of sitting is passed this matter will appear at the bottom of the Notice Paper and might never be brought on for debate. I think that if my amendment were accepted it would provide Senator Missen with the time that Senator Button has had to consider the statement, which should be sufficient.

Furthermore, I think that possibly during the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Whips could get together and discuss when the debate on the statement might be held. When we resume the sitting at 8 p.m. a motion can be moved to adjourn the debate to a date agreed upon. Senator Missen will be satisfied and we will be assured that the debate will be resumed at an early date when the matter is not old hat. I suggest that the Government Whip might accept my suggestion, despite any opposition Senator Georges may have about conferring with the Government Whip. I do not know why he would not like to meet with the Government Whip on this matter; I find the Government Whip very courteous and co-operative. Perhaps if the Whips meet they can agree on something that would be satisfactory to the whole Senate. I make no threats, as Senator Georges did, about what will happen if honourable senators opposite do not agree to an early resumption of the debate. I merely ask them to consider my suggestion.

Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales

– As all honourable senators are aware, arrangements made between the Whips are generally not brought on to the floor of the Senate. I think that is a very good practice and a practice which we should seek to continue. I only indicate that the Government has had a heavy legislative program during this period of sittings, but the amount of co-operation has been notable. This has enabled the Senate to operate quite differently from another place, where cooperation is not so obvious and where confrontation is far more the order of the day. I would like to put on record that we like our way of working and we would like the Senate to continue working by co-operation, meeting the needs of all honourable senators wherever possible.

Senator Evans:

– You are stretching the friendship a bit at the moment.

Senator PETER BAUME:

-The honourable senator who interjects sees all things in terms of his own needs and requirements. He will learn that there are 63 honourable senators as well as him. It might take some time but that message will get through to him. When a statement is presented and a copy has not been in the possession of honourable senators, it is the usual practice to adjourn debate on the statement after some initial comments. That is the procedure which has been followed in this case. It is an entirely normal procedure.

Senator Georges:

– No, it is not.

Senator PETER BAUME:

– It is an entirely normal procedure when a statement is presented to enable those honourable senators who want a chance to go away and study the statement to do so. However, what Senator Georges has suggested is that this statement is one to which he attaches great importance and is one which he thinks that we should debate at an early stage. I can undertake to start an examination of the possibilities of accommodating his request. Clearly, it does not suit the Government’s programming to return to this debate at 8 o’clock this evening. But in general terms I will undertake to raise with my leader the possibilities of returning to this debate in the first week of sittings after the break next week. Perhaps it could be on the Thursday evening- I do not know. May I at least consider the possibilities?

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Cavanagh, you have moved an amendment?

Senator Cavanagh:

– Yes, Mr President, I moved:

Leave out the words ‘next day of sitting’, and insert the words’at8p.m.’.

The PRESIDENT:

-Is the amendment seconded?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

The PRESIDENT:

- Senator Georges, to be quite clear on this, you said that this matter could be debated on this motion?

Senator Georges:

– No, Mr President, I did not say that. To make it clear, what I said was that if an arrangement breaks down and there is a lack of agreement- as the Government Whip indicated, at that stage that had not happened- it may be my wish at the time to do what it is within my power to do, and time gained by the Government in one way could be lost in another way.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Sitting suspended from 5.52 to 8 p.m.

page 1600

NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT

page 1600

QUESTION

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT

Second Readings

Debate resumed from 17 October on motion by Senator Guilfoyle:

That the Bills be now read a second time.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-Tonight when I came into the chamber to speak I found on my desk a note which said: ‘Don, I am terribly sorry I will not be in the Senate tonight to hear your forty-eighth speech on the health insurance legislation. I remember with nostalgia the time we spoke au pair on this issue’. It was signed by my colleague who sits next to me. This certainly seems to be about the forty-eighth time that I and others in this place have spoken on this subject. My colleague in another place, Dr Klugman, reminded the House of Representatives that this was the eighth time in the last two years that the national Health Act had been amended and the ninth time in the last three years that the Health Insurance Act had been amended. Prior to that we had had two debates in the House of Representatives and the Senate, a joint sitting and a further two or three debates in both Houses in order to introduce a national health scheme in this country. It seems that since 1974 we have done nothing but modify that scheme.

As I have said on previous occasions during debates such as this, it is a great disappointment to those of us who are interested in health care that for all the words that have been spoken in this chamber and in the other chamber, for all the words that have filled the newspapers and been heard on television and radio programs, we have never done anything that really affects the quality of health care in the community. Nothing we have done has ever made one iota of difference to the longevity of people in this country, to the infant mortality rate, to the morbidity rates or mortality rates for any of the illnesses, and that is a great pity. The result of all the changes, particularly in the last two years, has been confusion in the community and an insecurity which is obvious to all members of parliament when they consider the number of inquiries by constituents about the best action for them to take to deal with their health insurance in the future. One leading newspaper in this country today had a four-page supplement advising people what to do about the latest changes. It is not often that I quote editorials in this place, but I should like now to quote the first couple of paragraphs of the editorial in today’s Canberra Times, which I think sums up the problem very succinctly and very well. The editorial states:

As the people of Australia decide this week whether to insure themselves against sickness or injury, they are entitled to ask how long it will be before the national health scheme is once more turned inside out. It has been a feature of the present Government’s management methods to arbitrarily overhaul the rules governing health insurance, personal income tax, company taxation and other areas of government business without giving due regard to the economic and social costs thereby incurred. The result has been a proliferation of laws and regulations, upheavals in the Public Service, disruption in private enterprise and confusion and puzzlement on the part of the vast majority of people. Any private business managed in the same way would go to the wall.

Significantly, the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, is not prepared to say outright that the health scheme introduced in the Budget, and developed after the Budget, will not be changed again next year. The budgetary circumstances in which it was introduced indicate that it could be short-lived and, besides, the main components of the scheme will probably lead with inexorable logic to a number of possible outcomes that will in effect mean breakdown.

As the editorial says, the result has been confusion and insecurity. That is a great pity because none of the substantial changes in these Bills will affect the standard of health care in this country. I submit that none of them will increase the efficiency of the system, none will decrease the cost of health care. It is for that reason that the Opposition wishes to move the amendment circulated in my name. It expresses our opposition and our desire that the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) be withdrawn, redrafted and resubmitted in a more sensible manner. However, bearing in mind the realities of the situation in this place, that will not happen. Nevertheless, as a record of our attitude, I move:

There are some minor sections of the legislation that we do not oppose, but the major portions of the legislation, which has confused everybody in the community, including members of parliament, we do oppose. We believe that they are unnecessary; we believe that they are based on wrong premises. The only certain results of this legislation that we can see are that hundreds of Medibank employees will lose their jobs and many low income earners and so-called disadvantaged people will suffer because of the changes to bulk billing. We can see no other results. Those are the only results that will occur. The legislation also introduces what we believe is a distasteful concept whereby doctors will be asked to make judgments about who in the community is disadvantaged- what was previously called socially disadvantaged- and therefore will receive their charity. We believe that that concept is more appropriate to the last century. It was removed largely by the introduction of the original Medibank plan and we believe that it is quite wrong to reintroduce it.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But the legislation does not say ‘ financially disadvantaged ‘.

Senator GRIMES:

– No, it says ‘disadvantaged’. Previously the legislation referred to socially disadvantaged people, which is a concept I will talk about later on. Another significant thing is that all the major changes being introduced by this legislation are introduced without supporting evidence as to their expected effectiveness, their economic effectiveness and their medical effectiveness. One of the tragedies in this country is that largely we have no data on which to make judgments about the basis of health insurance planning. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) admitted this in another place on 24 May when he said:

Until an improved data base becomes available, the Government believes that it would be premature to proceed further with the consideration of major adjustments to the health insurance system.

That was on 24 May last, and there has not been much new data available since then. But what evidence we have had available, evidence produced by the Minister’s own Department and by Dr Deeble, suggests that in fact the changes to bulk billing will add to the costs as well as cause disadvantage to patients. There is no more evidence available, no more data, but these considerable changes are being introduced. The changes are not the result of the monitoring of the system; they are not the result of alterations to the system. They are the result of ideological prejudices and misconceptions on the part of the Government, egged on by the Australian Medical Association. Despite the fact that a survey of doctors in general and members of the Australian Medical Association in particular showed that a majority of doctors favoured bulk billing, the AMA disregarded its members’ views and, with the assistance of the voluntary health funds, supported the Government’s approach to bulk billing. Without evidence, initially the Government proposed to abolish bulk billing except for pensioners; now it is introducing a modified form of bulk billing. This ideological blindness, regardless of the facts and regardless of the views of people who conduct health care in this country, bedevils our health insurance planning, and has done for some time. An unfortunate side effect of this legislation is that the facts and figures which will be needed for further planning will not now be available. This will add to the general atmosphere of blindness with which we approach health and welfare in this country.

The main effect of the legislation is in fact the abolition of the Medibank levy although a 1.5 per cent levy on taxation has been introduced in other legislation. The legislation involves the payment of 40 per cent of the schedule fee as against 75 per cent in recent months or 85 per cent when Medibank was introduced. It involves the retention of the payment of 85 per cent of the schedule fee for the treatment of eligible pensioners and the payment of 75 per cent of the schedule fee for the bulk billing of patients who are, in the view of the doctor providing the service, socially disadvantaged.

Senator Cavanagh:

– But the word ‘socially’ is not in it now.

Senator GRIMES:

– No, it is not in the legislation now. There are changes consequent to the changes to the Health Insurance Commission. I will not go into detail on them but we may deal with them in Committee. The Government’s attitude to the Medibank levy is a perfect example of its confused approach. When the Government was in opposition I sat where Senator Hamer, who is to follow me in this debate, is sitting now. I well remember members of the then Opposition opposed the introduction of any sort of levy. They voted against it. We all remember that on achieving government they introduced a levy of 2.5 per cent. They claimed that this would create efficiency, make people aware of the costs of health care and reduce their alleged abuse of it. Now we find that the levy is to be removed again. All this has happened in less than three years. In the process, the cost to revenue will be $62 lm. That is a considerable contrast to the attitude last week of the Government in relation to its social services legislation.

The payment of only 40 per cent of the schedule fee will be unfortunate enough in its effects on low income earners, but the manner in which the payment is to be made makes it doubly unfortunate. The efficient structure of payment and record keeping which has been built up by Medibank is to be dismantled. Payments will be made the responsibility of the multiplicity of voluntary health funds in the community and Medibank Private. These funds, as everyone knows, vary considerably in their efficiency. There is no doubt in the world, as admitted by the health funds themselves, that they will seek and obtain a considerable increase on the amount of $1.52 per claim that they are to be paid. I submit that there is no possibilitycertainly no evidence has been produced by the Government- that there will be any gain in efficiency or economy after the introduction of such a method of payment. Only confusion can result.

One of the results of this legislation and the confusion which obviously was not predicted when it was first introduced is that we now have appeals in the letter columns of the newspapers, and advertisements by the Minister for Health, Government representatives and representatives of the Australian Medical Association for people to insure, to take out voluntary health insurance. This new-found concern for universal coverage in health insurance by the AMA arises out of the fact that the young and healthy in this country will eventually do their sums. They will discover that it is worth the risk not to insure at all. As economic conditions worsen this tendency may well increase. People will take the human approach of not worrying about the future but worrying about how much comes out of their pay packet each week. A result will be that those who take out health insurance will be those with high claim rates- the chronically ill and those who are prone to illness. The insurance pool of premiums paid by these people will be atypical and the cost of insurance will be higher than it should have been and could have been.

It is no wonder that the medical profession and the Government are concerned that such a large number of people will be uninsured, people who in this modern life can suffer all sorts of unforseen accidents. But the Government and the profession are concerned as a result of their own actions. It is the result of continuing pressures by the ideologists in the upper echelons of the Australian Medical Association. The result may not be what they wanted but it will be their own fault. This is why we believe, obviously the Canberra Times believes and certainly any knowledgeable observer of the scene believes that Medibank Mark 4, Mark 3 Vi, Mark 5 or whatever it is cannot last and will not last. There will be further and further modification. I believe that the sooner the spokesmen for the medical profession and the Australian Medical Association in particular become concerned about total health care and are not totally preoccupied with methods of payment to themselves and methods of funding, the sooner government will receive sound advice and the sooner we will get a better health system.

This gypsy syndrome, as I call it, which is defined as the condition in which proper medical care cannot be provided unless the palms of the doctors are crossed with silver should not dominate health care discussions in this country, as it has in the past. I dare say that some of those who follow me in this debate will say that I am knocking the doctors and that I am knocking my own profession. I am not doing so. I am knocking those ultra-conservative people, most of them are not in active practice, who are giving the sort of advice which the Government is taking at the moment. The concept has been introduced in this Bill of creating a special category of person who is ‘in the opinion of the practitioner rendering the service a disadvantaged person’. This concept, which was introduced so that these people can be bulk billed at a lower rate other than eligible patients, such as pensioners, is, as I said before, distasteful and archaic. As Senator Cavanagh said, the term used when the concept was first mentioned earlier in the year was ‘socially disadvantaged’. We were to have some legal definition of this term so that people would know where they stood. There is no such definition in this legislation. There will be no such definition because, as the Government says, it cannot be defined. I am perfectly aware, as a medical practitioner, that doctors in practice have made this sort of decision in the past. Because of our health system they have had to decide that some people were poor and could not afford the full cost of medical care.

Senator Cavanagh:

– They need not be poor to be disadvantaged.

Senator GRIMES:

– That is certainly so. The fact that doctors have had to do it in the past does not make it correct. It certainly does not make it appropriate in this day and age. The term ‘disadvantaged’ is not defined in the legislation because it is indefinable. I know that the Government envisages that many noble men and women will make decisions- on what grounds we know not- as to whether a patient is disadvantaged. But doctors, like everybody else in the community, will vary considerably in their judgment. A doctor who works in the slums, the low socio-economic areas, will see all his patients as disadvantaged. He always has. The troglodytes from the General Practitioners Society will see no one who is disadvantaged. They will charge them all as they do now. They will not even give pensioners the benefit of a concessional rate.

Medical practitioners are not, nor have they ever been, trained to make decisions like that. One of the criticisms of the professional training of doctors- I believe it is justified- is that they are too separated during their years of training from the mainstream of society. As we all know, they are separated from the mainstream of university life, certainly in the last three or four years of their training. I know that efforts are being made to change this but the vast majority of doctors were not trained to make this sort of judgment.

The fact remains that many disadvantaged people through the ignorance of their doctors, through the inability of their doctors to judge them as disadvantaged or through the fact that their doctors are too busy to look at this concept properly will have to find 60 per cent or more of their medical fees whereas previously they had to find much less. This is 1978 and we should not have people in the community dependent on the charitable whims of others when we can avoid it. If a patient considers himself disadvantaged, can he appeal against the decision of a doctor to the contrary? If so, on what criteria can he make such an appeal? Perhaps the reply is the old one that he can go to the outpatients section of the hospital, if there is one around. I suggest that the whole concept is distasteful. I suggest that those few doctors who welcome the opportunity to make these decisions are the last ones who should have the right to make them. I believe that to introduce this sort of thing in 1978 is quite wrong.

The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) and the Minister for Health have both indicated that bulk billing of this type will be monitored and a careful watch will be kept to see that it is not abused. But on what basis does the monitoring occur if the group cannot be defined? How can the Government monitor bulk billing if it cannot write down who is supposed to be in this category? It probably includes new migrants and a few others. A final unfortunate consequence of this restriction is that many hard working rural doctors who travel long distances, who work without relief and who do not receive the income or the leisure time of city doctors will be reimbursed at a lower fee and will receive lower benefits as a result of this move. It is quite unnecessary. It was this group of doctors which convinced the Minister and the Government that bulk billing should not be abolished altogether. It is this group of doctors who will be disadvantaged by the present scheme.

Another aspect of this legislation is the fact that the abolition of Medibank Standard and the cutting back of the functions of the Health Insurance Commission will, of course, mean a loss of some hundreds of jobs and the loss of skills acquired in the last few years by Medibank personnel. We have all seen their efforts to preserve their jobs and to preserve a system they believe in. The handing over of the payment of the Government’s 40 per cent benefit to the health funds is done, as I said before, without providing any evidence for administrative or economic advantage. In fact, it is hard to find a commentator who does not believe that the opposite will happen, that there will be in fact administrative difficulties and economic disadvantage. The gathering of statistical information on which to base future reviews of health care and health insurance will be immeasurably more difficult with this division of functions. We know that many people will not insure. We know that as economic conditions worsen this number will increase. As I said before, this inevitably will mean a skewing of the pool of insured people towards the unhealthy, towards the high risk patients and towards the high claims group.

Inevitably this will result either in higher premiums or higher government subsidies. That is why none of us believes that this present modification of Medibank can last. This is the reason why not even the Government believes, if one reads the second reading speech, that it will last very long. The reason is that the answer to higher health costs in this country and the answer to a more efficient health service lies not in fiddling with the health insurance system. We need a system of universal health insurance. We had it from 1 July 1975 when Medibank was introduced. It was a system that was working effectively. It was a system that was accepted by the community. It was accepted so much that the Prime Minister, in his election speeches in 1 975 and again in 1977, even after he had made some modifications, said: ‘We are committed to preserving Medibank. We are committed to preserving this system.’ Then, of course, he proceeded to tear it apart.

The claim has always been that the reason this is being done is that the rate of increase in total health costs was too great and that the changes made by the Government each time would bring down that rate of increase. Concern has been expressed about the rate of increase of health costs in this country, not since 1975 when Medibank was introduced, not since 1972 when Labor came to power but back in the late 1 960s when we had the Nimmo investigation into health insurance in this country. Mr Gorton, then Prime Minister, at that time had his famous argument with the profession and with the voluntary health funds, and Mr McMahon- as he was then- in a much milder way, of course, later had his arguments with the voluntary health funds. If we look at the figures in recent years, we find the annual rate of increase in total health costs in this country was 20 per cent in 1 973-74 and 36.6 per cent in 1974-75.

This was before the introduction of Medibank and it reflected the reaction of the doctors at the time who were panic stricken at the thought of having a health insurance system introduced. They slapped up their fees right, left and centre. The figure then dropped back to 27.1 per cent after the introduction of Medibank in 1975-76 and came down in 1976-77 to 19.7 per cent. One could argue perfectly reasonably that these increased costs had nothing much to do with the introduction of Medibank or that they actually started’ to go down after the introduction of Medibank. But to suggest that they have only decreased because of the modifications made by this Government is ludicrous and is laughed at in many circles. It is important that we have a universal health scheme. It is important that that universal health scheme pays out to those people in need in the community. In my view, it is equally important that contributions to that universal health scheme have as their basis people’s ability to pay. That was the original concept of Medibank. This concept of paying only 40 per cent means inadequate payments for medical services in the community. This concept means that people who can well afford to pay will opt out if they are young and fit. This will mean an imbalance in the contributions to health insurance in this country. I believe from that will result disaster and the necessity for further change. As the Minister and the Department well know, if we are to look at the future of health care in this country so that we have efficient and economic health care, we cannot look only at health insurance. In fact, once we have a proper universal health insurance scheme- this scheme will not provide it- we can then look more correctly at the number of hospital beds in this community and their distribution. We can look at the use of diagnostic and therapeutic services, at their costs and at their cost benefits in the community. We can look at the use and abuse of drug therapy in this community. Then perhaps eventually we can get down to looking at the efficiency of that sacred cow in this country- the fee for service system.

We can look at the figures that are available with an eye that is not jaundiced or biased by ideological prejudice as to whether the fee for service system really is the most efficient and best system not only for the community but also for the individuals in the community. That is what other countries are doing, not only the countries of Europe which have social democratic governments but also the United States where vast numbers of people are looking at this sort of system. They are looking at health maintenance organisations. They are looking at other methods of funding health insurance which do not rely on a fee for service system and which do not rely on the crossing of the palm with silver to ensure efficiency. When we get to that stage, when we get over the debate on health insurance which is befuddling or clouding the issue and obsessing doctors, patients, the Press and governments in this country, and when we get down to looking at and evaluating the sort of system that we have now and looking carefully at the methods we use and the distribution of our services, we may end up with an efficient health service: we may end up having in this place and other places debates which involve increasing the longevity of our citizens, improving our infant mortality rate and improving our situation in the world health stakes. We may look at the reason why, in the 1930s, we used to vie with New Zealand as the most healthy country and why now in the 1970s we are eleventh or twelfth on the list of healthy countries. We may look at why countries such as Japan have a better infant mortality rate and why countries such as Italy have a better longevity rate. Then we may get some sensible debate on this subject.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is the amendment that has been moved by Senator Grimes seconded?

Senator Douglas McClelland:
NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– Yes, I second the amendment.

Senator HAMER:
Victoria

-The Australian Labor Party is an extraordinary organisation, like a mythical bird that always flies along looking backwards. In economic matters it looks back, not so much to the Great Depression of the 1 930s as to the depression of the 1 890s. In health matters it still yearns after Medibank, regardless of the explosion of health costs that has been caused by that scheme. Like the Bourbons it has forgotten nothing and learnt nothing. Our new health insurance scheme retains the good features of Medibank, principally universal cover, and builds a structure which avoids some of the gross defects of Medibank. Like Senator Grimes I hope thai this will be the end of the major changes to the health insurance system because all the controversy over various insurance alternatives has diverted attention from far more important problem areas of health care.

The Labor Party has much to answer for in the way it took up a scheme that had been half worked out by two non-medical doctors, which subsequently became Medibank, and managed to convince the Australian people that this was the solution to all our health care problems. Everyone now realises that it was nothing of the kind. Certainly there were some problems with the health insurance scheme in the late 1960s, the lack of universal cover being the principal one. This could easily have been overcome by relatively minor adjustments to the health scheme without the enormous disruption and spiralling health costs which were caused by the Labor Medibank scheme. Worse still, the decade of argument about the merits or otherwise of Medibank has distracted attention from vastly more important problems areas in health care.

Before I turn to these problem areas, perhaps I should mention the worries that I have about the scheme that is now being introduced. The first worry concerns the nature of insurance. The idea of insurance is the spreading of risks. I am concerned that fit people, particularly fit young people, who are prepared to accept standard ward accommodation if they need hospitalisation will not take out insurance. This will mean that those people taking out insurance will tend to be those at health risk, which is a bad basis for a health insurance scheme. Inevitably it will mean that insurance premiums will be undesirably high. Whether this will happen, no one can yet say; but it is a danger. The second worry concerns the low income families who can afford neither to pay the insurance premiums nor to pay their 60 per cent share of the cost of treatment; the Government of course pays 40 per cent. Admittedly they are covered for standard ward care in public hospitals and their contributions are limited to $20 for any procedure, but even this can be a severe burden and a strong deterrent to seeking medical assistance when it should be sought.

I have never been a believer in the effectiveness or desirability of the deterrent gap- the amount paid by the patients ostensibly to deter over-use of the services. I have seen no evidence- statistical evidence, that is- that the presence or absence of a deterrent fee makes any significant difference to the usage of services, the overwhelming proportion of which are doctor initiated rather than patient initiated anyway. Perhaps it may save a few unnecessary consultations for low income families. It is equally likely, perhaps more likely, to deter such families from seeking medical assistance when they really should do so, which may involve the community in much greater costs in the long run. The solution that is proposed under the new scheme is to give the doctor the discretion to decide whether patients are financially disadvantaged. If he decides that they are disadvantaged, he can accept 75 per cent of the standard fee. for which he bulk bills the Government; the patient pays nothing.

I can see two problems here. It puts the doctor in the position of deciding who does or does not get free treatment. Although this has problems, most people would probably prefer this method to having a public servant decide. What happens if all local doctors, for doctrinaire reasons, refuse to bulk bill? Where does the poor patient go then- the outpatients’ department of a public hospital? Outpatients’ departments are frequently very inconvenient for patients, with intolerably long waits for parents with large families. Moreover, they are a very expensive way of providing primary health care. The success or failure of this new health insurance scheme therefore depends on the co-operation of the medical profession. I hope it will co-operate fully because it is a good scheme and it is in the profession ‘s interests and the interests of the community that it should work.

Although I have argued that the insurance scheme is far from being the most significant problem area in health care, it affects the other areas. It is therefore worth examining the general problems of our health care to see whether this new health scheme does anything to solve them. Perhaps it is the ANZAC tradition of reckless bravery and somewhat casual discipline, but we Australians seem to make two very dangerous and contradictory assumptions about our health. The first assumption is that we will keep our good health no matter what, and the second is that even if we lose it we can always buy it back. But can we? In the early 1960s our health care cost about $700m a year; today the cost has gone sky high, with more than $6,000m, over 7 per cent of the gross domestic product, being spent on health care in 1976-77. We must make a concerted effort to bring these costs under control. Australia’s expenditure on health used to be roughly mid-way between the high expenditure in the United States of America and the relatively low expenditure in Britain. Since the 1 960s we have moved much closer to the Americans.

But for all this extra expenditure there has not been any real improvement in overall health standards. We have reached the point of diminishing returns in health expenditure. Part of the problem is that we have almost no reliable guidance on the costs and benefits of different patterns of usage and care. We need immediate action to provide information on a national basis that will allow efficient planning and development of our health care resources. The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 that is before us provides the power. What we must now do is to use this power. Another part of the problem of deciding what we should do is our lack of a clear concept of what a health care system should do and how it should operate. We are deceiving ourselves when we think of Australia as a sun-bronzed coastal culture where lifestyle, sand and surf take care of most health problems. The reality is very different.

More and more frequently serious ill health is not disease related but lifestyle related. We are eating, drinking and driving ourselves at an ever greater rate into the care of a health system which was developed to meet 19th century patterns of disease related breakdowns. We should give some serious thought to redesigning our health care delivery system so that it can influence our lifestyle and reduce the risks that go with it. For instance, the annual health cost of our smoking habits was estimated at $625m two years ago; it would be much more now. Can we afford to accept this fact tamely any longer? We are spending too little of our resources on prevention. Over half of our health resources are spent on people who die in the following 12 months. Another attitude that directly contributes to the high cost of health care is the belief that the best health care is always the most intensive. After years of watching the appalling television doctor programs, we have fallen for the lure of highly technological, highly intensive and very expensive medical care. Most of us, who go to our GP come away feeling short-changed if a prescription is not ordered. Although drugs account for only about 8 per cent of total health care expenditure, there would still be a considerable immediate saving if doctors’ prescribing habits were moderated and better directed. At the moment there is no incentive to prescribe economically. It does not cost the doctor anything, and he knows that the patient pays the same whether it is a cheap or an expensive drug.

The size of our pharmaceutical bill should be no surprise.

For more serious illness we expect and we are getting batteries of computer-assisted tests. The cost of these tests can be very high. In one clinic, for instance, the cost per detected case of breast cancer is $5,000. Some tests for the causes of high blood pressure are costing in the vicinity of $20,000 per detected case. Whilst I do not want to put a cash limit on the value of detection, which may of course save the costs of prolonged hospitalisation, these figures are a warning of the costs that may be involved in testing. It is a cost warning that must be heeded when we remember that between 1962 and 1976, the number of doctor-initiated diagnostic services increased by 300 per cent, compared with an average increase in all services of 48 per cent and the relatively insignificant rise in patient-initiated GP services of only 20 per cent

A similar pattern appears in the field of elective surgery. In just one example, the rate of tonsillectomy varies five-fold between different areas in New South Wales, a state where each year 25,000 tonsillectomies are performed. This astonishing variation cannot be attributed to differences in the incidence of illness. Some, if not most, must be attributed to different criteria used by doctors when ordering surgery for an operation desirability of which is doubtful anyway. The present structure of rewards to doctors on the fee-for-service system must take some of the blame, for it positively encourages surgery rather than more conservative treatment.

What are we offered as measures to control costs in the health industry? One that has gained popularity recently is the user pays thesis. This claims that if the user has greater out-of-pocket expense, his cost-consciousness will be heightened. This is expected to influence the doctor as well. Knowing that the patient will have to bear some proportion of health costs, the doctor will be more cautious in what he orders. I do not think that this is a very hopeful approach. For a start, health funds can now offer gap insurance, which wipes out the user pays theory in one go. In any case, there is every reason to believe that the more expensive health care becomes, the more anxious a patient is to get tangible services- drug prescriptions and so on- in return for his money.

Another suggestion is based on the belief that doctors ‘ incomes are too high, and that we could solve our health costs problems by cutting them back. There are many things wrong with this approach, quite apart from the fact that we probably have not the constitutional power to do anything effective about it anyway. For one thing, private doctors’ incomes represent only 18 per cent of our total health costs. For another, they are not really too high when one considers their practice expenses, their length of training, the hours they work, and the fact that they do not have superannuation and other benefits that most people accept as a right.

An average GP not performing hospital operations would earn around $35,000 a year after he has paid his practice expenses. I do not think that is excessive for what is on the whole not very pleasant work. There are of course some areas of blatant overpayment- pathologists, radiologists and possibly surgeons being the most obvious ones. I would like to see the Australian Medical Association more active and more prompt in changing its recommended fees to take account of abuses, the effects of changing technology and the changing pattern of health care needs. It is highly desirable that every profession, including the medical profession, should be self-regulating. This is greatly to be preferred to governments getting in on the act, but self-regulation implies that the profession will be promptly responsive to community needs and will not be unduly pushed around by internal pressure groups. I am not convinced that the medical profession meets these requirements at the moment.

But if the user pays theories, or the control of doctors’ incomes, are not likely to be fruitful, what can we do? First of all we must do some hard and clear thinking. One particular misconception that must be dispelled- a misconception strongly held by some of the more militant doctors’ unions- is that the health industry operates in a free-market situation and will respond favourably to free-market pressures. One extra ordinary feature of the health industry is its reversal of the traditional relationship between supply and demand. In a free market, increased demand leads to higher prices which are stabilised when supply increases to meet the demands- then prices fall.

The health industry does not work at all like this. Higher prices may in fact lead to higher demand as consumers seek value for money in the purchase of a product that they view not as a luxury but as a basic necessity. The reversal of the supply and demand relationship is perhaps most clearly demonstrated by the effect of oversupply of hospital beds. In a free market, costs would fall, but in our health care market, demand, in the form of increased elective surgery, instead rises to meet supply.

A second factor that destroys the free market assumption is the unique role of the doctor in the medical market place. Doctors have a dual role- as entrepreneurs selling an expensive product on a fee-for-service basis, and as agents for the welfare and interests of the consumers of this product. This creates serious dangers of conflicts of interests, particularly as the nature of the medical profession is changing. For the past 30 years we have been selecting medical students, not on their compassion or desire to serve the community, but solely on the marks obtained by students at the Higher School Certificate examinations. Too many- not by any means all, but too many- choose a medical career not from any true motivation but from the desire to convert a good HSC pass into the most prestigious and lucrative career. To their credit, some medical schools are now broadening their entry requirements, but it will be a long time before this has any impact on the composition of the profession.

In the meantime, the changed nature of the medical profession is becoming increasingly obvious, to the dismay of many of the most senior and respected members of the profession. But it should make us re-examine our attitudes to some of the conflicts of interest that have been accepted in the past. Is it any longer acceptable that a doctor may make a decision to put a patient in hospital, thus involving the spending of a considerable amount of community money, when that doctor, in his other capacity as an entrepreneur owning a hospital, stands to make a profit from having the hospital beds occupied? The same applies to doctors who own nursing homes. I think that the medical profession has to re-examine very carefully whether it is ethically possible for doctors to be entrepreneurs in these fields, as well as whether it is appropriate for doctors to control health insurance funds, for these funds should be checks and balances on the activities of the medical profession. If the profession cannot or will not undertake these ethical re-examinations the Government will have to do it for them. But I hope that it will not have to.

While on the subject of hospitals, it must be made clear that this is where the vast bulk of our health care expenditure- something like twothirds goes. It is here that we must look for savings and restraints. It can be done by better management and more specialisation. It need not be at the expense of the quality of health care. A recent study of a 900-bed hospital with an 80 per cent occupancy rate, resulted in the reduction of the average length of stay from 13.7 to 11.1 days merely through simple administrative changes which eliminated wasted bed days. This represented a considerable cost saving to the community and also deceased the risk to the patients, some 20 per cent of whom suffer complications purely because of their hospitalisation.

The problem always comes back, ultimately, to the medical profession. Members of the medical profession decide who goes to hospital, what is done to the patient there and when the patient is released. This brings us to the point that one way of controlling the costs of health care is to limit the number of doctors. Each additional doctor adds about $250,000 a year to the national health care bill. It is important to realise that because health care is not a free-market, this increased cost per doctor will continue even if we have a surplus of doctors. But have we such a surplus, or are we likely to have one? We certainly have never seemed to have had a surplus in the past.

Australia at the moment has about 21,000 doctors, 1,000 more than the level recommended in the 1973 report of the Committee on Medical Schools. But our growth expectations have changed since then. By 1 990 the population will be more than a million short of” the estimates used in that report, and the number of doctorsaround 34,000- could be as much as 4,000 above reasonable requirements. By 1990 this over-supply of doctors may well be costing the community more than $ 1,000m a year at present prices for a contribution to the quality of our health care that can best be described as doubtful.

But how then do we get the impression of a current shortage of doctors? The problem is that doctors are very badly distributed, clustering in affluent areas which are pleasant to live in- and over-treating these areas- and relatively neglecting the less attractive working-class suburbs and country areas. Worse still, the distribution between general practitioners- the doctors of first contact- and specialists is out of balance. Both these problems are within the power of the profession to regulate, if it had the will. After all, the legal profession, in creating a Queen’s Counsel, considers not only the desire of the individual but also the balance of the profession. Surely the medical profession could do likewise. I think it should seriously tackle these problems of the distribution and balance of its members. If it does not, governments will have to, which would be regrettable, to put it mildly.

How good is our standard of health care? International comparisons are extraordinarily difficult, but if there were international health competitions- from which heaven protect us- I think we would find that, as in the Olympic Games, we would have sunk back from being one of the leaders in the 1950s to being one of the also rans among developed countries now. Our absolute standards would have risen slightly, but relatively we would have been overtaken by other countries using more sophisticated approaches.

What are the deficiencies of our health care organisations? Firstly, we are badly biased towards breakdown treatment rather than preventive maintenance. Our lifestyle causes a lot of medical problems. Drug taking is serious- and alcohol and tobacco are far graver dangers in this respect than either heroin or marijuana. The car is a health menace, particularly to the young. We also eat too much and take too little exercise. It is extraordinary that a country which is prepared to spend $6,000m on health care is not prepared to spend one-hundredth as much on encouraging people to take exercise after they leave school. Secondly, our basic medical philosophy is defective. The existence of psychosomatic illnesses and cures- mind made diseases- is admitted, yet we nearly always persist in treating symptoms as if they were solely disease or injury related. The deficiencies of our health philosophy are causing many intelligent people to turn to the alternative medical field for help.

Turning to more specific faults in our health care- I emphasise that no system could possibly be perfect- I list the following shortcomings: We are giving far too much attention to cure rather than prevention. The fee-for-service approach encourages this. The system also encourages surgery rather than more conservative treatment. There is no incentive to the economical use of hospitals and nursing homes. In fact, the involvement of doctors as entrepreneurs may be a positive incentive to their use. There is no incentive to the economical prescription of drugs, and few disincentives to the prescription of very expensive drugs. There is little incentive to the use of diagnostic skills by GPs, instead of ordering expensive batteries of hospital tests. And finally, by world standards an extraordinarily high proportion of operations is carried out by GPs without special surgical qualifications.

Although, as I said, one could draw up a list of defects for any health care system, these seem to me to be formidable defects which cannot be ignored. Will the new health insurance scheme make any difference? The answer is, surely, very little if any. What then can we do to tackle these pressing problems? I said earlier that we urgently need information on the costs and benefits of various approaches to health care. We can no longer rely on myths and legends and seat of the pants judgments, some of which obviously have become out of touch with the real world.

There are, however, two rays of light on the horizon. The medical profession is at last moving on peer review. I think the AMA should be congratulated on its recent decision to support the progressive introduction of evaluations which include both quality assurance and cost benefit analysis. It will only cover care given in hospitals, but at least some progress is being made. It has taken long enough. But this type of peer review will not really provide what we need- positive incentives to doctors for the economical use of health care resources. Here the Health Insurance Act is mildly helpful. It enables the Minister to approve the establishment of health maintenance organisations- often called prepaid health plans- on the lines of the wellknown Kaiser Permanante scheme in America.

They work like this: A group of health professionals, including GPs, some specialists, nursing and administration staff, and perhaps social workers, contract to provide an agreed variety of medical services to contributors who pay an annual fee, fixed in advance as in one of the current health funds, though the fee would normally be lower than in these funds. The costs of providing the services, including the salaries of the health workers, would come out of the fees. The profits could be shared between the health workers, and the contributors as a rebate on their fees. I think that if the schemes are to work effectively in Australia, which has a different health care structure to America, the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) will have to be bolder than he has yet shown signs of being. If we wish to give incentives to economy in the use of drugs and hospitalisation- as we surely should- the Minister should provide that health maintenance organisations should receive, for each contributor the average amount spent per head of the community by the Government on drugs and private hospital care. The health maintenance organisation would then pay the full cost for these services and would have strong incentives to use them economically.

The advantages would be numerous. The health maintenance organisation doctors would have positive incentives not to order unnecessary tests, not to perform unnecessary operations, not to prescribe unnecessary or unduly expensive drugs, not to order unnecessary or unduly prolonged hospitalisation- although of course they would have to provide efficient and adequate services otherwise they would lose their patients. Obviously such a scheme could not be the only scheme. People would have to have the right to opt out to the fee-for-service system if they were dissatisfied with their treatment by the health maintenance organisation. But I believe that such organisations would work very well in our major centres and would provide a useful alternative to the fee-for-service system, as well as providing a valuable insight into the possibility of more economical health care.

We must do something to restrain these growing costs. The ancient Chinese, I am told, had a system whereby they paid their doctor when they were well, and stopped paying him when they were sick. If they died and were powerful enough the doctor was executed. As so often occurs, the Chinese went to the heart of the problem, although their method of encouraging preventive care might not have universal acceptance here. But we must face up to these problems of the economics of health care. Now that we have, I hope, at last got the long, distracting and wasteful argument over health insurance behind us, we can do just that.

Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory

– The Senate is debating the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) and associated Bills introduced by the Government. I rise to support the amendment moved to the motion for the second reading of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) by my colleague Senator Grimes. I will not proceed to make my own contribution to this debate without congratulating Senator Hamer who has just resumed his seat. It was most refreshing to hear such a perceptive, intelligent and thoughtful analysis of the problem of our health delivery system as has just been given by Senator Hamer. I have heard speeches of that kind being made in this chamber before but they have usually been made by my colleague Senator Grimes. I congratulate Senator Hamer for the excellent contribution he has made to the debate about the training of doctors, medical practice in this country, the delivery of health services, the costing of those services and so on. I am really left with very little to add after the very excellent exposition by my colleague Senator Grimes followed by an equally excellent exposition of the problems and the reservations regarding the new legislation by Senator Hamer.

However, there are some points in these Bills that are of particular interest to my constituency.

I will now proceed to discuss those points. I address myself to the effect of the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill. This Bill changes the status of the Health Insurance Commission. It redefines the powers and functions of the Health Insurance Commission following the abolition of Medibank Standard. At present approximately 5,000 people work for Medibank. Many hundreds of those people are facing unemployment as a result of the passage of this Bill. In my constituency, the Australian Capital Territory, 400 Medibank staff are affected and it is possible that 200 of those people will lose their jobs. Clause 3 1 of this Bill provides that where staff are no longer able to be employed by the Commission the Public Service Board may attempt to redeploy such staff. This clause describes with breathtaking accuracy this Government’s total indifference to the welfare of its own employees. It is also interesting if one considers the promises made by this Government before last year’s general election. On 25 November 1977 the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) replied to questions put to him by the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. In his letter of reply the Prime Minister said:

It has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

Those are the words of the Prime Minister, quoted from his letter of 25 November 1977. I consider them of great consequence to this debate. I seek leave to incorporate the Prime Minister’s letter in Hansard so that honourable senators may read for themselves precisely what the Prime Minister said in relation to Public Service retrenchments.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

Prime Minister Canberra 25 November 1977 Received 28.1 1.77 a.m.

Dear Mr Gradwell,

I am writing in reply to your letter of 10 November concerning the attitude of political parties to their role as potential employer of Australian Government Employees. I shall cover each of the questions which you have posed in the order they appear in your letter.

Wage Indexation

The Liberal National Country Party government will continue to support the principle of wage indexation, but we reserve the right to make submissions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which are in the best interests of the nation as a whole. We will of course accept the decisions of the Commission.

As you are aware, the Commission is at present undertaking a review which is addressing itself to the indexation guidelines including the frequency of adjustments.

Superannuation Scheme

The government’s intention to maintain CPI annual indexation has already been announced and there is no intention of reviewing that decision.

and (c) We will be prepared to discuss, and consider carefuly, any reasonable proposal for changes in public service superannuation.

Occupational Health Service

We have been carefully considering the report of the working party which met in 1975. We will convene an early meeting of the Peak Councils and relevant Commonwealth Departments to consider further action which should be taken.

Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act

I cannot agree that this legislation discriminates against Commonwealth employees and for an explanation of the government’s position J draw your attention to the Second Reading Speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Street, published in Hansard of 1 8 August 1977.

Uniform Hours of Work

The Liberal National Country Party government will continue to encourage consultation between management and unions on all matters affecting Commonwealth employees. These consultations can encompass hours of duty as well as other conditions of employment.

Occupational Safety and Health

The Liberal National Country Party government supports the implementation of principles and practices to promote occupational safety. It is our wish to continue on a joint consultative basis with the union movement. After the election we propose to take up this question as a matter of priority.

Flextime

I believe that ‘flextime’ has been a successful innovation and we are agreeable to its extension to new areas of government employment where that is practicable and appropriate.

Annual Leave Loading

Commonwealth public servants already enjoy, in respect of leave loadings, more generous provisions than the bulk of the community. Further benefits, especially in the current economic climate, would therefore be difficult to justify.

Employment Levels and Job Security

It has been our express policy to avoid retrenchments and this will continue.

and (c) Overall staffing levels will be determined in the light of need. Although there may be both increases and decreases in particular areas of administration as work loads vary, the initial process of streamlining has now been substantially completed and in general there will be stability in the service.

Long Service Leave

Existing provisions for long service leave have been decided in the light of existing conditions but my government would be prepared to consider any new submission.

Maternity and Paternity Leave

If examination of the operations of the Maternity Leave (Australian Government Employees) Act show that amendments are desirable, they will be made whether these results in increases or reductions in the level of benefits.

Consideration will be given to extending coverage where this can be seen to be desirable and we would welcome any submissions on the matter.

Consultative Arrangements

I would be happy for Ministers in my government to have consultations with representatives of CAGEO although these consultations should not be used to circumvent the recognised process for consultation between the Union Movement and the Commonwealth Service which have been established over the years.

I am pleased to have been given the opportunity to comment on the matters you have raised in your letter. I think it is most important that there be communication between the government and the Union Movement so that both are able to carry out their functions effectively. 1 look forward to a further period of co-operation for the good of the Service and the people of Australia.

Yours sincerely. Malcolm Fraser

Mr B. Gradwell, Federal Secretary,

Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations. 4th Floor, 254 La Trobe Street, Melbourne, 3000

Senator RYAN:

– I would also like the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle), in replying to this debate, to tell the Senate whether the statement of policy included in the letter which I have just had incorporated in Hansard is still operative. There seems to be no doubt at this stage that hundreds of Medibank staff will lose their jobs. The Government has said that it will redeploy the surplus staff. But where will they go? The staff ceilings imposed by the Government in all areas of public employment will not allow for many of these people to be employed. It is a fact that most of these ‘surplus’ people, as they are denned by the Government, will be out of work, but they will not know their fate until January of next year. I ask: Why are these people to lose their jobs? They have proved themselves highly competent. They are perfectly well qualified to process the Commonwealth’s universal benefit. It appears that the Government is so violently opposed to community-owned enterprises, so doctrinaire in its determination to smash Medibank, that it would rather throw hundreds of its employees out of work and pay exorbitant amounts to the private health funds than utilise the talents available within its own Health Insurance Commission.

There are many members of the Medibank staff who left long-standing employment with private health funds when they were invited to join the Medibank staff. They were told then by their employers that they would not be able to return to jobs in private health funds. Yet the

Government now has the temerity to tell us that it has requested the private funds to employ the surplus Medibank staff. Many Medibank officers do not have the protection which other public servants have under the Officers Rights Declaration Act. They have no chance of beingredeployed. Even if they were to sit for the basegrade entrance examination for the Public Service they would find, as so many Canberra school leavers are finding, that there are no places for them.

This legislation is also inimical to the interests of the people who join the staff of Medibank after 1 November, which is when this Bill takes effect. Existing staff are, and will continue to be, entitled to maternity leave as it applies to all women employed in the Commonwealth Public Service, but staff joining after 1 November will not have that entitlement. The Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) explained this extraordinary decision by saying:

I have to advise that such a subsidy would be contrary to the intent of the Government which has to operate, in its own right, in a competitive market environment with other registered health insurance funds.

Typically, this Government is prepared to sacrifice the welfare and conditions of employees on the altar of its doctrinaire obsession with competition’. This Government can see no obligation to protect the interests of working Australians. At a time when it should be working to extend entitlements like maternity leave to the entire Australian work force, it is degrading the working conditions of its own employees. I call upon the Government to reconsider this aspect of the legislation. It is mean, totally unjust and directly conflicts with the Government’s frequent protestations that it supports equal employment opportunities for women. I urge the Minister to consider the grave industrial problems which could be caused by the Government’s decision to discriminate against new members.

The possibility of widespread unemployment amongst the people who are currently employed by Medibank and the lowering of conditions in regard to maternity leave for people who join the Health Commission after 1 November are the main issues I wished to raise at this stage of the debate. Apart from that I reiterate the arguments against the other measures in the package of legislation before us and support the amendment moved by my colleague Senator Grimes.

Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania

-In the debate on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 and the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1978, which are before the Senate tonight, we have had a fine example ofthe socialist policies of the Australian Labor Party. We heard Senator Grimes say: When we get over crossing the doctors’ palms with silver’- that is the fee for service- ‘and introduce the health maintenance scheme we will be far better off’. Obviously he would like to get our country into the fine mess that the United Kingdom is in. Just recently an orthopaedic surgeon there called a meeting of all his patients on his waiting list. He filled a hall with 300 patients that he had on his waiting list.

Senator Grimes:

– What has that to do with HMOs?

Senator WALTERS:

– That is nationalised medicine and that is what Senator Grimes is advocating tonight. Of course, this is completely in line with the discussion paper put out by the Labor Party just recently about the taking overwhen it is in government, if it ever gets in government- of large businesses in Australia. Ever since the Labor Government interfered with the finely balanced health arrangements of this country both that Government and this Government have been grappling with health costs. The Medibank system that the Labor Government introduced was the cause of the greatly escalating costs in health care.

Sentor Ryan- How can you justify that claim?

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA · LP

-I will give the honourable senator some figures to justify it. I am sure that if the people listening to this debate examine how health costs have risen they will understand what I am talking about. In 1960-61 the national health bill was $700m. By 1975-76 it had exceeded $5, 200m and it was expected to rise even more because the preliminary figure for 1976-77 was $6,254m.

Senator Ryan:

– Will you tell us about doctors’ incomes?

Senator WALTERS:

– Let us have a look at what has caused these increases. Senator Ryan has said that is was doctors’ incomes. Nearly 60 per cent of health costs are incurred in institutional care. It was pointed out in the discussion paper on paying for health care that was put out in February this year by Doctor Sax that the main increase in institutional care was the increase in nurses ‘ salaries- a catch up in wages for women with which I entirely agree. Let us face the facts. The increase in costs has been through the institutional care of patients; the prime increase has not been through doctors’ wages. Let us see what the people of Australia want by way of health care. Technology has increased tremendously. If we want the very best care with the highest technology available easily accessible we have to pay for it. If we want the very best of everything- if health is most important to us- we have to be prepared to pay for it. We have to be prepared for our taxes to rise considerably to cope with all the technology that is available for every single service we want.

Let me instance what can happen. It can be justifiably said that every woman who is having a baby should have an ultra-sound scan. The equipment is known as a real time scanner. The service is not always necessary. The majority of women have perfectly normal births and the scans are not a necessary part of treatment in a normal pregnancy. If these scans are given to every woman in Australia who is having a baby costs will increase considerably. The scanners would be in every obstetrician’s surgery. Doctors, admittedly, would be able to make a great deal more money. If the community desired such a service for normal pregnancies, the doctors could justify it by saying that they just might pick up something which is abnormal. After all, the scanners can establish more accurately the date of the expected birth of the baby and whether the growth of the baby is normal and is going according to schedule. It could also establish the placement of the placenta. These scans are necessary if something is going wrong or if the doctor suspects that something is going wrong. In a normal pregnancy there is no need for this particular service. It could be argued that one scan in many thousands could pick up something that the doctor had not suspected. Is this the sort of service that the Australian community wants? Is this the sort of service that the Australian community is prepared to pay for? If this is what the community wants, we have to ignore the escalating costs and be prepared to pay for the services by taxes.

We might of course be quite content with reasonably good health care. Senator Grimes said tonight that no matter what the Labor Party or this Government introduced the health of the community has not been altered. If we are prepared to accept that, that the health of our community is pretty good, we may opt for reasonable health costs. We may decide on that. After all, services in the past couple of years per head of population have gone up. We might say ‘Okay, these have gone up unreasonably and should be limited’. Let us have a look at the rise in the service per head of population. In 1967-68 the Australian average for medical services per head of population was 4.2- the average person went to the doctor 4.2 times in a year. In 1 975 the figure rose to 4.7. It is estimated that for 1976 the figure will be 5.6. People are going to the doctors more. They say: ‘I am paying for it. I am insured. I am paying my taxes. I may as well get full advantage of what is available’.

People are going to the doctors for all sorts of minor ailments. I know that when my children- I am sure this applies to the majority of honourable senators who have children- contracted measles the doctor was not contacted as it was known that measles was a relatively minor complaint, a children’s complaint, that could be coped with quite well at home. Complications could arise. However, the parents would decide whether the child needed medical attention. Now the doctor appears to be called in at the first sign of measles. Honourable senators might say that this is quite a legitimate service, but it is costing the community. If the community wants that sort of service it must be prepared to pay for it by way of taxes. That is just a minor example of what health care costs are all about.

I now turn to costs per hospital bed. This might explain to Senator Ryan where the increases are really coming from. The cost per hospital bed in Western Australia in 1972-73 was $43.43. When the Labor Party was in government in 1973-74 the cost rose to $54.53. The next year it went up to $75.2 1. The following year is rose to $94.08. In the three years that the Labor Government was in power the cost more than doubled. It is complete ignorance on Sentor Ryan ‘s part to say that doctors’ fees alone have made health costs rise. She has not gone into the figures in any depth at all. It is just a philosophy she wants to put across. It is quite unfair and quite irresponsible for her to continue along that line.

Senator Ryan:

– I raise a point of order. At no point either in the course of my remarks or by way of interjection did I say that doctors’ fees were the sole contribution to rising health costs.

The PRESIDENT:

– No point of order is involved. You may claim to have been misrepresented at the end of the speech of Senator Walters and then make a personal explanation.

Senator WALTERS:

– When I said that health care costs had gone up quite considerably and I was about to look at the cause, Senator Ryan said very clearly by way of interjection, and I am sure it will be recorded in Hansard: ‘Doctors’ fees’. No other words were mentioned except doctors’ fees’. We will read that remark in Hansard tomorrow. Let us have a look at the increase in services. As I said a little earlier, members of the public believe that because they are paying for the services they must use them as much as they can. This attitude has to be changed. We have to realise that if we do not go to the doctor, despite the fact that we are paying our insurance, we are having a jolly good year. We do not say that, because we have paid out a lot of car insurance, we must take the car out and have a bump or two so that we can collect some of the insurance. We accept that and say: ‘We have had a jolly good year; we have not had a crash or bump of any description’. With our health care we seem to adopt a different philosophy. If we have paid our insurance premiums and we have not been to the doctor we say: ‘Ye Gods! We had better get the most out of our money. Let us see what we can go and see the doctor about’. So we go along and see the doctor for some trivial reason.

Another concern of mine, which was mentioned this evening by Senator Hamer, relates to the number of doctors and the generating of additional health costs by providing additional doctors. Again, this was mentioned in the report by Dr Sax. Obviously it is a matter of concern in many other countries too. Yet we are still bringing in doctors as immigrants because we say that in certain country areas we do not have enough doctors. We say that they are hard to come by. The same situation applied in Canada. Dr Sax said in his report:

The Canadian Government has recently decided to restrict the immigration of foreign doctors, not only because the nation is considered well supplied (there are regional shortages) but because of an estimate that each new doctor admitted costs the Canadian population . . .

I agree with that. I believe that our Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs should consider that very carefully. As Senator Hamer said tonight, by 1990, if estimates are correct, we may well have 4,000 doctors above our needs. Yet we are still bringing in foreign doctors as immigrants. I believe that the Department should look at this. It is not good enough to say that we have an odd shortage in country areas so let us bring in immigrant doctors. We should make those areas attractive to our own doctors, who are now becoming plentiful.

I would like now to look at some specific items in the Bill. Tonight Senator Grimes said that we are cutting out all universality. We are not. We will still have universal coverage for 40 per cent of the doctors’ scheduled fee. That is a universal scheme. It will apply to every member of the community. The Commonwealth Government will pay 40 per cent of the doctors’ schedule fee.

Perhaps we should consider the three health insurance categories of people. Let us look firstly at the situation of people who at the moment are levy payers. Senator Grimes said- he was quite inaccurate- that when his Government tried to introduce a levy scheme this Government, as the then Opposition, was against a levy of any sort. That is not right. This Government was against the levy proposed by the Australian Labor Party, which was a levy without any ceiling, a levy that disadvantaged the two-income families, a levy that did not make allowance for the two-income families who were earning low incomes. That was the sort of levy that the coalition parties were against, not any sort of levy, as Senator Grimes said.

Let us look at the options for the present levy payers. They have been paying 2.5 per cent of their taxable income as a levy. They will be able to use- that money saved under the new scheme, if they so desire, to pay their contributions under the basic medical level. This Government has insisted on all private health funds introducing a basic level of cover. A basic level of cover has already been announced by some ofthe funds. It appears that it will cost roughly $2.50 a week for a family and half that for a single person. That will be covered very successfully by the 2.5 per cent of taxable income that the levy payers have been paying and they will not be out of pocket for coverage at that level.

Senator Walsh:

– Is that the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia rate?

Senator WALTERS:

-No, it is not. As far as I know- Senator Walsh might have inside information; I certainly do not- the MBF has not published its new fees yet.

Senator Walsh:

– But your husband is a director of MBF, is he not?

Senator WALTERS:

-Good heavens, no! He certainly is not a director. However, the levy payers will have the option of taking out insurance at the basic level, which will cover 75 per cent of a doctor’s schedule fee. Under that coverage the maximum a patient will have to pay for any one service will be $20. 1 stress that that will be so for any one service because I think that people have come to the conclusion that the maximum cost of $20 will apply to the total cost of any number of visits- maybe three visits- to a doctor for the one illness. But that is not so; it will be a maximum of $20 for any single visit to a doctor. A levy payer who insured under that basic table would also be entitled to free publichospital treatment. I believe that that is one of the main options that may be taken up by levy payers.

Those people who opt for private insurance and who already have private insurance coverage need not do anything at all; they may continue their private insurance cover. The only effect of this new scheme will be that their contribution rates will go down quite considerably. The average reduction in rates for the funds that have already made their new rates known will be $3 a week. So those people who are privately insured will certainly be far better off. Then we have a third category of people. This is where I believe that the Labor Party has been extremely irresponsible. The honourable member for Prospect, Dr Klugman, in the other place, has said that people should not insure. Senator Grimes did not make that irresponsible statement tonight, although he claimed that many people would not insure. I believe that any encouragement by the Labor Party of people not to insure is completely irresponsible. In doing this the Labor Party is encouraging people to gamble on their health. I believe that this is perhaps one of the most irresponsible statements that have been made by members ofthe Labor Party in the debate on this health legislation.

Historically the Australian people have said that they want health insurance. They have opted for it. Very few have not done so. Throughout the history of private health funds, the majority of people have wanted those funds. But if someone wants to be a gambler let him take this into consideration: First of all, the Government will pay 40 per cent of the schedule fee, with the maximum that a patient will be required to pay for any one service being $20. 1 would like to warn any family man who is thinking of not taking out medical insurance for his family that perhaps just one visit to a general practitioner could reveal an illness that might require several visits to the doctor, X-ray treatment, pathology treatment and, finally, a consultation with a specialist. So the cost of one illness might not be just $20; he might have to make quite a considerable payment out of his pocket. Contrary to what the shadow Minister for Health in the other place, Dr Klugman, suggested, I encourage everyone not to gamble. I say to them: Insure yourselves and made sure that you are not gambling with your health or your family’s health.

Senator Peter Baume:

– Is that not the same message the Labor Minister for Health in New South Wales has given?

Senator WALTERS:

– That is exactly what he said because the Labor Minister for Health in New South Wales has been a little more responsible than the shadow Minister for Health in the other place has been. I move on to bulk billing. Senator Grimes surprised me quite considerably on this. Frankly, I just do not believe what he said. He had too good a reputation as a doctor in general practice for him to say that every time he reduced someone ‘s fee or waived it altogether he did so as an act of charity. I frankly do not believe him. He had too good a reputation. I do not believe that he looked upon it as an act of charity when someone who he knew had had a lot of illness came to see him and he said: ‘You have had a hard time; just forget about paying this time.’ I do not believe that Senator Grimes looked upon that as an act of charity, although in this place tonight he said that it was. Frankly, I do not believe that Senator Grimes was sincere when he sr.id that.

Senator Cavanagh piped up several times about the disadvantaged, that we did not even mention the financially disadvantaged. I think that any doctor, practically speaking, realises that it is not always just the financially disadvantaged who need assistance. Those who are disadvantaged by considerable illness also have to be taken into account, for the Opposition to surmise that there will be a stipulation that only those who are financially disadvantaged will be assisted I believe is completely wrong. Senator Grimes said that doctors are not trained to establish whether someone is disadvantaged or not. Over the years doctors have established whether or not their patients are disadvantaged. Traditionally, they have been able to say: ‘Just pay what you can’, or ‘I will waive the bill altogether’. They take into consideration their patients’ personal commitments and they are quite used to doing that sort of thing. That is not charity, it is something that has been part of the medical profession for many years. I come now to the question of pensioners. Doctors have been allowed to bulk bill for pensioners carrying health cards and are able to claim 85 per cent of the schedule fee. I believe that that has been accepted very well by the profession.

In my remaining five minutes I would like to deal with the Government’s amendments to the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill which are before the Senate tonight. The amendments relate to Part IIB ‘Additional Functions of the Commission’, and deal with proposed new sections 8C, 8D, 8DA and 8DB. Dealing first with proposed new section 8C, it stipulates that the functions conferred on the Commission are in addition to the other functions of Medibank Private. Proposed new section 8D allows Medibank Standard benefits to be paid by Medibank Private prior to the date of proclamation. Proposed new section 8DA restricts the power of the Minister to a prescribed function in relation to a direction to the Commission to implement any function in respect of health insurance, and I think that that is a most important change. If the Minister just directs a function to be implemented by Medibank Private, there can be no disallowance of that function by the Parliament. As a matter of fact, under the Act which this Bill seeks to amend the Parliament would not even know about the direction until it appeared in the annual report perhaps some 1 8 months or two years later in view of the way annual reports have been coming out in the last few years. However, now that the function is prescribed by regulation, if the Minister decides that Medibank Private should perform such a function as he desires then it must be prescribed by regulation. It must come before the Senate and within 15 sitting days the Senate may well object to the function. At least the Parliament will have a knowledge of it. I believe that that amendment is extremely important, and I would like to congratulate the Minister for introducing it.

Finally, proposed new section 8DB ( 1 ) and (2) relates to an agreement to be arranged by the Minister. If he desires Medibank Private as a fund to perform a function, then he may come to some agreement with Medibank Private to allow for the Government to pay for the carrying out of that function. The Minister must then lay a copy of that agreement upon the table of both Houses within 15 sitting days after entering into the agreement. I support fully the Bills before the Senate and sincerely hope that this is the last time we will see any big changes to the health Acts of this country.

Senator BISHOP:
South Australia

– The Australian people have become used to the general pattern of the Fraser Government in respect of economies through its oft repeated statement that there have to be cost savings in every area. We know from experience that in every area of government administration there have been a number of cutbacks, a number of cost savings. However, it seems to me that health insurance is the area that ought to concern people most. The Fraser Government Administration commenced with a statement from the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) that it would retain Medibank. After representations from the staff associations in the Government service, who had discussions with the Government about possible retrenchments, the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations was given a guarantee in 1977 that the Government was concerned about retrenchments and would seek to avoid them. My remarks tonight will be directed mainly towards the future of the people who have been employed in the organisation of health insurance and Medibank and also towards the general scheme.

The question we ought to ask ourselves is this: What is the Government up to? In the section of the Budget Papers dealing with the new prescriptions for health that we are discussing tonight, it is stated:

The new measures will add an estimated $ 138m to Budget outlays in 1978-79 and $305m in a full year; in addition, abolition of the levy will reduce receipts by an estimated $ 1 97m in 1 978-79 and $3 1 6m in a full year.

The first question we ought to ask is whether the Government is really setting out to cut costs. Is it designing a new system that will completely disturb not only the contributors to the health system but the staff that has been built up in an organisation which in the first instance was set up by the Labor Government and which has served the people of Australia very well? The Budget Papers also state:

We have therefore decided upon several major changes to existing arrangements which, while producing an immediately adverse budgetary effect, are more consistent with our longer-term objectives in this area and remove much of the confusion and complexity from present arrangements.

What has happened? The fact is that pensioners and average people in the community, who thought that they understood the health system and health insurance and their Medibank contributions, are totally confused about their entitlements and what they should do about the present situation. In addition, there are some 5,000 members of a staff which has been built up to service the system who are also very confused, and questions to Ministers in both places have not served to clarify their future. They have presented a petition on their future to the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), pointing out that many of them entered the Health Insurance Commission with the idea that there would be some permanency but presently they have no such guarantee. Whilst tonight the Minister may give us figures about possible redundancy, as I understand it, nobody really knows what is going to happen to those people in the Public Service, both temporary and permanent, who have serviced the Medibank system.

Unless the Government can guarantee employment to those employees, the Parliament itself should not endorse what is proposed in this legislation. Surely an organisation such as the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association, which has sought discussions with the Minister for Health in an endeavour to solve this problem, should be entitled to know tonight what is the future of its members. As the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) knows, many people on this side of the Parliament have sought answers to questions about the future of Medibank employees in each of the States. Until now we have not been told what is their future. The answers I have been given in respect of the people employed in South Australia have been no more revealing than they have been in respect of the answers about those employed in Canberra or elsewhere. Primarily, the Government must have an obligation to the people who have been employed in a system which has been comparatively safe and which has provided a service which people have understood and which will now be replaced by another system.

From the discussion tonight in the Senate one can see that the opinions on what the new scheme will be are many and varied. The questions which have been posed to me- I think that honourable senators in every State will have been asked the same questions- indicate that there is complete confusion as to what will be the new entitlements. I come back to the question I asked earlier. What is the Government up to? It has an increased liability. It proposes to introduce a less complex system but in fact the socalled simplified system will cost the nation more. In addition, it will disturb the relationship between the Government and the vast number of public servants which it employs.

I rise mainly to find out from the Minister- I hope that she will attempt to answer the questions from this side of the Parliament- what guarantees there will be for the permanent and temporary public servants who took on jobs in the Health Insurance Commission expecting that there would be some continuity of employment. Even if they had not expected some continuity, modern industrial practice indicates that there should be recognised severance arrangements. That situation would apply in most countries. I hope that the Minister is able to explain what has been the response to the representations to the Government of the union and staff organisations about the future of the Medibank employees. I hope, too, that the Minister will explain what should be done by the ordinary citizens in the community who are finding that there is a new environment in which they have to make their health insurance arrangements. In particular, I ask her to answer the questions about the Medibank staffs in all States, especially South Australia.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– in reply- I thank the Senate for the debate on the health measures which have been introduced by the Government as pan of the Budget proposals this year. Senator Grimes, when leading for the Opposition, mentioned many factors. It is fair to say that many other honourable senators raised some of the same issues. Senator Grimes referred to lengthy debates which have occurred in the Parliament to establish health schemes in this country. I feel sure that all will recall the many discussions that have been held during the years in which we have been establishing a health scheme. We well recall the discussions during the joint sitting of the Parliament and in a number of other ways about evolving a health scheme. Senator Grimes referred to the health schemes and the standards of health care. Other honourable senators made appropriate comments about the standard of health care as they saw it.

A number of points have been raised with regard to the employees of the Health Insurance Commission. Senator Bishop, Senator Douglas McClelland and Senator Sibraa raised questions in the Senate earlier this week on this subject. Senator Ryan addressed herself to the matter this evening. I wish to say, on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), that as a result of the new health insurance arrangements certain functions of the Health Insurance Commission are to be transferred to the Department of Health. Others relating to Medibank Standard will not be required. The Commission will remain a statutory authority operating in the private insurance field. The elimination of Medibank Standard will cause a reduction in the staffing needs of the Commission. The Commission is examining its staffing requirements but the number needed will depend on the volume of business obtained by Medibank Private and the number of registrations for the Commonwealth medical benefit. The Commission will need to maintain present staffing levels in processing centres retained by it during the transitional phase after 1 November to complete the processing of Medibank Standard work. After that date some staff will become surplus to requirements but it is still not practicable to identify precisely the number as this will be affected by the market share obtained by Medibank Private and the number of people who elect to register with Medibank Private for the payment of Commonwealth medical benefits.

As a result of the transfer of certain functions to the Department of Health, such as bulk billing, payment to private hospitals and claims review and investigation, a significant number of Medibank staff engaged on these functions will be offered employment in the Department of Health without any loss of present entitlements. Arrangements for the offer of employment to these people are currently being finalised. The Public Service Board and the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations will be actively seeking to obtain alternative employment for staff who become surplus to requirements. There has been extensive consultation by the Public Service Board, the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission with the staff associations on staffing matters arising from health insurance changes. Further meetings are planned to be held this week.

The questions that have been raised in this place by honourable senators have been referred to the Minister for Health. I know that he is taking account of the requests that have been made with regard to specific matters. For instance, Senator Dougias McClelland raised a question with regard to the number of Medibank employees who may become surplus as a result of the abolition of Medibank Standard. He said that there had been public statements that some 700 Commission staff would be redundant. These are estimates only. As I said earlier, until such time as we are aware of the share of the market that Medibank Private is able to obtain and the number of people who register with Medibank for the payment of their claims, it is not possible to estimate the number of staff who will no longer be employed by the Health Insurance Commission. It will be some time before this is fully known. In the meantime, obviously, there will be some staff reductions and some people will seek other employment believing that their positions may no longer be available to them in the distant future. At this stage negotiations are continuing.

Senator Sibraa:

asked a question of me in the Senate this week about the offer of a lump sum payment to staff who may be surplus to the Health Insurance Commission’s requirements after 1 November. I undertook to obtain information so that I could advise him during the debate on the Bills this evening. There has been extensive consultation by the Public Service Board, the Department of Health and the Health Insurance Commission with the staff associations on all staffing matters, including possible lump sum compensation for those who become redundant. This matter is still under negotiation. It was the subject of a meeting only last night between the associations, the Public Service Board and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister (Mr Viner). I understand that further meetings are planned on this issue.

Senator Sibraa also raised the matter of publicity arrangements by the Government in connection with the changes. I understand that the 5,500,000 booklets distributed by the Department of Health to inform people of the new health insurance arrangements specifically mentioned that Medibank Private would continue as a private health fund. Other publicity arranged by the department stated that people can register with Medibank Private to receive the 40 per cent Commonwealth medical benefit. Medibank Private has also advertised extensively to attract persons for registration for Commonwealth medical benefits. I have dealt with some of the questions for which I had undertaken to provide information during the debate this evening.

Senator Ryan had incorporated in Hansard a statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) with regard to retrenchments. The Prime Minister’s undertaking contained in the letter that was incorporated- and on any other occasions when similar statements have been made- was made in the context that staff ceilings would not be used to retrench staff. In other words, there would not be simply reduced staff ceilings which would be used for the purpose of retrenching staff. That statement could not be regarded as a blanket undertaking in all circumstances if there were radical changes in any of the instrumentalities of government. The Prime Minister stated that he would avoid retrenchments, that is, in the maintenance of existing services. Obviously some changes would not be applicable in the same way.

One of the other matters that was raised by a number of honourable senators who spoke this evening concerned disadvantaged groups. As far as the identification of disadvantaged persons is concerned, no criteria, other than the patient not being medically insured, are set out in the health insurance legislation to define a disadvantaged person. It is considered preferable to leave the identification of persons who would fall within this category in the hands of medical practitioners to determine. This decision accords with the concept that medical professionals traditionally have made judgments as to when the overall circumstances of a patient required some alleviation from the normal fee structure. I know that

Senator Grimes made some comments with regard to the training of doctors to be able to perform this function but I think it is agreed that traditionally this is a matter that has been dealt with by doctors in their own way.

Senator Grimes:

– But there are doctors who will not make this decision. General Practitioner Society doctors will not even bulk bill pensioners, let alone disadvantaged people.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– This particular proposal was one that was put forward by the Australian Medical Association. I accept that we could expect its full co-operation in the determination of disadvantaged people who need special consideration. It is believed that the method that I have described, that is, that no criteria are set out in the legislation, is preferable to a method which labels particular groups of people as being disadvantaged or under which people are subjected to means tests. On the spot decisions can be made which accord with changes in patients’ circumstances. It is felt that the medical practitioner who is in constant contact is the person best able to make that determination. Although no specific criteria are to be laid down, as I mentioned in the second reading speech on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978, the bulk billing arrangements for disadvantaged persons could include people who are in the following categories: Persons who are on a low income, including social security unemployment, sickness or special beneficiaries; newly arrived migrants and some other ethnic groups; refugees who are financially disadvantaged; and persons who suffer financial misfortune because of substantial medical expenses caused by prolonged or severe illness.

The Minister for Health has had assurances from the medical profession through its various representative organisations, not only the Australian Medical Association but also the Doctors Reform Group and doctors throughout Australia generally, that it is prepared to co-operate with this proposal to the maximum extent. The Government certainly looks forward to that support for this category of persons who require special assistance from the medical profession. Senator Grimes referred to the fact that data is not available. I think we would all agree that, not only in the medical field but also in my field of social security, a lot still needs to be done to assist government in determining many measures which will alleviate distress and provide programs of assistance. I think we would all look forward to the development of more accurate and more definitive criteria in many areas.

A number of honourable senators also referred to the rise in health costs and the comparison of health costs. I do not want to traverse all of the matters that were raised by honourable senators, but I should place on record that health costs between 1974-75 and 1975-76 showed a huge increase of 36.6 per cent. The increase between 1975-76 and 1976-77, the year following, was 14 per cent. There has been a big reduction as a result of those strategies of the health systems. I think it is important also to compare the share of the gross domestic product which has been absorbed by health costs. In 1975-76 it was 7.96 per cent; in the following year, 1976-77, it was 7.85 per cent. This was the first year for many years in which we saw a reduction in the proportion of the gross domestic product that was absorbed by health costs. That year, 1976-77, was the first clear financial year of the Fraser Government’s health schemes which showed this reduction.

Senator Gietzelt:

– You are not proud of making people carry the burden, are you?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think we are looking at the capacity to pay. Those honourable senators who spoke in the debate this evening referred to the cost of health care and the way in which we should be looking to contain those costs for the advantage of all Australians. For instance, Senator Hamer referred to some concepts of health insurance schemes and the lack of concept of a health care system. He spoke of the influence that lifestyle can have on health costs and the costs of smoking and alcohol. He also said that too little money was spent on prevention and that we had probably developed into a prescription society. He spoke of elective surgery and other matters which are very costly procedures. With regard to what he said, about lifestyles, I would simply draw attention to the fact that the Bills now provide for health insurance to give us tables of benefit at lower contributions for observing good lifestyles. It is disappointing that the insurers have not taken early action to introduce the plans but the Government is confident that that will come soon, with emphasis on preventive health care. As far as Senator Hamer ‘s discussion on health maintenance organisations is concerned -

Senator Grimes:

– But they are socialist organisations, Senator Walters said.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I think it is well known that health program grants are available to the Government to be equivalent to the Commonwealth benefits, that is, medical and hospital benefits. Some seeding grants are available to enable some of these organisations to become established. The discussion which arose, I think, from Senator Hamer’s speech saw merit in changes even in those systems with incentives for doctors to keep the costs of treatment as low as possible. Senator Ryan referred to the retrenchment of staff and sought clarification. I think her remarks have been covered. These Bills are required by the Government to take effect from 1 November. I thank the Senate for the debate on them this evening. As amendments are to be moved in the Committee stage, I suggest that we go into Committee at this point.

Question put:

That the words proposed to be added (Senator Grimes amendment) be added.

The Committee divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Condor Laucke)

AYES: 23

NOES: 31

Majority…… 8

AYES

NOES

Question so resolved in the negative.

Original question resolved in the affirmative.

Bills read a second time.

In Committee

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Coleman:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– There are three Bills before the Committee. Is it the wish of the Committee to deal with each separately? There being no objection, it is so ordered.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

The Bill

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Bill presents certain problems that warrant at least a query. I refer first to clause 1 1, which inserts new section 73BFA. This seems to provide for an appeal against a refusal by an organisation to extend membership to a particular person. Sub-section ( 1 ) provides:

  1. l ) Where a registered organisation refuses to accept payment of the contributions of a person, being a patient in an institution, who is, or wishes to become, a contributor, in respect of a basic table, to a hospital benefits fund conducted by it, the person may request the Minister to direct the organisation to accept his contributions in respect of the basic table to that fund.

A request under that sub-section shall be made by delivery to the director for the State or Territory and shall be accompanied by a statement setting out the circumstances of the refusal. Therefore, if I am a patient in a hospital and am refused membership of a fund I must appeal through the director, setting out in a statement the circumstances of the refusal, which I may not know. I take it that the fund will just tell me that my application has been rejected. As soon as the Minister receives my request he must inform the registered organisation of it and furnish the organisation with a copy of the statement that 1 have made under paragraph (b) of sub-section (2). That statement is to set out the circumstances under which I am not accepted, but I suppose that it should set out the circumstances why I should be accepted. The Minister, under paragraph (c) of sub-section (3), requires the organisation to furnish to him, in writing within 14 days a statement of its general practice in respect of the acceptance of contributions, and any comments that it wishes to make concerning the statement that I have supplied.

Suppose I claim that I am unjustly excluded from a fund. The reasons for my claim are given to the organisation against which I am appealing. The organisation then gives its side of the case. The Minister makes a decision without referring to the applicant- in this case that is myself- who made the complaint. I do not have the right to reply to perhaps false accusations which the organisation may make. This certainly appears one sided in favour of the organisation. The organisation is then supplied with the reasons for my appeal. It submits its defence- it is not on oath- which may or may not be true. I have no further redress. I cannot reply to the organisation’s accusations as to why it excludes me from membership. However, under proposed new section 73BFA the Minister may direct an organisation to admit a person to membership.

Clause 14 repeals section 73E of the principal Act and inserts new sections 73E and 73F. This is one of the most serious pieces of legislation which I have encountered anywhere in the Parliament. It takes away the whole privilege of democratic government and accountability to the people. New section 73E replaces a section 73E which was assented to only last June. It relates to the Minister setting out guidelines for organisations in drawing up hospital table and medical benefits tables. This section which came into force in June last gave the Minister this power by regulation. At least regulations are subject to the supervision of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and Parliament has the right of disallowance. Up until today Senator Chipp had a notice of motion on the Notice Paper for the disallowance of a regulation. Under the old section the guidelines were put back to the people’s Parliament to decide. Under this new section we wipe out the provision to prescribe guidelines by regulation. Subsection (2) of proposed new section 14 states:

The Minister may, by writing signed by him, determine guidelines with respect to hospital benefits tables and medical benefits tables.

Therefore the Minister has the sole right to determine the guidelines. This is the first time that I have experienced this provision. The Rules Publication Act of 1 903 does not apply in relation to a determination made under new sub-section (2). The Rules Publication Act was one of the early Acts which our Parliament thought was necessary. It provides that where there is any administrative decision it has to be gazetted and copies have to be made available for sale, so everyone had the opportunity to know what the Minister’s decision was in relation to the guidelines. The public had the benefit of knowing. Now we are giving the Minister power to put the guidelines down but it is a secret document to the Minister and the health organisation. No one else can find out the contents.

I may have paid into the organisation for a number of years. The Minister, by changing the guidelines, can find that the organisation into which I am paying is not meeting the guidelines and I am disenfranchised from benefits. I do not know the reason because it is a secret and it is purposely made a secret. There is a desire in this legislation to take supervision away from the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and from the Parliament and hide the truth. We now say that what the Parliament thought was essential in relation to an administrative direction as early as 1903 shall not apply to guidelines which the Minister establishes. Why is this? What is the purpose of this? Why can the Minister not let someone know? If the Minister’s determination need not have been secret in June why must it be secret now? Did the Minister find difficulty in operating the guidelines by regulation?

I say to the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) that the Regulations and Ordinances Committee has two health regulations before it now which are receiving attention. One is subject to a question by the Committee’s legal adviser. The Committee in its wisdom may deem it necessary to move for disallowance of these regulations, but it will never be able to take such action again as the guidelines will no longer be determined by regulation. No one will know what they are. A health organisation may blame the Minister for unreasonable guidelines. The poor applicant for benefits will not know whether to blame the organisation or the Minister. To my knowledge we will not find such secrecy in any other Act of the Parliament. After administering guidelines by regulation why do we now have this secrecy?

Clause 23 of the Bill inserts proposed new section 85A, which states:

  1. 1 ) The Minister may determine, by reference to strength, type of unit, size of unit or otherwise, the form or forms of a pharmaceutical benefit that is or are allowable for the purposes of this Part for prescription by persons included in a class of persons specified in the determination.
  2. The Minister may, with respect to the writing of prescriptions by persons included in a specified class of persons for the supply of a pharmaceutical benefit-

Proposed new sub-section (4) states:

A copy of each determination made by the Minister under this section shall be published in the Gazette.

Therefore we know what the Minister determines. But today we are fast getting to the point where the Minister and not the doctor is becoming the medical determiner of the requirements of the patient. We rely a lot on the doctor to treat our ailments with his knowledge and skills. The pharmaceutical products prescribed may differ according to the opinion of the doctor. If we cannot afford to pay for drugs outside the pharmaceutical benefits scheme, then the Minister decides what is permitted in a prescription under the scheme. Surely we are not reaching the stage where we disregard the doctor and permit the Minister to say what may be prescribed. I raise the point for the purpose of seeking some answer from the Minister. I turn now to clause 40 which repeals the present section 133 of the principal Act and substitutes the following new section: 133. (1) Where a medical practitioner, a participating dental practitioner or an approved pharmaceutical chemist is charged before a court with having committed an offence against this Act or the regulations or against another law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory, being an offence that arises out of or is connected with . . .

The section goes on to say that the Minister can take disciplinary action by refusing certain rights. There is provision for the investigation of offences by committees in the States or by a Federal committee. These committees have the power to investigate the operations of a medical practitioner, a dental practitioner or a pharmaceutical chemist. But there does not seem to be any power for the Minister to act except where there is a successful prosecution. I would have thought that there would be many breaches of the Act which would not justify a practitioner being taken to court. Also, there would be many examples of suspect behaviour on the part of medical practitioners, behaviour which would raise a query as to whether they were honestly operating under the legislation. Proposed new section 1 33 (4) states that the Minister may:

  1. remove a suspension, or further suspension. . . or
  2. restore any approval or authority . . .

I conclude by referring to the schedule to be added at the end of the principal Act. Paragraph (o) reads:

Where the organization conducts a medical benefits fund, the organization will not pay a benefit from the fund to a person who has taken an assignment of the benefit from the person who is entitled under the rules ofthe organization to payment of the benefit unless-

that last-mentioned person is a pensioner; and

the service in respect of which the benefit is payable was rendered in respect of the pensioner or a dependant ofthe pensioner.

While I can see that the benefit should not be paid to anyone who has an assignment when it would be against the interest of an individual, I cannot see why the person to whom the payment can be made must be a pensioner. The payment should be assigned if the pensioner is feeble, of unsound mind or something like that. Of course, some people looking after pensioners can stand over them at times but I cannot see why someone else who is not a pensioner cannot have the benefit assigned to them.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

-Senator Cavanagh raised questions in relation to a number of clauses. He referred firstly to clause 1 1 which inserts a new section to provide for the review of refusal by a registered hospital benefits organisation to accept contributions to a basic table from a person on the grounds that he is a patient in an institution. Senator Cavanagh showed some concern about the fact that there is no appeal. I think his conclusions in this regard are unfounded because both sides of the case are to be provided to the Minister and there is ample opportunity for both sides to be heard and understood by the Minister. This provision was inserted to give protection to those who seek insurance. It is a protective clause; it is certainly not one that introduces any restraint or restriction on a person’s rights to have medical insurance under the legislation.

Senator Cavanagh referred next to clause 1 4. 1 refer only briefly to his concern in regard to this clause. As I understand it, only one fund has proposed optional deductible tables. These were announced yesterday in the metropolitan newspapers. There were full disclosures of what benefits are not to be payable under its deductible tables. The scheme is known as a budget plan. It is publicly known. Senator Cavanagh ‘s concern was that there would be no knowledge of what could be excluded. As I understand it, that is already publicly known.

Senator Cavanagh also referred to clause 23, which relates to pharmaceutical benefits. This clause inserts a new section into the principal Act. Under the proposed new section the Minister will be empowered to determine the form or forms of pharmaceutical benefits that may be prescribed by persons specified in the determination. The proposed new section will enable determinations to be made with respect to the form of drugs that may be prescribed by doctors or participating dental practitioners. It contains sub-sections which authorise the Minister to determine the maximum quantity or number of units of a drug that may be prescribed, the number of repeats that may be prescribed and the manner of their administration. The problem that Senator Cavanagh saw with this clause was that the Minister is to be the medical determiner and not the doctor. This clause has been inserted to give power to the Minister to determine the forms for the benefits. Under the principal Act the Minister has power to make similar determinations but only in respect to medical practitioners. The amendments that are now introduced broaden the Minister’s power to enable him to make determinations with respect to various classes of persons, including both medical practitioners and participating dental practitioners.

Senator Cavanagh also referred to clause 40. The concepts contained in both clause 23 and clause 40 are already in the present legislation. The present provisions have been simply tidied up to include dental practitioners. The inclusion of these provisions in this legislation is no new concept; it is simply to give effect to the introduction of the facility with regard to dental practitioners that these two clauses are included.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– I enter the debate because I am not completely satisfied with the reply of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) in regard to clause 14. In drawing the Minister’s attention to the difficulty in regard to clause 14, Senator Cavanagh has demonstrated his ability to indulge in lateral thinking, for which many of us envy him. I must admit that when I read clause 14 I took the Minister’s attitude to it; that it was to enable a fund to introduce new conditions which would attract more customers to it. Therefore the fund would advertise such schemes, as the Hibernian society has done, to attract certain groups. But as Senator Cavanagh has pointed out, this provision also allows a fund to introduce conditions, with the approval of the Minister, without the knowledge of existing or future contributors. Therefore the contributors would not know what was going on.

Thinking off the top of my head, I must say that it is difficult to imagine circumstances in which funds would do that, but we have all sorts of medical funds in this country. We have health funds that are run by doctors and by all sorts of sectional groups which may at various times run into trouble. To get themselves out of trouble they may get the Minister’s approval- secretly if the Minister is that sort of person- to change their regulations without any of their contributors knowing what is going on. That is a possibility well worth looking at. I really cannot see why the Rules Publication Act is not applied in this case, why it is not necessary for any such changes in guidelines, if the Minister approves them, to be made public and to be made available to this Parliament. To my mind the Minister has not given a proper explanation as to why the Rules Publication Act does not apply in subsection (4) of proposed new section 73E and why the Parliament’s ability to peruse the new guidelines approved by the Minister have been removed in this way.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– As I wish to raise the same issue, perhaps I can save the Minister having to reply twice by making my comments now. The Minister gave no reply to my comments in relation to paragraph (o) ofthe Schedule to be added at the end of the principal Act. I will not pursue the points I raised about clauses 23 and 40, although I do not accept that it is justification for continuing with an objectionable clause to say that such a provision already appears in the Act. It was included in the Act without attracting my attention. As I have just discovered it, I think I have the right to speak about it. However, I think it is of less importance than other matters that I wish to raise.

The Minister should give a much fuller explanation about the other two issues I raised. One is the right of appeal that is adverted to in clause 1 1. 1 did not at any time say that there would be no right of appeal. I think that that clause provides for a right of appeal. So the Minister’s statement that I believed there would be no right of appeal was based on a misunderstanding of what I was attempting to say. What I am complaining of in relation to the right of appeal is that the appellant has to disclose his case, which is then supplied to the other party for reply without being referred back to the appellant for him to say whether that is true. Therefore the Minister must make a judgment on what is perhaps false evidence and on a one-sided version of the issue. The complaint of the appellant against the organisation is made known to the organisation and the contradiction or perhaps denial of it by the organisation is brought back to the Minister but the appellant has no right to say whether the organisation is being truthful or otherwise in that regard.

The Minister justifies the inclusion of clause 1 4 by saying that the optional deductibles of one fund were advertised in the Press yesterday. I did not see that advertisement but, even of they were, everyone knows that the intentions of the guidelines could be changed before the Bill receives royal assent and could be changed during the life of the Act. Senator Walters said that she hopes there will be no further change in the near future. This Act may have a long life. But it may be changed at any time. If those changes are advertised on every occasion that will be all right, but why is there a need to give the Minister the power of secrecy when this Bill is amending an Act which has been in operation for only some 4 months and which prescribes by regulation. This Bill provides for complete secrecy between the Minister and the organisation concerned. Therefore it is not sufficient to say that the proposals were advertised yesterday. All such an advertisement would tell us is that there may be changes. We want to know what the position will be all the time. One could be paying into an organisation for years and suddenly find that one has no right to certain benefits because that organisation is not complying with the new guidelines. No one can check on this matter because the legislation itself makes secrecy on this aspect essential. Can the Minister tell me of any other Act of this Parliament in which there is a provision that the Rules Publication Act does not apply? I think this is the first time that such a provision has been included. Why is that so? The Minister cannot tell me that such an unusual prescription is being included in this legislation if there is not some intention or some desire to use it. Whatever the intention, I think the Minister should come clean on the question and see that we will not be put in that position and that we will have guidelines prescribed by regulation and not secret agreement.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I refer to the further comments made by Senator Cavanagh in relation to clause 11. I am advised that in the administration of the appeal under proposed new section 73BFA if there is disparity between the cases of the appellant and the organisation concerned there is nothing to stop the Minister consulting the appellant to inform himself as to whether the disparity is one that is worthy of further investigation. If there is a disparity of substance there would be a check back to the appellant as to what the organisation said. I repeat that this clause has been inserted so that there will be a right of appeal by a person who has not been accepted by a registered hospital benefits organisation on the grounds that he is a patient in an institution. This gives considerable benefit to the people wishing to have their grounds considered by the Minister. Senator Cavanagh may suggest that the matter ought to go back to the appellant in a formal sense, but eventually somebody has to make a judgment on these matters. I should think that the Minister, with the power that is being given to him under this provision, would be able to make a judgment by informing himself of both sides of the case. That is the intention of the proposed new section. I feel sure that it will work to the benefit of those people who otherwise may have difficulty in finding a fund to accept them because of their special circumstances.

As to the matter of guidelines for optional benefits under clause 14, in approving an application for optional deductible tables the Minister requires an organisation to disclose the exclusions fully in advertisements, public statements and brochures and the Department will closely monitor the observance of this requirement. I draw attention to the remarks I made on behalf of the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in my second reading speech when I said that the Minister had asked me to make it quite clear that the benefits available for exclusion under Part IV of the optional hospital insurance table guidelines relate only to benefits for professional services and outpatient services as referred to in the basic hospital table as defined. They do not relate to the exclusion of benefits for hospitalisation on account of confinements, psychiatric illness, alcoholism or other illnesses. Both basic and optional hospital benefit tables will include the provision of nursing home benefits to maintain the new nursing home arrangements introduced by the Government last year. When making my second reading speech I made known the guidelines and the special conditions for optional tables. They are recorded in the Senate Hansard of 17 October. Further to the remarks I have just made, in approving an application for deductible tables the Minister requires that there be public disclosure in advertisements, public statements and brochures. I think it is quite inaccurate to suggest that this is a clause which introduces secrecy.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Minister now has me deeper in the mire and I suspect that the Government is deeper in the mire. I can appreciate her difficulty because it is not her legislation. If the Minister for Health is to require that any fund which has optional deductibles makes those deductibles public by way of advertistements, publications and all the other things the Minister listed what on earth is the reason for including sub-section (4) of proposed new section 73E, which states that the Rules Publication Act 1903 does not apply. If the whole matter is to be made public in that way why not make it public in the normal way that rules under this Act are made public? My second question is: Why take away from this Parliament the ability to disallow guidelines which the Minister has approved and which the Minister may approve for motives quite apart from assisting the contributions to that fund? Why make the guidelines secret in the first place? Why, if the guidelines are not going to be made secret, scrub the Rules Publication Act? Why take away from the Parliament the power to disallow such changes in the guidelines? I have not heard an explanation. I cannot now, even more than when Senator Cavanagh first raised the matter, understand why this change has been made. I seriously suggest at this hour of the night that if the Minister for Health has a further explanation, the Minister for Social Security should seek that information and let us know of it tomorrow.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I support what Senator Grimes has said about the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) giving us an explanation tomorrow. The questions I have asked should be answered. Do any other Acts contain this provision? Why is this the first time such a provision has been put into the National Health Act? I know of no other Act which contains such a provision. The Minister for Social Security apparently knows of no such Act or she would bring it to her defence. She asked us to accept that the Department will carefully monitor what goes on. Departments at times get neglectful of their duties. Ministers will require publication of the guidelines from time to time. As Senator Grimes said, if the Minister intends publishing the guidelines, why is it necessary to put a provision into the Act which states that he does not have to do so? Proposed new section 73e states:

  1. The Minister may, by writing signed by him, determine guidelines with respect to hospital benefits tables and medical benefits tables.
  2. The Minister shall forward a copy of each determination made by him under sub-section (2) to-

    1. where the determination is a determination with respect to hospital benefits tables- every registered hospital benefit organisation; or
    2. where the determination is a determination with respect to medical benefits tables- every registered medical benefits organisation.

Proposed new sub-section (4) states:

The Rules Publication Act 1903 does not apply in relation to a determination under sub-section (2 ).

If the provision is passed the Parliament will be giving the Minister definite instructions to notify the registered hospital and medical benefits organisations. By way of proposed new sub-section (4) the Government is saying that such information will not be given to anyone else. I think we could well put a prohibition on the Minister to advertise. The Minister now assures us we can -

Senator Grimes:

– In any case we will not be able to disallow any of these guidelines.

Senator CAVANAGH:

– No, we cannot disallow them. It is up to the Minister. We could disallow such things before. I also asked the Minister about the difficulty which occurred in the last six months and which brought about this change. We may have the greatest faith in the present Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) and the present Department of Health, but the Minister is not permanent. The present Minister is not guaranteed for the life of the Act. It is well within the realms of possibility that Senator Grimes could be the Minister after the next election and we may not have such confidence in his ability or determination. I think everyone knows that I say that facetiously. A Minister is not a permanent fixture. No Minister in the Fraser Government knows his future; that is obvious. I accept the Minister’s assurance that if a disparity occurs concerning clause 1 1 the matter will be referred to the appellant. I suppose that is all we can hope for. I agree with Senator Grimes that as two other Bills still have to be dealt with, debate on this Bill should be adjourned until answers are obtained. I would still like some answers about the Schedule.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The question has been raised by both Senator Grimes and Senator Cavanagh as to why the Rules Publication Act does not apply in respect of the provisions of clause 14. I am advised that the Rules Publication Act usually does not apply to nonstatutory determinations. Usually it applies to statutory obligations. These are not statutory requirements. It was asked why the provision which is contained in the Act is sought to be amended. A review was carried out. The matter has already been touched upon. Someone asked whether the provisions are to be more flexible. The purpose of the clause is to give more flexibility in making determinations. I am advised that the draftsman and the Government recognise that this is one area of the Act that does not require the application of the Rules Publication Act and that it is not usual in legislation for the Rules Publication Act to apply to nonstatutory determinations of this kind.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– The Minister’s answer reinforces my argument. She has asked us to have faith in the monitoring of the Department. Apparently the Department has told the Minister that something is being sought to be put in an Act of this Parliament which is not needed. What is the standing of the advisers? I have a copy of the Rules Publication Act in my office. It is a legal question as to where its provisions apply. They may not apply to statutory requirements. Why put it in the Act? Perhaps the directing authority- the Department, the Minister or the draftsman- is in doubt as to the legal requirement. Why is a provision sought to be inserted in the Act which states that the Rules Publication Act does not apply? Why do we not also say that diplomatic privileges do not apply? Of course they do not apply. Why should we say that they do not apply if there is no doubt? I think we are getting into a bigger mess at present. The Minister says that the provision makes no difference. Why leave it in the Bill? Why cannot the guidelines be publicised? The Minister has not told me yet of the difficulty the Department or the Minister experienced in fixing guidelines under regulations without any supervision of Parliament.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– Taking up a further point, I just do not understand the reference of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) to the term flexibility’. She says that the provision somehow allows more flexibility. My understanding of proposed new sub-section (4) is that the Rules Publication Act does not apply to sub-section (2) and therefore the Minister does not have to publish and make known the guidelines which are introduced under sub-section (2). I just do not see how the application of proposed new subsection (4) makes any difference to the Minister’s ability to approve new guidelines or new optional deductible tables at all. All the provision means is that the Minister does not have to publish the guidelines in the usual way under the Rules Publication Act. Under the changes to proposed new section 73E(2) the Parliament will have no ability to overrule the Minister’s regulation. What has that to do with flexibility? 1 do not know. I would like to know. I still have not been convinced. I am fascinated that the proposed new sub-section (4) is sought to be inserted in the Act. Why should the Rules Publication Act not apply? Why did it apply before?

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have no further advice to give to that which I have already given, that is, that on Parliamentary Counsel’s advice the Rules Publication Act usually does not apply to non-statutory determinations; it applies to statutory obligations. I have already said and it was stated in my second reading speech that the commitment of the Minister for Health, to make it quite clear that the services which may be the subject of exclusions are only professional services, outpatient services and so on. I have reread that part of the second reading speech. I have referred to the inclusion of the guidelines and the optional tables in the second reading speech. The intent of the Government is understood. For the Committee to persist in asking a question on which I have sought advice and on which I have given advice does not advance the reason for the legislation being in its present form. I can only repeat the advice I have given already, that is, that on Parliamentary Counsel’s advice sub-section (4) of proposed new section 73E is included in the Bill.

I have been asked why the Rules Publication Act applied before and does not apply now. I am advised it has never applied before because this proposed new sub-section has not existed before. We are only now introducing optional tables and, with the introduction of optional tables, the Parliamentary Counsel’s advice is that legislation should be in this form. I cannot advance the discussion with any further advice.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– I am afraid that obviously we will get no further with the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). I do not say that the Minister is deliberately evading the issue- I doubt whether she understands the issue- but her advisers are evading the issue completely. All we get every time we raise a question is advice on what the optional benefits tables will cover and what they will not cover. We are not disputing that. Essentially what we are disputing is the secrecy surrounding this. If the Rules Publication Act is not to apply in relation to a determination under sub-section (2) of proposed new section 73E, why is it stated in the Bill that it does not apply? The Minister will not answer that. It is incorrect for her to say that this is a new procedure because in a Bill which we passed through the Parliament earlier this year, a new section 73E was inserted in the National Health Act. That section permits the Minister for Health to lay down guidelines by regulation.

What I specifically asked was whether any difficulty was experienced in administering that section or an equivalent section that permits the Minister to do something by regulation. If there was any difficulty, what was that difficulty? Why should the Minister be able now to fix guidelines without the Parliament having an opportunity to consider them? I refer the Committee to what I thought was a great speech made by Senator Wright just before his retirement on the Atomic Energy Amendment Bill. He pointed out that it was the responsibility of the legislature to introduce the elected representatives ofthe Commonwealth. Whilst we have a say in the framework of the legislation, we cannot go into every detail of it. But at least we have a Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, which receives independent advice and every member of which has a right to move a motion for the disallowance of any regulation. The Minister has not grasped the significance of this.

Whilst I have some doubt about the ability of the Minister for Health to publicise guidelines once this Bill is passed, even if he can and does them, what is to stop a change being made in the guidelines that will have the effect of disallowing an organisation to issue benefits? In that event all the contributors to that organisation would find that, having contributed to that fund, they are not entitled to receive a benefit from it. But they would not be able to find out the reason because the Parliament would have stated, through this proposed new section, that the Rules Publication Act does not apply. If the Rules Publication Act does apply to statutory authorities- apparently the Parliamentary Counsel thought it did when he included an exemption from that Act in this Bill- information could be required to be published in Commonwealth of Australia Gazette with copies being made available for sale. As the chief partner in an agreement between a health organisation and me, I am the one who gets the benefit, so surely I should have a right to know whether the health benefit organisation is acting in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Minister. But the Minister is asking this Committee tonight to pass a Bill that will prohibit me from getting information which would indicate whether I am receiving justice from the organisation.

I see that all the legal men on the Government side of the chamber have run out of the chamber during this debate, but knowing their keenness to see justice done and their interest in the operation of our legal system, I doubt whether, if a proper appeal were made to them, any of them, or any of the legal men on this side, would vote in favour of this proposed new section. I think that at least the Minister needs some assistance from a legal mind in determining why this exemption is included in this Bill if the Rules Publication Act would not apply anyway. I ask the Minister to answer the questions: Was any difficulty experienced in administering guidelines by regulations; why has a change been made from the use of regulations to this new prescription; and if the Rules Publication Act does not apply to a statutory decision, why is this exemption included in the Bill? The Minister has said that the Act would have no application. Someone must have thought that it did have application to have included that exemption in the Bill. If it has no application, for God’s sake let us delete subsection (4) of proposed new section 73E and not have any more argument about it.

Senator GRIMES:
South Australia

– I repeat the suggestion I made earlier. I am afraid that it is not good enough for me or any other honourable senator on this side of the chamber to have the reply: ‘I have sought advice.

I have given you advice. That is as far as we can go. Surely the Committee should be satisfied with that advice or, if it is not satisfied with that advice, it should take a vote on the issue’. It is very difficult to take a vote on an issue when we believe that we have not received an explanation of this proposed change. I do not want to be unreasonable about this, and I am sure that Senator Cavanagh does not want to be unreasonable about it.

We have heard nothing from any honourable senator on the other side of the chamber apart from the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle). We would like at least to receive a further explanation on this and, perhaps, to have the opportunity to consult with some of our legal colleagues on this. I merely suggest- 1 November is a long way off- that we leave this issue until tomorrow so that the Minister can seek further advice. We could then consider it. 1 believe that there is a problem. I merely make that suggestion and do not make it in any obstructive way.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– My officers have been in touch with the Parliamentary Counsel. I am advised that determinations under this legislation are not by regulations and we do not require them. I am sorry but I cannot read the writing of my adviser.

Senator Cavanagh:

– I suggest that you have a rest, Minister.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I ask Senator Cavanagh to bear with me. My officers have been following his requests very closely and have been seeking advice from the Parliamentary Counsel. It is not always easy to read the handwriting of departmental officers, as Senator Cavanagh would understand, having been a Minister himself. I have a note which was written in haste to give Senator Cavanagh the explanations that he has been requiring in Committee. If he will bear with me I will seek from the officers an interpretation of the brief notes they have handed to me.

Consideration interrupted.

The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN (Senator Coleman:

– Order! It being 1 1 p.m., under sessional order I put the question: ‘That the Temporary Chairman do now leave the Chair and report to the Senate ‘.

Question resolved in the negative.

Consideration resumed.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– As I was saying to the

Committee, determinations under the legislation are not regulations and we do not wish them to be numbered as is required under the Rules Publication Act. The publication of the guidelines is a separate matter. As I have already explained, a registered organisation should make guidelines public, and the Minister will ensure that this occurs. The Minister, under the Bill,’ can make guidelines public and will undertake to do so. That is an undertaking which is given. The whole of the discussion which we have heard from Senator Grimes and Senator Cavanagh can be answered and explained by the fact that determinations under the legislation are not regulations and’ it is not required under the Rules Publication Act, that they be numbered. I do not know how many more times that answer, which was given previously, needs to be given.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Why do you have the wording in the Act?

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I do not know how many more times it needs to be said. The officers who are advising me gave that advice some time ago this evening. The persistent question asked is: Why? The answer is that this is being stated in the Act in order to make it perfectly clear that determinations under the legislation are not regulations and that they are not required to be numbered, as is required by the Rules Publication Act. That is the response to the two honourable senators who have expressed concern about this proposed new section. That is the advice which has come from Parliamentary Counsel.

Senator WHEELDON:
Western Australia

– I think that the points have been made very clearly by Senator Grimes and Senator Cavanagh.

Senator Archer:

– And Senator Guilfoyle.

Senator WHEELDON:

-That is the honourable senator’s opinion, but it is not mine. I must say that the points may have been made clearly enough for Senator Archer’s satisfaction, but certainly not for mine. I am by no means satisfied by the Minister’s response. I suggest to Senator Guilfoyle that she postpone consideration of this matter in order to seek further advice on it. I do not want to reflect on her advisers, but I might suggest to her that I do not think the advice she is getting is really awfully good. I would have thought that it was an unusual procedure, to say the least, to make statements of law in Bills to describe which Acts do or do not apply. As Senator Cavanagh said earlier, all sorts of Acts do not apply. The Crimes Act does not apply either, but that is not being stated in the Bill. What is being stated in this Bill is that the Rules

Publication Act 1903 does not apply in relation to a determination under proposed new section 73F. (2).

What is the purpose of putting that provision in the Bill? Is the Minister conducting a refresher course-for lawyers in the Senate or a class in Statute Law One for law students? Are we to have a recitation of all sorts of other Acts and regulations which may not apply? Surely the only reason for including proposed new section 73f. (4) in the Bill, other than the Government deciding that it may fight unemployment by printing redundant material in Bills, is that there is some doubt as to whether the Rules Publication Act 1903 applies to the guidelines to be given with regard to hospital benefits. If that is not the reason.T do not know what is the reason, unless, as I say, we are having some part-time legal instruction given to those of us who have seen some years roll by since we passed our law exams.

As there is some doubt about this matter and, as I would have imagined, a great many honourable senators on both sides of the chamber are reluctant to accede to a request by executive government to forfeit the right to examine subordinate legislation- that is to say, to examine regulations through the scrutiny of the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances and the Senate itself- it would seem to be very unfortunate that, if this provision means what it appears to mean, the Government is making an effort to remove the otherwise necessary provisions of the Rules Publication Act from the publication of these guidelines which are very fundamental to the purposes of this Bill. I can think of no explanation whatsoever other than that there must be some reason to believe that otherwise there would have to be publication of the guidelines in the form of regulations. I realise that it is not the Minister’s Bill and I know that she is acting on advice. I do not think that I intervened unnecessarily in these debates or try to hold up the business, but this is a rather serious matter. Could it not be brought back tomorrow? Could not the Minister seek some other advice, perhaps speak to the Attorney-General? I must say that I believe the advice she has been given and is passing on to us is thoroughly unsatisfactory. There are enough problems with legislation without having put before us in this way what is either significant, in which case it ought to be debated by virtue of its significance, or unnecessary nonsense. It is not good enough to have legislation like that, and I do suggest to the Minister that she seek further advice.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

– First, may I say to the Minister that if I said anything discourteous which would reflect on the officers, I apoligise and withdraw it. I had no intention of doing that. I think that they are doing their best. I have had no experience with the clarity of their handwriting, but I realise the difficulty of writing hurriedly and trying to advise the Minister. Of course, that becomes more difficult when there is no reasonable explanation. We did get an explanation that the advisers have consulted the Parliamentay Counsel- I do not suppose that we could wish for better advice than that- and he has said that these are not regulations. Does the Minister think we are all stupid? In my opening remarks I said that they were not regulations. The Bill says so. The plain grammatical meaning of the term indicates that they are not regulations, and yet that was the answer we were given. As I said, the section that this clause supersedes did refer to regulations, but these are not regulations and that is what we have been saying from the start. The Government is removing the regulations from the Act and is putting them in another form.

The sole power rests with the Minister. We are instructing the Minister to notify the hospital or medical benefit organisations, and we are excluding everyone else. The Minister has said that because they are not regulations the Rules Publication Act does not apply. That is false advice because the Rules Publication Act does not apply to regulations. The Acts Interpretation Act guides regulations and insists on the regulations being laid before the House to provide an opportunity for disallowance. Regulations do not come under the Rules Publication Act. This is a question of an entirely different operation. We are complaining that guidelines were prescribed by regulation before this Bill was introduced. Section 73E, which is being replaced, made provision for guidelines in the form of regulations. As the Parliamentary Counsel has said, that provision has been removed and they are not now regulations. Senator Wheeldon said that the Rules Publication Act does not apply, which immediately suggests that the Parliamentary Counsel, if we accept him as the authority, included this provision in the Bill although he must have had some doubt as to whether it applied. I raise a further doubt. I think we should ask another legal authority whether we are prescribing to whom the information can be disclosed and no one else and whether we are questioning the honesty of the Minister by requiring advertising in the future.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I do not know that we have advanced this discussion any further. I state again that they are administrative determinations.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You have said it every time.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have said it three times. Everything Senator Cavanagh has said he has said probably four times.

Senator Cavanagh:

– Answer the question.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I have answered the question you asked. Senator Wheeldon addressed himself to the question why the nonapplication of the Rules Publication Act was to be inserted in this Act. As I am advised, and as I have stated several times, if this were not in the Act, we would need to have the guidelines numbered. We do not wish to have them numbered. It is not appropriate to this type of determination. To make it perfectly clear that it is not a statutory rule and that they will not be numbered, the Parliamentary Counsel has advised that sub-clause 4 needs to be inserted. That is the reason. I am not able to make it any clearer than that. The advice is that this is an administrative determination. The Government previously had what were termed approved hospital benefit plans and approved medical benefit plans. These were reviewed when this legislation was contemplated, and it was decided that these would be administrative determinations and that the Rules Publication Act would not apply.

However much longer we discuss this matter, there will not be any different advice. I have asked the Attorney-General (Senator Durack) to look at the matter and as honourable senators can see, he has now come into the Chamber. I will ask him to give his advice because the Committee is not willing to accept the advice of the Parliamentary Counsel on this matter. I do not wish to seem intransigent in dealing with requests by the Committee, but I do remind the Committee that this legislation was to be discussed yesterday. We met the requirements of the Opposition by deferring the debate on it until today. This legislation is required to come into effect on 1 November. Amendments are to be moved by the Government in this chamber. If passed they will require the concurrence of the House of Representatives. I have a problem as far as the timetable is concerned; it is a problem, I believe, that is accepted by the Opposition because of the accommodation that was given to the Opposition to have these Bills discussed today to suit its program. As far as I am concerned, I have referred this matter to the Attorney-General and I seek his guidance on why sub-clause 4 is inserted with regard to these administrative requirements. I invite him to address himself to it.

Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia

-The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) is coming into this matter for the first time. I think he should have some knowledge of our fears of this regulation. I do not want to repeat myself all the time. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) repeats everything over and over again and she accuses me of doing the same thing. I repeat that she has not answered the question why this supersedes the issuing of guidelines by regulation. Surely I am entitled to an answer on that. There is a section in the Act that prescribes guidelines by regulation for six months. Now we find that is superseded by prescribing guidelines, or by giving the Minister power to prescribe them, not in accordance with regulations, which takes it out of the observation of Parliament altogether.

The Minister, having decided the matter, notifies the hospital benefit organisation or the medical benefit organisation. To make sure that the Minister cannot disclose the decision to anyone else, the Rules Publication Act, 1903, does not apply. Now we have been told for the first time that the exemption has been put in because the Minister does not desire to number the guidelines. Good heavens, have you ever heard such an excuse? It is excluded from the Rules Publication Act because the guidelines will not be numbered. If the Rules Publication Act applies the only reason is that the guidelines will not be numbered. I have never heard anything so stupid in my life. Let the Attorney-General give us some advice on the matter.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– The Attorney-General (Senator Durack) has looked at the clause on which the Senate is seeking an opinion. As he says, it is a judgment of the Government that the Minister, under the proposed new section, will make administrative determinations. That being the Government’s decision on how the proposed new section will be applied, the sub-section makes it perfectly clear. It is the advice I have had from Parliamentary Counsel. We have spent a lot of time on this clause. I should like the Committee debate to proceed.

Bill agreed to.

Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

The Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have circulated four amendments which relate to clauses 40 and 43. The clauses read:

  1. Schedule 2 to the Principal Act is amended-

    1. by omitting from paragraphs 7 and 8 ‘privately insured person’ (wherever occurring) and substituting hospital insured person’; and
    2. by omitting from paragraph 10 ‘privately insured persons’ and substituting ‘hospital insured persons’.
  2. Where

    1. an amount of medical benefit became payable under Part II of the Health Insurance Act 1973 before the commencement of this section but that amount had not been paid at the commencement of this section; and
    2. a claim for that amount is made after the commencement of this section and before a date fixed by Proclamation for the purposes of this section, payment of that claim shall be made out of the Health Insurance Fund in such manner as the Minister determines.

I seek leave to move the four amendments together.

Leave granted.

Senator GUILFOYLE:

– I move:

  1. . In clause 40, at end of paragraph (a) omit ‘ and ‘.
  2. In clause 40, insert the following paragraph after paragraph (a): “(aa) by omitting from paragraph 7 ‘privately insured persons ‘ and substituting ‘ hospital insured persons ‘: and ‘ ‘.
  3. In clause 43, omit ‘in such manner as the Minister determines’.
  4. At the end of clause 43 add the following sub-clause: “(2) Subject to section 8d ofthe Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, the payment of claims referred to in subsection ( 1 ) shall be made in such manner as the Minister determines”.

Clause 40 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill amends the Heads of Agreement contained in Schedule 2 to the Health Insurance Act 1973. Clause 40 (a) of the Bill amends Heads 7 and 8 of Schedule 2 to replace references to ‘privately insured persons’ with reference to ‘hospital insured persons’. However, Head 7 also contains a reference to privately insured persons and it is necessary that this term be substituted with a reference to hospital insured persons. The proposed amendment provides accordingly.

Clause 43 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978 relates to the payment of claims for Medibank Standard medical benefits outstanding at 1 November 1978. It provides for the payment of such claims to be made in such manner as the Minister for Health determines. It is proposed that clause 10 of the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1978 which inserts new Part IIB- ‘Additional Functions of the Commission’ be amended. This amendment will in proposed new section 8D specifically provide for the Commission to meet, until a date to be proclaimed, claims for medical benefits referred to in clause 43 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978. A consequential amendment is necessary therefore to ensure that the provisions of clause 43 of the Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) are subject to proposed new section 8D of the Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1978. The amendment provides accordingly. I commend the amendments.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

-The Opposition does not oppose the amendments. We merely remark that the need for them demonstrates the haste and the difficulties that the Government had in introducing the latest modifications. I re-emphasise the Opposition’s objections to the introduction of certain proposed new sections to the Act, the sections which introduce the new concept of what the Government calls ‘disadvantaged people’. When the changes were first announced the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) referred to ‘socially disadvantaged people ‘. There is no definition in the legislation of a disadvantaged person. This means that the definition is left entirely up to the medical practitioner who is providing the service. There is no appeal by any person against a doctor who refuses to consider him a disadvantaged person.

The Minister pointed out during her summing up of the Bill at the second reading stage that in fact the Australian Medical Association and the Doctors Reform Society had promised to cooperate with the Government in its treatment of disadvantaged persons. That is simply not good enough. Certainly one can expect all members of the Doctors Reform Society to take a reasonable attitude as to who is disadvantaged under this Bill. We cannot expect the Australian Medical Association with its broad spectrum of members to ensure that its members take a reasonable attitude. But there are other doctors who are not in the Australian Medical Association or the Doctors Reform Society, some of whom are in the General Practitioners Society of Australia, who simply refuse to treat anyone as disadvantaged. These doctors will not even bulk bill pensioners. They practice in some pockets of the population where pensioners and disadvantaged people will get short shrift. One can pinpoint a section of the eastern shore of Hoban in Tasmania, for instance, where this will happen. It is not good enough.

We do not know what patients can be considered disadvantaged patients. Doctors do not know. They have no guidelines apart from the few categories listed in the Minister’s second reading speech. Doctors do not really know what disadvantaged people are. Doctors will have varying views on what disadvantaged people are. We have an increasing unemployment rate in this country and, on the Government’s own admission, this unemployment rate will increase. Under anybody’s criteria, the vast majority of unemployed people will surely be considered disadvantaged people. They will not receive medical benefit cards as do pensioners; yet we will have a situation in which people in some cities or parts of cities and in some towns and parts of towns will be treated as disadvantaged people by doctors and not be charged anything and in other places people will either have to pay or have to go to a local outpatients clinic if there is one. This is surely an entirely unsatisfactory and archaic situation which should not have been introduced into this country in 1978. It would not have been introduced and this difficulty would not have arisen if the original concept of Medibank had been retained and a return of some 85 per cent of the scheduled fee was available to uninsured people.

This portion of the legislation is one portion which will need to be changed. It is one section of the legislation which makes me predict quite confidently that next May or even earlier we will be back here again debating a health insurance amendment BUI as we have done every six months almost since this Government came to power. It is an unfair provision. It is unfair to doctors. It is unfair to patients. It is unfair to the so-called disadvantaged people in the community. We regret that the Government saw fit to introduce it.

Senator HARRADINE:
Tasmania

– I hope not to delay the Committee. However, I wish to direct attention to clause 9 of the Bill which seeks to repeal section 10 of the principal Act and substitute new section 10. Proposed new section 10 (2) states:

A Commonwealth medical benefit under sub-section ( I ) in respect of a professional service is an amount equal to-

where the person incurring expense is an eligible pensioner and the service is rendered to him or his dependent-

85 percent . . .

Proposed new section 10 (2) (b) states: where-

  1. the person incurring expense is a person who may enter into an agreement, in accordance with subsection 20a (2), with respect to the Commonwealth medical benefit; and

    1. he enters into such an agreement, 75 per cent ofthe fee specified in respect of the service in the table in relation to the State in which the service is rendered; or

Proposed new sub-section (2) (c) states: in any other case-

  1. 40 per cent . . .

That appears to me to leave in the hands of the medical practitioner entirely the fate of those people who may be classified as disadvantaged. Is it a fact that if a medical practitioner refuses to bulk bill persons who are classified as disadvantaged, those persons will not receive a refund of 75 per cent but only 40 per cent of the fee? If that is the case and, as I read the Bill it is the case, in my view the Bill is inadequate. It is for that reason that I supported the Opposition in the second reading stage in its proposed amendment, which was defeated. That amendment having been defeated, it really is for the Government to give some guarantees that action will be taken to ensure that a medical practitioner is required to take the steps which would ensure that a disadvantaged person does not become more disadvantaged because the medical practitioner concerned refuses to bulk bill, in which case the refund would not be 75 per cent, as presumably envisaged by the Government for disadvantaged persons, but 40 per cent.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

- Senator Harradine has spoken of the identification of disadvantaged persons. He also sought information as to whether, if a person is not regarded by the medical profession as a disadvantaged person, he would be eligible for a refund of 40 per cent of the cost of a medical service. That is the fact. There is a general cover of 40 per cent. If the medical profession identified people as disadvantaged persons they would come under the bulk billing provision. Persons who are on low incomes, including social security unemployment, sickness or special beneficiaries would be expected to be included in this bulk billing arrangement, as would newly-arrived migrants, some ethnic groups, refugees and people who suffer financial misfortune. As I said in the second reading debate, it is considered to be preferable to leave the identification of disadvantaged persons to the medical profession. This accords with the concept that traditionally the profession has made judgments as to when overall circumstances of a patient required some alleviation.

As I also said earlier, this provision was considered by the Government at the suggestion of the Australian Medical Association. We would expect to have co-operation from the Association. We would also expect that it would work to alleviate the normal fee structure for those people who are disadvantaged. When the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) responded in the debate in the other place, he said that we have broadly outlined in the second reading speech and also in communications with every practising doctor in Australia the fact that we will give consideration to the groups that are listed in the second reading speech; that will monitor closely the operation of the new bulk billing arrangements. If honourable senators or members come into contact with people who are facing difficulties, the Minister for Health and his Department would want to hear about them because the Government intends to take whatever action is necessary to overcome any difficulties that may result form the Government’s proposals for disadvantaged persons. The identification of disadvantaged persons is in the hands of the medical profession. If those persons are not so classified by the medical profession, they would then be eligible for the 40 per cent cover.

Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania

– What the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) has just said is the very crux of the Opposition’s objections to this legislation. I would prefer not to see any bureaucratic definitions. I would prefer to retain the original Medibank concept of an 85 per cent refund. The Minister, in reply to Senator Harradine and me, has talked about groups of disadvantaged people and the very real possibility that some doctors will refuse to consider them as disadvantaged or will refuse to treat them as disadvantaged. In those circumstances they will receive only a 40 per cent refund, as Senator Harradine mentioned. The Minister has quite clearly stated that only 40 per cent of the fee will be refunded to them. Therefore, they will become even more disadvantaged than they were in the first place. The Minister has -

Senator Peter Baume:

– Until they get salaried medical officers put in to correct the situation.

Senator GRIMES:

– That was what I am about to ask. We, as members of Parliament, I understand are to monitor this situation. If we find areas where there are groups of people who are being ignored and not being treated properly, I understand from Senator Baume- not from the Minister- that the solution will be to march in -

Senator Peter Baume:

– That is one solution.

Senator GRIMES:

– One solution of this may be to march in salaried medical officers to treat them. I will accept that as a very sensible solution. It is one solution but I am interested to hear of other solutions. That is all very well if we have groups of disadvantaged people, groups of unemployed, groups of low income earnershowever they can be detected- and groups of new refugees and migrants, but what about the poor individual, not a great group, who is disadvantaged in an area and is ignored-

Senator Georges:

– He is -

Senator GRIMES:

-What about the poor disadvantaged person like Senator Georges who has just interjected, who is not in a group? Will the Government send in a salaried medical officer to treat him? This whole matter is fraught with difficulties. It is fraught with impossibilities because the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) have talked about monitoring the situation to do something about those doctors who will bulk bill everybody, will regard everybody as disadvantaged and thereby in the eyes of the Government, will be ripping off the system. How will we find out who those doctors are, and what will the Government do about them when they are found? What will it charge them with? How will it monitor the situation when there is no definition of disadvantaged people in the Act. I think the whole situation is impossible. I think it will be administratively impossible and that is why again I predict we will be back here next May looking at further amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1978

The Bill.

Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP

– I have an amendment to clause 10, which, in part, reads:

After Part IIa of the Principal Act the following Parts are inserted: “PART IIb- ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION “8C. (1) In addition to the functions conferred on it by Part IIa, the Commission shall perform such other functions in relation to health insurance as the Minister may, from time to time, direct by writing signed by him. “(2) A direction received by the Commission under subsection ( I ) shall be set out in the report of the Commission under section 42 with respect to its operations during the year in which the direction was received. “8d. Where the Minister has given a direction to the Commission under section 8c requiring the Commission to perform a function specified in the direction, the Minister may. on behalf of the Commonwealth, enter into an agreement with the Commission under which the Commonwealth agrees to pay to the Commission such administrative expenses arising out of the performance of the function by the Commission as are provided for by or under the agreement.

I move:

Clause 10 of this Bill inserts new Part 1 IB which refers to the additional functions of the Commission. The new Part contains new sections 8C and 8D. These new sections provide that, in addition to the operation of Medibank Private, the Commission shall perform such other functions in relation to health insurance as the Minister for Health directs. Provision is made for the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth and the Commission, to enter into an agreement concerning the payment to the Commission of administrative expenses arising out of the performance of additional functions at the Minister’s direction. New Part I IB was included in the legislation to enable future Government objectives in health insurance to be implemented through the Health Insurance Commission. For example, the Government may wish to establish, on a pilot basis, a health maintenance organisation in a particular area in which the registered organisations have not shown interest. Specifically, it would allow initially for the payment of Medibank Standard claims for medical benefits outstanding at 1 November 1978 to be paid by the Commission after that date.

However, arguments have been advanced by Government members and senators that new sections 8C and 8D give the Minister very wide powers. The view has been put forward that, used irresponsibly, the provisions as contained in the Bill could, for example, enable any Minister administering the Act from time to time to place Medibank Private in a more competitive position to the detriment of other registered organisations.

The Minister for Health has considered these views and has accepted that the provisions conferring comprehensive powers of direction on the Minister in new Part 1 IB should be deleted. The proposed amendments provide that the Commission, in addition to operating Medibank Private, shall: (i) until a date fixed by proclamation, receive, deal with and pay Medibank Standard claims for medical benefits- it is envisaged that, following the proclaimed date, further outstanding Medibank Standard claims would be met by the Department of Health; and (ii) perform such other functions in relation to health insurance as are prescribed by regulations. The regulations may also prescribe the manner in which such functions are to be performed.

Provision is still made for the Minister, on behalf of the Commonwealth, to enter into an agreement concerning administrative expenses incurred by the Commission associated with its performance of the functions specified in amended Part 1 IB. It is reasonable that the administrative expenses of the Commission in performing Government-initiated functions should not be a cost borne by Medibank Private, having regard to its competitive position with other registered organisations. However, new subsection 8DB (2) provides that any such agreement shall be placed before Parliament within 15 sitting days of the entering into of the agreement.

The Government believes that the above amendments will permit the full disclosure of any additional Government-initiated functions in relation to health insurance to be performed by the Commission and the arrangements between the Government and the Commission in the performance of those functions.

Amendment agreed to.

Bill (as amended) agreed to.

National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Health Insurance Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1978

Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.

Health Insurance Commission Amendment Bill 1978

Bill reported with an amendment; report adopted.

Third Readings

Bills (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a third time.

page 1634

ADJOURNMENT

Slovenia

Motion (by Senator Guilfoyle) proposed:

That the Senate do now adjourn.

Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales

– Some time ago a prestigious Melbourne newspaper published a small item headed ‘No Slovenia’. Who wrote that item I do not know. The fact is that according to the Age there is no such thing as Slovenia. To put the record right and to demonstrate how much we can rely on the media for the correct information, it is my intention tonight to speak about this non-existent Slovenia’.

As a proud Australian- Australian by choiceborn and educated in Slovenia, son of a small nation, a nation with centuries of history, it is my right as an Australian senator and my duty as an Australian citizen of Slovene birth to speak about Slovenes and Slovenia. I would like to point out at this stage that the majority of the facts that I will present here are from publications readily available in any library to anyone, including the scribe from the Age, if he or she should want to look for them.

Slovenia is in the approximate shape of a triangle, with the two longer sides being about 125 miles or 200 kilometres long and bordering on Austria on the north and Croatia on the southsouth east. The short side, which is 75 miles or 120 kilometres long, borders on Italy on the west-south west. The heart of Slovenia is in the Ljubljana Basin which is surrounded by mountains: The Julian Alps to the north-west bordering on Italy, which are also the watershed for the Sava, the principal river of Slovenia, which is part of the Black Sea system; the Karavanke Alps to the north, bordering on Austria; and the Slovene Kras to the south-west, also bordering on Italy. The area of Slovenian Kras is the site of many subterranean rivers where the unique prehistoric proteus anguineus still survives. The proteus anguineus is a tailed amphibian, an eellike blind creature which lives in almost complete darkness.

Slovenia occupies a key position on the continent and is one of the principal gateways to western and central Europe via Trieste or Klagenfurt and Vienna. It also commands the main communication between the Mediterranean and the Danube Basin via the Postojna Gate.

The area of Slovenia is 20,000 square kilometres. It has a population of approximately 1 ,750,000. If we compare that with the areas of New South Wales and Victoria- 801,000 square kilometres and 227,000 square kilometres respectively- we see that New South Wales is 40 times the size of Slovenia while Victoria is 1 1 times the size of Slovenia. Whereas in our two comparative States, New South Wales and Victoria, the average densities are respectively 5.8 and 15.6 inhabitants per square kilometre, Slovenia has a density of 85 inhabitants per square kilometre. So Slovenia, at one-fortieth the size of New South Wales, has approximately 14.6 times the density rate of New South Wales. This density rate of Slovenia is aggravated by the fact that it is mainly mountainous country and there is a restricted area of land suitable for cultivation, despite the utilisation of mountain pastures for summer grazing.

The present day Slovenes are the descendants of the great Slavic migration to Western Europe which took place during the sixth and seventh centuries. These Slavs mostly settled in Pannonia which was one of the two Roman provinces founded in the first century B.C. During the migration they settled under the dominion of the Avars, a Turkic people whose rule was rejected after the Slavs had joined with them in a vain attempt to take Constantinople. The precise region that the Slovenes are thought to have settled was the area between the northern shore of the Adriatic and the Alpine valleys of the Upper Sava. At that time their area of settlement probably reached appreciably further north than it does today, since the northern fringes of the original settlement have been gradually Germanised over the centuries. It is also probable that the south-western side of this original settlement penetrated the Friulian lowlands of northern Italy to a lesser degree than today. However, what is certain is that the line between the Slovenes and the Italians has hardly altered for several centuries.

The Slav empire of Samo 623-658, extended from the Sava between Zagreb and Ljubljana to the Upper Elbe and embraced Saxony,

Czechoslovakia and modern Austria. The Slavs of Moravia, Pannonia and Carantania acknowledged his leadership. After his death in 658 those of Carantania retained the semblance of a state under the leadership of their dukes. In 745 the Slavic Confederation of Carantania- that is, the first Slovenian state- acknowledged Bavarian rule in order to be protected against the Avars. Thus Carantania became part of the Archdiocese of Salzburg and became Christianised, which strengthened the links between the Slavs and their northern Germanic neighbours. During this indirect Frankish control, the Slavic peasants revolted against the dukes, who had accepted the new religion. This revolt led to the further strengthening of Slav-Germanic ties because it gave the Bavarians the opportunity to intervene militarily.

At the end of the eighth century, Charlemagne conquered Bavaria and Carantania and consequently destroyed the Avar state as it previously had been known. Then, in the early ninth century, Carantania was incorporated into the eastern march of the Carolingian empire. This situation remained largely unchanged until the tenth century when the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I, reorganised the duchy of Carantania as a separate entity. After Otto’s demise, Carantania was divided into the feudal principalities of Carinthia, Drava March, Carniola Styria, Istria and Friuli. For a few years in the late thirteenth century, the Slavs were wrested from Germaniccontrol by becoming part of the empire of Ottakar, who attempted to form a Slav state similar in extent to that of Samo however, with the centre of gravity further to the east. Ottakar ‘s ambitions were thwarted by the counter attack of the Holy Roman Empire at the battle of Marchfeld in 1278.

Between 1278 and 1397 all the Slovene lands passed under the dominion of the House of Hapsburg. The Slovenes now formed all or part of the population of Istria. Gorica, Gradisca Carniola, Styria and Carinthia, with smaller numbers in Trieste and south-western Hungary. Meanwhile, those Slavs who had settled outside the city walls of Istria in the seventh century and had thenceforth governed themselves on the basis of Slavic customary law, came under the jurisdiction of the Venetian Republic during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, accepting Venetian culture and sometimes adopting Venetian-Italian dialect. We see here the predicament of those Slavs, who were subject not only to German but also to Italian influences. After the eighth century this area ceased to develop culturally along independent lines and their vocabulary absorbed features from both Italian and German. This Slovene-German and Slovene-Italian national conflict was acute, especially in view of the possibility of a mixed population.

In 1809 Austria gave France, among others, the Slovenian territories. Napoleon organised these territories as the Illyrian provinces with Ljubljana as the capital. This city had formerly been known as the German Laibach and was founded in 1144. Previous to that it was a Roman fort known as Emona and it was established in 34 B.C. It had been the seat of Ljubljana’s bishop since 1461 and its high school was established in 1582. Ljubljana’s theatre was one of the first to be founded in Slovenia and was built in 1 765, with an audience capacity of 900.

During the time of the French occupation the Slovene language was allowed to be used on the level of local public administration. However, this concession was not enough to stave off the Slovenian national revival. The French occupation was not the first provocation for such a move, since some 50 years prior to the organisation of the Illyrian provinces a Slovenian priest Marko Pohlin had sought to establish Slovenian on equal footing with German. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Baron Zois - 1747- 1819- became the leader of an intellectual circle which included the historian Linhart, the poet Valentin Vodnik, who also produced the first Slovene newspaper, and the philologist Bartholomaus Kopitar who wrote the first scientific Slovene grammar in 1808. This group sought to achieve Slovenian cultural unity in the face of the various occupations, both physical and cultural, that the Slovenian state had suffered. The poet Franc Preseren further stirred the national consciousness of the Slovenian intellectuals and helped to achieve the re-Slavication of the Germanised Slovenian middle class.

In general, the growing nationalism after 1848 increased Slovene literary activity but could not again raise it to Preseren’s ‘s heights. However, despite these shortcomings, progress in Slovene literature was made and the foundation of the journal Ljubljanski Zvon in 188 1 marked a turning point from romanticism towards realism.

At the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Austria acquired the Slovenian territories of Venice, thus all Slovenians were under the rule of the Hapsburgs. In 1821, a congress of European powers was held in Ljubljana. The chief powers of the congress were Russia, Austria, Prussia, France and Great Britain. The meeting was convened to complete discussions begun at a congress at

Troppau. The outcome of the Ljubljana congress was the widening of the ridge between Great Britain and the three conservative powers of the Holy Alliance, that is, Austria, Prussia and Russia. In 1 866 Venetian Slovenia was given to Italy and the following year the Slovenian territory north of the Mura River was given over to Hungary; thus the Slovenes inhabited area stretched over three countries. Under Austrian rule the Slovenes, despite periods of Germanisation had gradually established cultural and political rights for themselves within the province of Carniola which was overwhelmingly Slovene in its national composition. Baron Valvazor, a member of the Royal Society of England from 1687, wrote the Glory of the Duchy of Carniola, which was first published in 1689 and was dedicated to the Duke of Carniola. In this work he wrote:

During my travels I was greatly surprised and astonished about the fact that such a small number of people have exact knowledge of Carniola although this was a noble country which was viewed with keen interest by the powerful Romans as well as by the old Germans, viewed from both as nothing else but the key which could lock the way to either Italy or Germany.

During the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the Slovenes had already made progress in local government and in education, that is, there was adequate Slovene language training at elementary schools, although higher education was still dominated by German. The end of the nineteenth century saw Slovene representatives gain a majority on the Ljubljana municipal council and a year later they captured the provisional parliament of Carniola. In 1 848 there were 14 Slovene members of the Austrian Parliament in Vienna. By this time the majority of priests, schoolmasters and local officials were Slovene speaking and they were beginning to infiltrate the previously German dominated commercial and professional lives of the towns.

The end of the First World War brought freedom and independence to Slovenia. As a matter of fact, 29 October was the day when Slovenian leaders proclaimed the independence of Slovenia. On 31 October the first Slovene national government was formed in Ljubljana. This coming Sunday is the sixtieth anniversary of that memorable day in Slovene history. On I December 1918 the new kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was proclaimed. Thus it was the first time in the history of Slovenian people that Slovenia was recognised as a nation. It was for a short 1 1 years that the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes, and with it Slovenia, appeared on the international scene. In 1 929 the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes was renamed Yugoslavia.

Despite periods of strong Germanisation, including actual German colonisation of many areas, the Slovene language has managed to remain the vernacular of the mass of the population. A book from which I shall quote was recently published by a German journalist. He wrote:

If we correctly see ‘the language as the only element which bound the Slovene nation together over generations ‘ then we can understand that the defence of his language is inherent to the Slovene. It has been said that ‘when there is a doubt as to the survival of their language, then the otherwise sensible Slovenes become irrational ‘.

The six centuries of incorporation into a German speaking Roman Catholic cultural entity moulded the character of the Slovenes. The journalist also wrote:

Most Germanic among the Slavs, with their high culture, with their strong sense of order and a diligence which even surpasses that of the Germans themselves, Slovenes are by far the most realistic of the Slavs.

Slovenes pay great attention to the education of their children and themselves. This fact is reflected by statistics which show that only one per cent of the population is illiterate- a figure which is far below that in studies pertaining to Italy and France. Furthermore, the Slovenes have the highest sales of books per head in the world and their literature has been produced since 1551 when Primoz Trubar a Protestant reformer, published the first book written in Slovene. This publication was followed some 30 years later by a translation of the Bible by Jurij Dalmatin. The cultural need of the Slovenes was realised in the 1 8th century by the Austrians who introduced an education reform in 1760 which led to the proliferation of Slovene textbooks and consequently the Slovene renaissance which spurred Slovene nationalism during the French occupation. On the whole then we can see the history of Slovenia astutely described by a publication not published in Slovenia, as: . . one of long fierce resistance to Germanisation. Despite the fact that its ruling class was Germanised. Slovenians knew how to preserve its cultural individuality and its Slav language.

I hope that my speech tonight will demonstrate to anyone, even to the journalist who wrote that story in the Age, the facts about Slovenes, the history of Slovenia, prove and confirm once and for all that Slovenia and Slovenes existed for centuries, have survived all kinds of adversities, are existing today and I sincerely hope will continue to exist as a nation for centuries to come. My great-grandfather lived under Napoleon’s rule as a French citizen. My grandfather and father were citizens of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I was born in the kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. My son was born under Italian rule. However, we all have one thing in common, one thing which we treasure- our Slovenian language.

In conclusion, we Australian citizens of Slovenian birth would like recognition of the fact that Slovenia exists, that we are ethnically nothing else but Slovenes, and that we do not want to be immersed, ignored or forgotten just because a journalist dismissed the Slovenian nation with a two-word headline.

Thursday, 26 October 1978

Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP

– We are all indebted to Senator Lajovic for his recording of the background history of Slovenia upon the approaching occasion of a significant anniversary and for bringing to the attention of the Australian people the story of a people of very proud heritage and of great achievement. Indeed, we are reminded daily of the presence of Slovenia by his own presence in the Senate. I commend him for what he has done tonight.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Senate adjourned at 12.2 a.m. (Thursday)

page 1638

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

The following answers to questions were circulated:

Tobacco Imports: Duty (Question No. 523)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 1 June 1978:

What is the amount of revenue foregone by the Commonwealth as a result of the concessional rate of duty on tobacco imports paid by tobacco manufacturers under customs by-law which gives a concession to manufacturers whose products contain at least 50 per cent Australian tobacco leaf.

Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

The customs by-law makes no concession to tobacco manufacturers. It enables a penalty rate of duty to be imposed on imported tobacco leaf when it is for use in products which do not contain at least 50 per cent Australian tobacco leaf.

The blending percentage scheme was introduced by the then Minister for Trade and Customs on 22 May, 1936 with these words:

The Government has decided that the existing protective rates of duty shall apply to tobacco blended with a given percentage of Australian leaf, and it is imposing increased duties on tobaccos which have a lower Australian content than that prescribed in the tariffitem. ‘

Queensland Electoral Redistribution (Question No. 699)

Senator Wriedt:

asked the Minister representing the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 24 August 1978:

Has Mr Justice McGregor’s report, including findings as to the meaning of impropriety, been accepted by the Government in totality, in view of the Prime Minister’s statement on 8 August 1978, that: ‘We (that is, senior Ministers) were of the view that Mr Justice McGregor’s report had to be accepted. ‘

Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Prime Minister has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

I see no need to add to what I have already said said in relation to the report.

Department of Defence: Trainee Technicians (Question No. 782)

Senator Ryan:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 14 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) How did the Department of Defence arrive at its decision, set out in the answer to Question No. 466 (Hansard, 16 August 1978, page 1 18) to allot only 4 out of 250 vacancies for trainee technicians to women.
  2. Why is it necessary for the Department to run a pilot scheme to determine the viability of providing equal employment opportunities for women.
  3. 3 ) What are the criteria to be used for determining the viability of providing equal employment opportunities.
  4. Are the employment practices of the Defence Department in breach of the International Labor Organisation Convention No. 1 1 1 which has been ratified by Australia and which binds the Government to a policy of nondiscrimination.
  5. Will action be taken to ensure equality of opportunity for women in the Defence Force.
Senator Carrick:
LP

– The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) The figure of four female vacancies for radio technicians trainees was arrived at by consideration of the probable number of female applicants in conjunction with a requirement to establish the viability of employment of women in technical musterings.
  2. Viability relates to operational efficiency and costs. Included in these considerations were the comparative average retention rates, Air Force wide, of males and females (currently 10.9 years and 3.1 years respectively). The lower retention rates for women increases costs by necessitating training of additional numbers to sustain manpower levels. and decreases efficiency by diluting experience levels.
  3. The criteria used is the maintenance of operational efficiency within budget limitations.
  4. No.
  5. Yes, subject to the maintenance of an operationally efficient force within budget constraints.

Triple Superphosphate (Question No. 827)

Senator Walsh:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, upon notice, on 20 September 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is any subsidy payable on the phosphate fertiliser triple superphosphate’; if not, why not.
  2. Under what conditions is a subsidy not paid on either nitrogenous or phosphate fertiliser.
Senator Durack:
LP

– The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:

  1. 1 ) In terms of the Phosphate Fertilizers Bounty Act bounty is payable on triple superphosphate if it is produced at registered premises and is sold during the period to which the Act applies by the producer for use in Australia as a fertilizer or is used by the producer during the period to which the Act applies in the production of a fertilizer mixture for use in Australia.
  2. (a) Bounty is not payable on a phosphate fertilizer if it is imported or if it is not sold or used as in ( 1 ).

    1. In terms of the Nitrogenous Fertilizers Subsidy Act subsidy is not payable on the importation or production in Australia of nitrogenous fertilizer unless the following conditions are complied with:
    2. it is a manufactured nitrogenous substance or natural sodium nitrate;
    1. it is produced at registered premises in Australia (other than for imported substances);
    2. it is sold during a period to which the Act applies for use in Australia as a fertilizer; and
    3. in respect of an imported nitrogenous fertilizer: no Australian producer is prepared to sell like or directly competitive goods to the importer for sale or for use by the importer at a price not less favourable than the cost of the imported goods; and it is an import that is at a non-dumped price and on which the freight is not less than the ruling rate at the date of exportation.

Dr W. L. Fowles (Question No. 894)

Senator Colston:

asked the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 1 1 October 1978:

Did an article in the Sunday Sun, 1 October 1978, assert that Dr Win Fowles has been told that he would be taken to court unless he paid a $2 penalty for failing to cast his vote at the last election; if so, what action is now being taken in relation to Dr Fowles and his failure to cast a vote at the last Federal election:

Senator Chaney:
LP

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

After the 1977 federal elections the Divisional Returning Officer for Fisher, in accordance with the Commonwealth Electoral Act and the Electoral and Referendum Regulations, notified Dr W. L. Fowles that he appeared to have failed to vote at the election and asked him to state his reasons why he so failed to vote.

Dr Fowles, on 24 February 1978, replied to the notice. The Divisional Returning Officer did not consider that Dr Fowles’ reasons for not voting were valid and sufficient in terms of the legislation and he forwarded a further notice to Dr Fowles advising him of that fact and advising him that he could have the question of his failure to vote determined by the Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland or by a court of summary jurisdiction. He further advised Dr Fowles that if he consented to the matter being dealt with by the Australian Electoral Officer, he should sign the appropriate form of consent and return it to the Divisional Returning Officer with the sum of $2 which would be appropriated in payment or in part payment of any penalty that the Australian Electoral Officer might impose. Dr Fowles did not reply to this notice.

The question of instituting legal proceedings against Dr Fowles was referred to the Australian Electoral Officer for Queensland who, having regard to all of the circumstances, has directed the Divisional Returning Officer for Fisher not to institute proceedings against Dr Fowles for his failure to vote.

Free Market in Uranium

Senator Carrick:
LP

– On 6 June 1978 (Hansard, page 2380) Senator Wriedt asked me, as Acting Leader of the Government in the Senate:

Will the Government investigate the truth of the assertion made by a Mr Bruce Chu, a Vice-President of the Government-run Taiwan Power Company, that uranium safeguards can be avoided because, to use his words, ‘There will always be a free market in uranium. If you have the money, you can buy it. We do it now in America ‘. If this statement is correct will this cause the Government any concern as to whether its safeguards policy is likely to be effective?

The Prime Minister has supplied the following information in answer to the honourable senator’s question:

It is understood that Mr Chu was responding to a remark that in view of Australia’s safeguards policy, Australia could not supply uranium to Taiwan.

Australia does not, of course, recognise the so-called ‘ Republic of China Government’ on Taiwan and could not therefore enter into a government-to-government agreement on nuclear safeguards with Taiwan. Because this is a prior condition for the export of Australian uranium, Taiwan is not an eligible customer.

As Mr Chu is reported to have said, the Taiwan Power Company currently purchases its nuclear fuel from the United States. Nuclear material in Taiwan is subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. The United States’ requirements as to nuclear safeguards are similar to Australia’s. The important difference in the two countries’ policies as far as they affect the supply of nuclear material to Taiwan has very little to do with safeguards. It is that the United States, unlike Australia, recognises the ‘Republic of China Government’ and is therefore able to have a nuclear co-operation safeguards agreement with it and to export nuclear material to Taiwan.

The fact that some other countries recognise the ‘ Republic of China’ in no way calls into question the effectiveness of Australia’s safeguards policy.

River Murray: Salinity

Senator Durack:
LP

– On 26 September, Senator Davidson asked me a series of questions on the River Murray and salinity in South Australia. The Minister for National Development has now provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s questions:

The World Health Organisation recommends that, in general, it is desirable for total dissolved solids in drinking water not to exceed SOO milligrams per litre, but it recognises a maximum tolerable level of 1S00 milligrams per litre. Salinity levels in the River Murray vary considerably according to location, river flow conditions and with time. It would be difficult to generalise on this matter. However, I understand that the current salinity level at Morgan in South Australia averages about 450 milligrams per litre but has risen on occasions to about 800 milligrams per litre.

The honourable senator would be aware of action by the Government, in association with the governments of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, to develop a coordinated plan of action on a broad regional basis to deal with salinity and drainage problems in the Murray Valley. To this end, consultants were engaged early this year to assess the extent and severity of these problems and to recommend on appropriate measures. In the press statement of 20 September, to which the honourable senator referred, the Minister for National Development announced an allocation of $2.02m this financial year under the National Water Resources Program for urgent salinity reduction and drainage projects on a dollar for dollar basis with the States. Provision has also been made for funds in 1979-80 to complete these projects. The development of a long-term approach to these problems will be considered by the Government when the consultants’ report has been completed, probably towards the middle of next year.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 25 October 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1978/19781025_senate_31_s79/>.