Senate
30 August 1979

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. Senate
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1979

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.

page 417

PETITIONS

Uranium Mining and Enrichment

Senator KEEFFE:
QUEENSLAND

– I present the following petition from 56 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 construction of a uranium enrichment plant in North Queensland and the mining of uranium on the Herveys Range area should not be proceeded with on the following grounds:

1 ) No safe method has yet been devised for the disposal of nuclear waste.

The mining of uranium ore exposes workers to considerable danger from radon gases.

The danger of poisoning chemicals seeping into surface and underground water supplies as a result of uranium ore mining and refining of uranium ore could pose serious health hazards for persons living in the Townsville region.

Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should take all possible steps to abandon or postpone indefinitely the mining of uranium in the Herveys Range area, and the construction of an enrichment plant in the Townsville region.

Petition received and read.

The Clerk:

– A petition has been lodged for presentation as follows:

National Women’s Advisory Council

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 National Women’s Advisory Council has not been democratically elected by the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is not representative of the women of Australia;

That the National Women’s Advisory Council is a discriminatory and sexist imposition on Australian women as Australian men do not have a National Men’s Advisory Council imposed on them.

Your petitioners therefore pray:

That the National Women’s Advisory Council be abolished to ensure that Australian women have equal opportunity with Australian men of having issues of concern to them considered, debated and voted on by their Parliamentary representatives without intervention and interference by an unrepresentative ‘Advisory Council ‘.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Sheil.

Petition received.

page 417

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 417

QUESTION

POST-GRADUATE AWARDS

Senator BUTTON:
VICTORIA

-Has the Minister for Education calculated the fall in the real value of postgraduate awards since January1977 when they were last substantially increased? Is it a fact that taking into account past and expected movements in the consumer price index and the introduction of taxation of awards in November1978 the awards will have fallen in real value by 36 per cent by December 1 980?

Senator CARRICK:
Vice-President of the Executive Council · NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– I have some figures, but not with me. I will provide them for the honourable senator later. Perhaps I will be able to give a response at the end of Question Time. The background is that the Eraser Government found, when it came into office, that the value of the post-graduate awards and particularly the supporting spouse and attendant allowances had fallen very badly and in 1977 a very substantial increase was made, an increase beyond the cost of living adjustment as such. That has helped enormously. It is true that the taxing of those allowances must, in certain cases, decrease their value. Of course, it is to be remembered that those allowances are without means tests and that, therefore, it is possible for many of those people to have additional amounts of money. I will get the information by the end of Question Time and see whether I can provide it to the honourable senator.

page 417

QUESTION

OPPOSITION’S ECONOMIC POLICIES

Senator MESSNER:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Has the Minister representing the Treasurer noted the pertinent comment by one L. Pickering in today’s Australian in the form of a cartoon captioned ‘The Alternative Hayden Budget Strategy’, which shows a printing press printing money, overseen by a photograph of a smiling, approving Gough Whitlam? Has the Minister noted further comment by others that such an inflationary policy would be extremely destructive of efforts to control inflation and obviously would lead to increased unemployment? Will the Minister assure the Senate that the Government will do all in its power to ensure that the present antiinflationary, job creating policies are adhered to and that such totally unredeeming economic nonsense stemming from the Opposition will not influence the Government’s thinking?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– I noted this morning that Mr Pickering’s cartoon had faithfully mirrored Mr Hayden ‘s statements in his speech on the Budget two days ago when he said that he would adopt an open-ended approach to the size of the deficit.

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

– Let Labor Party senators talk as they wish. Mr Hayden has said that he will finance his program by adopting an openended approach to the size of the deficit. That means precisely what Mr Pickering indicated, namely, that the printing press will be turned on. It is interesting to look at Mr Hayden ‘s last Budget in the days of the Whitlam Government when he said that any increase in the deficit would increase the rate of inflation and the level of unemployment. Let me make it perfectly clear that in the 1975 Budget Speech -

Opposition senators interjecting-

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Grimes and others are endeavouring to shout down an answer which is vital to the Australian people. We will not be shouted down. What Mr Hayden said in his 1 975 Budget Speech was that if people widened the deficit by using the printing press they would create inflation and extra unemployment. Mr Hayden said in his recent statement concerning the Budget that he will do exactly that, that he will increase the rate of inflation and the level of unemployment. The fact is that Pickering has been perfectly accurate. Of course the Government will not do what Mr Hayden says it should do. It is interesting to know that the Press throughout Australia has rejected out of hand the philosophy of the Hayden socialist alternative. The Press has described that philosophy as being politically expedient and economically irresponsible.

page 418

QUESTION

MR LYENKO URBANCHICH

Senator RYAN:
ACT

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and refers to matters discussed in the Senate after Question Time yesterday. The incorporation in Hansard of documents on which Monday night’s Australian Broadcasting Commission Broadband program concerning Lyenko Urbanchich was based, although volunteered by the Leader of the Government on Tuesday, was refused by the Government yesterday, mainly on the grounds that the authenticity of the documents could not be established at that stage and that there were questions as to the accuracy of the translation.

I ask the Minister: What steps will he take to establish the authenticity of the documents and to secure an official translation of them so that they may be tabled in the Senate and incorporated in Hansard, as was the Minister’s original intention? Further, although I specifically asked in advance that a transcript of the Broadband program be made by the Parliamentary Library, such a transcript has not been made. The Minister said in his answer to me on Tuesday that he had a copy of a transcript and a tape of the broadcast. Will he make that copy of a transcript- of course, it is material which has already been published- available to the Senate?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It will be necessary for me to respond in some detail. The background to this matter is that some days ago in a 90-minute program called Broadband the Australian Broadcasting Commission made a series of statements and allegations about a particular individual, an Australian citizen, which, if true, are very serious indeed and “which, if untrue, are grossly defamatory. The situation, as I understand it, is that they were based on a series of documents which purport to be photostat copies of newspaper articles from a library in Ljubljana in Yugoslavia and from other sources. They also contain translations.

I made it perfectly clear to the Senate that at that stage nobody could vouch for the authenticity or otherwise of the facsimiles of the newspaper articles; nobody could vouch whether they were actually those newspaper articles; nobody could vouch whether they were doctored or otherwise; nobody could vouch whether the translations were accurate or otherwise; and nobody could vouch whether the ABC had been selective or objective in putting together its program. I made that as a clear and positive statement regarding the nature of the documents.

The documents were widely available, as I understand it. If any honourable senator had asked the producer of the program for them he would no doubt have supplied them. I said at that time that they were there and that they needed to be tested; and I indicated that for my part I had no objection to their incorporation in Hansard. But an honourable senator who is a lawyer and whose opinion I respect rose in his place and made the point that if that were done and if at that point privilege were established for those documents, in his view it could prejudice any legal remedy that the individual may seek. Because I am no lawyer, at that point the only recourse I had in the interests of justice was to seek a period in which to check whether this may or may not be true. The fact that the Labor Opposition is not interested in natural justice, in ordinary justice, for the individual or for the community as a whole does not invalidate what I am saying.

In the course of the next 24 hours a number of honourable senators sought opinions not only from within this Parliament but also from practising advocates. There was a variety of opinions. It is true that Senator Evans regards himself as the alpha and omega of all law. Indeed, when I look at him I understand the meaning of omega. I remind him of the saying of the Good Lord: ‘I am Alpha and Omega’- the beginning and the ending. If ever there was an ending, I see it there.

The fact is that very reputable lawyers said that a doubt remained as to prejudice. With that doubt remaining, I was prepared to say that I was not willing to go ahead with the incorporation of these documents while there might be any prejudice to an individual. That individual has a recourse to law. If he so desires, that individual can take out an action against the Australian Broadcasting Commission and if the Commission has committed defamation that individual can seek a very substantial remedy at law. Nobody at all should stand in the way of the right of an individual or in any way attempt to cripple the right of an individual to recourse at law. That is all we are doing. Senator Ryan asks whether there is a tape in my personal possession of the 90 minutes and, indeed, a rough transcript: That is so. Because I knew, as I think Senator Ryan knew- I understand that she was given some documents ahead of the actual broadcast, and therefore the Australian Labor Party was -

Senator Grimes:

– We got them from you.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Grimes says: We got them from you’. Let me make it perfectly clear that Senator Ryan got no documents from us at all. But, yes, we taped the broadcast and had a transcript. The Parliamentary Library asked whether we would provide the transcript to it. I took the view that if that were done, and if there were reliance on a transcript made by one section of this Parliament, it could be argued that it was defective. Therefore I declined and invited the Parliamentary Library to make its own transcript. I believe that the Library should be able to say that the transcript is totally objective. That is available to everybody, because that is a service of the Library. The Library, as I understand it, has made, or is in the process of completing that transcript and it is available to Senator Ryan. The fact is that, on the one hand, Senator Ryan is saying: ‘We are willing to accept from the Government the authenticity of what it is doing; we will take your tapes and your transcripts’. But, on the other hand, she is attempting to taint everything that we are doing.

Lest there be any doubt about this matter, I point out that because the documents are such that I had to put a caveat on them as to their authenticity or otherwise, when the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I could show him a copy to peruse I provided copies to him to peruse. So let it be perfectly clear that the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate has had full access to the nature of the documents but, as I understand it, they are public documents. I understand that if the Leader of the Opposition were to go to the producer of Broadband and ask him for them he would get them- as I imagine Senator Ryan, either directly or indirectly, obtained her copy. So any suggestion that there is some attempt to hide these documents is arrant nonsense. The fact is that the Australian Labor Party can go to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and seek those documents. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Government will not in any way impede the normal course of the law, and let the lawyers -

Senator Grimes:

– You gave them to Mr Aarons for political purposes.

Senator CARRICK:

– I want to have it recorded that Senator Grimes said: ‘You gave them to Mr Aarons; you gave them for political purposes. ‘

Senator Grimes:

– That is right.

Senator CARRICK:

-I want that recorded. I want, with the full force at my command, to say that that is absolutely untrue. Neither I nor my Government gave any such documents to Mr Aarons.

Senator Grimes:

– Not your Government; you did.

Senator CARRICK:

- Senator Grimes has said: Not your Government, you did’. He is saying that I, Senator Carrick, gave those documents to Mr Aarons. Let me make this perfectly clear: To my certain knowledge and certain recollection, never in my life have I had any association with Mr Aarons, directly or indirectly. I ask the Leader of the Opposition, because one of his front bench has made this allegation, whether he will accept as being part of his responsibility the allegation that is now made by one of his front bench. I am now saying through you, Mr President, to the Leader of the Opposition that I make an absolutely unequivocal denial of this. I have never seen or spoken to Mr Aarons in my life.

Senator Bishop:

- Mr President, I rise to take a point of order. I suggest for your consideration that the Minister is debating this issue and bringing into contest matters of which he is accusing

Senator Ryan, who has no chance to answer them. Also, he is making a shambles of the Senate and the Standing Orders might well be brought to his attention.

The PRESIDENT:

– There is no point of order.

page 420

QUESTION

TELEVISION SERVICES: EYRE PENINSULA

Senator JESSOP:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. Does the Minister recall that in April this year Mr Staley visited Eyre Peninsula with me to discuss matters relating to the extension of television to people in those areas still not enjoying a service? As the Minister indicated that he would be in a position to make a statement on the subject in about three months, and as this time has now expired, can he say why the Department has not been able to come forward with details concerning the capital works program, giving information about the sites of installation, the dates of commencement and other aspects associated with the extension of television to those parts of Eyre Peninsula currently without a service?

Senator CHANEY:
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– I do remember that Senator Jessop went to Eyre Peninsula with Mr Staley and I remember wishing that I could have been with them because Senator Jessop has always told us a great deal about the needs of Eyre Peninsula. I am advised by Mr Staley that he is very unhappy at the delay that there has been in providing the final detailed information, but he is very pleased to be able to say to the honourable senator that the detail will be available by next week. Mr Staley expects to advise Senator Jessop of details of the individual sites to be included in the overall project with as clear an indication of the timing of their development as is possible at this stage.

Mr LYENKO URBANCHICH

Senator MULVIHILL:
NEW SOUTH WALES

-I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate a question. Mindful of the concern expressed to me by officers of several Sydney and Canberra Slovene organisations, all of whom have been victims of personal smears inflicted by Mr Urbanchich but who rightly feel that the prolonging of this issue is a stigma on all Australians of Slovene origin, I now ask, with their concurrence, whether the Minister will arrange immediately with the Minister for Immigration to have tabled in this Parliament documents relating to Mr Urbanchich ‘s entry into Australia, which would have been the basis of evaluation by immigration officers. Secondly, I ask whether the Minister will table a further document in which Mr Urbanchich was evaluated for Australian citizenship. In the case of the second request, irrespective of individual rights there is a government right to see that no false information has been given by people who are seeking Australian citizenship and who might have had peculiar wartime associations.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-If Senator Mulvihill has documentary evidence of what he calls smears inflicted on the Slovene people by this particular individual, he having said that in the Senate will no doubt provide me with it and I will give it consideration. I think he should do so. As to the second part of the honourable senator’s question, I will bring it to the attention of the Minister for Immigration. I do not know whether Ministers for Immigration ever release dossiers with regard to the entry of any person into this country. That would be a dangerous matter. I can only say that the gentleman concerned, Mr Lyenko Urbanchich, was a controversial figure during the time of the Whitlam Government. If the Whitlam Government, with access to all the files, had wanted to investigate this person it had a perfect freedom so to do. Indeed, there is no joy in walking down that road. I will ask the Minister to respond, if he wishes to do so.

Senator MULVIHILL:

– I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Leader of the Government to ask the Minister to request his security officers to have a look at the paper called Zar published in 1961. Do they know of the comments of Mr Cujes of the Triglav club and the people of the Slovene Association who do not necessarily receive costly aid from, say, my colleague, Senator Evans? Simply, the onus is on the Government to protect other elements and newspapers from these smears. I ask Senator Carrick not to beg the question.

Senator CARRICK:

-Rather than begging the question, I have asked for information as to the nature of the alleged smears. I would not tolerate smears on anyone, Slovene people or otherwise. There is a rumble amongst the Opposition. During its three years in office it pursued a vendetta against the Yugoslav people of an immense intolerance and an immense ugliness. Members of the Opposition are now giving us a lecture on intolerance. Senator Mulvihill will know that the Australian security system does not keep dossiers on people unless, in fact, those people are carrying out treasonable activities. I do not know that there would be any such dossiers, but I am quite prepared for Senator Mulvihill to give me the references to the newspaper article and I will refer the matter to the appropriate authorities.

page 421

QUESTION

REPATRIATION BENEFITS

Senator MacGIBBON:
QUEENSLAND

– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Will the entitlement to repatriation benefits proposed in the present Budget for those men and women who served in Allied armed forces be restricted to those persons resident in Australia who have taken out Australian citizenship? What evidence of service will be required? Must they have been and be able to prove that they were bona fide servicemen and women in regular and legally constituted armed forces?

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

– The question calls for specific details. I think that it would be advisable to refer it to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs to see that a clear statement is made with regard to the points raised.

page 421

QUESTION

MR LYENKO URBANCHICH

Senator RYAN:

– The Leader of the Government in the Senate on Tuesday, in answer to a question by me in regard to the Broadband program, used these words:

I did not hear the Broadband broadcast last night but I have a copy of the transcript. I have a tape . . .

The Minister has now denied that he had this tape. I ask him why he is persisting in denying to the Senate a copy of the transcript. I would also say, in clarification of the issue, that I do not have a transcript of that program. That is what I am seeking.

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I have to reject out of hand the substance of Senator Ryan’s question because I did not deny that I had a tape at all. I asserted that I had a tape. Let me get that perfectly clear. Because I knew, as Senator Ryan knew, that there would be a Broadband program of a particular nature, I asked my people to tape the program so that I could hear the substance of it. The normal procedure in this Parliament for anyone wishing to get a transcript which can be basically certified as objective is to do so through the Parliamentary Library. It would be quite wrong if I were to give a transcript. It could be suspected that the transcript was not authentic and was defective in a particular way. I believe the sensible thing to do is for honourable members to get the transcript through the Parliamentary Library. The Parliamentary Library is providing that transcript. I give an emphatic denial that I said I did not have a tape. There is no basis that -

Senator Ryan:

– What about the transcript?

Senator CARRICK:

– I have, of course, obtained a transcript, as it was possible for every member of the Australian Labor Party to do. Senator Ryan is recreant in her duties if, knowing that the program was on, she did not seek to obtain a tape and did not seek to record it.

page 421

QUESTION

TRAINING OF ANTARCTIC EXPEDITION MEMBERS

Senator LEWIS:
VICTORIA

– My question, which is addressed to the Minister for Science and the Environment, is about the tragic death of a member of the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition near Casey in Antarctica on 6 August this year. Are all members of the Australian teams trained in low temperature survival techniques before they leave for Antarctica, and are any changes proposed to be made in the training of, or techniques used by, Australian teams to help avoid any similar tragedy in the future?

Senator WEBSTER:
Minister for Science and the Environment · VICTORIA · NCP/NP

-The Senate acknowledges the sad loss of one of our expeditioners this year. It was a tragic incident which occurred during a storm. The officer stepped outside, was blown away by extremely strong wind and was not found for many hours. That is one of the grave risks that attend anyone who is on an expedition in Antarctica. The honourable senator raises two questions, the first of which is whether all members are skilled in low temperature survival. My understanding is that before expeditioners go to the Antarctic they spend some time having discussions at headquarters and usually they are taken to snowfields in Victoria. Now that we are moving our headquarters to Tasmania expedition members will be doing their survival work during low temperatures in that State. That will be done during winter, which is appropriate because our normal activity in Antarctica is during summer. As to whether survival when exposed to low temperatures is a matter of training, I would think that it is but I will get a direct answer to that question.

In regard to changes in the program, I think the honourable senator can be assured that an incident such as this will draw attention to the actions taken by individuals in such conditions, whether they happen to be taken alone or whether they be taken in concert with others. Perhaps it will strengthen the view that expeditioners should not proceed alone into a particular area unless their destination is well known. The general proposition that the honourable senator puts forward is a very sensible one and I will direct the attention of the Director of the Antarctic Division to it.

page 422

QUESTION

INDEXATION OF PENSIONS

Senator CHIPP:
VICTORIA

– By way of preface to my question to the Leader of the Government I say that this morning I received an angry letter from a Queensland age pensioner enclosing a letter from Senator Maunsell. I have paid Senator Maunsell the courtesy of saying that I would be quoting from his letter. I want to query two points. Inter alia, Senator Maunsell, in relation to a motion relating to the reindexing of pensions- he was referring to a private member’s Bill- stated:

The motion by Senator Chipp will not be debated.

That is the first point. In regard to the second point, I again quote from his letter. He wrote:

As 1 understand the situation, a return to twice-yearly indexation will be included in the Budget to be brought down on 2 1 st August.

The letter is dated 27 July 1979. My question to the Leader of the Government is in two parts. Did he, or any other member of the Government, with his knowledge, tell Senator Maunsell that my private member’s Bill would never be debated in the Senate? Did the Leader of the Government or any other member of the Government tell Senator Maunsell on or before 27 July that twice-yearly pension indexation would be included in the Budget on 2 1 August?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

- Senator Chipp ‘s private member’s Bill was treated scrupulously. I indicated in this chamber that it would undergo the same procedure as all other private members’ Bills. It was clearly understood that he would be given the chance to take the Bill to the second reading stage and make his second reading speech. The debate would then be adjourned and take its place somewhere on the Notice Paper. At no time did I ever indicate to anyone that the Bill would never be debated. That is quite clear. As to the second point, neither I nor any other member of the Ministry would have indicated, in breach of Cabinet’s Budget decisions, what would happen with regard to indexation.

Senator Keeffe:

– How did he find out if you didn’t tell him?

Senator CARRICK:

-As I read the letter, he did not find out. As I read the letter, Senator Chipp said that Senator Maunsell qualified the statement by saying ‘as I understand it’. In other words, it was his view that that was what would happen. Those are the plain words. All that the letter said was that it was his understanding or his view that this would be so. The fact that very happily this has happened- it gives great joy to all Australians except members of the Australian Labor Party- is a matter of nice coincidence.

Senator Webster:

- Mr President, I rise to a point of order. Queenslanders should know what an outstanding and perceptive senator is Senator Maunsell.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! No point of order is involved.

Senator CHIPP:

- Mr President, I direct a supplementary question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. I know that it is difficult for him because he does not have the actual letter in front of him. I will read the sentence again. It states:

As I understand the situation, a return to twice-yearly indexation will be included in the Budget to be brought down on 2 1 August.

Again I ask: Did Senator Maunsell have any basis in fact upon which to state that in a letter to a pensioner?

Senator CARRICK:

– All that that sentence says is that it is his understanding that it will happen. He does not say that he is advised that it will happen or that he has certain knowledge that it will happen. It was simply his understanding. No Minister would have given him that advice. I am not at all certain that at the date of his writing the letter any Cabinet decision had been made on the matter. Certainly, no Minister would have given him that advice.

page 422

QUESTION

AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION: AUSTRALIAN LABOR PARTY POLICY

Senator WALTERS:
TASMANIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and relates to the decision that was taken at the conference of the Australian Labor Party in Adelaide that Labor would seek an amendment to the Constitution to provide for its alteration by a simple majority of the whole of the Australian population without regard to the different views of the States. Can he say what effect the decision would have on the small States?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– This question is, of course, of vital interest to the whole of the Senate but particularly to all States and especially to the four less populous States. The Senate is one of the protective mechanisms for the less populous States against the danger of the two more populous States combining in numbers against them. The fact of the matter is that in a variety of ways the Labor Party wishes to remove the powers of the Senate. One of the ways is to take away its financial powers.

Senator Button:

- Mr President, I raise a point of order. There must be some integrity and clarity in relation to alleged quotations. Senator Walters stated in her question that the platform adopted by the Australian Labor Party at the Adelaide conference states that we would seek to have referendums carried by a simple majority of Australian electors without regard to the wishes of the States. The words ‘without regard to the wishes of the States’ are the words of Senator Walters and not the words in the Labor Party’s platform. It is quite dishonest of Senator Carrick to answer a question which purports to contain a quotation from the Labor Party’s platform when the quotation is wrong.

The PRESIDENT:

– Order! There is no point of order. In a situation such as this, a personal explanation may be made at the end of Question Time.

Senator CARRICK:

– It is a great joy to me that Senator Button should reaffirm that at the Adelaide conference a decision was made that referenda should be determined by simple majority of the overall Australian population. That is a nice thing to have on record because a simple majority means that if the States of New South Wales and Victoria use their ballot box clout they can outvote and outshout the four less populous States. Of course, that is what the Labor Party wants. The Labor Party wants to destroy the power of the four less populous States.

Senator Cavanagh:

- Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to study the question. It sought an opinion from the Minister, and that is prohibited under the Standing Orders.

The PRESIDENT:

– I listened carefully to the question because of the very point raised by the honourable senator. However, I thought that the question could go to the Minister and I so allowed.

Senator Cavanagh:

– You say that the question did not seek an opinion?

The PRESIDENT:

– I took note of the possibility of an opinion being sought, but I could see more substance in the question and I allowed it to go through.

Senator CARRICK:

– I was asked, on a point of fact, whether a referendum depending upon a simple majority of all the voters of Australia would destroy the sovereignty of the less populous States. As a matter of fact I say yes, it would.

page 423

QUESTION

PICKERING CARTOON

Senator McLAREN:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows the question asked earlier by Senator

Messner concerning the Pickering cartoon in today’s Australian. I ask: Is this the same Mr Pickering who contested an election in the Australian Capital Territory as an endorsed Liberal Party candidate? Is Mr Pickering still a member of the Liberal Party? Finally, could not today’s cartoon be construed rightly as being one of collusion between the Prime Minister and Mr Pickering in an endeavour to give some small measure of credibility to the Budget?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

– It is the measure of the high intellectual perceptivity of Mr Pickering that he is the same Mr Pickering who was a Liberal Party candidate in the past. I do not know whether he is a member of the Liberal Party at the moment. I cannot answer that. That would be a matter to ask Mr Pickering. Of course there is no collusion. But I take it from Senator McLaren’s question that if I can produce for him any writers or cartoonists who are members of the Labor Party he will therefore invite this Senate to disregard anything they write or anything they draw or anything they say on the basis that it is likely to be rejectable Is that so? It would be a fascinating situation if that were so. I think it hurts the Labor Party enormously that Mr Pickering has touched the heart of the matter and has faithfully projected with his pen what Mr Hayden said with his voice. The fact is that the Labor Party is hurt because the cartoon has stated the fundamental truth.

page 423

QUESTION

DISTILLATION OF ALCOHOL FROM WHEAT

Senator DAVIDSON:
SOUTH AUSTRALIA

– My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment and relates to the announcement that considerable quantities of car fuel may soon come from alcohol distilled from Australian wheat. In view of the many advantages that have been claimed for the production of ethanol from this resource, I ask the Minister what part the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has played in this development. Can the Minister confirm the claims that have been made? I further ask whether the Minister can outline any details relating to the efficiency of this fuel and, in particular, whether he has any information concerning costs.

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The matter is of public concern at present. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which is Australia’s largest research organisation, is working in this field. It may be useful to draw the attention of the Senate to an article in the June 1979 issue, Volume 103, of CSIRO’s quarterly Rural Research’. It would be in Senator

Davidson’s interest and that of his State to read the article entitled ‘Growing fuel on the farm’. In the view of many there are advantages in the production of methanol and ethanol from renewable resources. Several divisions within CSIROthe Division of Chemical Technology, the Division of Land Use Research, the Division of Mineral Engineering and the Division of Plant Industry- have undertaken a multi-disciplinary study of this subject. I expect that a comprehensive report will be received in the near future.

It is not appropriate to pre-empt any of the detailed findings until the investigation is complete. However, the results obtained to date from this particular study, which, of course, in Australia covers the problems of land availability, the types of crops that might be grown and the use of crop residues, suggest that a very substantial proportion- as high as 50 per cent- of all liquid fuels used in transport could be produced from arable crops, from forestry and their residues. However, that scenario probably would require major realignment of the national objectives for rural industries in this country. Perhaps we should wait until the report comes to hand. I will certainly then bring it to Senator Davidson’s attention.

page 424

QUESTION

USE OF DISTILLATE

Senator WALSH:
WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question, since it covers more than one ministerial area, is directed to the Leader of the Government. I refer to the Deputy Prime Minister’s guarantee given a couple of weeks ago that farmers would receive adequate supplies of distillate if rationing were introduced. Can he tell us which of the other distillate users- miners, fishermen, heavy transporters, foresters or power generators- will be deprived of supplies if that guarantee to farmers is to be fulfilled?

Senator CARRICK:
LP

-I find that a curious question. It suggests to me that there is some antipathy to farmers. As I understand it, there is no intention to deprive anybody of valuable and essential products such as distillates. There is some intention in the Government to give priorities to those who have some urgency of use. I would imagine that everyone other than Senator Walsh would agree that farmers, in their need to harvest crops which are vital to the living standards of all Australians, have some priority. Senator Walsh, of all people, apparently thinks not. I will refer the question to the Deputy Prime Minister and seek comment on the other aspects.

Senator WALSH:

– I wish to ask a supplementary question. The Leader of the Government appears to have missed the point of the question. The groups I named are the only significant consumers of distillate. If rationing is to be introduced, by implication somebody will be forced to reduce consumption. Which one of the groups that I named will be forced to reduce its consumption?

Senator CARRICK:

– I have already indicated that I will ask the Deputy Prime Minister to respond to the subsequent comments.

page 424

QUESTION

HOUSES FINANCED UNDER THE STATES GRANTS (HOUSING) ACT

Senator ARCHER:
TASMANIA

– I ask a question of the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction. In answer to a question yesterday I was advised that an additional $ 16 1 m was available for housing construction through the sales of existing houses and the use of revolving funds. Can the Minister advise the approximate estimated break-up between the States of the $161m, particularly the amount that is available to Tasmania?

Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP

-The information which I had yesterday, which was not included in the answer that I gave, contained a general table which breaks up the $ 1 6 1 m. I seek leave to incorporate it as part of my answer to the honourable senator.

Leave granted.

The table read as follows-

(b)The figures are net or repayments of principal and interest to the Commonwealth. In Victoria, the internal funds figure includes a transfer of $57,700,000 from the Home Purchase Assistance Account; this represents the expected value of settlements by purchasers of Victorian Housing Commission dwellings. {: .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER: -- In that table, $97.234m of the $ 1 6 1 m is shown as ' Internal funds of State Housing authorities under Rental Housing Assistance Programs resulting from rental operations, sales of dwellings and other activities such as land sales'. The figure for Tasmania under that classification is $7. 383m. A total of $64.050m is shown for 'Surpluses- Revolving funds of Home Purchase Assistance programs'. A figure of $4.7m is shown for Tasmania under that classification. I think that the point which should be taken from that will be found in the answer which I gave the honourable senator yesterday to a question on this matter. {: .page-start } page 425 {:#debate-15} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-15-0} #### PENSIONER BENEFITS {: #subdebate-15-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
TASMANIA -- I preface my question, which is addressed to the Minister for Social Security, by saying that there is general acceptance in the community that all pensioners should receive payments which at least keep up with the cost of living. As the Minister will be well aware, that does not apply in many cases where elderly people are receiving multiple pensions. I ask the Minister: Will the Government consider appointing a committee of officials to look into the options which would be available to ensure that at least some form of payment could be devised which guarantees covering cost of living increases for many tens of thousands of pensioners who find themselves in such an anomalous position? {: #subdebate-15-0-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP -- I would always be pleased to have work done which would show difficulties which occur within the income security system. If **Senator Wriedt** has some specific matters which he would like considered I would be perfectly happy to have my officers consider them. Maybe we would be able to discuss some proposals which might originate from a study of the subject. I would be pleased to hear from **Senator Wriedt** of any specific matters which he would like studied by my Department. {: .page-start } page 425 {:#debate-16} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-16-0} #### INFORMATION AND GRAPHIC SYSTEMS PTY LTD {: #subdebate-16-0-s0 .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON:
TASMANIA -I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Productivity: In making a $900,000 development grant for a complex large-scale computer to be built by the Melbourne company Information and Graphic Systems Pty Ltd was the Minister aware, firstly, that a claim of breach of contract was taken out in 1 978 against that company; secondly, that it is alleged that the New South Wales Institute of Technology is taking legal action for alleged non-operation of a computer system installed by the company in the School of Computing Sciences; and, thirdly, that these are not isolated cases of unsatisfactory dealings with that company? Did the Minister get adequate technical advice from such a competent authority as the Division of Computing Research of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation before making such a substantial grant to that company? Is it true that a portion of the grant has been used to pay off past debts of the company rather than the full amount being applied to the development of an extremely powerful computer system? Finally, is the Minister now fully satisfied that the company has the capacity to develop such a complex system? {: #subdebate-16-0-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
LP -- The honourable senator's question raises a series of matters of detail which I will refer to the Minister for Productivity for reply. {: .page-start } page 425 {:#debate-17} ### ABORIGINAL INFANT MORTALITY RATE Senior KEEFFE-Can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs inform the Parliament how the most recent annual figures on the Aboriginal infant mortality rate for the Northern Territory were compiled? Can he tell the Parliament who was responsible for the delay in making the infant mortality statistics for the Northern Territory available to the public? {: #debate-17-s0 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
LP -- It is my understanding that the figures were compiled by the Department of Health in the Northern Territory but I will seek confirmation of that. I am not able to explain any delay but I will seek information on that also. {: .page-start } page 425 {:#debate-18} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-18-0} #### MODEL PRISON IN THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY {: #subdebate-18-0-s0 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator KNIGHT:
ACT -- I direct to the AttorneyGeneral a question concerning a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission suggesting that a model prison should be established in the Australian Capital Territory to give a lead to the States in prison reform. Can the Minister indicate what consideration has been given to that proposal and whether at the moment there is any proposal to establish a model prison, or a prison of any kind, in the Australian Capital Territory? {: #subdebate-18-0-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
Attorney-General · WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP -- Following a reference which I gave to the Law Reform Commission in August last year on proposals for a reform of Commonwealth sentencing law, the Commission issued a discussion paper in June last in which it proposed that correctional institutions for adult offenders, including a minimum security farm and forestry camp, a work release hostel, a periodic detention centre and a maximum security institution, be provided in the Australian Capital Territory. I emphasise that the process which the Law Reform Commission adopts in relation to references is to issue papers for discussion. That is all that the recommendation is at the moment. It is contained in a paper which is now subject to discussion. We have interests in the matter which it has raised for discussion, but any action in relation to the matter will have to await the final report which, we hope, will be issued by the Law Reform Commission in the next few months. I would add that the question of the provision of a prison in the Australian Capital Territory, which concerns **Senator Knight,** is a matter for the Department of the Capital Territory. I would have to pass on the recommendations to that Department, which would be mainly concerned with processing the recommendations. {: .page-start } page 426 {:#debate-19} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-19-0} #### FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO MEET LEGAL COSTS OF MRS K. I. INGLIS {: #subdebate-19-0-s0 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH: -Has the AttorneyGeneral received an appeal from **Mrs K.** I. Inglis for financial assistance to meet legal costs in a proposed High Court action against some public servants and Ministers? What was the Government's reply to such request? Will the AttorneyGeneral, as requested by **Mrs Inglis,** table the 18-page statutory declaration made by her in relation to complaints against certain Commonwealth legal and parliamentary officers? {: #subdebate-19-0-s1 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
LP -I believe that I have received some papers in relation to a request by **Mrs Inglis,** including some documents which she has submitted. I have not a clear recollection of them at the moment. This is something about which I will need to refresh my mind. I will certainly take note of the question from **Senator Cavanagh,** inform myself on the subject and provide him with an answer as soon as possible. {: .page-start } page 426 {:#debate-20} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-20-0} #### DETENTION OF MALAYSIANS {: #subdebate-20-0-s0 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
VICTORIA -- I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs to disturbing reports received from Amnesty International and released on 23 August which claim that an estimated 1,000 Malaysians are being detained without trial by the Malaysian Government. Will the Minister advise the Senate of any knowledge concerning claims in the report that the treatment of prisoners during their detention is 'cruel, inhumane and degrading and in complete violation of the United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners'? In accordance with the Government's concern for human rights, will the Minister also urge the Government to call on the Malaysian Government to conduct a full investigation into the claims of torture and ill-treatment of detainees? {: #subdebate-20-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
LP -- I have no first-hand knowledge of this matter. I will refer it to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and seek a response. {: .page-start } page 426 {:#debate-21} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-21-0} #### INTERSCAN SYSTEM {: #subdebate-21-0-s0 .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator PRIMMER:
VICTORIA -- My question is directed to the Minister for Science and the Environment. Is it a fact that the InterScan system developed in Australia is now being further developed jointly by West Germany and America and is being publicised abroad as an American rather than an Australian development? {: #subdebate-21-0-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP -- I am unaware of the matters that have been put forward by the honourable senator. The Senate will be aware of the development of the InterScan system. So far as I am aware, the joint operation, which is between an American company and a company formed in Australia, is proceeding satisfactorily to develop and refine the equipment that is to be used and, we hope, marketed for InterScan. I know that some 12 months ago, when various national companies, and countries, were bidding for a landing system to be used throughout the world, it was suggested that the system that we had put forward had been put forward by other countries also. My understanding is that that is not the current attitude. Nor am I aware that West Germany is suggesting that it had the InterScan system. So far as I know, that suggestion would not be correct. {: .page-start } page 426 {:#debate-22} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-22-0} #### HEALTH INSURANCE ORGANISATIONS: FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS {: #subdebate-22-0-s0 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME:
NEW SOUTH WALES -- My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Health. I ask: Are registered health insurance organisations required under section 76(2) of the National Health Act to furnish a copy of their financial accounts and statements for the previous financial year to the Permanent Head of the Department of Health by 30 September each year? Which health insurance organisations in New South Wales failed to furnish their 1977-78 financial accounts and statements to the Permanent Head of the Department by the required date? Was the penalty provided under the Act for failure to provide this information imposed on any of these organisations? When were the required statements and financial accounts furnished and which organisations have still not furnished their 1977-78 financial accounts and statements as required? Finally, will the Minister approve contribution rate increases and benefit changes from 1 September 1979 for any organisations which have not furnished their 1977-78 financial accounts and statements as required? {: #subdebate-22-0-s1 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP -- I am advised by the Minister for Health in relation to this matter. The answer to the first part of the honourable senator's question would be yes, that section 76 (2) of the National Health Act requires that registered organisations shall, within three months after the expiration of each financial year ended on 30 June, furnish to the Department head their financial accounts and statements in respect of that year. I understand that only the following organisations in New South Wales failed to lodge financial accounts and statements for 1977-78 with the Permanent Head by 30 September 1978: The Australian Catholic Guild Friendly Society, the Health Insurance Commission and the New South Wales Teachers' Federation Health Society. The Minister advises that no penalty was imposed on these organisations for failure to lodge their returns by the prescribed date. Annual financial accounts and statements for the organisations previously named were received on the following dates: Australian Catholic Guild Friendly Society, 3.10.78. Health Insurance Commission, 20.10.78 (unaudited). New South Wales Teachers' Federation Health Society, 3. 10.78. In light of the comments made in response to the earlier part of the honourable senator's question, the implied actions referred to in the last part of the question thereof would be inappropriate. {: #subdebate-22-0-s2 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME: **-Mr President,** I wish to ask a brief supplementary question. I take it that the fund that is operated by the Health Insurance Commission is Medibank. If so, am I correct in understanding that its report for 1 977-78 remains in unaudited form? {: #subdebate-22-0-s3 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
LP -- I am unable to provide any further information on the matter. I am not aware of the present status of the Health Insurance Commission's accounts, but I will refer the honourable senator's question to the Minister for Health and seek further information. {: .page-start } page 427 {:#debate-23} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-23-0} #### POST-GRADUATE AWARDS {: #subdebate-23-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
LP -- During Question Time today **Senator Button** asked me a question regarding post-graduate allowances and the effect of cost of living trends and, of course, taxation, upon them. I now give him the following information: The increase in the consumer price index from June 1976 to June 1979 was 33 per cent and, projected to June 1980, it would be 43 per cent. The increase in the allowance from 1976 to 1978-79 for a scholar alone, without dependants, was 29 per cent as compared with an increase in the CPI of 33 per cent. For a scholar and dependent spouse the figure would be 45 per cent, compared with the CPI figure of 33 per cent and for a scholar, dependent spouse and one dependent child 42 per cent. So that, if we accept the CPI movement between June 1976 to June 1980 as 43 per cent, the increase in the allowance for a scholar and dependent spouse would have been greater. For a scholar, dependent spouse and one child the figures would be 42 per cent as compared with 43 per cent for the CPI. {: .page-start } page 427 {:#debate-24} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-24-0} #### HANDICAPPED: USE OF AIDS {: #subdebate-24-0-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
LP -Senator Walters asked a question regarding the Budget policy on sales tax for articles for deaf and blind children. I promised to seek that information. It is my understanding that almost all equipment that would fall into the category of having been manufactured expressly for use by handicapped people would already be covered by existing exemptions. In answer to a similar question yesterday the Treasurer indicated that he would look further into the matter. He said that to the extent that equipment is not already covered the Government would ensure that legislation is introduced to ensure its cover. {: .page-start } page 427 {:#debate-25} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATION {: #debate-25-s0 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory -- by leave- I wish to make a personal explanation. During Question Time this morning the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Carrick)** implied- perhaps stated, but certainly implied- that I had been somehow negligent in not seeking to obtain in advance from the Parliamentary Library a transcript of the *Broadband* program, which transcript of course would fulfil the requirements of objectivity, and so forth, that we all desire. I simply state for the record that I did seek in advance to arrange that the Parliamentary Library should make such a transcript and have it available for the Senate. I made that arrangement with the Parliamentary Library on Monday. On Tuesday, when I sought a copy of the transcript which I had ordered, my office was told by the Parliamentary Library that it had been unable to make a complete transcript because of staff shortages, that it would be able to provide a transcript of part only of the program. Consequently, I have sought from **Senator Carrick** other ways of providing a full objective transcript of the program as it was broadcast. {: #debate-25-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP -- by leave- I wish to make a statement on the same subject. I think **Senator Ryan** will find, if she looks at the transcript of *Hansard* today, that I said she was recreant, not in seeking a transcript from the Parliamentary Library but, in the knowledge she had that *Broadband* was to be broadcast on the particular night, in that she did not make a tape recording of it herself, if she could not be present, and make the transcription of the matter herself. That was where in my judgment she was primarily recreant. {: #debate-25-s2 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT:
Leader of the Opposition · Tasmania -- by leave- I should like to make a statement on the same subject. If it is to become a matter for debate, it was quite clear during Question Time, irrespective of the other matters involved in the debate, that **Senator Carrick** was critical of **Senator Ryan** for allegedly not taking steps to obtain a copy of that transcript through the normal channels of the Parliamentary Library. **Senator Ryan** has now made it perfectly clear that she did everything she possibly could to get that transcript. I think **Senator Carrick** owes an apology to **Senator Ryan.** I say this quite seriously. I could say a lot more about this subject if I want to. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: -- Please do. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -The opportunity will come when we come back, be assured of that. {: #debate-25-s3 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! There is far too much discussion and interjection in the chamber today. I ask honourable senators to remain silent while we listen to the Leader of the Opposition. {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator WRIEDT: -I should like to reiterate that **Senator Ryan** had done the right thing. It was certainly strongly implied, if not stated, by the Leader of the Government that she had not done so. She has now explained what took place, and I think the Leader of the Government at least ought to apologise to **Senator Ryan** for a misrepresentation of what she had done. {: .page-start } page 428 {:#debate-26} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-26-0} #### INTERSCAN {: #subdebate-26-0-s0 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator WEBSTER:
NCP/NP -During Question Time today, **Senator Primmer** questioned the matter of InterScan. He has forwarded to me a paper which I have looked at. I will refer to the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation the information conveyed in that paper, and on our return to the Senate I will have an answer for him. {: .page-start } page 428 {:#debate-27} ### AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL {:#subdebate-27-0} #### Matter of Urgency {: #subdebate-27-0-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I inform the Senate that I have received the following letter dated 30 August 1979 from **Senator Ryan:** >Dear **Mr President,** > >Pursuant to Sessional Order, I give notice that today I shall move- > >That in the opinion of the Senate the following is a matter of urgency: > >The collapse of the credibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the television licence transfer provisions of the *Broadcasting and Television Act* 1 942 as a result of the decisions by the Tribunal in the Channel 10 Sydney and Channel 4 Wollongong matters. ' > >Yours sincerely, SUSAN RYAN > > **Senator for** the Australian Capital Territory {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I point out to honourable senators that the word 'provisions' replaces the word 'process' which did appear inadvertently through a typographical error in the Order of Business Sheet that honourable senators have before them. It now reads: ' . . . transfer provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act'. Is the motion supported? *More than the number of senators required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places.* {: #subdebate-27-0-s1 .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN:
Australian Capital Territory -- I move: I raise this matter today because I think there can be no dispute that the administration of television and radio licences in this country is a matter of public importance. I think I will establish during the course of this debate, with the assistance of my colleague **Senator Evans,** that it is a matter of urgency that the credibility of the body charged by the Government with the task of administering the allocation of broadcasting licences in this country has collapsed totally. There is no doubt that the ownership of television licences in this country is a matter of public importance. The public is dependent upon television in particular for news, information and entertainment. I would point out also that the consuming public pays for the television services it receives from commercial television through the price of the consumer goods which are advertised on television. I would also point out that it has been the stated policy of the Fraser Government that the Tribunal ought to be able to administer broadcasting in the public interest and with public accountability. I offer a couple of brief quotations from the second reading speech made by the then Minister for Post and Telecommunications **(Mr Eric Robinson)** on the occasion of the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill 1 977.I regarded it as a statement of Government policy in these matters when he said: >It was considered desirable to provide appropriate machinery which would ensure adequate accountability by licencees for station performance. Further, the Minister said: >The Government has not been reluctant to institute procedures to enable the fullest public and industry involvement. The activities of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal will, as far as possible, be conducted in public and the public will have substantial access to the inquiry and deliberative activities of the Tribunal. He further stated: >The Tribunal must be able to justify publicly its deliberative and decision-making activities and in a similar manner, broadcasters will be made to account, at renewal hearings, and in public, for their programming performances. That is the policy of the Government with regard to the Broadcasting Tribunal. I maintain that this policy is not being implemented. The other matters of concern are that the Tribunal has cost the taxpayer, to this stage, $6.5m. The taxpayer is entitled to ask what it has received out of the Tribunal for this $6. 5m which has been spent on it. It seems to me and to the Opposition generally that the Broadcasting and Television Act, which the Tribunal has to administer, is parlous. Either it is a law which is not being implemented because of the incompetence of the Tribunal, or it is a law that is inadequate in its present form for the implementation of Government policy, in which case there is a clear onus on the Government to proceed to amend it completely. I have couched my motion in terms of the credibility of the Tribunal. There is no doubt that the Tribunal has suffered from credibility problems from its very inception. I will not recount at this stage the various episodes involving the Chairman of the Tribunal which have from time to time called into doubt the credibility of the Tribunal. I would simply say that whatever remaining credibility the Tribunal had at the outset of the inquiries into the Channel 10 take-over and the Channel 4 in Wollongong take-over has been destroyed by the conduct of each of those inquiries and by the consequent decisions in the case of each of those inquiries. In each case the hearings were marked by confusion, internal contradictions and sheer incompetence. Let us take the case of the take-over of the Channel 4 television station in Wollongong. The tribunal has not yet stated its reasons for approving the take-over, even though it has a statutory obligation and requirement to explain its reasons to the public. That is Government policy. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- The Channel 4 hearings? {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- I am referring to the Channel 4 hearings in Wollongong. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- I have the text of its decision here. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- Not the reasons. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- Yes. {: .speaker-GD5} ##### Senator RYAN: -- The main significance of the transfer of the Channel 4 station in Wollongong, which was transferred from **Mr Rupert** Murdoch to a company called Oberon Broadcasters Pty Ltd, was that it was necessary to enable **Mr Murdoch** to be eligible to take over the Channel 10 licence in Sydney. The charge I am making with regard to the Channel 4 takeover is that the Tribunal reached its decision with improper haste and that the decision it did reach destroyed its remaining credibility. What was wrong with the Channel 4 decision? As I have said, Channel 4 was owned by Rupert Murdoch. The application for the takeover of Channel 4 from **Mr Murdoch** was made by Oberon Broadcasters Pty Ltd. It has been the established procedure of the Tribunal to look behind the corporate facade of companies engaged in share transactions and to identify the majority shareholders. This practice is necessitated by the residence requirements of the Broadcasting and Television Act and, indeed, by requirements of the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Act1976. Honourable senators may now ask who is the principal shareholder of Oberon Broadcasters, now the holder of the Channel 4 licence at Wollongong. There is no satisfactory answer to that question. Control of the purchasing company, Oberon Broadcasters, changed hands at least once and possibly twice during the course of the Tribunal's inquiry. At the outset a **Mr** Gordon, an employee of Paramount Pictures living in New York, was presented as the major shareholder. During the course of the inquiry it was revealed that, in fact, it was **Mr Gordon's** wife who was the majority shareholder. The Tribunal's approval for the transfer to Oberon Broadcasters was made conditionally on **Mr Gordon** becoming the major shareholder. At least, that was stated during the course of the inquiry. In fact, this has not happened. **Mr Gordon** has not become the major shareholder of Oberon Broadcasters. Who has? It now appears that Oberon Broadcasters is controlled by two Sydney accountants, **Mr Crowley** and **Mr Alagich.** I point out that **Mr Crowley** and **Mr Alagich** also act as accountants for **Mr Gordon,** of Paramount Pictures, New York, and for **Mr Gyngell,** the Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal who, on his own admission, has also had a long business association with the same **Mr Gordon** of Paramount Pictures.Apparently **Mr Gordon,** who did not satisfy the requirements of the Broadcasting and Television Act to become the licensee of Channel 4 at the time of the inquiry, will take over Channel 4 when it suits him- when he leaves Paramount Pictures. My charge- I hope the Minister at the table **(Senator Chaney)** will respond to it- is that the trust arrangement by which **Mr Gordon** has transferred ownership and control of Oberon Broadcasters and thus of Channel 4 to a wholly owned discretionary trust controlled by Crowley and Alagich was a successful attempt to circumvent the spirit and objectives of the Broadcasting and Television Act. What a cosy set-up. **Mr Gyngell, Chairman** of the Broadcasting Tribunal, can reasonably be accused, as so often before, of a conflict of interest in this matter. Despite the numerous unsatisfactory aspects of the WIN4 hearing, the Tribunal facilitated **Mr Murdoch's** desire to divest himself of Channel 4 so that the Tribunal's decision to grant **Mr Murdoch** the Channel 10 licence would appear to be technically valid. The Tribunal lays down conditions for the transfer of the licence but then ignores the fact that its conditions have not been met and permits the transfer to take place anyway. I raise this matter in the Senate today because, as I said at the outset, it is a matter of public interest. How can the public believe in the propriety of the Channel 4 decision? How can **Mr Gyngell** and the Tribunal maintain the public credibility that a quasi-judicial tribunal must have? How can the public believe that the Government is seriously attempting to pursue a policy of public accountability by licensees when we do not even know now who the licensee of Channel 4 really is? I have stated publicly in the media and I state again because of all these unsatisfactory aspects that the inquiry into the WIN4 takeover ought to be reopened. A shadow is cast by the WIN4 decision on the Channel 10 takeover. Technically, of course, the Channel 10 takeover by **Mr Murdoch** and the Channel 4 takeover from **Mr Murdoch** by **Mr Gyngell's** accountants, Crowley and Alagich, are matters requiring separate investigations by the Tribunal. However, because the success of one, that is, the Channel 10 takeover, was a necessary condition for the success of the other, that is, the Channel 10 takeover, the unsatisfactory aspects of the Channel 4 decision cast a shadow, I suggest, over the Channel 10 decision. Of course, there are many other shadows clouding this decision. The terms in which the Tribunal announced its decision were virtually an admission of impotence by the Tribunal. I will quote briefly from the reasons given by the Tribunal in regard to the Channel 10 takeover. It said: >In considering the public interest point, therefore, the Tribunal has to have regard to the fact that if the transaction in question is not approved the ultimate fate of the subject shareholdings is something about which the Tribunal can, at this stage, know nothing whatsoever. The Tribunal finds this state of affairs a matter of considerable concern, and would question whether it really accords with Parliament's broad intentions on the matter. Clearly the Tribunal feels itself impotent to act in this matter. In April the Channel 10 licence was renewed for the then holder, United Telecasters Sydney Ltd, because it was the only television broadcaster in the capital cities of Australia that was independent of other media interests. I would point out that the Channel 10 licence was originally granted in 1964 on the same grounds. The Tribunal admits this in its judgment. I will read from it again. It said: >It should be noted, in considering this contention that, at the present time- That is, before the Murdoch takeover- >Channel 10 is the only station in the Sydney metropolitan area that is not controlled by a newspaper or publishing organisation. It is clear from the records of the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board of the public inquiry into the grant of the licence for Channel 10 that an important consideration in the initial grant of the licence to United Telecasters Sydney Ltd was the fact that the licensee would not be controlled by any newspaper or publishing interest and additionally would not be controlled by any other broadcasting or television interests. The Tribunal renewed the Channel 10 licence in April on those grounds and then, a couple of months later, permitted a takeover of that licence by a multi-media proprietor, whilst expressing in the same judgment concern about the concentration of media ownership. I suggest that this is a farce. It is a farce that has cost the Australian taxpayer $6.5m. The Tribunal also said in the same judgment that it could not consider the matter of concentration of media ownership. If the Tribunal does have the power to consider the matter of concentration of ownership- I point out that it did so in the recent decision regarding radio station 2HD and it did so in the decision regarding Telecasters North Queensland Ltd in Townsville in July 1977- it ought to do so without requiring specific directions from the Government. If it does not have the power, as it says it does not in the Channel 10 decision, to consider the question of concentration of ownership the Government ought to proceed forthwith to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act and establish such power. In the time left to me I want to draw the attention of the Senate to some other major problems in the Channel 10 decision. Firstly, there is the matter of an unanswered question by me to the Minister regarding the fact that an unconditional purchase of shares was made by **Mr Murdoch** before the Tribunal investigated the propriety of that transaction. I asked that question because it appears that a serious breach of the Broadcasting and Television Act may have occurred and, if it did occur that it has been condoned by the Tribunal. The breach concerned section 92F of the Broadcasting and Television Act, which states that a person who becomes a party to a transaction without the approval of the Tribunal having been given to the transaction is guilty of an offence against this section. On his own admission to the Tribunal, **Mr Murdoch** established that once he knew there was to be a public inquiry on the takeover he bought the relevant shares outright. He then presented the Tribunal with a fait accompli. So the Tribunal was being asked to approve a transfer which had already taken place; that is, to act as a rubber stamp. I suggest that this aspect of the Channel 10 decision by the Tribunal would not stand up to legal challenge. If it would stand up to legal challenge, if it is beyond legal challenge, what are the implications? The implications clearly are that any individual or group seeking to take over a licence merely has to acquire shares unconditionally and present the Tribunal with a fait accompli. In that situation an inquiry into the share transaction is pointless. The Broadcasting and Television Act requires such an inquiry, so the Act appears to be inoperable. The Tribunal in its Channel 10 decision described a further inadequacy in the Act in the allimportant matter of ascertaining public interest. It said that once the shares have changed hands it cannot consider what the public interest would have been prior to the shares being transferred. In other words, the Tribunal does not seem to know whether the public interest is judged in terms of the current holders of the licence or in terms of what will happen once the takeover occurs, and that is another inadequacy to which the Tribunal has drawn attention. Further, a public allegation has been made that improper influence was exerted on the Attorney-General's Department and, as a result, by the AttorneyGeneral's Department on **Mr Gyngell** to dissuade him from refusing the Murdoch takeover. In summary, the credibility of the Tribunal has collapsed during the Channel 10 and Channel 4 hearings. In the case of Channel 10, the Tribunal failed to define a workable concept of public interest and announced its impotence to deal with the effects of concentration of ownership, in clear contradiction to its earlier decisions. It exposed its own inquiry into the share transactions as a farce and permitted a licence, originally granted and recently renewed on the grounds of its independence from other media holdings, to be acquired by one of the largest multi-media proprietors in Australia, probably one of the largest in the world. The WIN4 decision was shoddily conducted and the resulting decision, confused as it is, contravenes the objectives of the Broadcasting and Television Act. I put it to the Government that its Minister is responsible for the administration of the Act. The Government has set up the Tribunal, claiming that by so doing it will provide public accountability and serve the public interest, that it will avoid takeovers and share transactions which contravene the spirit of the Act. Yet none of its stated objectives has been achieved in the case of the Channel 4 and Channel 10 decisions. In conclusion, I ask the Minister what steps the Government intends to take either to give us a competent Tribunal to implement the Government's policy or to amend the Broadcasting and Television Act so that its stated policy in regard to the administration of broadcasting and ownership of broadcasting licences in this country can be properly implemented, thus bringing an end to the farce of these unnecessary and impotent inquiries which are being conducted by the Tribunal and an end to the waste of taxpayers money if the Tribunal is not doing a good job. {: #subdebate-27-0-s2 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY:
Western AustraliaMinister for Aboriginal Affairs · LP Senate has before it an urgency motion brought by **Senator Ryan** on behalf of the Opposition which alleges the collapse of the credibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and the television licence transfer provisions of the Broadcasting and Television Act. It specifically relates that collapse not to the totality of the history of the Tribunal or to the general operations of the provisions but to two matters which came before the Tribunal, namely, the transfer of an interest in Channel 10, in Sydney and the transfer of an interest in Channel 4, Wollongong. It is not at all clear to me, having listened to **Senator Ryan,** whether up to that point she regraded the Tribunal as being a worthwhile reform in Australian broadcasting or whether these two transactions have soured an otherwise approving view of what the Government established in 1 977. I think that the Parliament saw a relatively high degree of unanimity on the desirability of establishing an independent tribunal which would deal with these important questions. The Government agrees with a comment made by **Senator Ryan** in the course of her speech that the ownership of television is important to the public in Australia. It is a matter of considerable interest, I think, to all Australians. Her complaints about the cost of the Tribunal and its operations over the last few years have to be seen in that light. We have moved to a situation in which an independent tribunal has been given considerable powers to act in and to protect the public interest. The costs of that have to be measured against the seriousness of the task that has been assigned to the Tribunal. Honourable senators in general, I think, would be aware that the institution of the Tribunal took place over a couple of years. The Government first established the Tribunal in 1976. The then Minister for Post and Telecommunications, **Mr Eric** Robinson, in his second reading speech on the Broadcasting and Television Amendment Bill (No. 2) which announced these major changes in Australian broadcasting said that the first of the major changes decided upon by the government covered the disband ment of the Australian Broadcasting Control Board and the establishment of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. He continued: >The Tribunal will be a 'quasi-judicial' body with powers to hold public inquiries, into the grant and renewal of licences in the commercial and public sectors, as well as into such matters as the setting of standards of broadcasting practice, alleged breaches of licence conditions, or any aspect of broadcasting referred to it by the Minister. I think that that is relevant to the present debate as it underlines the status of the Tribunal. It is a quasi-judicial body carrying out functions independently of government. Whilst some of its decisions might be regarded as open to criticism by members of the Opposition and some members of the Government, the fact is that it is established in its independence to carry out those and other functions to which I shall refer shortly. I have even heard honourable senators complain in this place about the decisions of judges. That is a right which ought to be allowed to us too. But the fact that individual decisions can be the subject of debate does not take from the desirability of the principle that these are matters which ought to be dealt with by an independent tribunal and not made subject to direct political control. On that principle we have agreement between the Government and the Opposition. In 1977 the Government took its next step and, in the Bill which passed through the Parliament that year, transferred the then ministerial powers relating to the licensing of stations to the Tribunal and fully established the present powers and functions of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The relevant second reading speech which has, in part, been quoted by **Senator Ryan** with approval as containing principles which are shared between the Government and the Opposition still represents the Government's view on the matters which are contained in it. Once again, there the second reading speech stressed the status of the Tribunal. The Minister said: >The Tribunal will have quasi-judicial powers. In performing its functions the Tribunal will be required to hold inquiries where it is desirable to do so. The Bill provides that the Tribunal hold such inquiries in public and that it consider all submissions made to it as pan of the inquiry process. It is also required to publish reports on its inquiries, detailing its deliberations and the reasons for its decisions and recommendations. Again, these are matters which are not matters of dispute between the Government and the Opposition. These provisions would have the general support of all senators. One of the early complaints which was made by **Senator Ryan** in her speech was that no reasons had been stated for the WIN4 decision. I am a little puzzled at that because I have been shown a news release put out by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal on 20 August 1979 which has, as its heading 'Full Text of WIN4 Decision'. The release goes on to read: >The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, **Mr Bruce** Gyngell, released today the full text of the Tribunal's decision in which approval was granted to Oberon Broadcasters Pty Ltd to acquire a majority holding in Television Wollongong Transmissions Ltd, licensee company of commercial television station WIN4 Wollongong. Unless there is some very odd misunderstanding it does appear that, in fact, a little over a week ago there was a release by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal of the full text of its decisions. I propose to refer to parts of that text in the course of this speech. Having done that I will seek leave to incorporate the full text in *Hansard* so that it is available to all honourable senators and to the subscribing public. With respect to that WIN4 decision, which is one of the fundamental points at which **Senator Ryan** says we ought to have lost all confidence in the Tribunal and in the process which is established under the Act, although I suspect from her remarks she is really saying we should just have lost confidence in the Tribunal rather than the general processes which are established under the Act, we find that the Tribunal does come to grips with the very difficult questions of fact and policy which have been raised by **Senator Ryan.** She raised, for example, the question of the control over Oberon Broadcasters, and that is a matter which is dealt with in the Tribunal report on page 5. The question of **Mr and Mrs Gordon's** resident status was raised. The Tribunal stated: >However, the resident status of **Mr and Mr Gordon** ceased to be a relevant legal consideration with the establishment of the discretionary trust deed on 20 July 1979, whereby control of Oberon Broadcasters is wholly in the hands of residents of New South Wales. > >The Tribunal was given unqualified assurances by the applicant's solicitors and counsel that **Mr Gordon** had no control over the Trust and indeed had given over all but a few rights to the Trust. > >This was one of the key matters upon which the Tribunal sought to satisfy itself when examining Oberon 's new ownership and control arrangements. The Tribunal, therefore, was satisfied in its mind that those requirements had been met by Oberon Broadcasters. It specifically addressed itself to that matter. If the Opposition says, 'Well, that is the position, but the law ought not permit that', I suggest that that raises a specific question of policy which, if not covered in the Act, is something to which the Minister ought to be asked to direct his attention. The decision goes on to deal with whether or not the transaction should be refused because the Tribunal considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest. It goes on to deal with that matter and to say that in its view there is a legal presumption in favour of the approval of such transactions. It specifies its reasons for saying why it believes the transaction ought to be approved in this case. So there is no mystery about this matter. While there may. be room for argument about the particular case, I think it is simply a policy question for argument between the Opposition and the Government and does not reflect on the Tribunal itself. **Senator Ryan** also raised the question of **Mr Gyngell** 's role in this particular transaction, the WIN4 decision. I am advised that **Mr Gordon** and **Mr Gyngell** have had a long-standing personal association and that **Mr Gyngell,** at the 4 June meeting of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, notified the Tribunal that he would not participate in the inquiry into the WIN4 share transaction because it involved Oberon Broadcasters Pty Ltd in which **Mr Gordon** and his family were the chief beneficiaries. He also indicated at that time that he would not- in fact, he did not- participate in the deliberations or the decision on that transaction. It should be noted that that indication was made on 4 June, and advertising calling for the inquiry was dated 14 June and the actual inquiry took place on 3 July. I have very considerable sympathy for **Mr Gyngell** in his being in a position to be criticised in this matter. I think that all honourable senators would be aware that in making appointments of this kind judgments arise as to what sort of person should be appointed. Should a lawyer be appointed because of his knowledge of the law; should a man of business be appointed because of his knowledge of business? In the case of broadcasting, which we would all agree is an area of enormous public interest, should a man with experience of and a background in broadcasting in a commercial sense be appointed? **Mr Gyngell** 's background in broadcasting is well known. As I understand it, he has been a leading media figure in Australia for a considerable period. At the time of his appointment a judgment was made by the Government that that sort of person was a desirable appointee. I suppose that once such a person is appointed, whether it be **Mr Gyngell** or some other person who has a background in the media, a difficulty is likely to arise in that transactions might come before the Tribunal in which there will be some personal connections, past business connections and so on. It seems very clear to me that in this case **Mr Gyngell** followed the proper procedures which ought to be followed in a case in which there is some such connection. He declared the connection and disqualified himself from dealing with the matter. The fact is that his conduct in that sense has been unexceptional. I do not believe that he should be subjected to criticism. Again, I believe that a genuine policy question arises here which is properly the subject of debate, both between the Government and the Opposition and in the broader public arena. Is it desirable to have someone without any background in broadcasting in that sort of position? I think that **Senator Evans,** who will be the next speaker, and **Senator Ryan,** who was the previous speaker for the Opposition in this debate could each advance quite cogent arguments in favour of either approach. I suggest that honourable senators on this side of the chamber could cogently argue either case. But the fact of the matter is that it is publicly known that **Mr Gyngell** has a background in broadcasting. In this case a past connection impinged on something which came before the Tribunal and accordingly he disqualified himself from the hearings. It seems to me that all of that follows precisely the course which honourable senators, and indeed the Government, would expect to be followed. The other serious matter which has been raised as a matter striking at the whole basis of the Tribunal and the processes of governing the transfer of interests in licences is the transfer of Channel 10. In that matter the complaint of the Opposition is that the Tribunal has not made the right decision in saying: 'We are not going to take into account concentrations of media ownership in other than the electronic media'. I think that in summary that is the major cause of complaint. The Opposition says that the interests of the proposed transferee- **Mr Murdoch's** interests, as I understand it- have extensive interests in the print media and that the potential concentration of both print and electronic media ought to be considered in determining whether a transfer is in the public interest. That, I agree is a serious policy issue. It is a matter which I think is squarely put before the Government as a matter which requires examination, if people believe that that ought to be the policy. But it cannot be said that the Tribunal avoided that question or in any sense skated over it. My understanding of the previous decisions of the Tribunal which relate to concentration of media ownership and questions of public interest is that it has always been concerned with concentrations of ownership in the electronic media. What the matter we are debating raises is the further question of concentration of ownership across the boundaries between the electronic and the print media. The Tribunal came to a conclusion that it would examine the matter in terms of the electronic media only. That is a decision on which there is room for disagreement. I do not quarrel with that concept. But the Tribunal, in its independence, has made its decision- as it is entitled to do- and I suggest that the argument is now thrown back to the politicians. I will quote from the Channel 10 decision. I have notice from **Senator Evans** that he wishes to put that decision before the Senate and to have a copy of it incorporated in *Hansard.* I refer to page 9 of the typed version of the decision which states: >The Tribunal readily agrees that the general question of the aggregation or concentration of media ownership and control is a matter of great public interest and deserving of serious examination. Insofar as it relates to broadcasting and television, the question could be an appropriate subject for a special public inquiry by the Tribunal under Section 1 8 of the Act. > >It would be open to the Minister to direct the Tribunal to hold such an inquiry and to make recommendations to him on the matter. As far as I am aware, that is a matter to which there has not been a response from the Minister for Post and Telecommunications **(Mr Staley),** but it is a matter which is open for the Government to consider as a serious policy question and no doubt consideration will be given to it. It would be surprising if, in this difficult area where public interest is involved and where views within the community differ quite sharply, there were not differences of opinion over the way in which this relatively new experiment is proceeding. To that extent, I suppose it is. healthy that it would be debated in this Senate so that views can be aired. But I believe that the Tribunal, in its administration of what is a very complex set of rules governing the ownership and control of television licences and where it has to take into account conceptual matters such as the public interest, can be said to have established a useful start in this new process. I believe that in the sort of doom-laden criticism which was contained primarily in the matter of urgency rather than in **Senator Ryan's** speech, which really comes down to these relatively limited criticisms, there is an exaggeration of the problems. I believe that we have set off on a most useful course in the broadcasting field in terms of widening public participation and in making public decisions which are taken independently of the political process. I think that all of these worthwhile reforms are matters of which the Government can be quite proud and that in essence they are supported by the Opposition. I do not believe that there is an enormous conflict between the Government and the Opposition in terms of principle on this matter. There are problems in the installation of what is a very new system and I trust that the contributions to this debate will be made in the spirit that serious issues can be raised, examined and held up to the light so that ultimately we will have a system which will at least get the approval of practically all Australians, as I think indeed the present system has the approval of the great majority of Australians. The **DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Scott)-** Do you seek leave to have a document incorporated in *Hansard?* {: .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator CHANEY: -Thank you, **Mr Deputy President,** for reminding me. I did not get a chance to show this document to **Senator Ryan.** It is simply an eight-page typed document headed 'Decision'. I seek leave to have it incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* >AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL > >153 Walker Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060 P.O. Box 1308 North Sydney 2060 Telex 'ABTEE ' 20683 Telephone 922 2900 > >NEWS RELEASE > >No. NR. 96 > >FULL TEXT OF WIN-4 DECISION > >The Chairman of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, **Mr Bruce** Gyngell, released today the full text of the Tribunal's decision in which approval was granted to Oberon Broadcasters Pty Limited to acquire a majority holding in Television Wollongong Transmissions Ltd, licensee company of commercial television station WIN-4 Wollongong. > >Contact: G. Walsh 0222900 ext 374 > >J. Connolly > >Secretary 20 August 1979 > >Sydney > >AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL > >153 Walker Street, North Sydney, NSW 2060 P.O. Box 1308 North Sydney 2060 Telex 'ABTEE' 20683 Telephone 922 2900 > >OBERON BROADCASTERS PTY LIMITED/WIN-4 WOLLONGONG SHARE TRANSACTION INQUIRY DECISION > >In accordance with the provisions of Section 92f (4a) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, the Tribunal shall not refuse to grant approval of a transaction involving a change in the ownership of shares of a television licensee company unless the Tribunal > >is of the opinion that the transaction has resulted or would result in a contravention by the person concerned of Section 92; or > >considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest. > >On 7 June 1979 formal application was made on behalf of Oberon Broadcasters Pty Limited for Tribunal approval to the proposed purchase of 950,687 shares in Television Wollongong Transmissions Limited, from Media Securities Limited, a subsidiary of News Limited. > >Documentation in support of the application was lodged with the Tribunal on 27 June 1979 in which the total number of shares involved in the transaction was stated as 983,337 or 78.7 per cent of the total issued shares of Television. > >The Tribunal announced its intention to conduct a public inquiry into the transaction in press notices, which also invited the public to lodge written submissions concerning the proposal. > >A submission was received from the Australian Labor Party (Federal Secretariat). The Tribunal accepted Point 2 of this submission as relevant to the proceedings. > >The public hearing of the inquiry was conducted in Wollongong on 3 July 1979. Oberon Broadcasters appeared before the Tribunal as a party "directly concerned in the proceedings". > >At the hearing, the Tribunal considered an application from **Mr B.** R. Maguire, on behalf of the Australian Labor Party, claiming recognition as "having an interest in the proceedings". **Mr Maguire** stated that he did not propose to call any witnesses or to adduce any evidence. > >The application was denied in accordance with the criteria which the Tribunal follows in granting "approved party" status. However **Mr Moremon** undertook to pursue the points raised in the ALP's submission and during the course of the public inquiry the applicant was questioned at length on matters relating to the independence of Oberon from other Australian media interests and to the resident status of **Mr and Mrs Gordon.** > >Subsequent to the public inquiry the Tribunal was advised that the applicant had changed its solicitors, and by letter dated 23 July 1979 details of the restructuring of the shareholding of Oberon Broadcasters were provided to the Tribunal. The ownership and control of Oberon formerly exercised by **Mr and Mrs Gordon** had been transferred to a trustee company Hoverton Pty Limited under an irrevocable discretionary trust established on 20 July 1979. On the same date **Mr Gordon** had entered into a three year Service Agreement with Oberon as a consultant and technical adviser. > >After a preliminary consideration of the Trust Deed and the Service Agreement the Tribunal decided to meet with **Mr E.** M. Cowley, the chairman of Oberon Broadcasters and Allen, Allen and Hemsely, their solicitors, to enable the Tribunal to fully inform itself on the effects of the new arrangements. The first issue which the Tribunal has had to examine is whether the transaction has resulted or would result in a contravention by the person concerned of Section 92. > >Since1974 **Mr Bruce** Gordon has been employed by Paramount Pictures Corporation, based in New York. This raised the question as to whether **Mr or Mrs Gordon** was not "a resident of Australia ", within the meaning of Section 92D, as at the time of the public inquiry Oberon was controlled by the Gordons in the relevant statutory sense. > >The Act does not define what is intended by the term "resident of Australia" for the purposes of Section 92D, nor is this a term for which there is a generally recognised and precise legal meaning. The Tribunal accepts the view that the term may mean different things in different statutory contexts. The task for the Tribunal has been to give it an appropriate meaning for the purposes of this section of the Broadcasting and Television Act . > >As stated in its decision on the NewsLimited/TEN-10 Share Transaction Inquiry ( 10 August 1 979), the Tribunal is satisfied that the intent of the section is to prevent "overseas ownership" of television licensee companies. The question of whether there is a breach in any particular case can only be determined on close examination of actual circumstances of that case. > >At the public inquiry the Tribunal sought information about **Mr Gordon's** personal, family and business interests and associations both in Australia and the United States, with particular attention given to **Mr Gordon** 's contract with Paramount Pictures which expires in September 1 98 1 . > >However, the resident status of **Mr and Mrs Gordon** ceased to be a relevant legal consideration with the establishment of the discretionary trust deed on 20 July 1979, whereby control of Oberon Broadcasters is wholly in the hands of residents of New South Wales. > >The Tribunal was given unqualified assurances by the applicant 's solicitors and counsel that **Mr Gordon** had no control over the Trust and indeed had given over all but a few rights to the Trust. > >This was one of the key matters upon which the Tribunal soughtto satisfy itself when examining Oberon 's new ownership and control arrangements. > >Accordingly, the Tribunal is then directed by Section 92 f (4a) (b) to consider whether the transaction in question should nevertheless be refused because the Tribunal considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest. > >The Tribunal considers it desirable to point out that the Act appears to raise what is, in effect, a legal presumption in favour of the approval of such transactions. Section 92f(4a) does not authorise the Tribunal to make whatever decision in relation to a proposed transaction it would consider appropriate in the public interest. Rather, the section says that the Tribunal "shall not refuse to grant approval . . . unless the Tribunal . . . considers it necessary to do so, etc." The onus of proof, therefore, would seem to rest squarely upon those who would contend in a particular case that approval should not be granted. And the requirement that the Tribunal must find it "necessary" to refuse approval, in the public interest as defined, means that the onus of proof is a heavy one. > >In this instance there being no approved parties to the hearing no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to suggest the public interest would be affected in any adverse sense. > >From its examination of the application the Tribunal is of the opinion that Oberon Broadcasters is able to independently fund the transaction. Although Oberon maintained that it did not propose changes in the staffing and operation of WIN-4, the Tribunal noted the statements by **Mr Gordon** as to his expertise in the acquisition and distribution of television programming and his wish to be of assistance to the station in this regard. The Tribunal believes that the association of **Mr Gordon** with WIN-4 by means of the Service Agreement with Oberon is an aspect of the transaction which could indeed have beneficial results for the Wollongong television audience. > >In view of the fact that the chief witness for Oberon at the public inquiry is no longer in a position to control or to manage the affairs of the company, the Tribunal sought and was given undertakings that the Chairman and the board of directors of Oberon would adopt as their own all assurances given by **Mr Gordon** at the Inquiry. > >Having given full consideration to all relevant matters it is the decision of the Tribunal to approve the application by Oboron Broadcasters Pty Limited for the purchase from Media Securities Limited shares representing 78.7% of the issued capital of Television Wollongong Transmissions Limited, the licensee of commercial television station WIN-4 Wollongong. > >At the Tribunal meeting at which the decision was made the Chairman abstained from voting. > >Dated this tenth day of August 1979. > >BRUCE GYNGELL-Chairman > >JAMES OSWIN-Vice Chairman > >KEITH MOREMON-Member {: #subdebate-27-0-s3 .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS:
Victoria -There is a great deal more to be said about the WIN4 decision, a copy of which has just been tabled by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Senator Chaney).** One thing to be mentioned is the device which was accepted by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal in that case whereby **Mr Gordon's** interest was preserved as a practical matter pending his arrival back in Australia in two years' time, albeit that legally speaking control of the company meanwhile has now been able to be vested in someone else. However, because of the constraint of time that is now imposed upon me by Standing Orders, I do not propose to pursue the WIN4 matter further on this occasion, but rather to concentrate my attention specifically on the decision in the Channel 10 matter. I seek leave, **Mr Deputy President,** to have a copy of that decision incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* >AUSTRALIAN BROADCASTING TRIBUNAL > >153 Walker Street North Sydney NSW 2060 P.O. Box 1 308 North Sydney 2060 Telex 'ABTEE' 20683 Telephone 922 2900 > >NEWS LIMITED/TEN- 10 SYDNEY SHARE TRANSACTION INQUIRY > >DECISION > >In accordance with the provisions of Section 92F (4a) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1 942, the Tribunal shall not refuse to grant approval of a transaction involving a change in the ownership of shares of a television licensee company unless the Tribunal > >is of the opinion that the transaction has resulted or would result in a contravention by the person concerned of Section 92; or > >considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest. > >In a letter dated 1 8 May 1 979, from the Finance Director of News Limited, the Tribunal was advised that the company had taken over direct ownership from its subsidiaryTelevision Woolongong Transmissions Ltd- of 596,000 stock units in United Telecasters Sydney Limited, licensee of commercial television station TEN- 10 Sydney and that it had also purchased an additional 1,933,333 stock units in TEN- 10 from Email Limited (1,333,333) and CSR Investments Pty Ltd (600,000). > >The ownership of these three groups of stock units amounted to just over 2 1 per cent of the issued capital. > >Again, in a letter dated 31 May 1979, News Limited advised the Tribunal that its stock unit holding in the same licensee company had increased by a further 27. 1 6 per cent to 48.2 per cent with the recent purchase of another 3,259,300 stock units from Broadcast Investments Pty Ltd (1,448,050) and through open market trading (1 , 8 1 1 , 250 ). > >The company accordingly made application to the Tribunal for approval to purchase the 5,788,633 (48.2 per cent) of the 12,000,000 issued stock units in United Telecasters Sydney Limited. > >The Tribunal announced its intention to conduct a public inquiry into the transaction in press notices, which also invited the public to lodge written submissions concerning the proposal. > >Five parties lodged submissions, all of which were accepted by the Tribunal as being relevant to the inquiry. > >The public hearing of the inquiry was conducted in Sydney from 4-6 July and on 26 July 1979. News Limited appeared before the Tribunal as a party "directly concerned in the proceedings". > >At the hearing, the Tribunal considered four applications from groups or persons claiming recognition as "having an interest in the proceedings". The Tribunal recognised the Australian Labor Party represented by **Senator G.** Evans and The Peoples Commission as "approved parties"; **Ms Julie** James Bailey, a private individual and her witness, **Mr S.** Keen, accepted the Tribunal 's invitation to appear as witnesses for the Tribunal. An application by the Australian Journalist's Association- NSW Branch to be recognised as an approved party, was denied. > >The first question which the Tribunal has had to examine is whether the transaction has resulted or would result in a contravention by the person concerned of Section 92. > >On this point, it was strenuously contended before the Tribunal that **Mr Keith** Rupert Murdoch was "not a resident of Australia" within the meaning of Section 92d, and that, consequently, as **Mr Murdoch** 'controlled' News Ltd in the relevant statutory sense, that company could not validly own shares in a television licensee company. > >Although it was put to the Tribunal by counsel for News Ltd that, upon a proper construction of the Act, the question of **Mr Murdoch's** resident status did not strictly arise. The point was debated at such length that the Tribunal considers it desirable that it should state its own conclusion on the matter. > >The Act does not define what is intended by the term "resident of Australia" for the purposes of Section 92d, nor is this a term for which there is a generally recognised and precise legal meaning. The Tribunal accepts the view put to it by counsel that the term may mean different things in different statutory contexts. The task for the Tribunal has been to give it an appropriate meaning for the purposes of this section of the Broadcasting and Television Act. > >Looking at the matter broadly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the intent of the section is to prevent "overseas ownership" of television licensee companies. The question of whether there is a breach in any particular case can only be determined upon a close examination of the actual circumstances of that case. > >In this instance, the Tribunal was given a great deal of precise information about **Mr Murdoch's** personal, family and business life in this country and abroad. Without canvassing all of the details, which may be found in the transcript of the Inquiry, the Tribunal considers it sufficient to say that, having regard to all information placed before it, it has reached the firm conclusion that the statutory expression "a person (other than a company) who is not a resident of Australia " contained in Section 92 Dof the Broadcasting and Television Act does not describe **Mr Murdoch's** current position as the Tribunal understands it. > >Accordingly, the Tribunal is then directed by Section 92F(4A)(b) to consider whether the transaction in question should nevertheless be refused because the Tribunal considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest. > >Before turning to the arguments which were put to it in connection with this sub-section, the Tribunal considers it desirable to point out that the Act appears to raise what is, in effect, a legal presumption in favour of the approval of such transactions. Section 92P (4a) does not authorise the Tribunal to make whatever decision in relation to a proposed transaction it would consider appropriate in the public interest. Rather, the section says that the Tribunal "shall not refuse to grant approval . . . unless the Tribunal . . considers it necessary to do so, etc. " The onus of proof, therefore, would seem to rest squarely upon those who would contend in a particular case that approval should not be granted. And the requirements that the Tribunal must find it "necessary" to refuse approval, in the public interest as defined, means that the onus of proof is a heavy one. > >There is a further point which should be made at this stage. > >The Tribunal is directed by the section to consider 'such ownership and control ... of the company holding the licence as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, best accord with the public interest'. **Senator Evans** representing the Australian Labor Party argued that, in so doing, the Tribunal was required to make a judgment as to 'whether the existing ownership arrangements . . . better accord with the public interest than the proposed new arrangements'. But, as counsel for News Ltd pointed out, once a purchase of shares has taken place, it is no longer open to the Tribunal to compare, as it were, the 'ownership and control ' prior to the share purchase with that which would result were the transaction to be approved. As counsel put it: 'the Tribunal cannot order the shares to be returned to vendors or the money to be returned to the purchaser, and, by that means, restore an existing status quo; there is no power to do so'. In considering the public interest point, therefore, the Tribunal has to have regard to the fact that if the transaction in question is not approved the ultimate fate of the subject shareholdings is something about which the Tribunal can, at this stage, know nothing whatsoever. The Tribunal finds this state of affairs a matter of considerable concern, and would question whether it really accords with Parliament's broad intentions on the matter. > >Two major arguments were put to the Tribunal as warranting a refusal of approval on the public interest ground as defined in the quoted subsection of Section 92f (4a). > >It was contended, to put the point shortly and generally, that News Ltd's record in the ownership and control of various forms of the media should lead to the conclusion that the independence and objectivity of Channel TEN 's news and public information services would be adversely affected if the transaction were to be approved. > >It must be said, however, that little or no evidence to this effect was adduced. Although reference was made to a strike in 1 975 by Sydney newspaper journalists employed by News Ltd, evidence and submissions on the incident were not sufficiently developed to be of much use to the Tribunal. On the other hand, a great deal of evidence was adduced by News Ltd to disprove the assertion, none of which was successfully challenged. In these circumstances, the Tribunal could not properly allow such an argument to persuade it that it was 'necessary' to refuse approval to the transaction, and it rejects the argument accordingly. > >In so holding, the Tribunal is well aware that some public disquiet on the point is likely to remain. This comment is not intended to reflect in any way upon the honesty of News > >Ltd 's witnesses, but rather to indicate the Tribunal 's realisation of limits to what can be achieved in an Inquiry of this kind. It is hard for the Tribunal, if not impossible, to deal adequately in such an Inquiry with all the hopes and fears, often not articulated, of ordinary members of the public. The Tribunal would emphasise, however, and it notes the fact with approval, that firm and unequivocal assurances as to the independence and impartiality of Channel TEN's news and public affairs services were given at the Inquiry by senior News Ltd personnel and, indeed, by **Mr Murdoch** himself. In addition, quite specific assurances were given that News Ltd would adhere to the undertakings given by the current licensee of Channel TEN at the recent licence renewal hearings. > >Finally, it is necessary to examine the contention that this transaction should not be approved because (to quote **Senator Evans)** it would represent 'a wholly unhealthy aggregation of media ownership'. > >It should be noted, in considering this contention, that, at the present time, Channel Ten is the only station in the Sydney metropolitan area that is not controlled by a newspaper or publishing organisation. It is clear from the records of the former Australian Broadcasting Control Board of the public inquiry into the grant of the licence for Channel TEN that an important consideration in the initial grant of the licence to United Telecasters Sydney Ltd. was the fact that the licensee would not be controlled by any newspaper or publishing interest, and additionally would not be controlled by any other broadcasting or television interest. In the course of its application for the renewal of its licence in April of this year, United Telecasters Sydney Ltd. placed considerable emphasis on the range of its share holdings and, by inference, the benefits that would accrue to the community from its continued independent operation. If, however, the present transaction is approved, then the effective ownership and control of Channel TEN will pass into the hands of a company with extensive newspaper interests in Sydney and a range of media interests, print and electronic, throughout Australia and abroad. > >The Tribunal readily agrees that the general question of the aggregation or concentration of media ownership and control is a matter of great public interest and deserving of serious examination. In so far as it relates to broadcasting and television, the question could be an appropriate subject for a special public inquiry by the Tribunal under Section 1 8 of the Act. It would be open to the Minister to direct the Tribunal to hold such an inquiry and to make recommendations to him on the matter. But the Tribunal does not believe that it has the necessary statutory authority to decide the general question. In the Broadcasting and Television Act, Parliament has already indicated clearly enough that it regards the making of policy decisions in this area as a matter for itself; we refer to the very detailed provisions of the Act imposing restrictions upon the aggregation of interests in broadcasting and television stations, which confer considerable authority upon the Tribunal. But, if those provisions are to be supplemented by a further set of restrictions relating to the aggregation of media interests generally, then, in the Tribunal 's view, it is for Parliament to so determine. It is not for the Tribunal to pre-empt the role of Parliament. (The Tribunal is aware that there might be constitutional limitations on the powers of Parliament in this area, but such limitations would apply equally to the powers of the Tribunal itself. ) > >If the Tribunal lacks power to decide the general question at large, it is clear that it equally lacks power to decide it within the context of a particular case. Moreover, to decide the general question in this present case would be (or appear to be) to discriminate unfairly against one media owner whilst others in a comparable position go unscathed. That is a further and weighty argument for decision at the Parliamentary level. > >There has been a good deal of reference in this connection to earlier decisions of the Tribunal. The Tribunal sees no need to examine these decisions in any detail. Each was decided on its facts, and none of them was intended to establish any general principle on the issue of the aggregation of media ownership. By contrast, the present application has been presented and argued in such a way that the Tribunal is satisfied that it could not withhold approval to the transaction without appearing to endorse the general principle contended for by **Senator Evans** and others and thus to decide the major policy question. And this, for the reasons given above, it believes it cannot do. > >In any case, as was pointed out earlier in this decision, a refusal to approve the transaction would not result in an automatic restoration of the previous position of ownership and control. The Tribunal, at this stage, would have no basis for any assertion that the disapproval of this transaction would preserve the "independence" of Channel TEN or guarantee adherence to any general principle on the aggregation or concentration of media ownership. > >The Tribunal draws attention again to the point that Section 92F (4a) appears to raise a clear presumption of approving a transaction. > >The Tribunal's final conclusion, therefore, is that there is no sufficient basis in law or on the evidence or arguments submitted to warrant the withholding of approval to the transaction in question. > >Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal is that the applications made by News Ltd. for the purchase of 5,788,633 stock units representing 48.2 per cent of the issued capital of United Telecasters Sydney Ltd., licensee company of commercial television station TEN- 10 Sydney, should be approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 92 F of the Act. 10 August 1979 > >BRUCE GYNGELL, Chairman > >JAMES OSWIN, Vice-chairman > >KEITH MOREMON, Member > > **Dr ROBIN** SHARWOOD, Acting Member {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS: -To clarify the matter for the Minister, I state at the outset that the Opposition's fire in debating this matter is directed both at the Tribunal and at the role that the Government played in assisting it, to use a neutral word, in reaching its decision. Further, it is directed at the policy and legislative issues which the Government will certainly have to face if the Tribunal's decision in this matter is accepted at its face value. The point we make is that the Channel 10 decision was a shoddy and ill-argued one which reflects no credit on the Tribunal or the Government which, it is unashamedly admitted, has advised it on legal matters at least in reaching its decision. It drives a coach and horses through the present provisions of the legislation governing licence transfers. It makes nonsense of the series of earlier decisions by the Tribunal on public interest questions involving concentration issues and it represents a complete abdication by the Tribunal, for motives we can only guess at, of the responsibilities which it was established to carry out. The first matter in the Channel 10 decision to which I refer specifically is the threshold public interest question as to whether the Tribunal was entitled, as a matter of law, to compare the former ownership arrangements of Channel 10 with the proposed new arrangements under News Ltd. It was put to the Tribunal that the language of section 92f(4a) (b) of the Broadcasting and Television Act clearly required the Tribunal to compare the original ownership structure arrangements with the proposed new ones and to determine whether the existing or original arrangements were better, in accord with the public interest, than the proposed arrangements. But the Tribunal, of course, found itself not able to make any such comparison, at least once the shares in issue had been purchased. The Tribunal accepted the submission of News Ltd, the purchasers of Channel 10, that since the Tribunal was unable actually to order the return of the shares in question to their original vendors and since it could not ultimately determine the fate of the shares if the Tribunal was unhappy with the new arrangements, it had no alternative but to refuse to have regard to whether the acquisition was in the public interest. This was a bizarre situation which at least the Tribunal had the decency to acknowledge it found to be a matter of considerable concern. The Tribunal queried whether the situation really accorded with Parliament's intentions in the matter. I have a number of points to make about this aspect of the decision. The first is that it is certainly strongly arguable that the Tribunal was quite wrong, as a matter of law, in refusing to make the comparison in question. Certainly my view- I put this simply not as a lawyer of either alpha or omega quality but as a marginally competent one- which view is shared by other lawyers of that description, is that the Tribunal was entitled, if it was satisfied that the new ownership arrangements were manifestly against the public interest, to refuse the endorsement of the transaction and to let subsequent events simply take their course. What happened is that the Tribunal allowed its bluff to be called by News Ltd in this respect. It succumbed to what can be described only as a crude piece of blackmail by News Ltd in announcing during the course of the hearing that what hitherto had been a conditional share purchase was in fact unconditional. The Tribunal squeaked a little protest about the gauntlet's having been thrown down by **Mr Murdoch,** but in reaching its decision it manifestly failed to do anything so courageous as to bend down and pick up the glove so laid on the ground. A further point I make is that even if the Tribunal's decision in this respect has some legal force, if there is some legal weight and validity to the point it made, what a nonsense situation has now been created. The result is that section 92f (4a), the only public interest criterion in the Act which is applicable to the approval of licence transfers of this kind, has been completely denuded of force and effect. I would suggest that it is not good enough for **Senator Chaney** simply to say: 'This is something the Government will have to consider. The Minister has not really turned his mind to it yet'. These are matters of urgent importance on which one had hoped the Government would take the opportunity of being put on notice about this debate today to articulate some response. It is a matter of acute regret to the Opposition certainly and, one would think, to the general community that it has failed to do so. Notwithstanding that the Tribunal thus decided at the threshold that there were no public interest matters to which it could properly refer, it then proceeded- this is consistent with the general logic of the Tribunal 's decision- to deal with the various public interest arguments that had been put to it. The first such argument that came in issue was about the bias or likely bias of the proposed purchaser of Channel 10- News Ltd. The argument was put in general terms that News Ltd 's record was such that impartiality or objectivity simply could not be guaranteed. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator Puplick: -- Who put that argument? {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS: -- That argument was put, I readily acknowledge, by me on behalf of the Australian Labor Party- an approved party to the proceedings. It was greeted with some of the most extraordinary passages in the decision. The Tribunal said, in short, that there was before it insufficient evidence on the bias question. In particular it went on to say that although reference was made to the events of 197S and the strike in which News Ltd employees were involved on grounds of their objection to the partiality of **Mr Murdoch** and his newspapers, the evidence and submissions on this issue were not developed sufficiently to be of very much use to the Tribunal. That is something which one cannot help but greet with astonishment given that in the course of the hearing, first of all, the Tribunal failed to allow in as a party the New South Wales branch of the Australian Journalists Association, which made it clear that the main nub and substance of its evidence was going to be that question of bias and in particular the events of 1 975. Again in the course of the hearing the Tribunal specifically stopped counsel for the Australian Labor Party- then **Mr Maguire-** from proceeding with cross-examination of the News Ltd executives on that question. Then in the course of the submission stage of the argument the Tribunal again stopped counsel for the Australian Labor Party- in this case me- from developing any argument based on the 1975 bias situation. So we have an astonishing kind of Alice in Wonderland situation prevailing in which the Tribunal stops any evidence or submissions going in about an issue and then justifies its decision principally on the basis that no evidence was put before it on which it could come to any conclusion on the issue. That is one reason that we say that it is a shoddy and ill-argued decision and a thoroughly disreputable document. The real question and the central issue in the whole matter was the aggregation, the concentration, of the media, in which the Tribunal's decision was in essence that it had no statutory authority to apply criteria of this kind, taking into account cross-ownership between newspaper and electronic media interests. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of the issue but said that it was hamstrung by the absence of explicit statutory authority. There are a number of things to note about this aspect of the Tribunal's decision. The first is that if the Tribunal in this respect was acting in accordance with advice given to it by the Attorney-General 's Department, there had been a rather spectacular sea-change in the AttorneyGeneral's Department's opinion on this matter from the situation which prevailed just two years earlier when an opinion was delivered to the Tribunal from the Attorney-General's Department in a letter dated 4 August 1977. In that letter it was stated that questions as to the concentration of ownership of media interests, including newspaper interests, in the region in question were relevant considerations relating to the public interest. That is a paraphrase of paragraph 8 of that letter, which I now seek leave to incorporate in *Hansard.* Leave granted. *The document read as follows-* >ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT > >Tel: 6 1 9 1 1 1 Canberra, ACT 2600 > >Please Quote A/77/372 Your Ref: 4 August 1977 > >The Chairman > >Australian Broadcasting Tribunal > >P.O.Box 1308 > >North Sydney, NSW 2060 > >Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, Section 90j Public Inquiry into Substantial Change in Ownership and Control of Licensee Companies > >I refer to your memorandum of 1 6 June 1 977 in which you seek advice on the application of section 90j (4) (b) of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942 to a proposal by Telecasters North Queensland Ltd. (TNQ), licensee of commercial television station TNQ Townsville area, to purchase all of the 2,300 issued shares in Ayr Broadcasters Pty. Ltd. ('the licensee company') licensee of commercial broadcasting stations 4AY Ayr and 4GC Charters Towers. > >Under section 90j (4) the Minister shall not refuse approval to a transaction of this type unless there has been a report by the Tribunal on relevant matters and the Minister, after considering the report: > >is of the opinion that the transaction has resulted or would result in a contravention by the person concerned of section 90c; or > >considers it necessary to do so in order to maintain such ownership and control, whether direct or indirect, of the company holding the licence as, in his opinion, best accord with the public interest. ' > >You say that the proposal would not contravene section 90 C and thus, if the Minister were to refuse approval to the transaction, the refusal would have to be on the grounds of public interest. You refer to advice given by this Department on 26 June 1 967 concerning the meaning of 'public interest' in this context and ask whether there have been any developments which would allow the Tribunal to take into account, in this case, such matters as 'concentration of ownership of mass media interests generally (including newspaper interests), the extent of local (regional) ownership of stations etc' > >The advice of 26 June 1967 concerned a transaction whereby shares in commercial television stations were transferred to a company the sole shareholders of which were the wives of shareholders in the group of companies holding the prescribed interests in the stations. Moreover, the sole purpose of this divestment was to allow the group of companies holding the prescribed interests to acquire additional shares in other television stations. It was then said of section 92f (4) (b) (the parallel provision to section 90J (4) (b)): > >Paragraph (b) seems to me to be directed to the question of ensuring the retention of ownership and control of a station by interests of a particular class or kind. The question whether proposed transferees are persons having such a relationship to other holders of prescribed interests that there might be a breach of the provisions relating to maximum holdings is a matter to be considered under paragraph (a) of the sub-section, and paragraph (b) cannot, in my view, be used to reject an application simply because it is considered that there might have been a breach of the spirit, although not of the letter, of the provisions restricting the number of licences that may be held. Section 92F(4)(b) does not enable rejection of an application in every case where the Minister considers it to be in the public interest to do so. It confers only a very limited right to reject an application for the purposes I have indicated above.' > >There are significant differences between the proposal on which advice was given in 1967 and the present proposal. A consideration of the present proposal does involve a question whether the ownership of the licensee company 'by interests of a particular class or kind ', to use the expression in the 1967 advice, ought to be retained. > >All the shares in the licensee company are held by members of the Gleeson family, with **Mr F.** J. Gleeson holding 50.1% and the remainder being held by his wife, **Mrs Joyce** Gleeson and in various family trusts. TNQ, on the other hand, is a large public company with widespread shareholdings, including in the licensee company (12.4%) and in North Queensland Newspaper Co. Ltd. (9.9%). Also I understand from the background paper attached to your memorandum that the Minister has given his approval for North Queensland Newspaper Co. Ltd. to acquire up to 1 7.4% of the capital in TNQ > >The effect of the proposed transaction, as noted in your background paper, would be to diversify shareholdings in the licensee company but at the same time to vest prescribed interests in the 4AY and 4GC licences in TNQ and North Queensland Newspaper Co Ltd. (see sections 90 (2 ) and 90b ( I ) ). lt is against this background that the question of the public interest' for the purposes of section 90j must be considered. > >The phrase 'public interest' may be taken as referring to the interest of the community generally *(R. v. Mining Warden at Maryborough and Qld. Titanium Mines Ltd.* ( 1975) Q.L.R. 235 at p.248 per Kelly J.), but its precise meaning depends on its context. Similarly, the application of a 'public interest' test needs to be considered against the background of all the facts that are relevant to any particular proposal to which it might apply. I, therefore, do not think it is possible to identify in the abstract all precise issues that might be relevant to a consideration of the public interest in all cases arising under section 90J. > >However, in my view, the concentration of ownership of media interests, including newspaper interests, in the region, and the extent of local ownership of stations, would be relevant considerations to the question whether the existing ownership of the licensee company ought to be maintained in the present case. > >Any effect on the quality of the service provided to the public would be another matter that would be relevant to a consideration by the Minister of the public interest under section 90j. By way of example, I note that the licence granted in respect of 4GC Charters Towers requires that an office and studio presence be maintained in Charters Towers and that locally originated material be transmitted at least to the extent of 20 hours weekly. While these licence conditions would remain unaffected by any change in the ownership of the licensee company, the capacity of the prospective owners to meet these conditions would be a relevant consideration. > >I have sent a copy of this memorandum to the Postal and Telecommunications Department. > >KELLY for Acting Secretary {: .speaker-VD4} ##### Senator EVANS: -- Not only is this advice different from the previous advice that had been given to the Tribunal but also it is in quite explicit contradiction of previously articulated positions of the Tribunal in earlier decisions. I refer specifically to the Townsville inquiry of July 1977 and the Ballarat inquiry of August 1977 in which the Tribunal clearly articulated the question of concentration or aggregation of the media on a cross-ownership basis as a relevant criterion for determining a public interest issue. It was not referring there simply to a concentration of electronic media. It was referring to newspaper interests as well. The Tribunal sought to distinguish those earlier decisions as being based on different factual situations, but what was in issue was the articulation of criteria. No matter how hard the Tribunal twists and turns it is in the position of having to admit that this decision represents a complete change of heart on its part. Other legal grounds are articulated by the Tribunal as a basis for its decision in this respect, grounds which are very wobbly indeed. Again, time does not permit me to give the Senate any kind of analysis, whether it wants it or not, of the legal issues that are involved. Let me simply say that I do not believe that the language of the section as presently drafted inhibits the Tribunal from looking at aggregation or concentration issues when considering the public interest point, and certainly I do not believe that there is any constitutional inhibition upon it in taking into account cross-ownership questions in determining issues relating to ownership of the electronic media. Another matter in the decision which arouses one's legitimate indignation is the elaborate attention paid to **Mr Murdoch's** claim that he would be treated unfairly or in a discriminatory fashion, as compared with other media proprietors, if he were to be denied the opportunity to expand his electronic media interests in order to keep afloat a fast-sinking newspaper empire. That might touch our heart strings as a general policy matter, but manifestly it is a legally irrelevant consideration and ought not in our view to have been given any weight at all by the Tribunal. The residence matter, which I wish to mention briefly, is another on which the Tribunal's decision leaves much to be desired. I do not seek to canvass in any way the very lengthy arguments and material that were put in issue about **Mr Murdoch's** residence and the effect of that upon him. What I do emphasise is the utter futility of the Tribunal's not, in its decision, giving any reasons for the conclusion that it reached on this point but simply stating that it had reached the view that the Act did not apply. It might as well have not opened its mouth for all the assistance that that particular excursion in its decision has given us for future cases. It might be said, finally, that, if there are all of these legal problems with the Tribunal's decision, why is not the matter being appealed, by the Australian Labor Party or someone else, to the courts? The reality is that to do so is an inordinately expensive business. The media interests involved have financial backing which is tantamount to using elephant guns as compared with everyone else in the community, who are confined to using pea shooters when forced to fire at them on these matters. The reality is that one- certainly not the Australian Labor Partyjust cannot afford to take the kinds of financial risks that are involved. That makes it all the more important that the Tribunal should reach in the first place decisions which are credible, and impeccably reasoned, not the kind of mishmash which creates all of the problems that we have been debating here today. {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- Order! The honourable member's time has expired. {: #subdebate-27-0-s4 .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales -- It seems to me that three or four distinct matters arise in this debate. Two relate specifically to the decisions regarding the Channel 10 and Channel 4 licence inquiries. The third is essentially the one about the discussion of public interest criteria in the whole field of broadcasting regulation. The final one is the credibility of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, which has been attacked by **Senator Ryan** and **Senator Evans** this morning. I wish to deal only briefly with parts of the Channel 10 and Channel 4 decisions. The Channel 10 decision that was ultimately made has been attacked by **Senator Evans** as one that failed to give sufficient reasons. The Tribunal was accused of succumbing to blackmail by **Mr Murdoch** in relation to the matters which he presented. However, I must say that there was an eloquent piece, if not of blackmail, then certainly of pressure applied to the Tribunal by **Senator Evans** who, when told that he had to confine his remarks to 30 minutes, made it quite clear what his recourse would be if he were not allowed the more than one hour that he took to state his case and cross-examine the witnesses who were present. The Channel 10 inquiry indicated something that was also indicated in the Channel 4 inquiry. We see this in the way in which the Tribunal expressed its decision. It stated: >The onus of proof, therefore, would seem to rest squarely upon those who would contend in a particular case that approval should not be granted. I think it is important to understand that within the framework of the Act under which the Tribunal must operate, that is in fact where the onus of proof lies. That point was made equally by the Tribunal in its decision in the WIN4 inquiry which at page 6 stated: >The Tribunal considers it desirable to point out that the Act appears to raise what is, in effect, a legal presumption in favour of the approval of such transactions. Section 92f(4a) does not authorise the Tribunal to make whatever decision in relation to a proposed transaction it would consider appropriate in the public interest. Rather, the section says that the Tribunal 'shall not refuse to grant approval . . . unless the Tribunal . . . considers it necessary to do so, et cetera'. The onus of proof, therefore, would seem to rest squarely upon those who would contend in a particular case that approval should not be granted. And the requirement that the Tribunal must find it 'necessary' to refuse approval, in the public interest as defined, means that the onus of proof is a heavy one. The Tribunal further stated: >In this instance there being no approved parties to the hearing no evidence was placed before the Tribunal to suggest the public interest would be affected in any adverse sense. Therefore it is important to understand the framework within which the Tribunal has to operate in making its decisions and the fact that in the Channel 10 and Channel 4 inquiries there was a clear onus of proof, not upon the applicants to demonstrate that the application should be agreed to, but upon those who opposed the application to demonstrate to the Tribunal that it should be refused. That was the judgment which the Tribunal was required to make within the framework of the Act and on both occasions it made it succinctly. It is important to clear up one final point about the Channel 4 inquiry and that is the way in which **Senator Ryan** rather trailed **Mr Gyngell** 's interest throughout the matter. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs **(Mr Chaney)** has indicated that **Mr Gyngell** took no part in the inquiry, and it ought to be put into the record that at page 8 of the WIN4 decision, the following appears: >At the Tribunal meeting at which the decision was made the Chairman abstained from voting. It is important that that be clear in our minds. My final comment about the WIN4 inquiry, and the criticism that the Tribunal failed to pursue the question of the ownership and structure of Oberon Broadcasters Pty Ltd is that this matter should be viewed in the light of a comment which was made by **Mr Moremon,** who conducted the inquiry, as recorded at page 12 of the transcript of evidence. In addressing **Mr Maguire,** counsel for the Australian Labor Party, he said: > **Mr Maguire,** the tribunal has considered your application on behalf of the Australian Labor Party to be an approved party in these proceedings. We took account of all the points you raised and particularly noted that you do not propose to call any further evidence which would assist the tribunal. We must deny your application in accordance with the criteria which the tribunal follows in granting approved party status . . . However, as you pointed out in your application, the tribunal has accepted as relevant point (2) of the ALP submission and it is our intention to thoroughly pursue those points as invited by you so do to. In denying your application, the tribunal does not accept the argument by **Mr Nicholas** regarding the narrow scope of this inquiry. In our view there are serious public interest considerations involved in the proposed share transaction which we will be examining during these proceedings. Therefore, it is not even correct to say that public interest criteria were entirely excluded from the WIN4 inquiry. The Tribunal at an earlier stage, in February 1978, in presenting its report on the 4IP Ipswich licence transfer inquiry set down in paragraph 2. 1 5 of that report, under the heading Public Interest Criteria, the extent to which it considered various matters when dealing with the question of public interest. One matter mentioned at that stage, was 'the extent of concentration of ownership or control of mass media generally'. Therefore, I think that it is important to realise that the issue which has been raised by honourable senators opposite about public interest criteria is not one which has escaped the attention of either the Government in framing the legislation in the first place or of the Tribunal, in the way in which it has gone about its particular task. I think it is important to look a little behind some of the attacks made upon the Tribunal, and some of the criticisms launched at the Tribunal and the sorts of decisions that it makes. I therefore want to refer to the credibility of the Tribunal in terms of the decision made by it in relation to the 2HD application. As the Senate would undoubtedly be aware, 2 HD is a radio station in Newcastle- not a particularly successful radio station- which is owned and controlled by the Australian Labor Party. In its own determination, the Tribunal says: >The tribunal is aware from its own records and from evidence tendered at the hearing, that radio station 2HD has proved to be a barely viable operation in recent years. Presumably the Australian Labor Party conducts 2HD with as much success as it conducted the economy when it had control of it, or would if it had control of it again. That is the situation that the Australian Labor Party faced in Newcastle. I quote now from an article in the *Financial Review* of 1 7 July 1979: >The sale of 2HD by the NSW Labor Party to NBN-3, dominated by the local Wansey and Lamb family interests, would give Newcastle the most concentrated media ownership of any major city in Australia. It is interesting to note that the Australian Labor Party, committed as it says it is to the diversification of ownership of the electronic media, should have in the Newcastle case attempted to sell off its radio holdings in order to increase media concentration in the State's second largest city. It sought to do so under some false colours, and not with entire unanimity among the Labor Party branches in the area, because in an article entitled 'Broadcasting Tribunal's stormy Newcastle passage', which appeared in the *Financial Review* of 25 June 1979, Jefferson Penberthy writes: >It has been shown that the decision to sell 2HD was pushed through the machineries of the NSW Labor Party and the Labour Council (the 69 per cent and 31 per cent owners respectively) at least partly on the basis of misinformation about tribunal permission for stations such as 2HO to erect S-kilowatt transmitters. > >Delegates were first told, incorrectly, that this was a direction which would require the expenditure of some $260,000 to upgrade the struggling station's power. The article goes on to indicate the way in which **Mr Ducker** and his associates were able to con a large number of people into accepting this move by the Labor Party to sell off 2hd. The Tribunal, of course, ruled against the selling off of 2hd. It said that it would not be in the public interest because it would amount to too much concentration of media ownership in Newcastle. I must say that the people of Newcastle appear to have responded very well. **Mr J.** Kidd, President of the Newcastle Trades Hall Council, talking about the Tribunal 's decision, said: >I am delighted. The Tribunal is to be commended on its forthright decision. **Mrs H.** Brown, secretary of the Raymond Terrace branch of the ALP, said that the decision was good both for the Labor movement and the people of Newcastle. A further comment on the Tribunal 's decision reads: > **Mr R.** Phillips, a junior vice+president of Newcastle Trades Hall Council, said on Wednesday night that he was very pleased with the decision. The credibility of the Tribunal in Newcastle is not a matter which is in the same degree of dispute as it appears to be from honourable senators here. I quote from the editorial of the *Newcastle Morning Herald* of '20 July 1979: >The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has broken new ground by invoking the concept of public interest in refusing to sanction a proposed Newcastle broadcasting merger . . . Further on the editorial comments: >In its decision the Tribunal accorded primacy to the public interest without strictly defining what this meant. > >Clearly in this case it decided that Newcastle people would best be served by a spread of ownership in the broadcast media. Its decision has set a benchmark in showing the tribunal as willing to run counter to major commercial interests. The editorial concludes: >The tribunal 's decision is to be welcomed. It accords with the views against concentration expressed by successive Federal governments and major broadcasting inquiries since broadcasting regulations were introduced more than 40 years ago. As a result, one can see precisely what it is about the Broadcasting Tribunal that is really upsetting the Australian Labor Party, which has put no good case as to the inability of the Tribunal to come to the decisions that it did, or the legal requirements preventing the Tribunal coming to the decisions which it did, or indeed establishing that it is unaware of the necessity to consider matters of public interest. Having demonstrated that and, as I believe, having demonstratedthe interests of the Labor Party in getting back at the Tribunal because it was prevented from selling ofits lame duck 2hd, I move: >That the question be now put. Question put. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke ) AYES: 32 NOES: 26 Majority....... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the motion **(Senator Ryan's)** be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President- Senator the Hon. Sir Condor Laucke) AYES: 25 NOES: 31 Majority....... 6 AYES NOES Question so resolved in the negative. {: .page-start } page 444 {:#debate-28} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS {: #debate-28-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP -- I seek leave to make a statement by way of personal explanation. Leave granted. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- Honourable senators will recall that this morning during Question Time I responded to the subject of documents which were used purportedly as the basis for the *Broadband* program. In relation to those documents, I now read the relevant extracts of the transcript of this morning. It states: {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- You gave them to **Mr Aarons** for political purposes. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- i want to have it recorded that **Senator Grimes** said: 'You gave them to **Mr Aarons;** you gave them for political purposes'. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- That is right. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- i want that recorded. i want, with the full force at my command, to say that that is absolutely untrue. Neither i nor my Government gave any such documents to **Mr Aarons.** {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- Not your Government; you did. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: **- Senator Grimes** has said: 'Not your Government, you did '. And so it goes on. I went on to make it perfectly clear that it was without qualification totally untrue. Following Question Time, I telephoned the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and I read to him the transcript that I have now read to the Senate. He dictated back to my secretary and authorised me to say this: >The General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Commission, **Mr Tal** Duckmanton, has informed me after consulting the producers of this program that they had no contact whatsoever with **Senator Carrick** prior to or after the broadcast, and none of the documents used in the program or on which the program was based came from **Senator Carrick** nor did they come from the Liberal Party. That statement speaks for itself. It indicates quite clearly that **Senator Grimes's** statements were totally untrue. I simply read the statement of the Australian Broadcasting Commission and its administration. I leave the Senate and the people of Australia to judge **Senator Grimes** and his conscience. {: #debate-28-s1 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -I seek leave to make a statement on the same subject. Leave granted. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator Walters: -- It had better be good. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -No thing will be good enough for the honourable senator, but let me try. I said this morning, as **Senator Carrick** has pointed out, words to the effect: 'You gave them to **Mr Aarons'.** I admit that; I accepted it after **Senator Carrick** asked me to repeat the questions. I realise that the word 'give 'can be defined very narrowly. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me in my accusation to have said: You caused to have these documents given to **Mr Aarons'.** I say quite clearly that **Senator Carrick** stood up in this chamber and said that he personally did not give the documents to the ABC or to **Mr Aarons.** He has telephoned the ABC and got from **Mr Talbot** Duckmanton apparently, an assurance that he personally- I believe they are the words he used- did not give the documents to **Mr Aarons** or anyone at the program. I suggest that that is a very narrow explanation from **Senator Carrick.** I ask **Senator Carrick-** 1 challenge him- to get up and say that neither he nor anyone on his staff contacted the ABC or its producers over this matter. I repeat that accusation. Maybe I was too narrow, in the heat of the moment at Question Time, in applying such a narrow meaning to the word 'give'. I certainly do not withdraw what I said in the broader sense and **Senator Carrick** cannot either. **Senator CARRICK** (New South WalesMinister for Education)- by leave- The fact of the matter is that what **Senator Grimes** has now said is equally totally untrue. As I understand it- I can speak only second-hand- the producers of *Broadband,* by their own initiative, went abroad, to the source of the documents in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, talked to **Dr Wiesenthal,** the Viennese anti-nazi investigator, and totally of their own initiative produced and used those documents. I want to make it clear that neither I nor any member of my staff so did. I will be happy to refer this transcript to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and ask the General Manager of the ABC if he will get from the producers of *Broadband* their commentary as to the origin of the documents. I want to make a clear denial in this regard. Sitting suspended from 1.3 to 2.15 p.m. {: .page-start } page 445 {:#debate-29} ### AUSTRALIAN EDUCATION COUNCIL {: #debate-29-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- For the information of honourable senators, I present the text of a statement by the Chairman of the Australian Education Council on the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training- the Williams Committee- on education, training and employment. {: .page-start } page 445 {:#debate-30} ### SCHOOLS COMMISSION {: #debate-30-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the Schools Commission 's report for the triennium 1979-81. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- In response to the Government's guidelines which I announced in the Senate on 5 June 1979, this report makes recommendations for the allocation of Commonwealth funds for schools in the States in 1980 through the Schools Commission's programs. The Commission has also included in its short report recommendations concerning longer term funding arrangements and has also commented on its intention to review the basis for allocating funds under a number of its programs. These matters go outside the guidelines for the next program year of 1980 but will be considered by the Government in the context of developing policy and financial guidelines for the Commission's programs after 1980. In accordance with its recent practice, the Government will introduce States grants legislation later in this session to cover programs for 1980. So as not to delay the necessary processes, the Government is therefore seeking immediate reactions from the States and non-governmental schools authorities to those recommendations relating to 1980, and will announce its decisions as soon as possible. I will be taking up the longer term proposals with all concerned in order to determine a satisfactory timetable of consultation. Towards a more detailed understanding of the issues involved in the report, I intend to provide supplementary statistical data which will be tabled in the Senate. >That the Senate take note of the paper. The Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** has just tabled the report of the Schools Commission for the triennium 1979-81. I wish to make a few brief comments about this report. In a very real way it reflects the paralysis of the present Government's education policies and the total lack of intellectual vitality in the Government's approach to education issues. As the Minister has indicated, the report is a consequence of, in a sense, or a response to the education guidelines which were brought down by the Minister in May or June of this year and by which the Commission is constrained in its activities and its recommenddations The report of the Schools Commission draws attention to the problems of little or no growth in the education area. In paragraph 1.2 on page 1 of the report, the Commission refers to the problem of there being less scope for solving problems by expanding staff numbers in schools. I refer the Senate to the passage, which states: >Review of the mix of staffing which has developed in the high resource growth period of the seventies will be necessary to ensure effective use of resources. While there is evidence that many individual schools in government systems do not have the resources the Commission believes necessary for effective operation, thorough review of existing staff use is needed before a responsible estimate can be made of what needs remain. The Commission notes the resource study being conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research in this regard . . . In the light of frequent statements made in the Senate about the government school system having attained the resource standards recommended by the Karmel Commission, it is worth while noting, whilst that may be so, that according to the Commission's information and previous reports there are all sorts of problems which still remain in respect of government school resources, particularly problems which relate to staffing. The figures of the Karmel Commission, which are used by the Minister in respect of average standards having been attained, still leave a lot of problems in particular areas of the government school system. The Schools Commission in this report provides a summary of the way in which Commonwealth funding has gone. I commend table B3, which appears on the last page of the report, to honourable senators for further consideration. The Commission draws attention also to two problems which lie at the heart of funding issues. They are dealt with at paragraph 1.11. The first concerns long term Commonwealth funding of government schools- that is, what will be the role of the Commonwealth in the future. The second is the question of the basis of funding of non-government schools. On page 4 at paragraph 1.11 of the report the Commission states: >Until these two issues- That is, the issues to which I have just referred- are settled, allowing separate calculation of the entitlements for the sectors, problems will continue. By way of response to previous Schools Commission documents, the Government has done nothing to solve those two crucial issues which lie at the heart of the Commonwealth's role in education. For example, the Commission proposed a scheme last year to which there has been no real response by the Government. At pages 6 and 7 of the report the Commission draws attention to the very vexed question of transition from school to work. That is the area of what may appropriately be called youth policy. In the recent Budget the Government has made significant cuts in the allocations available for the National Employment and Training scheme and for the Special Youth Employment Training Program. The Government has put nothing in their place. The Budget provides for a 69 per cent cut in funding in real terms for the Special Youth Employment Training Program, a 44 per cent cut in the National Employment and Training scheme and a 13 per cent cut in community youth support schemes generally. On page 8 of the report, the Schools Commission recommends a full-scale review of the problem of young people in this country. These schemes have been going on for several years now and have been supported by Government spokesmen as an apparently efficacious response to the problem of youth unemployment and the transition from school to work. We have had nearly four years of those schemes now and suddenly it has been discovered that perhaps they are no good after all. As a consequence there have been very substantial Budget cuts in the amount available for those schemes. Nothing has been put in their place. One wonders whether the Government's philosophy in respect of this problem is really just to continue to hope that the problem will go away, as this Government hopes a lot of things will go away. I express the personal view that the problem of youth unemployment and transition from school to work will not go away. Even if the economy improves, it will not improve to the great benefit of young people who have recently left school and who are normally in the 16 to 19 years age group. With the variety of other factors related to social change in Australia, it is most likely that any increase in employment which any macroeconomic policies might bring about will be very much taken up by the increased participation of women in the work force, for example, rather than by the participation of young people. In the view of the Opposition, this whole question represents a very real crisis in the nature of the secondary schooling system in this country. I think it is probably fair to say that Australian high schools cater for about 65 per cent of the kids going through the system- the 65 per cent that goes on to do the Higher School Certificate, the 65 per cent that is appropriately in some form of academic stream. The other 35 per cent constitutes the real drop-outs from the system, the people who are the most likely candidates for unemployment. This represents a crisis in terms of the education system at secondary level being insufficiently comprehensive to provide .a variety of interests and skills for young people in that age group. It is a source of great regret to the Opposition that the Government, which has been experimenting as it were, with rather expensive schemes over the last three or four years, has now virtually abandoned those schemes and has really offered nothing in their place. In fairness, I should point out that the allocation for the Commonwealth Rebate for Apprentice Full-time Training Scheme has been increased in the Budget. However, one suspects that that is an electoral response brought about by an undue degree of sensitivity to criticisms that the Government is concentrating on bringing too many migrant tradesmen into this country and giving insufficient attention to the training of young people. I do not care whether it is a political response or an over-sensitive response. I welcome it. I think it is a sensible approach to the problem. One still has that very real gap of people in the 16 to 19 years age group who, as I have said, are prime candidates for unemployment and for whom this Government appears to offer nothing. The Schools Commission felt constrained to express concern about the need for policies in relation to that group. It is high time the Government considered this age group in Austraiian society as in a sense in a crisis area to which the educational system and all sorts of employment subsidy schemes must make a very real response. It is an acute social problem for people leaving school to find that this society has nothing to offer them, and this happens now to a very large percentage of the unemployed in this country. The tragedy of which I am sure the Minister will know, is that at the present time there is a tremendous wastage of bright kids from Australian high schools who at age 16 see a job in the newsagency or the butchers' shop or somewhere like that and say: 'Look, I will take that now because when I do my HSC and am ready to leave school I do not believe that there will be a job for me'. There are very real pressures within the school system, and anybody who has been in consultation with parent or teacher groups will know that this is so. There is a vast wastage of young people, many of whom grab the first job they can get because they are concerned that if they go on with their education it will not benefit them at all in terms of obtaining some form of employment. The Schools Commission's reference to the problems of people in this age group is very welcome and it is something of which this Senate and the Government should take note in the future. When I say in the future, I mean as a matter of urgency. I draw the Senate's attention to one or two other matters in the Schools Commission report. Firstly, no extra money is available for disadvantaged schools or disadvantaged country areas, and the guidelines referred to that matter when they were brought down by the Minister on 5 June. The question of disadvantaged schools is very important and perhaps is understood only by people who have been to see some of these schools. As a Victorian I have seen more of them in the suburbs of Melbourne than elsewhere, but of course they exist throughout Australia. The disadvantaged schools program has been of great help to these schools. Might I indicate briefly to the Senate by way of an example how money payable through Schools Commission programs of this kind can be a great catalyst for morale in schools in disadvantaged areas. Approximately a month ago I went to the Debney Park High School in Melbourne. Seventy-six per cent of the children in that school are of migrant origin; that is, they are not native-born, English-speaking Australians. The school has had a very sad record over many years, but five years ago, in 1975, it was given $5,000 through a Schools Commission program. At the time it had a particularly dedicated staff, including a dedicated music teacher. The $5,000 was used to buy musical instruments to establish a school band. In the last year the Debney Park High School band has come third in Australian band competitions. It has travelled all over Australia, and at the moment is in Singapore representing Australia and playing to high schools there. The band has become, as it were, the flagship of Australian music in the school sense. The quality and tone of that school has changed as a result of Government expenditure of $5,000 under a Schools Commission program. The kids in that school are intensely proud of the band. They have a junior band in which junior kids enrol in the hope that later they will be able to join the senior band. An ex-Debney High School band for ex-students is now being established. The sum allocated was small but it has been a great expenditure in terms of raising the morale of a totally disadvantaged and depressed school. Under programs such as the disadvantaged schools program, if the money is spent imaginatively and well it can do enormous things in terms of the cost-benefit analysis and in terms of the social progress, maturity and development of a whole group of young children. This applies particularly to a group such as the one I have mentioned, where the children come from a vast range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds. The importance of the disadvantaged schools program cannot be discussed in terms of figures but has to be seen in terms of the human situation and the imaginative use of money. By virtue of the good graces of the Government, I had the pleasure of presenting an Australian flag to the Debney Park High School band, which they took with them to Singapore. The Melbourne City Council, which was also represented at the ceremony, gave them a gold key to give to the council of Singapore. I am dubious about the moral value of that exercise when one considers the Melbourne City Council's reputation, but it was another nice gesture of a fraternal kind which was important and which developed from this sort of program. The Opposition wishes to emphasise the importance of the disadvantaged schools program in metropolitan areas, as in the example I have given. Secondly, I point out that no additional money has been made available for the disadvantaged country schools program, and that is a source of considerable concern in the overall context of Australian education. The brutal facts are that kids in Australian country government schools have less than half the chance of going on to tertiary education in any form when compared with kids in metropolitan schools. There are all sorts of reasons for that, and they have been well documented in the earlier reports of the Schools Commission. It is really a tragic area of disadvantage in terms of the aspirations of country kids. This is something to which the Schools Commission has continually pointed and adverted as a matter of importance. There is, in a sense, a real deprivation in not involving country kids with the same range of opportunities as those in the city. One of the problems of the country schools, apart from anything else, is the sheer narrowness of the range of subject choices available to children at the higher secondary level. I appreciate that it would be unfair in the extreme to say that this Government is in any sense responsible for that. The situation has existed for years. It is a matter to which there ought to be some government response because there will be no immediate solution, whatever is done, to the very real problem. It is something which must be given some degree of priority concern. In relation to the cutbacks in funding for youth programs which I mentioned earlier, I draw the attention of the Senate to the figures in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) under the heading 'Employment Training Schemes' which appear at page 2 1 9 of the House of Representatives *Hansard* of Budget day, Tuesday 2 1 August. The figures in relation to the cutbacks in youth programs are clearly shown. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 448 {:#debate-31} ### SCHOOLS COMMISSION REPORT ON {: .page-start } page 448 {:#debate-32} ### COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR SCHOOLS IN THE NORTHERN TERRITORY FOR 1980 {: #debate-32-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the Schools Commission report on Commonwealth financial assistance for schools in the Northern Territory for 1 980. 1 seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- This report of the Schools Commission makes recommendations on the arrangements for and the allocation of Commonwealth specific purpose funds for schools in the Northern Territory for 1980. The Northern Territory Government assumed responsibility for schools in the Territory on 1 July 1979 and financial arrangements have been developed to bring the Northern Territory within a framework similar to that which applies to the States. I expect to be able to announce the Government's decisions on the detailed recommendations of the Commission for 1980 during the Budget sittings at the same time as decisions are announced on the Commission's financial recommendation for 1980 in respect of schools in the States. The Government's decisions on Northern Territory funding for 1980 will be incorporated in legislation to be introduced during this session. In the meantime I will be consulting with the Northern Territory Minister as part of the Government's consideration of the Commission 's recommendations. {: #debate-32-s1 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory -- by leave- I move: Because this area is of particular interest to me and the report is of special significance, I would like to make a few comments. I am pleased to see that when the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** wrote to the Commission and asked for some details on the arrangements for and the level of the provision of Commonwealth specific funding financial assistance for schools in the Northern Territory he had this to say: >In providing this advice, the Commission should pay particular regard to any special features of education provision in the Territory which may bear on the appropriate form of Commonwealth financial assistance. I hope, because he made that request, that there will be some room for flexibility now that the report has been delivered. It is the first report of the Commission and one assumes that it will provide an opportunity for the Government to revise some of the recommendations made by the Commission. Since it is the first report it is very difficult to comment. It is difficult to see the effect of the Government guidelines on the Northern Territory situation. As the Minister has commented, the Northern Territory Government took over responsibility for education in the Northern Territory from 1 July. So it is possible for me to comment only on the general approach that the Commission has taken and also to highlight some of the special needs of the Northern Territory. As I have indicated in this place previously, education in the Northern Territory has special problems. These are related, firstly, to the sheer geographical size of the Northern Territory. We must consider not only the fact that the Northern Territory is big but also that the rather small population is spread out. There are two major centres and some smaller centres. Quite a number of people live in what we might call the rural areas of the Northern Territory. Because of this, there are a large number of small schools, and this has to be taken into account when making any recommendations or when revising any of the recommendations made by the Commission. Another significant factor which must be taken into account and one which the Minister is very conscious of is the high proportion of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory. These factors have been noted by the Commission and it is pleasing to see that it has done so. This is shown in a couple of broad areas. The Commission comments in the report on the need for more staff than would normally be required in a State situation; in other words, the staff-student ratio that the Commission might apply in a large State will not apply to the Northern Territory. It is pleasing to see that in some other areas too the ratios that are normally used when providing finance have not been applied. Also, the Commission has commented on the need for more specialist services. I commend it for that. I will have some comments to make later about the sort of services that will be made available and the way in which this might be done. We note in the report that in the interim period from 1 July to 31 December the Schools Commission recommends that there be no new programs. Apparently this has the agreement of the Northern Territory Department of Education so one cannot comment on it. I trust that because of the Federal Government funds which are available at the moment to assist the Northern Territory we will not see a diminution of the funds which will be available from 1 January to 30 June next year. In the capital grants program a locality allowance of 20 per cent is recommended when calculations are made about building. Accepting that the schools in the Northern Territory cost 1 8.9 per cent more than other places, this is a reasonable suggestion and I commend the Commission for it. It is a very sensible suggestion that we should have more money to build schools in the Northern Territory because of geographical isolation. It does cost more money to build in the Northern Territory, not necessarily in the major centres, but certainly in the outlying areas to which equipment and building staff have to be transported hundreds of miles. When the Government is making its decisions on how to apply capital finance I hope it will remember the conditions of some of the Aboriginal schools. The Minister will recall that when Labor was in office it set up a committee to investigate the quality of buildings in Aboriginal communities. The report which came out was an eye-opener to most Australian educationists. Some good progress was made in the short time that Labor was in office. Had it stayed in office no doubt the goals which it set itself would have been achieved. As we know, it was not given this opportunity. I suggest to the Minister that when he is considering the recommendations of the Commission in this area he might institute another study, much smaller, of course, to follow up and see what is needed out in the Aboriginal communities. I have spoken before in this place of the inappropriate designs so often devised for Aboriginal schools and other places such as hospitals and homes. I hope that the Minister, when looking at the need for school buildings in Aboriginal communities, will take into account the climate of the area, the needs of the Aboriginal people, the wishes of the Aboriginal people and the programs which are offered by the Department. In the migrant education program we note that there is a high proportion of migrant children. Together with large numbers of migrant children we also have a wide range of ethnic groups even though some of them may contain only small numbers. Many of the children who attend school in the Northern Territory do so with no knowledge of English. I commend the intersystemic approach which the Commission has recommended here. It seems to me that if the Government follows this approach it will utilise in the best way possible the scarce resources available. In that regard I am not too sure that the amount of $106,000 which is recommended will be enough, given the unique situation of the Northern Territory. Again, the State comparisons do not apply and I would ask the Minister whether he will have a look at that area too. I again commend the report for the nonapplication of state criteria for the disadvantaged schools program. The Commission has recommended a maximum enrolment of 2,500 children who can be assisted. Given the situation in the Northern Territory, that figure is too low. I do not need to reiterate the problems of the Northern Territory; I have done that already, as have others. I am not at all happy with a figure of 2,500 pupils; I do not believe that it is enough. People in the Northern Territory have said to me that the majority of the children in the system in the Northern Territory are disadvantaged. I ask the Minister to look at that. I hope that he will review that figure and make more money available. I move to the area of special education, which was commented on by the Commission. A good special services structure operates in the Northern Territory. I say that in all modesty because I set it up. But I am pleased to see support in the Commission for the concept of, whenever possible, educating children in the classroom. I feel it is unfortunate that the Commission did not feel moved to comment on the fact that we still have two special schools in the Northern Territory and to make some recommendations on whether they should continue. I detect a movement back to children being enrolled in special schools. I deplore that movement. I hope that the Commission will follow the lead of people overseas and suggest that, whenever possible, we should educate children in the classroom. I make a strong recommendation to the Minister that next time he sets out his instructions for the Commission he asks it to look at the area of special education. I also find it most disturbing that no mention is made in the recommendations of the Commission for any money to be allocated for the education of children from birth to pre-school age. Certainly pre-schools are mentioned and some allowance is made for them. But I stress, as I and others have done in this place before, that if we plan to do anything for handicapped children education must start immediately after birth. We must work from the cradle onwards. That applies in most cases. I commend strongly to the Minister that he look at that area. It is one in which we in the Northern Territory could lead Australia. To do that would appear to be beyond the resources of the Northern Territory Government. I guess that that is understandable with a fledgling government such as ours. But I make a plea to the Minister to consider allocating special funds outside the normal special funds to enable a program to go ahead in that area. It is unfortunate that in the States, with their more established departments, that has not been done. So the Minister has an opportunity to give the lead in this area, as I have invited him to do on other occasions. He could have given the lead in a number of areas. I think I can assure him that the Territory Minister would be only too happy to see that done; he would not see it as Federal Government interference in what is happening in the Northern Territory. The Commonwealth has assisted nongovernment schools. Whilst many people do not support the concept of assistance for nongovernment schools, this is not the place for me to discuss it. The Government has a view regarding this matter and it is providing assistance. It is good to see that assistance is being given to the smaller schools. I commend particularly the recommendation on the Marrara Christian School. It is a brave venture, with dedicated staff and parents. They could do with the assistance recommended in the report. The Commission has agreed that funds are small in the disadvantaged area of non-government schools. Perhaps the Minister might look again at the possibility of intersystemic assistance there. Again, it might be the best way to use the limited resources available. An allocation of $21,000 has been recommended for the multi-cultural program. That figure is disappointing. One would have hoped that the Government could have seen it as an opportunity to assist a most exciting program. The final area I wish to comment on is that of the education centres. The Minister will accept the need for those centres. Like his predecessor, he has taken a great interest in education in the Northern Territory and has shown particular interest in Aboriginal education. I commend him for that. The Commissioners recommended that one centre should be established. I think that is unfortunate. In view of the size of the Northern Territory, which has two quite clear areas- so clear in fact that the Northern Territory Department has divided it into two separate regions, the northern and the southern- I would hope that the Minister could find money somewhere for a centre at Alice Springs. I am assuming, as probably will happen, that the major, No. 1 , centre will be established in Darwin. I hope that it will not be an annexe of the Darwin centre. It might perhaps be a smaller one, but certainly it should provide the services which that sort of centre can provide for teachers who are operating in the centre of Australia. The Minister will know from his experience, from his travels in the Northern Territory, that many of the teachers in the centre will be dealing with Aboriginal children, so they can do with a lot of the help which that sort of centre can give. The Commission made two recommendations on administrative arrangements. It suggested the setting up of two committees. That seems commendable. I hope that the Minister will support that recommendation. As I said in my opening comments, from the short time that I have had to look at the report- I have not been able to give it any great study, but I look forward to being able to do so at a later time- I commend it to the Minister and seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted, debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 451 {:#debate-33} ### TERTIARY EDUCATION COMMISSION {: #debate-33-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesMinister for Education · LP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the Tertiary Education Commission report for the triennium 1979-81. 1 seek leave to make a statement relating to the report. Leave granted. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- This report of the Tertiary Education Commission makes recommendations for the allocation of Commonwealth funds to universities, colleges of advanced education and technical and further education institutions for 1980. It constitutes Volume 3 of the Commission's reports in respect of the triennium 1 979-8 1 . The report includes the advice from the councils for the three sectors and it has been prepared in response to the Government's guidelines which I announced in the Senate on 5 June 1979. The report also contains the recommendations of the Tertiary Education Commission on the arrangements for and the allocation of Commonwealth specific purpose funds for tertiary education in the Northern Territory. The Northern Territory Government assumed responsibility for tertiary education in the Territory on 1 July 1979 and financial arrangements have been developed to bring the Northern Territory within a framework similar to that which applies to the States. The Government has not yet considered the report, but decisions on the recommendations will be announced as soon as possible during the Budget sittings. Legislation will then be introduced to cover 1980 funding for the States and the Northern Territory. In the meantime, I will be consulting the States and the Northern Territory. {: #debate-33-s1 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON:
Victoria -by leave- I move: The report of the Tertiary Education Commission for the 1979-81 triennium which the Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick)** has just tabled arises, as the earlier education report did, in a sense, from the guidelines which were imposed by the Government on the Commission on 5 June 1979. 1 draw the Senate's attention to some key paragraphs in the report. The report, being a report from an independent authority of educational experts- I hesitate to use that expression, but do so for want of a better oneindicates quite clearly the restrictions which government policy has imposed in relation to the tertiary education area. I refer the Senate, first of all, to paragraph 50 of the report, which states, under the heading 'Conclusions and Recommendations ': >In discharging the requirements of the guidelines for 1980 only limited options are open to the Commission. In the university and advanced education sectors there is $ 16m less in 1980 than in 1979 for equipment and capital works. After meeting, as required, commitments both for on-going building projects and for the Australian Maritime College, the limited scope for the Commission to satisfy the compelling but competing demands for equipment, minor works and new building projects becomes clear The funds available in 1980 for these purposes are over $21m or 27 per cent less than in 1979. Later in the report, in the Commission's conclusions and recommendations, it referred to its comments on building programs in tertiary education. I refer the Senate to paragraphs 24 and 26 of this report because they indicate very clearly the effects of the Government's policies on tertiary education in Australia. More particularly, they indicate the problem of the backlog of requirements which is building up in the education system. They indicate the very adverse effect which the imposition of these guidelines is having on the system as a whole. Paragraph 24 states: >In concluding this section, the Commission feels that it should make some observations about buildings programs beyond 1980. Commonwealth building expenditure on tertiary education will have fallen in real terms by some $ 104m or 44 per cent in the space of the five years since 1 97S. I interpolate there to say that the comment is made that funds for these matters have fallen by 44 per cent since the Labor Government went out of office. I am not saying that expenditure could or would necessarily have been maintained responsibly at the level of funding available in 1975, but I am saying quite clearly that this Government, in its treatment of this issue, has embraced the standards of 1975 and then allowed them to slip. That is quite clear from what the Commission states in the two paragraphs to which I am referring. Paragraph 24 continues: >In the same period - That is, between 1975 and 1980- the universities' share of the total program has fallen from 3 1 to 13 per cent, the advanced education sectors' share has fallen from 32 to 22 per cent, and TAFE has increased its share from 17 to 65 per cent. The increasing emphasis on TAFE reflects relative need and is consistent with Government policy; however the effect of this change in emphasis, coupled with the marked decline in the overall availability of funds, has reduced the building programs of the other two sectors to a point where annual programs are making too small an impact on the backlog of needs. Again I emphasise that this Government is creating a backlog of needs, and it is doing so on the basis of an allocation of funds between the three sectors of tertiary education for which there has been no articulate and rational justification given at any stage by the Government. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- That sounds elitist. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON: -I do not know what the honourable senator thinks sounds elitist. Perhaps he can tell me. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- We have concentrated on TAFE and you are complaining that we have not concentrated on universities. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON: -- I am not complaining about that at all. It is a mistake to interject when one does not know what one is doing. What I am saying is that no rational or articulate explanation has been given by this Government for the concentration on technical and further education at the level at which the expenditure runs proportionately to the other sectors. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- It sounds elitist. {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON: -- The honourable senator can bandy those silly words about, but he can do better than that. I am asking for some explanation of this. One suspects that the explanation lies a great deal more in mythology than in reality, but in the absence of any explanation we can only guess. A lot of the emphasis on TAFE has been justified by government spokesmen as being a response to the need to train further tradesmen in Australia, that is to say, there is a shortage of skilled tradesmen. I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Williams Committee of Inquiry into Education and Training casts some doubt on that. That is the sort of thing I have in mind. The Government is commissioning reports which, according to the rhetoric of Ministers, will provide blueprints for education until the year 2000. Whether the Williams report does that is a matter of great doubt and a subject for debate, but on the question of the training of skilled tradesmen in Australia it casts doubt of many of the assumptions which have been used as empty and woolly rhetoric to justify particular expenditures in particular areas. With the greatest of respect, I am not blaming the Minister for Education for this is any sense. He will have read the Williams report and **Senator Baume** probably has not. The Minister will understand that that is a problem to which that Committee drew attention. All I am saying is that we have to consider it. The argument and the debate about that are not helped by some mock proletarianism on the part of **Senator Baume,** who thinks it is a good idea to suggest that anybody who favours spending money on universities is elitist. **Senator Baume** as a populist politician is really too much for me; it has come too late in life for him. That is the point I am seeking to make. In paragraph 26 of this report the Commission states: >In view of the above situation the Commission is firmly of the view that the capacity of universities and colleges to meet their teaching and research commitments will be seriously impaired unless there is an increase in the funds available for capital works in future years above the level available in 1980. The important point about that statement by the Commission is that at the moment this Government is building up problems for the future in the education system. That is something about which we all ought to be concerned. I concede absolutely that any government is entitled to its economic priorities, but any Opposition is entitled to point out that it is creating problems for the future. That is precisely what I am doing. If there is to be, as the wishful thinkers of Australian politics hope, some renaissance in the economic situation of this country and if some sort of national initiative and capacity and some sense of direction as to where we as a society are going are to be developed- they are absolutely necessary if we are to get out of the leaderless and despondent trough into which Australian Society has sunk under the Fraser Governmentthere will be a need for a very important contribution to that process from Australia's tertiary education institutions. More particularly, there will need to be a response in terms of research and the capacity of Australian tertiary institutions to deliver the goods in terms of products of research schools and so on. What the Commission is saying, of course, really indicates that these matters- to use the Commission's phrasewill be seriously impaired' if something is not done about the levels of expenditure which the Government is prepared to consider for tertiary education. Of course, the most important point is that this comment is made particularly in relation to research. I tried to indicate a minute ago what I regard as the significance and importance of research in trying to recapture some sense of direction and national achievement in this country, because the days are fast running out when anybody else is going to do it for us. In that context I speak not with a lonely voice. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development examiners, the Williams Committee and the Tertiary Education Commission have drawn attention on a number of occasions to the appalling level of research expenditure and effort in Australia. That is a very symbolic thing. We can look back over this country's history of national achievement and national pride and we can count on the lingers of one hand almost the great scientific achievements and the great programs such as the Snowy Mountains program. These things are still very important in terms of a sense of national achievement. Research is one of those things, and it is one of those things about which we should not have the Tertiary Education Commission saying: 'These things will be seriously impaired by the present Government's programs'. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 453 {:#debate-34} ### ROYAL AUSTRALIAN AIR FORCE: SPECIAL FLIGHTS {: #debate-34-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP -- For the information of honourable senators, I present details of special flights by the Royal Australian Air Force for the period 1 January 1979 to 30 June 1979. Copies of this report are available from the Table Office. {: #debate-34-s1 .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN:
South Australia -- by leave- I move: I have some comments to make on the document which is before us. I notice that although it has always been referred to in the past as relating to VIP flights, for some reason or other these are now scheduled as special flights. In today's Press there was some comment that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** intended to alter the guidelines for VIP nights, which are now referred to as special flights. But when one studies this document one finds that although on the cover it bears the title, Schedules of Special Flights, the details of the flights listed inside are headed: >Point of Departure/Destination. Note: Underlining denotes VIP portion of travel. That is what I want to refer to. It is very confusing when one looks at this document to see just who has been travelling on VIP flights. Ever since I have been a member of this Senate it has been my understanding that the only members of the Parliament who were entitled to travel on VIP flights were members of the House of Representatives if a VIP flight were operating within their electorate and there was a Minister on board. To my knowledge, the Parliament has never been told that those guidelines have been altered. Also, it is very difficult, when one looks at the passenger list, to ascertain who the passengers were. I suggest to the Leader of the Government in the Senate **(Senator Carrick)** that in future, these documents should show the designation of the person travelling on the aircraft and whether that person is a member of Parliament, a journalist or a staff member. In the case of journalists, the organisation represented should also be designated. I wish also to refer to the carriage of Ministers ' families on aircraft. I recall that when the Australian Labor Party was in government there was a real blow-up because two Ministers saw fit to take a son or a daughter on a VIP flight with them. Opposition members- who are now in government- created quite a furore because this happened. From page 16 of this document one finds that a Master and a Miss Fraser travelled on one occasion with the Prime Minister. That is as far as I have been able to go. Also, from page 69 one learns that a Miss Adermann travelled with a **Mr and Mrs Adermann.** I would not have referred to the matter but for the furore that was created when two Labor Ministers- I think on only two occasions- saw fit to take a member of their family with them. As I recall it, the upshot was that they had to pay the fares of those family members. I have always understood that honourable senators, in particular, were not allowed to travel on VIP aircraft within their State or without it, unless- as has often been said- there was an airline strike or something of that nature and a special aircraft was put on to ferry the senator back to his or her State. Similarly, I understood that members of the House of Representatives were not permitted to travel on VIP aircraft unless that aircraft was travelling within that member's electorate and there was a Minister on board. However, at page 25 of the document we note that on 2 March 1979 a Ministerial Special- I do not know what that is- went from Canberra to Sydney. On board were a **Mr Carlton** and a **Mr Graham.** That illustrates why I ask that the designation of passengers be given. My impression is that **Mr Carlton** and **Mr Graham** are Liberal Party members of this Parliament who represent seats in New South Wales. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that a flight from Canberra to Sydney would be within their electorates. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: -- That was a day on which an aircraft strike occurred. Special permission was given to carry them. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- I am pleased to hear that, but I ask the Minister: How did all the other people get on? How did the members of the Australian Labor Party get home? Doubtless, they found their own way home, but what about the members of the Government? {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick: -- If such transport had been asked for it would have been arranged. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: -- They might not have been told of it. Again, if we turn to page 50 we find that on 6 April 1979, on a VIP flight, Canberra/Alice Springs/Sydney/Canberra, **Senator Kilgariff** is listed as a passenger. I would like to know how **Senator Kilgariff** was entitled to travel on that aircraft, when the guidelines that have been laid down and which we have all understood, hold that no senator may, in any circumstances, on such a flight be a passenger on a VIP aircraft. That is another matter of concern. If we turn to page 69 of this document we see a reference to the matter which I mentioned a while ago about the member of the family of a Minister. I shall not repeat that. At page 86 we learn that on 3 June 1979, on a VIP flight, Darwin/ Alice Springs/Sydney/Canberra, one of the passengers listed is **Senator Rocher** who is from Western Australia. We all know that that aircraft did not fly over his electorate even if he were a member of the House of Representatives. Under the guidelines- unless the Minister is to tell us that they have been changed- he was not entided to be a passenger on that aircraft. **Senator Kilgariff** was also a passenger on that flight. At page 88 we find that on an aircraft on which the Prime Minister was the main traveller, on 8 June 1979, between Canberra and Essendonthe VIP portion of the flight- a **Senator and Mrs Lewis** are listed. At page 91- this is very revealing- on 13 to 15 June, in addition to the Prime Minister, who was the main passenger, we see listed as passengers **Senator Martin** and **Senator MacGibbon** from Queensland. They travelled on the flight Rockhampton/Gladstone/Emerald /South Blackwater/Gregory/ Norwich Park/Moranbah/ Mackay/Port Park/Moranbah/Mackay/Port Hay/Mackay/Winton/ Brisbane. There we have two Government senators riding on a VIP aircraft. Further down the list we see that among the passengers were also **Dr Edwards,** the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland and Deputy Premier of that State, and **Mr BjelkePetersen,** the Premier of Queensland. They were travelling on that VIP aircraft. I repeat that under the guidelines as we now know themunless they have been altered- members of the Federal Parliament are not allowed except in the circumstances that I have outlined to ride on a VIP aircraft. Turning to page 92, we find that **Mr Katter** is listed- I assume it is the honourable member for Kennedy- as riding on the Prime Ministerial aircraft, again on 13 to 15 June 1979. **Mr Katter** travelled on the route Rockhampton/Gladstone/Emerald /South Blackwater/Gregory/ Norwich Park/Moranbah/ Mackay/Port Hay/Mackay/Winton. Although one or two of those ports of call may be in the electorate of Kennedy, most of them- certainly Mackay and Rockhampton- would not be. This Government supposedly set down guidelines but we find all the Government members getting rides on VIP aircraft when many other members- I refer especially to honourable senators- who wanted to go to their electorate at a time when an aircraft was flying, were unable to do so. I would hope that, as indicated in today's Press, the Prime Minister intends altering the guidelines for the use of VIP aircraft or for what are now known as special flights. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- It is a pity we are not on air. You would win us thousands of votes. {: .speaker-KTZ} ##### Senator McLAREN: **- Senator Jessop** should not say too much. I might say something about him that would be best left unsaid. He should not interject. He might hear something that is not to his benefit. I hope that the Leader of the Government has taken my remarks on board and that in future, when these documents are tabled, we will be told the occupations of the people who travel on such aircraft; also, that at an early date the guidelines for people travelling on VIP aircraft will be tabled. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted; debate adjourned. {: .page-start } page 455 {:#debate-35} ### USE OF THE WORD 'ANZ AC {: #debate-35-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP -- For the information of honourable senators I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Productivity **(Mr Macphee)** on the use of the word ANZAC. {: .page-start } page 455 {:#debate-36} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-36-0} #### HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA {: #subdebate-36-0-s0 .speaker-JYA} ##### Senator O'BYRNE:
Tasmania -by leave- On Tuesday, 28 August, I received from the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt),** through the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle),** a reply to Question on Notice No. 1 724. On the same day I received a communication from the Minister for Social Security relating to a series of questions which were asked on 21 March 1979, 29 March 1979, 4 April 1979 and 10 May 1979. 1 seek the leave of the Senate to have those answers to the questions incorporated in *Hansard.* Leave granted. HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA {: .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator Guilfoyle: -- On a number of occasions over recent months **Senator O** 'Byrne has asked various questions without notice concerning the involvement of the Hospital Corporation of America in Australian private hospitals. (Senate *Hansards* 21 March 1979, page 801; 29 March 1979, pages 1098-99; 4 April 1979, pages 1341-42 and 10 May 1979, page 1 792 refer). The Minister for Health has provided the following information: It is the stated policy of the Government to welcome the investment of foreign capital into Australia. I am aware that the Hospital Corporation of America (H.C.A.) as well as a number of other American companies are investing in the private hospital industry in this country. It is the responsibility of the Foreign Investment Review Board (F.I.R.B.) of the Department of the Treasury to examine proposals for investment by overseas companies, under the Government's foreign investment policy. Certain foreign investments in private hospitals in Australia have been approved by the Government after consultation with State and Commonwealth health authorities on the basis of specific proposals involving the contribution of financial, managerial and technical skills in the operation of a number of private hospitals. These approvals were subject to conditions requiring the operation and development of the hospitals to be subject to consultation with and, as necessary, approval from State and Commonwealth health authorities. The approvals were also subject to requirements for the introduction of substantial Australian equity participation and periodic consultation with the F.I.R.B. I would like to clarify the role of the State health authorities in the granting of approvals for private hospitals. The primary role is played by the States; it is they who actually licence an institution to operate as a private hospital. My understanding of the procedure followed by the FIRB in its consideration of foreign investment proposals in the Australian private hospital industry is that the views of the relevant State authorities are invariably sought, recorded, and given weight in reaching decisions. Where my Department has been involved in commenting on such investment proposals, it has been noted that in no case has the relevant State authority opposed the investment proposal. In fact, in most cases, prior approval had already been granted by the State for the proposed private hospital before consideration by the FIRB. I recollect in the case of investment proposals in South Australia, the South Australian Government had not only approved the application by a foreign corporation, but had offered to guarantee a large loan for the company and a South Australian Government body was involved in leasing land to the investors on which to build the institution. Similarly, a proposal by a foreign corporation to develop a hospital at Wollongong, New South Wales, was speedily agreed to by the New South Wales Government, which has since been pressuring the investors to commence construction work as soon as possible. The point of this is that the Commonwealth does not have legal authority to apply growth control in the private hospitals area in the States. We can and have, of course, put our views, and we can and in fact have requested the States to cooperate in joint consideration of applications for additional private hospital accommodation. But it is the State Governments that bear final responsibility for the operations of private hospitals within their borders. My Department has brought to the notice of the FIRB aspects connected with the entry of American firms into the Australian private hospital sector which must be kept in mind, and the need for consideration of each proposal on its own individual merits. The total hospital sector is in many areas already over supplied with beds, and additions to existing hospital bed supply could exert upward pressure on the overall costs of providing health care in Australia. This is particularly relevant at a time when the Government has made its intentions known for an inquiry to be conducted into the efficiency and administration of hospitals in Australia. My Department will continue to consult with the FIRB on each proposal by foreign investors to participate in the private hospital industry. While the FIRB and the States have the major involvement, my Department will continue to exert influence so that, as far as possible, the decisions taken will avoid increasing hospital bed numbers in areas where existing facilities are clearly adequate. On the honourable senator's query concerning a possible increase in medical benefits claims, there is naturally a potential for increase in claims associated with services by doctors to patients of private hospitals, if the number of private hospital beds increase. But it will depend on where these patients come from and how they would have otherwise received their medical services. For the reasons outlined below, there does not seem to be any substantial likelihood of an increase in the magnitude of medical benefits claims. If the patients were persons who would have been private patients in recognised hospitals and treated by private doctors of their own choice, the change is only a change in the place where they receive their medical services- i.e. no increase in medical benefits claims would otherwise be involved. It would only be in respect of persons whose hospital treatment would have otherwise been in the standard ward of a recognised hospital with free medical treatment (not involving medical benefits claims), or new patients, that there is any prospect of an increase of any magnitude in the number of medical benefits claims. Attracting patients who would otherwise obtain free medical treatment in recognised hospitals, seems somewhat unlikely. As to the possibility that more medical services than are now necessary may be initiated, the Government has taken a number of active measures to discourage provision of unnecessary medical services. With the co-operation of the Australian Medical Association, medical practitioners who fail to respond to counselling by Departmental and medical officers, are referred to Medical Services Committees of Inquiry for report and recommendation to me as to whether any unnecessary medical services are performed. Where I receive a report indicating unnecessary medical services, I am enabled to determine that the medical benefits involved be recovered. Concerning the question of possible increases in hospital fees, the State Governments have agreed to an increase in public hospital inpatient charges from 1 September 1 979 from $40 a day to $50 a day for a shared room and from $60 a day to $75 a day for a private room. With my statement of 24 May I tabled a "Report on Rationalisation of Hospitals Facilities and Services and on proposed new charges" prepared by Commonwealth officials. This discussion paper canvassed the matter of differential charges. The Government had made no commitment to the recommendations in the Report. As I have stated earlier, the Government has, for some time, been concerned about rapidly escalating costs in the hospitals area and has announced its intention to establish an inquiry into hospital efficiency and administration. The intended terms of reference cover the rationalisation of hospital facilities of all types, including private hospitals. With reference to the honourable senator's comments concerning the American Securities and Exchange Commission and its law suit against the HCA, my Department has seen the article in the Wall Street Journal of 27 October 1978, but I am not in a position to comment on the allegations made in that article. {: .page-start } page 456 {:#debate-37} ### ADVANCE TO THE MINISTER FOR FINANCE 1978-79 {: #debate-37-s0 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I lay on the table the following paper: Advance to the Minister for Financestatement for the year ended 30 June 1979 of heads of expenditure and the amounts charged thereto, pursuant to section 36A of the Audit Act 1901. Motion (by **Senator Guilfoyle)** agreed to: >That consideration of the statement in Committee of the Whole be an order of the day for the next day of sitting. {: .page-start } page 456 {:#debate-38} ### PRIVILEGE Motion ( by **Senator Georges)** proposed: >1 ) That the following matters be referred to the Committee of Privileges- > >the failure of any appropriate authority in Queensland to advise the President of the Senate of the arrest and imprisonment of **Senator George** Georges; > >whether the matter leading to the arrest and imprisonment of **Senator Georges** was of a civil or criminal nature; and > >whether, if the Committee determines that the matter was of a civil nature, the arrest and imprisonment of - **Senator Georges** constituted a breach of the privileges of the Senate. > >That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders, the Privileges Committee for the purposes of its inquiry and report shall have power to send for persons, papers and records. {: #debate-38-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is the motion seconded? {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- Yes, I second the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 456 {:#debate-39} ### NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2) 1979 {:#subdebate-39-0} #### Second Reading Debate resumed from 29 August, on motion by **Senator Guilfoyle:** >That the Bill be now read a second time. {: #subdebate-39-0-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 is a simple piece of legislation containing only three clauses, the third of which is the one of substance. It provides for an increase in patient costs for pharmaceutical benefits from $2.50 to $2.75, that is, a cost of $2.75 for each item on a prescription. This is a 10 per cent increase, which is in line with inflation over the last year. Taken by itself, it would not be seen to be an excessive increase or one which patients in this country would be unable to bear. But when the effects on various groups of patients in this country are considered, when other actions by the Government in the area of health care are considered, indeed when this Bill is considered in the light of the whole Budget and is put into context in that way, it becomes a more serious piece of legislation. That is the reason for the opposition's amendment. The Bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on Tuesday and was passed there with a limitation of half an hour put on the debate. It has to be passed again today by this chamber so that the increased charges may operate from 1 September, before we sit again. It is interesting to note, as my colleague **Dr Klugman** noted in another place, that on a matter like this, which has the effect of increasing expenditure by the public, it is terribly important to rush the Bill through as quickly as possible and to introduce the increased charges as quickly as possible. When the 40 per cent contribution of the Government to medical charges is to be removed, it is to be removed similarly, in September, and removed very quickly. But when indexation of pensions is introduced, pensioners can wait 10 months and there is no undue haste to introduce the legislation. On behalf of the Opposition, I move as an amendment to the motion that this Bill be now read a second time: >Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for the provision of prescriptions free of charge for patients determined in an equitable fashion as being disadvantaged. ' {: #subdebate-39-0-s1 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -Is the amendment seconded? {: .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: -- Yes, I second the amendment. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -- I believe the reason for the amendment is clear to all honourable senators who are interested in the subject of health care. The Government seems to work on the principle that the best, the fairest and most effective way of containing health costs in this country is to make patients pay more. I suggest that there is no evidence to back that. I suggest that to make patients pay more, particularly for tests or for drugs which they do not purchase themselves but which they purchase after having consulted a doctor and received a prescription, is not a fair or effective way of cutting health costs. It is a discriminatory way of so doing, and it will throw too much of a burden in relation to health costs on people who can least afford it. Prescription drugs are not ordinary consumer items which are purchased from a shop; they are prescribed by doctors for illnesses, and often the patient has little detailed knowledge of the substance that has been prescribed. Frequently more than one item is prescribed. For common infections like chest infections, in many cases more than one item would be prescribed by the doctor. In other words, the cost of one prescription may well be in excess of $5.75 or be at least $5.75. This will not worry the wealthy in the community; it will not even worry most of the middle-income earners in the community who are occasionally ill. It will not affect the pensioner who has a pensioner health card, and it will not affect those supporting parents who now have pensioner health cards and who get their prescriptions free. It will not affect those who are fortunate enough to have easy access to public hospitals where drugs may be free. But it will affect some groups in the community quite considerably. First of all it will affect the unemployed, who do not receive pensioner health benefits and who do not therefore receive the free pharmaceutical benefits. It will affect the sickness beneficiaries and the special beneficiaries who also do not qualify in this country for a pensioner health card or free pharmaceuticals. Even these people who can find a doctor who will call them disadvantaged, and therefore will be bulk billed at the doctor's will have to pay their pharmacy bills. If they or their children are ill frequently, as is often the case, those bills may be considerable. It is worth while mentioning that the single parent in the first six months will not get the free pharmaceuticals because he or she will not get the pensioner health card as he or she will when he or she comes under the Commonwealth scheme after six months. It will also affect the low income family, particularly the single income family and the large families with children who frequently get ill and who frequently need prescriptions. They will now have to pay this increased sum for those prescriptions. People who are chronically ill, who need repeated prescriptions for any reason, who have a low income or an inconstant income, will have to spend, we believe, far too high a proportion of their income on pharmaceutical benefits or they will have to go without them and neglect their health. Already these people are behind as a result of some actions of the present Government since 1975. The first two Bills passed by the LiberalCountry Party coalition in 1976 were in fact Bills to abolish the subsidised pharmaceutical benefit scheme and to abolish the subsidised health benefits scheme. This very first action had the effect of putting at a disadvantage people on low incomes and special groups in the community who it was recognised needed help. They were then assisted considerably by Medibank as far as medical benefits were concerned. Those people have been behind the eight ball, in respect of pharmaceutical benefits ever since. We should remember that the allowances for pensioners' children have not been increased since 1975, despite inflation, and family allowances have not been increased since 1976, despite inflation. Yet these are the people who will frequently need to go to the doctor and the chemist to obtain pharmaceuticals for the treatment of their illnesses. If they are unemployed, as they frequently are, they suffer from the ludicrously harsh income tests that we apply in this country, from the conditions of the work test and the various changing bureaucratic harassments as a result of the frequent changes in conditions applying to these benefits. If they are unemployed without dependents, they receive no indexation. Their benefit has been fixed for two years despite inflation. If they are under 18 years of age the allowance has been fixed at $36 per week since 1 975. All these people will have to bear the burden of these increased pharmaceutical costs. It is not recognised by the Government that they are an especially poor group in the community although it has been recognised by most people in this society, including people on both sides of the Parliament, that health care in our society is a special case. It is a special case that needs government intervention. It is a special case that cannot be left to a free market system. To introduce a user pays principle into health care leads to gross inequities because frequently those who can afford to pay the least are those who need the service the most. This action, taken in conjunction with the other actions of the Government in the health care field, is going to lead to considerable disadvantage. The basis of any civilised system of health care throughout the world should be that those who need assistance with health care should get it, so that the poor, the disadvantaged, the chronically ill or the large families do not suffer from lack of access to our health care system. If they do suffer from lack of access, in the long run the costs to the community, both economically as well as in human suffering, will increase. The simple fact of the matter is that people who are aware that they will not be able to afford the cost of the medicines that the doctor is likely to prescribe will not go to that doctor. Frequently, after they have been to the doctor and find out what the costs are, they will not obtain the medicines. In view of this, one may well ask just what do these charges achieve. We know from the second reading speech in another place made by the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** that the Government has saved some $8m in this year and some $15. 5m, I think it is, in a full year. We know that various items are to be removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list which we are told will save another $20m a year. I think that we may well ask, in view of those figures, just what sort of a priority it is that makes such savings worth while. What makes the difficulties that it creates worth while when other items of expenditure far in excess of this in the Budget and in the immediate pre-Budget period included the purchase of Boeing 707s. It included items of expenditure like that when, in fact, to save what is effectively a paltry sum we are going to put a burden on a section of the community who can ill afford to bear that burden. I repeat that I do not accept- the Opposition does not accept- that increasing the patient contribution in this way is a sensible way to curtail the increasing health costs in this country that we are all talking about. In most cases it does not curtail the increasing costs at all. It merely transfers them from the Government's register to the patient's expenditure items. As has been said in debate in this place and in other places over and over again, the people who prescribe drugs in the community are the doctors. Patients cannot obtain prescription drugs without a doctor's prescription. It is ludicrous to expect to cut down to any extent- except in a most unfair way to those who cannot afford it- the amount of drug consumption in this community by increasing pharmaceutical benefit costs. That is what the Ministers in both places have said is one of the aims of the exercise of this Bill. Since 1975 we have had several increases in prescription charges in this country. Initially the increase was 33 per cent, then 25 per cent and now some 10 per cent. These increases are, as the Pharmacy Guild of Australia has pointed out in publications and in representations to the Government, considerably in excess of the increases in the cost of the pharmaceutical items over that time. The cost increases over that time were 12.8 per cent, 5.9 per cent and 6.9 per cent each year. It is hard to know how the Government can justify increasing the costs in excess of the actual cost increases of the general pharmaceutical benefit items over that period. It is hard for anyone on this side to understand what sort of logic provides for the bulk billing of patients who, at the doctor's discretion, are considered to be disadvantaged in this community, and then to demand from these patients- bearing in mind the stringent application of the definition of 'disadvantaged' applied by some doctors- the full expenditure, the same as everybody else in the community, when they reach the chemist shop. Inconsistencies like this in our health care system can be overcome. It is not beyond the wit of this Government, or any other government, to conceive a system whereby the unemployed can be identified and given concessions of this type, which they deserve; a system whereby low income earners can be identified and given concessions for pharmaceutical benefits without having to trek to distant public hospitals and without having to be concerned about whether they have to go through a test by some professional man as to whether or not they are disadvantaged. The New South Wales and Tasmanian Governments have introduced methods whereby those who are unemployed can get transport concessions. These methods do not denigrate the unemployed but recognise the fact that the unemployed are amongst the most disadvantaged people in our community and need assistance in this area, lt is not beyond the resources of this country to conceive such a system and to provide a method of helping both children and the unemployed to receive their pharmaceutical benefits in a similar way. These people already have enough problems getting proper access to the health system at a reasonable cost. Those who have financial difficulties have to find a doctor who is willing to bulk bill and consider them disadvantaged. If they cannot do that then they must get access to a public hospital. If they live in an area where the doctors refuse to declare people as disadvantaged then they have the trouble of trying to sort out their priorities as to whether they will expend money on medical care or whether they will neglect the illness, take the risk that it will not get worse, in the hope that they do not need care. Australia has a large number of people who have no access to the ordinary pensioner health benefit cards because they are unemployed and the system does not apply to them. We cannot go on adding to their burden by increasing the cost of pharmaceuticals, by removing from the pharmaceutical benefits list items which they may well need, by changing the national health insurance system so that the cost of insuring themselves to cover the cost of treatment becomes so excessive that they cannot bear it. We cannot persist in doing this. A better way must be found for identifying the people in the community who are in need and for providing them with the access to the health care that they need. That access must include access to the drugs which are prescribed by doctors. To merely add to the cost year after year will not decrease the consumption of drugs, it will not change the prescribing habits of doctors, if we believe that to be one of the problems, and it will not decrease the overall cost of health care in the community. It is for those reasons, and because of increasing unemployment, continuing inflation and the confusion which appears in the health delivery area, that the Opposition asks the Government to forget the $8m that it will get by introducing these new charges next weekend. The Opposition asks the Government to look closely at the report of the committee of inquiry into the pharmaceutical industry which, we understand, is about to be presented. That committee is looking at areas of the pharmaceutical industry which affect the cost of prescriptions in this country. The Opposition also asks the Government to draw on the expertise of that committee when the report comes down. We ask it to withdraw this Bill, redraft it and, after consultation with its experts, provide a means whereby the unemployed, the large families, the people on supporting parents benefits in the first six months, the low income families and, particularly, families with children can be identified in an equitable fashion as being disadvantaged so that they can receive the same sort of treatment as far as pharmaceutical benefits are concerned as the pensioners and single parents, after the first six months, get at present. We will then have equitable access to our health care system; we will then remove a burden from the people involved and enable them to have their illnesses treated early and effectively. That will cut down the long term costs to the community of illness and ill health. {: #subdebate-39-0-s2 .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS:
Tasmania -As usual, the Senate has heard from **Senator Grimes** forecasts of doom and destruction. He has told honourable senators that people will not be able to pay for their pharmaceutical prescriptions and that a tremendous number of people will be disadvantaged by the price increase. Yet he said that the increase was just a little more than in line with inflation. I think **Senator Grimes** must be tired. Perhaps he ought to be asked to have a bit of a rest, because in the early part of his speech he made a slip with his arithmetic. When he looks at his *Hansard* pinks he will find that he said that two prescriptions often result from one visit to a doctor. That is true. But he added the cost of each prescription to make a total of $5.75 instead of $5.50. He made a small slip but he has been pretty inaccurate all day. Perhaps his inaccuracies this morning could be described as gross slips. Honourable senators hope that when he reads those *Hansard* pinks he will have that matter corrected. We also hope that later, when he reads the evidence, he will apologise for his other slips. It is time that **Senator Grimes** had a rest. Possibly he is not able to take the pressure. The Opposition should make sure that he takes that rest. The Opposition has considerable trouble with its forecasts. **Mr President,** you may recall the debate on the Health Insurance Amendment Bill 1979 in June of this year. **Senator Ryan** made some forecasts about what health insurance costs were likely to be. I said that she was deliberately misleading the Senate. You, **Mr President,** asked me to withdraw that statement, which I eventually did. However, if one considers what she said and what has actually happened, one can see that in fact on that occasion she did mislead the Senate. On 7 June she made a forecast about the rise in health insurance fees. She is recorded in *Hansard* as having said: >That will leave the less healthy, privately insured persons subsequently paying higher health insurance premiums. Medical and hospital insurance contributions could rise by up to $3 or $4 a week. That is the prediction of the Government. As I tried to say at the time, that was not the prediction of the Government. The Minister for Health, **Mr Hunt,** had said $1.50 to $2, not $3 or $4 as **Senator Ryan** said. She continued: >I believe that the rise will be even greater. The Government has been wrong in all of its other estimates of contribution increases and we believe that it will be wrong in this one too. Families will face payments of up to $12 to $13 a week in New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory . . . This is only the first rise. Doctor fees will be increased later in the year- up to IS per cent has been predicted- and medical contributions will have to rise again as a result. > >Many people will find that they just cannot afford to pay this much a week for health insurance. The honourable senator went on to say that the *Sydney Morning Herald* had stated similar things. It did so because it had been listening to the Opposition. Perhaps we should look at what those rises have been. The basic medical and hospital fund increase in Tasmania has been $1.67 in respect of the Medical Benefits Fund of Australia and 70c in respect of Medibank. The cost of family health insurance has risen to $6.77 and $7.10. Where are rates of $12 and $13 to apply? {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- Go to New South Wales and talk about the proper figures that the honourable senator was talking about- not the basic cover. She was not talking about the basic cover and you know it. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS: -She was not talking about any particular levels. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- She was talking about ordinary private insurance and you know it. You are misleading the Senate. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS: -- I am talking about the ordinary insurance that the average person takes out, which is for 75 per cent of the medical fee. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- You are misleading the Senate. You are like your leader. {: .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator Watson: **- Mr President,** I take a point of order. I think that it is a grave reflection on my leader to say that he misleads the Senate. I think that it is only reasonable that the comment should be withdrawn. {: .speaker-TJ4} ##### Senator Walsh: **- Mr President** - {: .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I will rule on the point of order. In this place one has to be very careful about what can be taken as political comment as against a personal reflection. For the time being I will not uphold the point of order. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS: **- Senator Grimes** has just said that **Senator Ryan** was talking about the very highest level. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- I did not. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS: -- I would be interested in knowing what **Senator Grimes** was implying. He said that **Senator Ryan** was not taking about the basic health and hospital table that the average person contributes to. If the honourable senator is not talking about that table, the only one he can be talking about is the very highest table. That is in the area of $ 1 1 . **Senator Ryan** was certainly not talking about that. She was talking about what most families will have to pay. If we look at those levels of insurance we will find that the contribution is not $12 to $13 a week. The contribution is $6.77 or $7.10 a week, depending on the fund, for family cover. That is roughly half the amount stated by **Senator Ryan.** On that occasion, **Senator Ryan,** I believe, misled the Senate. She made forecasts that were completely inaccurate and they have been proved so by the figures I have given today. **Senator Grimes, Senator Ryan** and **Senator Melzer** said in that debate also that the people will not be able to afford to cover themselves for health insurance, that they will have to be uninsured and that we will have quite a disaster amongst the lower income groups. Let us look at what people can do if they cannot afford to pay $6.77 a week, which, I believe, is a quite high amount. They can cover themselves with basic medical insurance. At the moment that cover costs between $2.68 and $2.92 for a family. The cover for a single person costs $1.34 or $1.46 a week. That gives a cover of 75 per cent of the schedule fee for doctors fees with a maximum patient contribution of $10. It also gives free hospital care in the public hospitals. It is absolute rubbish for **Senator Grimes, Senator Ryan** and **Senator Melzer-** it has been stated also in the other place by **Mr Hayden** and **Dr Klugman-** to say that patients would not be able to afford to insure themselves. For the small amount of $2.68 a week, people can have full cover for their families for hospital treatment and 75 per cent of the schedule fee for doctors fees. As I have said, the maximum payment is $ 10 for any single procedure. Earlier in the debate, **Senator Grimes** spoke about prescriptions. He spoke about many people being disadvantaged as a result of the increase in medical insurance charges. The Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** has extended the eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards. The income test limit for a single pensioner has been incresed from $33 a week to $40 a week and for married pensioners from $57.50 a week to $68 a week. This extension will enable an additional 25,000 pensioners and an additional 5,000 dependants to be eligible. The extension of the eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards to sole parents will enable an additional 56,000 sole parents and 96,000 dependants to qualify. That is, an additional 182,000 people in Australia will be eligible for a pensioner health benefit card and to have prescriptions filled free of charge. Yet **Senator Grimes** is crying that this will extend hardship to many sole parents. When I pointed out these facts in the newspapers in Hobart I was taken to task by Michael Barnard, the Minister for Health in Tasmania. He applauded the extension of the eligibility for pensioner health benefit cards to some needy groups but said that the move would be offset by the 25c increase in prescription charges. I challenged this and said that he well knew that eligibility for the pensioner health benefit cards entitled pensioners to receive free prescriptions. He retorted by calling it 'a health blast for Walters'. He deliberately misled the people of Tasmania by making them feel that this Government had taken away with one hand while giving a bit with the other. He knows that that is untrue. Yet the statement appeared not just in one newspaper but in several. I pointed out also that there was a low table providing basic medical cover for those who could not afford higher health insurance. I have in my hand at the moment a statement on that from the Tasmanian Minister for Health. He stated that the tables offer insurance for basic public hospital accommodation and treatment which the Commonwealth and State governments provide. That is quite true. He went on to say that they offer cover for only 25 per cent of the schedule fee with a maximum patient outlay of $10. At first I thought that that was just a misprint in the statement. I was quite sure that the Minister should know that it is not 25 per cent but 75 per cent. However, going from one newspaper to another, I found that the figure of 25 per cent appeared in both. Obviously **Mr Barnard** had handed the statement to both newspapers. **Mr Barnard** is entirely wrong. Apart from the increase in pharmaceuticals, the Government has foreshadowed the establishment of an independent inquiry, with the powers of a royal commission, to investigate and report on the efficiency and administration of hospitals. I believe this is long overdue. In South Australia an investigation was carried out by the Public Accounts Committee. Its report on the financial management of South Australian hospitals was tabled on 28 February 1979. The report pointed out the problems South Australian hospitals were facing with regard to their administration. It stated that there was poor financial management in the hospitals and a need for upgrading; that staffing at the hospitals continued to increase even though patient numbers were declining. There was large-scale food pilfering from hospitals with an associated cost to the taxpayer. Management had failed to institute cost-saving recommendations, which ran into millions of dollars. The frozen food program had failed and there had been a breakdown of the fee-sharing arrangement at the Flinders Medical Centre. Those are the sorts of things that have come from an investigation into South Australian hospitals. If one looks at the cost of hospital beds in South Australia compared with those of some of the other States one begins to wonder what on earth is happening in the other States. Taking the daily gross operating costs of hospitals, in South Australia the cost is $162.06; in Victoria it is $164.82; the New South Wales cost is more reasonable at $141.74; Queensland is the lowest at $125.97; Western Australia is $172.17; and Tasmania is $168.75. South Australia has the third lowest cost, yet it has those areas of poor management that were pointed out. I am hopeful that out of this investigation will come a certain degree of competitiveness amongst administrators. If the investigation points out, for example, that New South Wales runs its hospitals more efficiently than other States do and can cope with the cutting of costs and waste, or that Queensland is more efficient, then I hope that the administrators in other hospitals will compete and see whether they can contain their costs. Until they see a need to contain their costs we have little hope of getting anywhere in that area. There is little else I would like to say. I believe that in this Parliament we need more honesty from the Opposition when it is criticising - {: .speaker-K1M} ##### Senator Primmer: -- Oh! {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator WALTERS: -- I have no qualms or worries about criticism. I think it is a very good thing. It needs to be constructive. *(Quorum formed).* I was saying, I believe that there is a need for more honesty from the Opposition when it is criticising Government policy. I am not concerned about criticism as long as it is honest, but the fact is that people such as **Senator Ryan** make statements that have been proved to be completely inaccurate. She has little care for the concern that might be expressed in the community outside at the extravagant forecasts that she and **Mr Hayden** and **Dr Klugman** have made. There is little concern among members of the Opposition, who just seem to pull figures out of the air. As long as it is to their own political advantage, that is all that worries them. That is abhorrent to me, and it is no wonder that the reputation of Opposition members in this place is so low. {: #subdebate-39-0-s3 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -We are debating the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2), and I mention that because the previous speaker, in the 22 minutes for which she spoke, used only two minutes to speak on the Bill. I realise that when speaking on Bills of this nature it is possible to elaborate somewhat in order to make a point that is relevant to the Bill but which sometimes does not seem to be. However, **Senator Walters** seemed to speak for a great length of time on matters quite irrelevant to this Bill. I remind the Senate that **Senator Grimes** moved as an amendment to the Bill: >Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for the provision of prescriptions free of charge for patients determined in an equitable fashion as being disadvantaged '. I am the only senator of those who have spoken this afternoon so far who is not intimately associated with the medical profession, although I must admit that at times before I entered this Parliament I was often mistakenly thought to be associated with it. That means that perhaps I will have a different approach from that of the first four speakers who spoke from the background of the medical profession. I am speaking from a background of a far different nature, and I will draw on my experiences and associate those with the Bill. Next Saturday many people in the community will do what they normally dc on a Saturday morning, that is, they will do their shopping. Indeed, I suppose that some of us in this chamber and in the other place will do the same thing. Many people who do their shopping next Saturday morning will have an unpleasant surprise. I daresay that some people in the community will go along to their pharmacist and will not know that the cost for pharmaceutical benefits has increased. I ask honourable senators to imagine the sorts of things that can happen. A mother may go along with a couple of prescriptions because she has a child with a chest complaint or a child with tonsilitis. Not wanting to get them tomorrow as it would be inconvenient, she will go to the pharmacy on Saturday and therefore pay an extra 50c for those two prescriptions. Somebody who is working but who needs regular medication may go along to his pharmacist next Saturday and pay an extra 25c. I wonder why this charge has been brought in so early. It seems that the people who are subjected to this cost on Saturday morning will come to one conclusion: This Government is very interested in getting extra revenue as soon as it possibly can. For some people who go to the pharmacist next Saturday the extra 50c for two scripts will not be of any real disadvantage. People on incomes like those of members of this chamber will not really worry. It will not affect their weekly budgeting, but it will be a worry to some people in the community. I refer to certain disadvantaged people, the people whom we are worried about. Concern for these people who will be disadvantaged by this extra cost next Saturday morning is the reason we have moved our amendment this afternoon. Some people will be hit very hard. **Senator Walters,** when speaking on the Bill, suggested that there would not be anybody who would be disadvantaged by the new charge which will be imposed next Saturday. Some people definitely will be disadvantaged. I am referring to those people who will receive pensioner medical benefit cards in November but do not have them now. I would like to quote one part of the Budget Speech of the Treasurer **(Mr Howard).** In the section dealing with pensioner fringe benefits he said: >The basic income test limits for eligibility for Pensioner Health Benefit Cards have not been altered since 1 973. This has resulted in the loss of this particular benefit by large numbers of pensioners. I interpose there and mention that I received a number of representations during the recess, just like other honourable senators, concerning certain people who had pensioner health benefit cards and therefore enjoyed some of the fringe benefits that are enjoyed by pensioners and who, because of an increase in other income, usually through a low superannuation payment, have lost their entitlement to a pensioner health benefit card. These people have pointed out the disadvantage. So the raising of the limit provided for in the Budget was quite warranted. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- Well said. {: .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON: -Senator Baume, I like to be honest in the debating points I raise. I hope that **Senator Baume** will realise that the points I raise are honest. This is different from **Senator Walters** who earlier accused all the people on this side of the chamber as being dishonest. What a person to call members on this side of the House dishonest! One has to consider only the promises that were broken by the present Government of which she is a supporter to realise that. I continue with the quote from the Budget Speech: >As a consequence, the Government has decided to increase these limits as follows: from $33 to $40 per week in respect of single people; and from $57.50 to $68 per week in respect of married couples. > >These extensions will be effective from 1 November . . . As I said, these increases were quite warranted, but the nub of the whole matter is that the extensions will be effected from 1 November. So on Saturday morning some people will go along to the pharmacist and will be eligible to have a pensioner health benefit card in November when the legislation is introduced according to the Budget but will not have the pensioner health benefit card on Saturday morning and will have to pay the increased charge. In addition there are some extensions to the benefit. Again, **Senator Baume** will acknowledge that I am genuine when I say that these extensions should have taken place, and I welcome the fact that they will take place. I quote another section of the Budget Speech in regard to pensioner fringe benefits. It says: >We have decided to extend eligibility for Pensioner Health Benefit Cards to supporting parents and their dependants. This means that supporting parents will be eligible, as are widows and other sole parents in similar circumstances, for certain fringe benefits, such as free pharmaceuticals. I think that all of us have come into contact, at some stage, with people who have been on a supporting parents benefit, especially mothers who have young children and who have not been able to receive free pharmaceuticals. It seems so illogical because supporting parents obviously have young children who at some stage will suffer some illness and will need medical care, yet up until now they have not been able to receive free pharmaceutical benefits. Again, this change takes place on 1 November. Some supporting parents will be eligible on 1 November for a pensioner health benefit card but, even though they will be on a small income on the first of next month- Saturday- they will not be able to get their pharmaceutical benefits free of charge. These are the people who definitely will be disadvantaged for all of September and for all of October. Granted, in November things will right themselves for them, but why should we introduce the charge on 1 September when the other changes which will make it easier for these people will not be made until 1 November? Some other people in the community are disadvantaged and under the current legislation cannot receive the prescriptions which their medical practitioners prescribe without charge. I refer especially to people on sickness benefits. As far as I am aware- the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** will be able to correct me, I am sure, when she replies to this debate if I am wrong- people on sickness benefits are not eligible to receive a pensioner health benefit card. If that is the case, does it not seem illogical? If people are on sickness benefits surely they need medication of some sort; but these people cannot receive a pensioner health benefit card. We realise some people are on sickness benefits for only a short period. Nevertheless even the Social Services Act includes appreciation that people go on sickness benefits for extended terms and provides for a person to receive supplementary assistance after six weeks on a sickness benefit, provided all other conditions of eligibility are met. We do realise that people can be on sickness benefits for extended terms, but as far as I am aware, they do not receive a pensioner health benefit card. These people, if they are not able to receive medication without charge, or at a reduced charge, will be disadvantaged next Saturday morning as will the unemployed, especially the unemployed with large families who cannot receive a pensioner health benefit card. I suppose that in times of full employment, or what we would have called full employment, this would not have mattered too much because if a person was unemployed it was quite likely that he or she would find employment in the near future. But that does not happen nowdays. If people become unemployed, especially people from two critical groups, namely, the young people and those people who are becoming elderly- not the elderly but those becoming that way- they find it very difficult to obtain a job. Therefore, nowadays people can be unemployed for extended periods. During those extended periods of unemployment there is still no way in which they can receive free pharamaceutical benefits, benefits which are geven to pensioners and other groups in the community. We have to ensure that these people are not further disadvantaged. Although it may seem a little out of place, I would like to quote from a short letter I received today at Parliament House. It is not particularly out of place for me to do that because the letter is about people who are disadvantaged and deals with bulk billing by medical practitioners. If the person who wrote this letter has given me the correct story, it would seem that unless something is done in the area of bulk billing, disadvantaged people might be further disadvantaged. I will explain that after I have read the letter. It states: >A number of General Practitioners within our locality, have brought to our notice the fact that the 75 per cent payment on 'bulk-billing' on doctors' fees, is not being met by your Government properly. It is not really my Government. It should read the Government'. The letter continues: >In our community, we have a great number of disadvantaged persons, the result of the present Government's economic policy. If our local doctors are compassionate sufficiently to treat these people, then surely the federal government is responsible enough to ensure that prompt payments are made to these doctors? > >Would you please attempt to rectify this matter as urgently as possible, thus enabling doctors to carry out their duties to the needy in our community? What should be drawn from that letter is that some disadvantaged people in the community are being treated by doctors for 75 per cent of the schedule fee, through bulk billing. In other words, people who are disadvantaged are receiving medical attention because doctors are acting and practising in accordance with the spirit of the legislation which passed through this Parliament. But the letter also highlights the fact that some medical practitioners are not receiving payment for those visits. If that is the case, how can that make the disadvantaged even further disadvantaged? It seems to me that if medical practitioners do not receive the payment to which they are rightfully due- that payment must come from the Government- some of them will decide that it is simply not worth while bulk billing patients for the 75 per cent of the schedule fee, even though those patients may be disadvantaged. I think that it probably would be worth while to have a more careful look at the letter at a later stage. I mentioned it because I believe it highlights the fact that there are disadvantaged people in the community who need to be looked after by this Parliament, not necessarily by this Government. We in this Parliament should ensure that legislation passed looks after disadvantaged people. I now mention the indexation of pensions, which was announced in the Budget. The reason for my doing so will become evident within a couple of minutes. It was quite obvious to most honourable senators, even in the last part of the previous parliamentary session, let alone during the recess, that the indexation of pensions would be re-introduced. Not many of us committed our belief to paper but it was stated today that **Senator Maunsell** did so. He committed to paper his conviction that indexation would be reintroduced. Indexation was re-introduced for a number of reasons. I guess that one of them was that the Government found that its stocks within the community were fairly low and it believed that if it re-introduced indexation for pensioners it might help to get them a little bit higher. But perhaps more importantly, there had been a great amount of agitation from pensioners throughout the community and from people associated with pensioner groups to make sure that indexation was re-introduced. The Government clearly saw that this was something which the community wanted. It was plain that if the Government did not re-introduce indexation it would be at peril at the next election. Although indexation has been re-introduced, it will not take effect until next May. It seems that if the Government really had the welfare of the penioners at heart it would provide indexation now so that pensioners would not have to wait until November for their first rise. It will be May next year before the new legislation, which has yet to come before this chamber, will take effect. Even with full indexation taking place in November- this is a point that I wish to highlight- some pensioners will still be living below the poverty Une. The latest poverty level figures that I have been able to obtain are for the June quarter. They show that at that time the poverty level for a single person was $69.70 a week. At the moment the pension for a single person is way below that poverty level. A single pensioner receives $53.20 a week, whereas the poverty level is $69.70 a week. When a rise occurs in November he or she will receive $57.90 a week, which still will be about $1 1 below the poverty level. It is granted that some pensioners may receive supplementary assistance, but that still will not bring their income up to the poverty level. Some pensioners, due to the fact that they have a health benefit card, may receive benefits which other people in the community do not receive. But even so, the pension we are giving those people is below the poverty level. As far as I have been able to ascertain from the latest figures available, the poverty level for a married couple is $93.30 a week. But again, the married pension, $88.70 a week at the moment, is below the poverty line. Following the rise in November this amount will increase to slightly above the poverty level. It will rise to $96.50, compared with the poverty level of $93.30. However, if the poverty level at June was $93.30, I wonder whether by November it will be up to what the pensioner is receiving after the increase then. Many groups within the community are not able to organise themselves in a way similar to that in which the pensioners organised themselves when they wanted to get the reintroduction of six-monthly indexation of their pensions. I refer especially to the unemployed and people who are in receipt of the sickness benefit. Although a great number of people receive the unemployment benefit and a great number of people receive the sickness benefit, by the very nature of their disability they cannot organise themselves as well as the pensioners organised themselves. According to the latest report from the Department of Social Security- these figures are probably about 12 months old- the number of unemployed was just over one quarter of a million people. That is about the same as the number of invalid pensioners throughout Australia. A quarter of a million is a large number of people. But because unemployed people are not unemployed for ever, unlike invalid pensioners, who probably are invalid pensioners for ever, they do not combine as well as the pensioners do. They do not have the same political influence as do people who, on a continuing basis, are able to put their case for greater benefits. Maybe that is why the unemployed are not receiving pensioner health benefit cards. I outlined that earlier when speaking about particular groups who do not receive health benefit cards. According to the report of the Department of Social Security which I mentioned previously, 34,000 people are on sickness benefit. I suppose that that is a small number when it is compared with the number of age pensioners, of whom there are 1.2 million. Even so 34,000 is a lot of people; but they are not sick forever. If they are, I suppose they eventually go on to invalid pensions. Because they are not on that benefit forever they do not seem to have the same sort of political influence in that they cannot combine into a group and put forward their case as well as they would like to. They should therefore be looked after by us in this Parliament. They should have their case highlighted so that we do not overlook them when this type of legislation comes before the Parliament. A number of current deficiencies in the Budget discriminate against people who are unemployed, people who have young children and who depend upon allowances for children, and people who depend on family allowances. May I mention just a couple of those. The benefit for the unemployed people in our community who are under 18 years of age has been pegged at $38 a week. They have not had a rise in that benefit for ages. If someone has no dependants, is an adult and is unemployed his benefit has been jammed at $51.45 a week. Probably about a quarter of a million people are in this category. These people are going to find things difficult when they go into a pharmacy and have to pay extra for their pharmaceuticals. Family allowances have remained unchanged, as have children's allowances and the supplementary assistance. All these benefits help the more needy in the community and have been unchanged, but the price of goods supplied on a medical practitioner's prescription- one of the necessities of life of the needy- is to be changed. I would like to outline briefly the history of the increase in the patient contribution to the price of pharmaceuticals. It is important that we look at this when deciding whether this legislation should be passed. Pharmaceutical benefits were introduced on a free of charge basis on 1 September 1950 and they remained that way until 1 960 when a nominal rate of 50c was introduced. From 1960 to 1971- a period of 11 years- that charge remained the same but it was then increased by 100 per cent to $1. **Senator Baume** is not in the chamber at the moment but I presume that he is listening. To show him that I am honest in my arguments I acknowledge that during the time when the Australian Labor Party was in government- on 1 September 1975 - there was an increase of 50 per cent in the charge from $1 to $1.50. On 1 March 1976, less than a year later, there was a 33 *Vi* per cent increase from $1.50 to $2. On 1 June 1978 there was a 25 per cent increase from $2 to $2.50. Now we have a 10 per cent increase from $2.50 to $2.75. These charges can be afforded by some people- but, on the other hand, a great number of people in the community cannot afford these charges and, therefore, will be disadvantaged. **Senator Grimes** spoke earlier in the debate. He probably knows the fact that I am about to elaborate on better than I do because as a medical practitioner he would have been in close contact with it. He said that he suspects that because of the increase in the charge for pharmaceuticals some people who go to medical practitioners will have prescriptions prescribed for them but will not go to a pharmacy to have them filled. I do not know whether the figures I have here lend support to the contention that that is going on, but there seems to be some indication in the figures that this might be so. I mentioned that in March 1 976 the cost was increased from $ 1.50 to $2 and then in July 1978 it was increased from $2 to $2.50. In 1975-76, 101 million prescriptions were issued under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. However, the following year, which would have been after an increase of a total of $1, the number of scripts dropped to 89 million. The following year the number increased slightly to 93 million, which was still below the peak of 1975-76. 1 concede that all sorts of other factors could have created that pattern. But there is evidence that fewer scripts are being written under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. There seems to be some circumstantial evidence that some people who needed scripts did not have them filled because of the cost. During the course of my comments this afternoon I have spoken about the further disadvantage which will be placed on those in the community who are already disadvantaged. This is the kernel of the argument that we are putting in our amendment, which reads: >Leave out all words after 'That', insert 'the Bill be withdrawn and re-drafted to provide for the provision of prescriptions free of charge for patients determined in an equitable fashion as being disadvantaged '. I support the amendment. {: #subdebate-39-0-s4 .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON:
Tasmania -In speaking this afternoon to the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) I recognise it to be part of the Government's revenue-raising measures in that the Budget provides for a 10 per cent increase in the charge for pharmaceuticals. As **Senator Colston** has pointed out, this is the lowest increase that has occurred. The charge will now rise from $2.50 to $2.75 as from 1 September 1979. This increase will apply to a wide range of drugs which are supplied on a doctor's prescription. However, I think there are two matters which deserve specific comment. The first is that this increase does not apply, and cannot apply, to people classified as eligible pensioners- in other words, those who hold a pensioner health benefit card- and to repatriation pensioners. These people will continue to receive free of charge their supply of pharmaceuticals. The second aspect that deserves comment concerns the Government's recognition that a further group in society is or could be considered to be disadvantaged. The Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** has acknowledged this and his Department is currently examining ways of assisting such disadvantaged people with their pharmaceutical costs. I hope that amongst those classified as disadvantaged will be, for example, people with two or three children who have chronic asthma on a continuing basis, because I believe that these people deserve help. A high degree of assistance is available already- for example, the facility for doctors to bulk bill patients who are classified as disadvantaged. Most, if they are classified as disadvantaged, are able to obtain drugs free of charge through hospital outpatients departments. Furthermore, subject to a means test, sickness benefits are available to persons who are temporarily incapacitated and cannot work and who have lost revenue or income. Furthermore, a special benefit may be paid to persons who are ineligible but, as a result of unemployment or sickness, they are unable to earn a sufficient livelihood for themselves or their dependants. I recognise and support the extension of the pensioner health benefit card to include supporting parents and their dependants and also certain veterans of Allied forces and their dependants. This is very much a welcome move. These increases are, of course, subject to an income test. I understand that the cost to the Government this year is expected to be $8m, and that in a full year it will rise to $ 15.5m, which is a significant amount. I remind honourable senators that the proposed 10 per cent increase in cost follows, approximately, other cost increases which have occurred since the last increase was announced on 1 July 1978. One must acknowledge also that the Government, by pruning the list of pharmaceutical benefits, is attempting to save money. The resultant saving of $20m will be more than offset by expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits for eligible pensioners and their dependants, which is estimated to increase by $2 1.9m. It needs to be stated that the Commonwealth Government meets the full cost of drugs and medical prescriptions for eligible veterans and their dependants, where those drugs are supplied on a doctor's prescription. Today I organised a telephone ring-around amongst a number of pharmacists in order to obtain their reaction to this increase. There has been surprisingly little customer reaction to it. However, one chemist indicated that he believed that some degree of disability could result where a number of children were chronically ill over a period. I think that the medical profession has a responsibility not to issue an excessive number of prescriptions when fewer, or perhaps only one would suffice. This is important because some doctors have a tendency to issue what I believe to be an excessive number of prescriptions in certain cases where it is not necessary. That, of course, is purely a matter of opinion or judgment. Associated with the Bill has been an increase in the means test applied to the pensioner health benefits. The figure was last revised in 1973, and I am rather pleased that for a single person it has now been increased from $33 to $40 a week, and for married couples from $57.50 to $68 a week. I believe that, administratively, it would have been possible to bring forward the date of application somewhat from 1 November. Nevertheless, the estimated cost of the service will rise to about $23m in a full year. In view of the concessions that have been granted, and the undertakings that the Government nas given in relation to disadvantaged people, I believe that this is not an unreasonable Bill. As such, it has my support. {: #subdebate-39-0-s5 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator MASON:
New South Wales -- The policy of the Australian Democrats is that key life saving drugs should be free, but we could not support the principle involved in the Australian Labor Party amendment, that all medical prescriptions should be free, even to people who are disadvantaged. We do not support it because there has been plenty of evidence in the past that items which are apparently free to the community are not respected. When items are apparently free to the community and to professionals, costs rise alarmingly. We remain to be convinced that because a medical practitioner thinks that the prescribing of a drug is necessary, that is in fact so. One hears stories of areas in which perhaps there has been a mass infection of the community by a viral infection affecting the throat, or something of that kind, and everyone who goes to the doctor is given antibiotics. Whilst these things go on in our society one can hardly regard as desirable the proposal that all prescriptions should be free. However, we are opposed to the Bill itself, with its proposal to increase the costs of the patient contribution. We see it quite plainly for what it is and that is an attempt by the Government to find $7m- a small sum- in a completely unwarranted area. The Government's action is unwarranted and unwise because the area in which it seeks to increase costs is that of medical care, which in this society is already dangerously overloaded. If the Government had a grain of perception it would see that this is increasingly becoming the case. It is not good enough to drive society into a situation in which its members must play a game of chance with the health of their children. There is no doubt whatsoever that this will happen. Increasingly, as time goes on, every little extra impost in the way of medical charges will mean that people will avoid medical care and will say: 'Let's leave it for awhile; it might clear up by itself. We will have a return to the bad old days when children developed such infections as rheumatic fever, which might otherwise have been controlled and which brought with them appalling consequences in later life. I wish to point out those aspects of this proposal. I wish also to say, for reasons that I will shortly canvass, that it is completely unnecessary for these charges to be increased. As a number of honourable senators have mentioned, the Bill represents just the tip of the iceberg. It is a very small but significant additional impost that will make the burden of health care heavier for those who can least afford it. I do not refer to pensioners, and to the very poor and disadvantaged people to whom **Senator Watson** referred, and to whom the Government is extending what it sees no doubt as a kind of charity. This concept is not far from the nineteenth century poorhouse concept, I might add, with its associations of long queues at outpatients departments and the like. My remarks refer to the vast majority of Australians who earn the average income and less. There are many such people to whom regular supplies of life saving drugs are essential. The Government is, with this measure and others, striking a blow at the health of the nation in a significant sense. There are many Australians to whom this additional burden will make all the difference between going ahead with a prescription that would improve their health materially or not doing so. One might ask whether they would do that to save 25c, a sum which to us in this chamber might seem trifling. I say that perhaps they would, because there are many families, especially those in which in recent years a working wife has lost her job, in which that additional cost would have to be met by doing without some item of food or clothing, which those of us in this chamber would regard as absolutely essential and would normally take for granted. The impost, as I think **Senator Colston** remarked, is a repeated one. People in bad health are aften placed in a position in which they use several drugs so that each of many visits to the chemist during a year would now cost them an additional dollar or more. If these sums seem trifling to honourable senators on the Government side, perhaps it is because they do not understand that the economy of many families is now literally balanced on a knife edge and as costs rise steadily, is deteriorating, not improving. If the Government were to say, as has been claimed, that the 25c charge represents merely an adjustment for inflation, I would not be in the least impressed. The additional impost is not necessary, and the amount could even have been reduced without additional cost to the Government, and through the Government to the community itself. Indeed, the cost has been reduced. At this stage I will foreshadow a submission from the Australian Democrats policy group in this area- a group which includes doctors and pharmacists- to the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** which might suggest streamlined methods by which this major item of some $345,000 a year could be very much reduced. But in the meantime I would only say that the amount of $7m in a full year of revenue which this Bill expects to produce could probably be saved by simple, better housekeeping. The Government is saving $20m by tightening the list of eligible drugs. Having done this, surely there is no reason to come in and say that it has to clip from people another $7m on top of that. It has already reduced the charge in this area by $20m by tightening the list of eligible drugs. Perhaps if the Government looked at this matter more carefully it could find that there are other drugs which are not necessary to the list of prescriptions where this $7m could have been avoided. I suggest also that there are perhaps smaller but important areas that the Government could look at in which this money could be obtained. If by some strange television process we could look into the medicine cabinets throughout the nation as we all know full well we would find them jammed full of eloquent proof of this. We would find everywhere containers partly full, half full, perhaps quarter full of antibiotics and other remedies which have cost the public revenues a great deal of money indeed. I have often wondered why this is necessarily the case. When a patient uses a drug more or less continuously, of course there is every reason for very large prescribing. But on other occasions it is difficult to see why the actual prescription of drugs should not be for smaller quantities, with more repeats justifiable, to be available if actually required by the patient. Although doctors may not know this, many patients who are given antibiotics will not use them all when they feel perfectly well. I know that the doctor tells them to use them all, but they do not do so. Those things are, in the event, probably wasted. If the patient feels sick and feels that he needs the drugs, he or a member of his family could go and get a repeat. If we work on that basis, it would seem to me that a great deal of money could be saved from that measure alone. I ask the Government to look at it as a practicality. Certainly it is a little more trouble for people, but I think we are getting into the sort of society where we have to be a little more frugal about things like that. There are huge degrees of waste in that area, as we all know, and I think it is something which could be eliminated. Certain of these drugs are quite expensive. One figure in common use was quoted to me today by a doctor friend. This involved a payment of $43.91 for 150 tablets by the Commonwealth to a chemist. He said that was perhaps not the most expensive. There may be other tablets that are more expensive. I am getting into a difficult area here, but it does seem to me that most people find unused drugs difficult to dispose of. There are great dangers, of course, in disposing of them by the ordinary means of garbage disposal where they might perhaps come into the hands of children who would find them attractive. They are a problem to most people, and that is another reason why they tend to clutter up people 's medicine cabinets. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- Flush them. {: .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator MASON: -- Possibly where the drugs are very expensive they could be packaged in foil or in some other way. I am afraid **Senator Baume** has some of the mystique of the profession. He believes that any suggestion on a medical matter from outside the profession is not even worthy of consideration. But that is simply all I am asking from him. If, when he speaks on this matter, he has reasons to tell me I am wrong, I will be obliged to him for them. Meanwhile, I would be obliged if he would allow me to continue my remarks in peace. Perhaps what I have suggested is not a feasible proposition. Perhaps **Senator Baume** would agree that we must go on wasting valuable drugs and that there is no alternative to simply throwing them away or placing them in areas where they may be a danger to other people. I will be interested in his remarks on that in due course. At this stage I should like to refer to the pharmaceutical industry. I assume the industry has the principles and integrity of ordinary law abiding citizens and that it does not particularly want to co-operate in a process of waste. Possibly the industry could co-operate in some scheme where very expensive drugs which were properly packaged and identified could be returned by patients who did not use them, a system where some sort of credit was possible. There, again, I would be interested in the comment on that. Certainly it is a truism that large government finds it very easy to spend money. But it does not find it quite as easy to conserve money. That is why expenditures grow and grow. It is also a truism that any new proposal tends to attract ten people with reasons why it cannot be done for every one who is prepared to get on and try to find some way of doing it. I believe there are two basic general matters involved in this question. The first is this growing attitude on the part of the Government, which I can only identify with our friend **Sir Andrew** Undershaft in **Major Barbara** who believed that it was a crime to be poor. I am quite sure that the Liberal Party still suffers from ideological hangups and remnants of the past. I have no doubt that these even include the idea of the deserving poor, people so down-trodden that they will meekly accept whatever their alleged betters order them to do, people who are expected to meet even the odious requirement of gratitude for whatever rags of charity are made available to them. This current attitude is being justified to the nation because of the high cost of medical care. Heaven knows it is high enough. I could give the Senate the analogy of a ship with a lot of small holes; instead of plugging them methodically, the Government proposes simply to put in new and more expensive pumps to cope with the water coming in. But the ship is running out of steam. There is not enough to go on driving more and more pumps, to make up more and more payments to catch up with more and more waste. That is what is happening constantly in our society almost everywhere we look at it. **Senator Rae** has made his point on what he calls Qangoes. I agree with him. I have made points myself recently on the coinage. I have heard from people in this Parliament the comment that an amount of $10-$ 15m is peanuts, that you do not have to worry about it. Of course an amount of $10-I5m is not peanuts, and we should look at those areas, I believe, as well as the great areas that the Government looks at, where $100m is perhaps the smallest sum of money it is capable of understanding. I think doctors get a lot of the blame for the cost of medical care, but I do not believe that to be justified. We in the Australian Democrats do not respect those in the profession who do blatantly rip off the community. There are those, the pathologists with their chains of blood-letting shops, helicopters and modern computerised equipment, who are making millions of dollars out of the public without any justification whatsoever. I am told that the Government is looking at that area. We in the Australian Democrats will be waiting very anxiously for some sort of report from the Government on just what it is doing to control that appalling, atrocious situation, which by the way of course is leading substantially to the lowered public opinion of the medical profession. The big costs are still hospitals, which I think is relevant to this Bill because the whole area of medical costs is involved here. This $7m is presumably being charged because it is felt that the money is needed because of the higher costs overall. There can be no other possible justification for it. Yet we are still building big hospitals with large corridors that have to be kept clean- 1 am told by our policy group that cleaning is one of the major escalating costs of big hospitalswhereas the pattern in Europe now is for small specialised units. Perhaps here again some look at the policy in this regard and the enormous costs involved might be considered. This is a very difficult matter to deal with. Health services are one of the holy cows of the community. They are run by medical authorities, who use the notorious mystique of this profession, and prefer not to explain or justify anything. Therefore, there is probably more waste in the medical area than most other places, except for certain other holy cows like defence and security. I would suggest that honourable senators should talk to nurses to learn more of this subject. My daughter was a nurse for a while and I have talked to a lot of her friends. In most large public hospitals- I have spoken to nurses from quite a few of these hospitals- there is an appalling degree of waste of food, supplies and various things of that kind, I think due largely to a lack of awareness on the part of the medical superintendents of those hospitals that they do not have a divine brief to spend money in tens of thousands of dollars or millions of dollars without any control over it whatsoever. It seems that there is a belief on their part that these things are beneath their notice, like the appalling diet served in public hospitals. There is a need for preventative health areas in the society. Surely we must get around to that. Many pious words are said, but little enough is done. Of prime importance in this area- I will mention this only briefly, I think it is important- is the huge cost of self-inflicted illnesses from alcohol and smoking. These are prime areas for concern. The words of **Senator Peter** Baume and others on the subject of our hypocrisy and lack of positive action in such matters are very much shared by the Australian Democrats. I can pledge the active support of the Australian Democrats to any government that makes an honest effort to alter those hypocritical attitudes of government itself. I can honestly see very little distinction between certain cinema advertisements for cigarettes and alcohol and active promotion of marihuana. These issues are relevant to this Bill. This Bill is an immensely important one, small and single clause though it may be, because it is relevant to the whole area of the cost of medical services. For instance, if the Government is concerned by the present carnage on the roadsafter all the statistics of alcohol and road deaths are known well enough- they should allow them to speak for themselves. If the Government is sincere about this why cannot it look at what other countries of the world are doing? Why cannot it look at what Sweden is doing, and tighten up our own situation? Sweden applies very strict sanctions to driving and drinking. The supplier of the alcohol as well as the person actually drinking has a legal responsibility for an accident. If the Government wants to reduce health costs enormously, I would suggest that that is one place where it should look. If it does that, it would be far better for this society than to come forward with piddling little Bills of this sort which do nothing but annoy society and exacerbate the problems and make it quite plain to society how devoid of real policy is the Government in the medical area. The Australian Democrats oppose the Bill. {: #subdebate-39-0-s6 .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME:
New South Wales -The National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1979 seeks to amend section 84 of the National Health Act to allow for an increased charge for pharmaceutical benefits from $2.50 to $2.75 per item. I am delighted to have heard the speech of the honourable senator who preceded me, **Senator Mason,** and to have heard his advocacy of frugal government, of a leaner, more efficient kind of government. I have no doubt that those who espouse such an approach would find the cost saving involved in this measure, $5m in the current year and $7m in a full year, to be thoroughly to their liking. For my part, I want to approach the matter from a completely different angle. Cost savings may very well be made. **Senator Mason** adopted the approach to cut things to the bone, to pare away, to remove benefits, and to charge more. But there are social effects - {: .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator Mason: -- You are saying that. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME: -The honourable senator used the words 'a frugal approach'. I took it, when he talked about a frugal approach, that he meant what he was saying. I would like to take a different approach. I would like to think of drug use problems in relation to efficacy, to need, to equity and to efficiency. Those are the issues which other honourable senators have raised today. Those are the things which are important. I must say that when I heard **Senator Mason's** address I was reminded of the story by Edward Lear who described the English gentleman who came downstairs, jumped on his horse and galloped madly off in all directions. The honourable senator did encompass a fairly wide area in the contribution which he made. What is involved in this Bill? All that is involved is a proposition as we have heard before in the Senate, that patient contribution per prescription should increase. There are proper arguments that arise as to whether that increase is an appropriate amount having regard to the changes in prices, whether it will create hardship, whether there are anomalies. I acknowledge that **Senator Colston** made a point which seemed to me to be a very telling one, that there will be an interregnum for certain people. His argument, I think, cannot be challenged as to the facts. Those are the kinds of things which relate to this Bill and the issues which are before us. The measure should be seen as part of the Government's proposals in the Budget on health generally. They can be summarised fairly simply. First of all, the Commonwealth Government intends to make a very major contribution to the States in respect of the costs of their hospitals; an amount of some $1,1 94m to enable the States to conduct their business. Of course, while discussing States, I wondered when **Senator Mason** said that we should take action to punish drink drivers. It may interest him to know that we live in a federation and most of the power does not rest with us. It rests with the sovereign States. The honourable senator represents one of the sovereign States. I am amazed to hear him recommend to this place that we should take action in an area which is theirs. No doubt it is a thoroughly centralist view that would diminish and downgrade the view of the States that would have that authority coming to us. It was also announced in the Budget that the foreshadowed independent hospital inquiry would take place with the powers of a royal commission and it would investigate the kinds of things which some honourable senators have been advocating. It was announced that the interim report would be available for us by 30 June 1980. I am sure that all honourable senators would agree that, whatever our views on the provision of health care, an independent inquiry into hospitals is needed. We should take into account the experience of the South Australian inquiry where the Public Accounts Committee carried out an investigation which showed not just inefficiency, but the grossest kind of inefficiency and dishonesty. {: .speaker-9I4} ##### Senator Messner: -- The grossest. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME: -Rampant throughout South Australia's hospital system, as my colleague **Senator Messner** indicates. Of course, the Commonwealth is introducing this measure to increase the cost of a prescription. I will look at that point again in a minute. The Commonwealth is also proposing to go further in limiting drug provision. The Commonwealth is going to re-examine the range of drugs available under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme with a view to reducing the range and type of drugs available. I think that one can examine quite coldly whether that is likely to be a good or a bad thing. I give the view of one who has practised medicine over a number of years. I have no doubt myself that the range of drugs generally available today, from my own clinical experience, is unjustified either on the basis of need or value in terms of whether things really work. I must indicate that my colleagues **Senator Melzer** and **Senator Grimes** and I are members of a Senate committee examining this matter at the moment. We are under some disability because we cannot discuss the evidence that we have received or where the committee might be in its thinking but from my own general knowledge, I would say that the range of drugs is greater than needed. I could not determine that many of the drugs have a particularly beneficial effect. I could see that if it was handled with sensitivity and care, a move to reduce the range of drugs available could be undertaken without abridging the rights of anyone. That would include appropriate provisions to protect pensioners and those in need who do require a wider range of drugs available in a subsidised fashion rather than the people who are socially more secure and who need a narrower range of drugs particularly of a life-saving or highly effective kind. During the debate a number of propositions have been offered. One is that it is doctors who determine drug use in our community. I think that **Senator Grimes** makes this point. I hope **Senator Grimes** will agree with me when I say that the medical profession about which he was speaking is a great profession with generous and noble traditions. Despite the conduct of certain individuals from time to time, it is a great profession with noble traditions and in the area of drug use doctors take their responsibilities very seriously. **Senator Grimes** suggested that the price of drugs, whether they were listed or not, would not of itself alter prescribing habits of doctors. I would like to say to my colleague **Senator Grimes** that I think he is incorrect. The fact that a drug is available on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme is a very great stimulus to the use of that drug. My contact with the pharmaceutical companies over many years indicates that they place very high importance upon the listing of a drug as a pharmaceutical benefit and they place a high value on the extension of a listing from a restricted listing to a general listing. The companies have no doubt that the doctors will prescribe more when the listing provisions are liberalised. I take it that there has been no real objection today to Australians who have an adequate income, who have an intact family, who are not in need and who are not special cases, paying the extra 25c. The 25c more or less compensates for the movement since the last rise. I take it that the argument has centred around the hard cases, around people who have genuine needs and problems or who are special cases. It has centred around the large families, the poor, the disadvantaged and the people for whom the payment of costs may be difficult. Members of the Opposition have proposed that areas of hardship may be involved. What does the new increase of 25c mean? Honourable senators should remember that a packet of cigarettes costs somewhere between 90c and 95c. As honourable senators will realise, I do not know that through personal experience, but I am reliably informed that that is the cost of a packet of cigarettes. The cost of 10 ounces of beer, a middy in New South Wales, is about 47c. Most prescriptions are for a month's supply of a drug, or a course. In the case of an antibiotic it would be a 10-day or a seven-day course and for longer-term drugs there would be a months supply. The increase per prescription is of the order of a quarter of a packet of cigarettes or half a middy of beer. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- But that is on top of $2.50. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME: -- I take **Senator Georges** 's point; $2.75 represents six middies of beer, two and a half packets of cigarettes, 14 pulls on a poker machine or about half a cinema ticket. That does not alter the fact that we must be concerned about special cases. However, we should not lose sight of the fact that the average wage in Australia is of the order of $245. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- There should not be any charge on it at all. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator PETER BAUME: -That is a different ideological position. We have different values on this matter. I will offer my view for **Senator Georges** 's edification. It is that we should be concerned particularly with those who need help and we should be less concerned with the affluent middle class like me and honourable senators here who need no assistance in the provision, certainly, of short term courses of drugs. I would then like to suggest that the issue now comes down to how one approaches or handles the areas of difficulty. I was disappointed when I heard my colleague **Senator Grimes** advancing what are really hypothetical cases- large families with all the kids sick, with this happening and that happening. I would like to know what evidence we have that this kind of hardship actually occurs. I am sure it is occurring here and there, and I am sure that if we can identify exactly where the hardship and need is we can respond. I am reminded that yesterday in another place the Minister for Health ( **Mr Hunt)** stated that the Government is now in the process of developing a proposition which would overcome the concerns people have for disadvantaged folk who may have special needs in this area. The Government accepts the fact that special cases require special responses but one cannot argue about special cases and try to say that a general conclusion follows. This measure is for all members of the community who take drugs under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. For most of us there is no hardship in buying the drugs we need and paying $2.75 a prescription. I believe that the individual Australian uses approximately four or five prescriptions per year under that scheme. For the average Australian we are talking about something like $10 a year to be spent as their contribution to prescriptions. For pensioners and certain other groups the costs are higher and that should be recognised. My own preference was for the scheme that operated some years ago where a more extensive list was available to pensioners and a more restricted list was available to those in the general community. I must say one more thing. The Budget did not just increase the price of pharmaceuticals. As **Senator Colston** pointed out in his contribution, it also extended the right of access to pensioner health benefit cards. Access to those cards will carry with it the right to free medication. So, the Government is taking steps in a number of areas, which **Senator Guilfoyle** has already identified, to extend the pensioner health benefit to a number of other groups in need in the community. Each of those groups will now have access to pharmaceuticals at no cost to themselves. On several occasions honourable senators have gone through the arguments about what should be paid per prescription. I do not think the argument really is about the pharmaceutical companies or the medical profession. The argument is about cost sharing; it is about subsidies and the set of values which one holds. The Government's values are that the costs in this area for the general population are best shared between the Government and the individual consumer. Special provisions must be made for the special cases. There is nothing in the arguments I have heard this afternoon which makes a compelling case for not proceeding with this legislation, especially in light of the promise by the Minister for Health that he is examining the issues and any problem areas. The price rise proposed is in keeping with cost movements. It will maintain the cost of pharmaceuticals at the level they were, in real terms, when the last cost increase occurred. I commend and support the legislation. {: #subdebate-39-0-s7 .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator MELZER:
Victoria -- I rise to support the amendment moved by **Senator Grimes.** There are certain matters I have to refer to that have arisen in the debate so far. I do not want to play political ping-pong- 'You said', 'I said' and that sort of nonsense- but charges of misleading are very serious and should be carefully made, especially in an area of such importance to the lives of people as this. When **Senator Walters** spoke she accused **Senator Ryan** of misleading the Senate. **Senator Walters** quoted some figures for medical benefits cover. For a family cover for 75 per cent of doctors' fees she quoted a cost of between $2.68 and $2.92; and for the same cover- 75 per cent of the doctors' fees- for a single person she said it was between $1.34 and $1.46. I went from the Senate to my office and telephoned two medical benefits associations in Melbourne- the Hospital Benefits Association and Medibank. I asked what they charged for 75 per cent cover of medical fees. HBA charged $3.50 a week for a family and $1.75 for a single person. Medibank, for a cover of 75 per cent of the schedule fee, charges $3.38 a week for a family and $ 1 .69 a week for a single person. Who was misleading the Senate? **Senator Walters** has had ample opportunity to check out those figures more carefully. She quoted extensively from what **Senator Ryan** said. I will tell honourable senators what maximum medical and hospital cover plus extras will cost. The Medical Benefits Fund of Australia will charge $ 1 4.90 a week. The Hospitals Contribution Fund of Australia will charge $16.90 a week. Medibank Private will charge $17.30 a week. Without extras, Medibank Private will charge $14.70 a week and HCF will charge $14.60 a week. I ask again: Who was misleading the Senate? It appears to me that **Senator Ryan,** in the remarks that she made earlier this year on this matter, was considerably restrained in the figures that she quoted. I think that **Senator Walters** should have shown the same restraint when she bought into this argument. On **Senator Walters'** figures, a family will have to pay $2.68 for cover by a health fund, $10 for its share of each visit to the doctor and $5.50 to fill two prescriptions, which is the average these days after a visit to the doctor. This means that a family will be paying about $ 1 8. 1 8 for a visit to the doctor. I remind the Senate that about 70 per cent of the workers in this country receive below the average weekly earnings. Such people will be paying out a considerable amount to visit a doctor. This Government has to bear responsibility for the costs of health care in this country rising considerably. We are debating a Bill which will increase the cost of pharmaceuticals. It will cut the pharmaceutical benefit which people were enjoying. It will increase the pressure on people who are already under great pressure. It will press them even further into poverty. I wish to discuss that matter, as **Senator Baume** did, as part of the Government's proposals for health care. It is in that light that I see it. I, along with other speakers in the debate this afternoon, have to point out that pensioners who are outside the charity of the pensioner health benefit card will face increased costs. Before this increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals there was increasing evidence that people were not having made up the prescriptions written for them by their medical practitioners. They were not having them made up because they could not afford the charge of $2.50 a prescription. So they will not be able to afford the new charge of $2.75 a prescription. These people now pay extra to the health funds, extra for visits to the doctor and extra for medical care all round. It means that fewer and fewer people will go to the doctor in the first place. It means that more and more people will not have those prescriptions made up and so their very medical care will be jeopardised. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia recently put out a news release. I will read what is stated in it. In case anybody thinks that I am making it up, I point out that I do not carry any particular brief for the Pharmacy Guild. I think I know where it makes its living from. However, the Guild 's news release made some sense. It states: >The Government had not only increased the monetary burden on all sick people, but had failed to take account of the needs of the disadvantaged groups in the community. Although the eligibility for the pensioner health benefit card has been extended to a much larger number of pensioners, there is still a tremendous number of people in the community to whom that eligibility does not apply and there are enormous numbers of unemployed people who do not benefit from eligibility for the pensioner health benefit card, who become ill and who will have to pay these increased costs. The news release went on to say: >While the Government a year ago recognised the financial plight of people classified by doctors as disadvantaged and agreed to pay for the cost of a medical consultation, they still expect these same people to pay the full contribution towards the cost of medication arising from that consultation. The Guild had put up a proposal to alter the scheme. The news release went on to say that the proposal had not been accepted by the Government. It pointed out that the whole issue of the cost of pharmaceuticals should be of grave concern to doctors who could not with confidence expect their patients to take the medication they had prescribed. We have a situation in which people who are ill and who can afford to go to the doctor for advice cannot then afford to take his advice and use the medications that he prescribes. That is a ridiculous, idiotic situation for a country to be in. We are told as well that the list of pharmaceuticals for which pharmaceutical benefits are available is to be pruned. It has been said in the community- not, I agree, by the Government specifically- that the contraceptive pill is to be removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list, lt will be a matter of paying the higher cost or taking the risk. People who have no money to pay, whose expenses are so high that they have to prune expenditure on things like pharmaceuticals, will take the risk. I wondered, in passing, whether the Government had done any costbenefit study on what increases would occur in the payment of family allowances resulting from the contraceptive pill being removed from the pharmaceutical benefits list. I ask that, before the Government takes that action and removes the contraceptive pill from the list, it conducts a costbenefit study as to how much more it will pay out in family allowances if that happens. We have said consistently in the last two or three days that the costs ordinary people now have to pay for health care have risen enormously. Doctors' fees have risen tremendously. People will have to pay the first $20 of the fee for any procedure. Already we are seeing evidence in our offices of people having to pay a bill for a series of items. Previously a person who was ill and who went to the doctor received a bill for one item for the visit. That person is now receiving a bill for a series of items all for amounts under $20, all of which will have to be paid by the patient. Some of the bill can be claimed from a health insurance fund but only if the person can afford to be in one in the first place. The charges of health funds have risen, as I said when I began my address. Despite what **Senator Walters** has said, all authorities associated with this area acknowledge that the charges of health funds have risen enormously. The Australian Medical Association has said so and I imagine that it would know the position. The general practitioners, the Doctors Reform Society and the health funds themselves have acknowledged that the costs will rise very much. Massive increases will occur right across the board in those areas. It was difficult enough for families to afford health insurance when they were paying out $400 or $500 a year for cover. Now, families are faced with going without any medical cover whatsoever and wondering what will happen to them or paying out $700 a year for health insurance. With other taxes being imposed and with an enormous petrol tax being imposed, people have less and less money to pay out. Of course, we know what will happen in so many instances. A mother who finds that she is ill will decide that she cannot afford to go to the doctor. She will save whatever money she has to pay for her husband 's medical expenses should he be injured or in order to look after her children. These sorts of increases in health costs will again put great pressure on public hospitals. Already the Western General Hospital in Footscray, which covers the vast western area of Melbourne, is asking local doctors and local health centres to do all they can to keep patients out of the hospital because the hospital facilities are being extended far beyond what the hospital can cope with. A local newspaper quoted the hospital as saying: in the very near future outpatients at the Western General Hospital may soon have to take a full day off work to see a doctor. . . People are already waiting in outpatients for four to five hours. From September, they will need to take a day off work. That is a bad situation for an area whose people are very much part of that 77 per cent who earn less than the average weekly wage. They are very much disadvantaged in other ways because of the lack of services in that area. They cannot afford to take a day off work to go to the hospital for care. On the other hand, they cannot afford to pay the doctor for the care they need. They cannot afford to pay to be covered by some of the health funds. The western suburbs of Melbourne often have been called disadvantaged, not at all because of the people who live there but because of the disadvantage they suffer through lack of services. Not many people have ever called the eastern suburbs of Melbourne disadvantaged, but when it comes to hospital care the people of the eastern suburbs are very much disadvantaged. This situation has been a scandal in that area for years. I quote from a recent article in the *National Times* which sums it up: >In early 1 977 the Government commissioned a committee to investigate the availability of casualty services for road accident victims around Melbourne. > >The report has not yet been released but it found that there was an urgent need for a casualty department in Melbourne 's eastern suburbs. A casualty department is needed as is an enlarged public hospital area. Recently a scandal was reported by a lady of some renown among charitable people in Melbourne. Dame Phyllis Frost, a lady who is very level-headed and sensible, reported recently that an eight-year-old girl who lived next door to her in the outer Melbourne suburb of Croydon died after swallowing quinine pills. Dame Phyllis, who is in charge of fund raising for the Maroondah Hospital in the same area of Melbourne, tried everything to save the girl. The child died on her way to hospitalnot to Maroondah Hospital, which is only three miles away, but to Box Hill Hospital, 12 miles away. These hospitals are going to be under even greater pressure in the future. An elderly man, and a very dear friend, who from time to time came into my office to work, some two weeks ago had a stroke in my office, which is only five minutes away from the Box Hill Hospital. My staff called a doctor and an ambulance and he was admitted to the Box Hill Hospital within 15 minutes of having had the stroke. He was there for two and a half hours waiting for somebody to look at him. During that time nobody looked at him because nobody was available. When a doctor finally came and examined him he was told that no beds were available in the hospital and that he would have to be moved to a private hospital some three miles away. I am trying to point out that the hospital facilities in all areas of Melbourne, apart perhaps from some of the northern areas, are under great stress now. With the increased health care costs they will come under even greater stress, and some areas will not be able to cope with the problems. In this Government's rabid search for schemes to cut costs, regardless of the final cost, I think it is going to absurd lengths, and in some areas it is increasing costs. In that context I want to raise the subject of community health services, which have been told that they must now charge for their services. The Health Commission advised: >Following agreement between the Commonwealth and State Governments, the Commission instructs Health Centres that effective from the 1st September, 1979, charges will be raised for Privately Insured patients receiving professional services in centres where doctors are employed on a salaried or sessional paid basis. > >The income derived by the Community Health Centres from such charges will be credited to the Centres gross Operating Costs in such a way as to reduce the Community Health Program 's contributions by both the Commonwealth and the State. On the surface, that has a certain logic about it. But can I go just a little further and deal with the establishment of community health centres. In Deer Park, in the western suburbs of Melbourne, there were no medical services in the area, which has a growing number of young families. There were literally no medical services there, and so the Deer Park Community Health Services was established. That service now has been asked by the Western General Hospital to do all it can to keep its patients out of the hospital. We have the ridiculous situation where health centres are being asked to charge privately insured patients for the professional services they receive. In the first place, this is an entirely unworkable system because it encourages people who are in private health insurance funds to drop out of those funds. Patients of the centre who have private medical cover are disadvantaged alongside a patient who has no medical cover. Secondly, it creates a *Catch 22* situation. If a patient is covered by a private medical fund he has to pay at the centre; if he is not covered he does not have to pay. People are left wondering whether they should go on paying for private insurance and pay at the centre or drop out of a private insurance fund and get their health care free. But how does the centre find out whether people are covered by health insurance? It is very easy to prove that a person is covered by health insurance but it is very difficult to prove that he is not covered. In another area, additional costs will now be incurred by health centres which follow the Health Commission's orders. They will have to increase their staff to handle the necessary accounts and to cope with the work load that will arise from this system. Salaries will have to be paid to the extra staff brought into the health centres and additional expenses will be incurred by way of payroll tax and other administrative expenses. One wonders how much of a gap there will be between the income derived and the costs incurred by the scheme. In that respect, I repeat the statement in the Commission 's letter: >The income derived by the Community Health Centres from such charges will be credited to the Centres gross Operating Costs in such a way as to reduce the Community Health Program's contributions by both the Commonwealth and the State. But who will pay the extra costs entailed in bringing the system into being? Who will pay for the staff, the payroll tax and the administrative expenses? Who will pay for all that great bundle? It means that a health centre which was supplying a great service in an area where no services existed is now in the extraordinary position of having to winkle through all its patients and sort the sheep from the goats. It has to spend time and money charging people in a system that previously was worrking well for everybody concerned. People will be forced back to the hospitals, and in that regard, I quote from a letter I received from the Deer Park Community Health Services: >An alarming aspect of such a scheme would be the result of a transfer of work load from Community Health Centres to the Casualty/Out Patient sections of the public hospitals. Whereas over a period of time it has been proven that to a large degree the existence of services from our Centre has lessened the work load at the Western General Hospital, the Royal Children's Hospital, Footscray Psychiatric Hospital and Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital. The effects in the long run would be to revert to the work loads, long queues and waiting hours of the past. It seems such a pity that a concept which was working so well should now be thrown back into the melting pot. It is the end of a concept that was conceived with the express purpose and intention of producing primary health care, paramedical and other ancillary services under one roof to all members of the community. The centre provides a service for a young, growing community, which is very much at risk in today's circumstances. I shall illustrate the sort of community serviced by the centre. This year there have been 2,550 new registrations at the Deer Park Community Health Services. The age groups involved are interesting and point up my contention that this service is very much needed by a young growing community. Of those 2,550 new registrations, 33.2 per cent were of persons between the ages of one day and 9 years; 29 per cent between the ages of 10 years and 19 years; 1 9.5 per cent between the ages of 20 years and 29 years; 9.8 per cent between the ages of 30 years and 39 years; 3.5 per cent between the ages of 40 years and 49 years; 2.5 per cent between the ages of 50 years and 59 years; 2 per cent between the ages of 60 years and 69 years; and 0.5 per cent between the ages of 70 and 79 years. The service is provided for a group of people who are very much at risk and very much affected by unemployment, higher costs and rising taxation. In an area with a population of 17,000, medical attendances last year totalled 36,436, paramedical and welfare attendants totalled 35,498 and health, education and other meetings accounted for 11,677 attendances. The costs of the centre- this is before the interference from 1 September- were $6.26 a head. If the Government is looking to cutting the ever-rising costs of health services it should look to this area. Nobody could say that, in a population of that size and complexify and in view of the numbers of visits and the sort of care offered, a cost of $6.26 a head was in any way excessive. If the Government really wants to reduce costs, the $7m saved on the pharmaceutical benefit scheme is nothing compared with the sort of money that could be saved by this scheme. The Australian public wants positive health preservation policies which this sort of scheme puts forward. Finally, I will give the Senate some idea of the sort of services available at this community health centre. The services include those of doctors, a welfare officer, a psychologist, a physiotherapist, a chiropodist, a dentist, an optometrist, a psychiatrist, a family planning clinic, a slimming club, immunisation, acoustic testing and pathology. None of those services even existed in that area of Melbourne before this community health service was established. It will be an appalling tragedy if this scheme to charge people in private health funds does anything to break up this tremendous service that is being given to people of this area. As well as the services I have mentioned the centre has a community contact scheme for people who are lonely, worried and frightened and who need to communicate with other human beings. The centre covers all sorts of things that people can do. People can learn skills such as needlework, copper work and weaving to fill in their leisure time. The centre also caters for groups in the community such as Alcoholics Anonymous- Al-anon- and GROW and other groups involved with calisthenics, jazz ballet, boy scouts, residents' associations and art. In other words, it provides an all round service to assist people to cope with the trauma and the pressures of day-to-day living. I think it would be, as I say, a tragedy if the Government were to interfere with this scheme and bring in a scheme that will cost the community in general and the governments a great deal more money. We want positive health preservation policies. I support the amendment. *(Quorum formed).* {: #subdebate-39-0-s8 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I thank the Senate for the debate on the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2). A number of speakers have canvassed very widely not only the proposed increase to the pharmaceutical benefits scheme but also many aspects of the health schemes in Australia. The effect of this Bill will be to increase the contribution of persons who are not holders of pensioner health benefits cards from $2.50 to $2.75. There will be an increase of 25c for each supply of a pharmaceutical benefit item. The Government is fully aware, as many people have stated, that the new increase could cause some further difficulty for disadvantaged people in the community and, as has also been stated, the Department of Health is currently examining possible ways in which assistance with pharmaceutical costs can be given. I believe it has been acknowledged that considerable assistance with health costs is already available to disadvantaged people under the medical benefits scheme. The Government is considering ways in which further assistance under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme may be given to disadvantaged people. The extension of the pensioner health benefits card to supporting parents and their dependants and to certain veterans of Allied forces and their dependants, together with the change in eligibility for pensioner health benefits cards, is further evidence of the Government's efforts to see that people on low incomes and others who are disadvantaged are assisted in the provision of pharmaceutical benefits. One matter raised by **Senator Colston** which requires a response from me concerns the question of whether sickness beneficiaries are holders of health benefits cards. I wish to advise **Senator Colston** that they are not holders of health benefits cards; they are not eligible to hold those cards. They may be accepted by doctors as disadvantaged persons for medical care. But specifically, in answer to **Senator Colston's** question these people do not receive fringe benefits or the pharmaceutical benefits that arise from being a holder of a health benefits card. Because of the urgency to pass this Bill, I will not make any further comments on it. It is a measure that was introduced in the Budget of this year. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. In Committee The Bill. {: #subdebate-39-0-s9 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -I would like to raise what is perhaps a small but, I think, important matter. I hope that the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** will be able to respond to my query, ls it correct that when this Bill is passed the maximum charge for a prescription under this scheme will be $2.75? If a pharmacist were to charge more than $2.75, he would be charging that amount illegally; but if he charged less than $2.75, would that be legal? In other words, come next Saturday, if a pharmacist charges $2.50 for a national health script will he be acting within the law? If so, which I suspect will be the case, will the Minister advise the Committee what steps will be taken to notify pharmacists of the increased charge? My worry is that some pharmacists in the community, especially in outlying areas where they do not have fellow pharmacists to speak to or are not in touch with the daily papers- that happens in a number of outlying areas- might not know on Saturday that the charge has been increased to $2.75. If they charge $2.50 and are still acting within the law, they will incur a loss. If all my assumptions are correct, can the Minister inform the Committee whether any steps will be taken to inform pharmacists that the new charge will apply from Saturday? {: #subdebate-39-0-s10 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- My advice is that the National Health Act requires pharmacists to charge the full prescription fee, that is, $2.75. I am advised that all pharmacists already have received by circular letter advice of the proposed charges to take effect from 1 September. The questions raised by **Senator Colston** have been covered in that way. {: #subdebate-39-0-s11 .speaker-KUJ} ##### Senator MELZER:
Victoria -I wish to ask a question of the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle).** Has the pharmaceutical benefits list been checked to determine whether any medications are listed which cost less than $2.75 now? {: #subdebate-39-0-s12 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I understand that the list has been checked and that about 100 items would fall within that category. {: #subdebate-39-0-s13 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -- I accept what the Minister for Social Security **(Senator Guilfoyle)** said in reply to my query, although I must admit that I think it is a little quaint to notify pharmacists that a charge will be increased on a certain date before the appropriate legislation has been passed by the Senate, not that there was ever much chance that it would not be passed. But that is not my query now. My query relates to clause 3 of the National Health Amendment Bill (No. 2) which states: >Section 84 of the Principal Act is amended by omitting from the definition of 'prescribed maximum amount' in subsection ( 1 ) '$2.50' and substituting '$2.75 '. Without having the principal Act in front of me, it seems to me from that that the prescribed maximum amount will be $2.75. Does a part of the principal Act state that the prescribed maximum amount is the amount which must be charged? In other words, if a pharmacist charges less than the prescribed maximum amount, is he in breach of the Act? {: #subdebate-39-0-s14 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- I am advised that the prescribed maximum amount is payable by anyone who is not the holder of a pensioner health benefits card. The Act is specific about this and the prescribed maximum amount is the amount which is payable. {: #subdebate-39-0-s15 .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator CAVANAGH:
South Australia -- I enter this debate because the matter seems peculiar to me. If the cost of a drug which is bought on prescription is less than $2.75, someone must make a profit. Who gets the difference between the cost of the drug and $2.75? How is that recouped? Similarly, if the cost of the drug is in excess of $2.75, how is the chemist repaid the loss he sustains? {: #subdebate-39-0-s16 .speaker-C7D} ##### Senator GUILFOYLE:
Minister for Social Security · Victoria · LP -- If a drug costs less than $2.75 it does not come under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme unless it is purchased by a pensioner who is the holder of a pensioner health benefits card. I think that that deals with the problems raised by **Senator Cavanagh.** If a drug costs less than $2.75 it does not appear on the pharmaceutical benefits list. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. {:#subdebate-39-1} #### Third Reading Bill (on motion by **Senator Guilfoyle)** read a third time. {: .page-start } page 478 {:#debate-40} ### SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE ON {: .page-start } page 478 {:#debate-41} ### PUBLICATIONS {: #debate-41-s0 .speaker-IE4} ##### Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania -- I present the eleventh report of the Senate Standing Committee on Publications. Report- by leave- adopted. {: .page-start } page 478 {:#debate-42} ### PERSONAL EXPLANATION {: #debate-42-s0 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK:
New South WalesLeader of the Government in the Senate · LP **- Mr President,** I seek leave to make a statement by way of personal explanation. Leave granted. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- The Senate will know that earlier today at Question Time, following some interjections by **Senator Grimes** when I was answering a question, I sought leave to make a personal explanation and then did so. In the earlier interjections it was claimed that I had given the documents relating to the *Broadband* program to the Australian Broadcasting Commission. I sought and obtained a statement from the Australian Broadcasting Commission, which I read to the Senate. Having done so, **Senator Grimes** responded and said: >I said this morning, as **Senator Carrick** has pointed out, words to the effect: 'You gave them to **Mr Aarons'.** I admit that; I accepted it after **Senator Carrick** asked me to repeat the questions. I realise that the word 'give' can be defined very narrowly. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me in my accusation to have said: 'You caused to have these documents given to **Mr Aarons'.** I say quite clearly that **Senator Carrick** stood up in this chamber and said that he personally did not give the documents to the ABC - {: .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: -- I rise on a point of order, **Mr President.** I want to clarify one thing. I ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate to indicate how he obtained a copy of the pinks from which he is reading. I understand that permission to quote from them in this chamber today was not sought from **Senator Grimes.** {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: **- Mr President,** I asked my staff to seek **Senator Grimes's** permission. It is my understanding that that was sought. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- I do not want to make an issue of it. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: **- Mr President,** let it be quite clear that I sought the pinks in the orthodox way by seeking to obtain **Senator Grimes's** permission. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: -- That is not so. It did not happen. But it does not matter. {: .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator CARRICK: -- In due course I will clarify that matter. **Senator Grimes** stated: >I say quite clearly that **Senator Carrick** stood up in this chamber and said that he personally did not give the documents to the ABC or to **Mr Aarons.** He has telephoned the ABC and got from **Mr Talbot** Duckmanton, apparently, an assurance that he personally- I believe they are the words he used- did not give the documents to **Mr Aarons** or anyone at the program. I suggest that that is a very narrow explanation from **Senator Carrick.** I ask **Senator Carrick-** I challenge him- to get up and say that neither he nor anyone on his staff contacted the ABC or its producers over this matter. I repeat that accusation. Maybe I was too narrow, in the heat of the moment at Question Time, in applying such a narrow meaning to the word 'give'. I certainly do not withdraw what I said in the broader sense and **Senator Carrick** cannot either. I replied: >The fact of the matter is that what **Senator Grimes** has now said is equally totally untrue. As I understand it- I can speak only second-hand- the producers of *Broadband,* by their own initiative, went abroad, to the source of the documents in Ljubljana, Yugoslavia, talked to **Dr Wiesenthal,** the Viennese anti-nazi investigator, and totally of their own initiative produced and used those documents. I want to make it clear that neither I nor any member of my staff so did. I will be happy to refer this transcript to the Australian Broadcasting Commission and ask the General Manager of the ABC if he will get from the producers of *Broadband* their commentary as to the origin of the documents. I want to make a clear denial in this regard. I sought and obtained a statement from the General Manager of the ABC. I understand that the Commission will be making a Press statement today on this matter. It reads: >After conferring with the production staff concerned the General Manager of the ABC, **Mr Talbot** Duckmanton, confirmed that neither **Senator Carrick** nor any member of his staff contacted the ABC about this programme or the production of the documents on which the programme was based. > >These documents were inspected and copies of them obtained from the Public Library in Ljubljana after the production staff had spoken to **Dr weisenthal.** > >The documents were not provided from any source within Australia to the ABC. I simply say that that is a total and unqualified refutation of **Senator Grimes's** accusations. I seek no apology from **Senator Grimes.** I rest on the basis that this is a matter for his conscience. The interjections were totally baseless. They are now proved to be so. The origin of these documents has been made perfectly clear by the producers of the program on the Australian Broadcasting Commission. The Australian Broadcasting Commission has made it clear that neither I nor my staff was involved in this. I repeat what the Commission said: >The documents were not provided from any source within Australia to the ABC. {: #debate-42-s1 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -- by leaveThere are two aspects to this matter. First of all, I wish to say that neither I nor my staff was approached for permission to use my pinks. I have no objection to their use. I merely make the point that in the past I have tried to get copies of pinks from Ministers of the Crown in this place and have been refused them and I believe that a check should be made with the person concerned before they are used by anyone else. That is the first point I make. The second point is that the overall issue is far too important to be clouded and rendered less clear by a personality clash between **Senator Carrick** and me. I accept **Senator Carrick** 's assurances that neither he nor his staff supplied information to the Australian Broadcasting Commission for this program. All of us in this place have our sources. I accepted the sources that I had. I now accept **Senator Carrick** 's statement. I make one further comment. In the short time that I have been a member of this place I and my colleagues at various times have been called everything from communists by **Senator Lajovic** to all sorts of things by other people. I have never seen a reaction like the reaction from **Senator Carrick** today, even at times when in the heat of the moment he has been called all sorts of things from this side of the chamber. When I made the statement in question I believed it to be true. When I saw the reaction I thought it probably was true. But I now accept **Senator Carrick** 's assurance that it was not true. I hope that the very important issue of the activities of people in this country on the extreme right is now investigated properly and is not clouded in the future by any behaviour from me or anyone else. {: #debate-42-s2 .speaker-KQD} ##### Senator LAJOVIC:
New South Wales -by leave- I wish to make a short statement. I have never called **Senator Grimes** or any other honourable senator in this place a communist. Sitting suspended from 5.59 to 8 p.m. *( Quorum formed).* {: .page-start } page 479 {:#debate-43} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS {:#subdebate-43-0} #### First Report Consideration resumed from 20 February, on motion by **Senator Rae:** >That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 479 {:#debate-44} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-44-0} #### STANDING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT Report on Annual Reports Debate resumed from 22 March, on motion by **Senator Jessop:** >That the Senate take note of the report. {: #subdebate-44-0-s0 .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator MULVIHILL:
New South Wales -- The report before us is only small, in terms of numbers of pages, but when even a small stone is thrown into a pond ripples go out in all directions. I say that sincerely. When I was first elected to the Senate it seemed to me to be a sacrilege that excellent reports were simply disposed of, or disappeared. Often people threw them into the garbage can. However, as more honourable senators have become aware that they could be what I would term ball distributors more and more reports have been sent out to the people in their electorates who could use someone else's craftsmanship and in this way we reached a second stage. The message of this report is that although probably more people are now interested in our reports no one should be satisfied with present performance; everyone should seek to do better. The Standing Committee on Science and the Environment is now under the chairmanship of **Senator Jessop.** With our colleagues, **Senator Jean** Melzer, **Senator Townley** and **Senator Mason,** we felt that, as good as some of the reports might appear to be from their covers, there were certain limitations. People might say: 'Is it sufficient merely to submit a report to the Senate? What good does it do outside?' I can tell honourable senators a story about the quality of the reports of the Joint Coal Board. I recall a situation in the middle 1950s when there was a dispute in the New South Wales Railways which involved stationary-boiler attendants, their working conditions and the quality of the coal that they were using. It so happened that a member of the House of Representatives, **Mr Daly,** who was in the practice of sending all sorts of material to his constituents, supplied one union representative with the Joint Coal Board report. When there was a confrontation between the works manager and the union, the fact that the union delegate had the current Joint Coal Board report and was able to argue learnedly upon the quality of coal resulted in the five boiler attendants getting an increase of 7s 6d a week which, as **Senator Jim** Cavanagh with his vast knowledge of industrial affairs would know, was quite a feat in the middle 1950s. Therefore, the quality of a report is to be judged not only by the fact that it has to satisfy honourable senators but also it should be equally useful to an alderman, a wheat farmer or the president of a miners' lodge who- I say it respectfully- has to wait like a member of any other union, until a report comes from his national office. If a member of Parliament can give him a tool or instrument to employ in the meantime, he can often use it very effectively. When the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment was assigned the task of considering annual reports it was studying the Murray River report. I cannot help recalling that, in contrast to the stilted terms of the reports of the Murray River Commission when one met the people of that region, and especially the Commissioners, one found that they bared their breasts, as it were, and explained what was wrong with the mechanism of their commission. They do not always put that sort of thing in their report. I know that this is the age of civil liberties, and one must not defame people, but I have always believed in placing my cards on the table face up. I know that **Senator Jessop** agrees with me in that regard and the message that we were trying to convey, loud and clear, was that whether a report be of 20 pages or 50 pages it must have a degree of bite. I do not want to offend honourable senators of either party from South Australia, but I recall that the report of the committee on water pollution was one of the pacesetters in that regard. It displayed a tremendous vision. I know that if **Senator Davidison** were in the chamber he would agree, as would a former trade union colleague of **Senator Cavanagh,** a very fine South Australian, **Senator Clement** Ridley. They would acknowledge how at that time we fought for an effective report, one which contained thrust and drive. **Senator Georges** would know of that in regard to the report of the committee on air pollution. Those were reports that had a message. That is what it is all about. One has to get a message out to the people. We will all agree that at times the matter does not end with the legislation that is passed by the Senate. We are sometimes able, by interrogation, by getting away from the propaganda and ideological gaps that sometimes separate us, to get the facts. That is the whole purpose of these reports. In our crusade for a more balanced report about science and technology I have been impressed by the situation in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. People say that the USSR represents a rather authoritarian concept of government. But sometimes we are faced with the question of how far we can enjoy the luxury of democracy if we are to arrive at decisions. A fellow of the Academy of Science of the USSR seems to command far more respect than such a person would be accorded in this country. As one who is a rather pragmatic trade unionist, I say that there was a time when perhaps academics pursued their own cloistered existence, but it is an indication of the times that over the last 1 5 years we have had a great mingling of the people from our campuses and the proletariat from the trade union movement. As a result, I believe that we have arrived at a much more balanced point of view. Our report dealt with the situation in Norway. When one talks about parliamentary systems, one recalls that socialist party governments have been in office in that country for a very long time. Probably that contains a message for all of us. Generally speaking, certain reports are lacking in some regards. For instance, there is nothing more exasperating than to receive a report which expresses the hope that a certain target will be achieved. I have in my hand a copy of the report of the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. I would regard it as being in the top bracket. The nature conservation legislation that was the brainchild of a Minister named Joseph Berinson from Western Australia was another pacesetter. We usually see a three-staple report which contains a map of the area concerned and quotations from a few ordinances. I feel that not only a report but also any document which comes in here to us should say, for instance: 'We are to get X hectares in Western Australia. This has been set aside for a particular type of wild life species'. But we never see that. Such documents say merely that $2m or $1.5m is to be voted for a particular purpose. Such matters should be available for discussion in a much more detailed form. As the Chairman of the Committee, **Senator Jessop,** pointed out, as with most Senate committees there are quite a number of assignments to complete, but I hope the authors of future reports will take cognisance of our comments. I think the ACT Electricity Authority, to which we made a brief reference, has done an excellent job. It is indicative of how knowledge can be shared. Both the Electricity Commission of New South Wales and the Electrical Trades Union of Australia have played a very important role in the trade union movement generally, and I always ensure when a report such as this is produced that they receive it very quickly. It will be noted that the Committee has commented also on the Darwin Reconstruction Commission. A comment has been made about people's participation in democracy, and it has been said that people can subscribe to *Hansard.* That is a very laudable thing, although quite frankly I have always told people- and I do not want to disparage any of my colleagues in this chamberthat after one has looked at the report of Question Time and the Estimates Committees, and perhaps the first four speakers on each side of a Budget debate, there is inclined to be repetition. I believe the Committee's report should put all authorities on their mettle. I believe also that there should be a continuation of information. New senators come into the chamber but there is no continuation of information contained in a report of perhaps two years earlier. It is much better to have a continuation of information about what is being done. In some areas people must be probed very closely if we are to find out what the flow-on has been. Against that, I know it can be argued that as governments come and go there is a certain change-over. If one wants to look at matters relating to British society, one can look at the Home Secretary's report. I think the Home Secretary's Office in England is an outstanding body. It is responsible for producing reports on racial relations, capital punishment, and all kinds of other subjects. But if I were asked to define the functions of the Department of the Capital Territory, even with all the reports from the Minister for Home Affairs **(Mr Ellicott)** and other ministries I would not have the answer because the reports do not seem to mesh in. I would hope that when people read the blue book that is the product of this high-powered Senate Committee they will have a much more effective integration of what has been said in various other reports. Some ministries, some departments and some statutory authorities operate more or less in a set area. I do believe that so far as the Australian Capital Territory is concerned, although it comes under the Minister for Home Affairs there are lots of gaps which we seem to be unable to fill in. Let me conclude on this note. I believe from the comments in relation to the report of this Committee and the submissions which it has put forward that over the next few months we will be looking very closely at reports submitted. I think it was the Estimates Committee under the chairmanship of **Senator Peter** Rae, with senators of the calibre of **Senator Elstob** and **Senator Bishop** as members, which was rather critical of some of the industrial statistics submitted to it. It may be that on this occasion with the Industrial Relations Bureau now operating we will get reports much quicker. 1 should like to believe that when we go into an Estimates committee we will have all the reports before us when we are dealing with expenditure. This gives a much more effective background and it means that the chairman of a particular committee does not have to work so hard as perhaps a referee in a football match does over certain incidents. If people have the information, they can reduce the dimension of their questions. For those reasons I believe this Committee has produced a report which is a milestone, the effect of which will endure for a long time to come. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 481 {:#debate-45} ### JOINT COMMITTEE ON PUBLICATIONS {:#subdebate-45-0} #### Ministerial Statement Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by **Senator Archer:** >That the Senate take note of the statement. {: #subdebate-45-0-s0 .speaker-IE4} ##### Senator ARCHER:
Tasmania -This report was tabled on 20 October 1 977. The Presiding Officers' response was given on 24 November 1978 and the Government response on 28 March 1979, so it has already covered quite a span of time and has had quite some time to evolve. Some of the issues involved are somewhat complex administrative matters. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on each of those tonight. But since the Committee's report on the Parliamentary Paper Series was tabled in October 1977, the Committee has made a major report on the Australian Government Publishing Service and has recently completed yet another report. Each of these touch on several of the issues raised in this inquiry in respect of which this report was put down. In particular, the role and responsibilities of the Australian Government Publishing Service and the Government Printer have been reviewed in some considerable detail. Because these issues are before the Government I will not comment further on the Government's response to recommendations 16, 17 and 18 of this particular inquiry. However, I do wish to comment on two other matters. Recommendation 6 of this report concerns the distribution of parliamentary publications. The Government's response indicates some concern at the cost that would result from the implementation of the Committee's recommendations on free distributions. I should like to make two comments on this. Firstly, the Presiding Officers have indicated that they will keep the free distribution list under review and if requests for inclusion on the distribution list get out of hand they will report back to the Publications Committee. Secondly, I am sure the Committee would give any such report from the Presiding Officers the most serious consideration. Recommendation 19 relates to the Government Printer completing the Parliamentary Paper version by enclosing the initial report with a blue cover. It was not accepted at the time. However, by arrangement this has already been done. The Government response now notes that this is unnecessary, impractical and costly. However, it has been implemented and it has been found that by being able to utilise the automated equipment that is available it has been possible to keep costs to an absolute minimum and it is much more practical. Finally, I would assure all honourable senators that I am sure that the Publications Committee will continue to take a very close interest in the objectives, the production methods and the distribution of the Parliamentary Paper Series, and that the actual distribution and cost will be closely monitored from the time to time. If at any stage there appears to be developing any trend that is contrary to the wishes of the Parliament, the Committee will certainly take the matter up. Question resolved in the affirmative. *(Quorum formed).* {: .page-start } page 482 {:#debate-46} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS Report on Rules of Court Consideration resumed from 29 March, on motion by **Senator Missen:** >That the Senate take note of the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 482 {:#debate-47} ### QUESTION {:#subdebate-47-0} #### STANDING COMMITTEES ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS AND SCIENCE AND THE ENVIRONMENT Ministerial Statement on Reports or Annual Reports Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by **Senator Button:** >That the Senate take note of the statement. {: #subdebate-47-0-s0 .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator BUTTON:
Victoria -I wish to speak very briefly to this statement and report. For some reason, which will now go into the footnotes of history, I moved for the adjournment of this matter, when it was first presented. Studying the paper tonight, I cannot for the life of me think why. Having done that, I want to make some brief comments about the report of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The burden of that report has been a matter of comment by the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs, **Mr Viner,** because the report raises a number of issues which are relevant to two annual reports which were considered by the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. The first report that I want to refer to is the report of the Standing Committee on Science and the Environment. That is dealt with at some length in the statement of the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster).** The Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs drew attention in its comments in relation to these two reports to two important matters. The first was the delay in publication of the reports and the need for very prompt attention to be given to this question. The Committee took the view that if the reports were not published with alacrity or something of that kind, they would be of limited value to the Senate and to people who were interested or might have been interested in their contents. The second point which the Committee concerned itself with was the question of Public Service staff ceilings imposed by the Government. The Committee dealt with this question in two ways. It drew attention to the fact that the Australian Law Reform Commission report had been delayed and one of the reasons attributed for the delay was the inadequacy of staff ceilings in the Commission. The Law Reform Commission, I think, is on record as saying that it is unable to perform its function adequately because of staff ceilings and that has imposed time constraints on it, particularly in the area of collecting data about legal matters and coordinating the work of the various law reform commissions in Australia other than the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Commission expressed considerable concern about that question. I refer the Senate very briefly to the last published report of the Australian Law Reform Commission and to the introduction to that report. It is quite clear from that introduction that in terms of the chapter headed 'Getting the Best Value out of Law Reform', the Commission felt that the best value that could be obtained out of the Law Reform Commission might be more adequate staff ceilings and staff who would enable it to collect information and data in order to act as a clearing house, as it were, for the work of other law reform commissions. The other report to which the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs adverts is that of the Science and the Environment Committee. There are a number of other examples in the report of the Committee again illustrating delays which the Committee says are occasioned by staff ceilings, amongst other matters, and again relating that question of staff ceilings to the need for prompt presentation of the reports. I think that the point insofar as this Senate Committee report is concerned is well made. The Government has an overall policy in relation to staff ceilings, particularly of statutory bodies. Of course, it is within the province of the Government to determine these matters. On the other hand, if consequences flow from the imposition of those staff ceilings, I think it is important that we at least advert in the Senate to the consequences which do flow. We should recognise that the bodies concerned in the publication of their reports and efficacious performance of their functions are inhibited by the situation which now exists. That is the only comment I wish to make about this report. {: #subdebate-47-0-s1 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -- I thank **Senator Button** for his contribution to the debate although I must with temerity point out that he has become a little confused about what these two reports are about. One might, on reading *Hansard,* think that the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs had the temerity actually to give a report on the Senate Standing Comittee on Science and the Environment. That, I would think - {: .speaker-4F4} ##### Senator Button: -- You underestimate the degree of confusion, if I may say so. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN: -- The honourable senator overestimates the bravery of the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which would never dare to do such a thing. Perhaps I could just explain what these two reports actually did. Both reports were by a Standing Committee on a number of annual reports of statutory bodies that have been referred to our respective committees. It did happen that in our conclusions on those annual reports there is quite a remarkable similarity of problems which we have found in the various bodies, particularly the question of staff ceilings and the difficulties which were reported in a number of these areas. The ministerial statement, which was the basis of the vote which came subsequently to the tabling of those reports, is a somewhat short and graphic document. I would like to comment, as **Senator Button** has, on one or two of the things in that document. Certainly, one of the major matters which the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee reported on was the request of the Government to re-examine the Law Reform Commission's request that five extra staff members be appointed. We thought that cogent reasons were shown in the annual report of the Australian Law Reform Commission which had at the time, I think, nine further matters referred to it than it had had previously and the justification for its request for extra staff seemed to be evident in view of the extra burdens which had been placed upon it by the request of the Government. The Government's response, which is given on page 1 122 of the Senate *Hansard* of 29 March 1979 states as follows: >The Attorney-General has taken the view that in a time of staffing restraints delays in references before the Law Reform Commission must be balanced against priorities in other areas of his portfolio. I do not think that is a satisfactory answer, particularly when additional matters, considered important by the Government, are referred to the Commission for report, in many cases within a fixed time limit. It is up to the Government to provide additional staff to cover that situation and not to rely on the mere balancing of priorities in other portfolios. In other words, the excessive load is created by Government decisions, proper decisions, to give the Law Reform Commission this work. I believe it has performed such work with a great deal of distinction and speed in recent years. The Commission's recommendations should be heeded. That is the subject of item No. 1 1 on the General Business paper, the report by my Committee, the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee, on reforming the law. But that is a different matter. It should have more staff to carry out its work. At present it has a staff of some 19 persons. **Mr Justice** Kirby appeared before one of the Government committees a few nights ago. One thing that has become evident is that the Law Reform Commission in some cases has a staff of one or one and a half workers doing what would be investigated in the United States by 100 people. They are doing the job very well. I think they have an excessive burden and that matter certainly has not been picked up by the ministerial statement to the satisfaction of members of my Committee and, I would think, of members of the Senate generally. The second matter in the Government's response to which I refer is in respect of the Administrative Review Council whose report the Committee considered. I will not respond to the science and environment questions because a separate committee handled them. Our recommendation was that the public seems unaware of innovations in administrative review. That is the way the Government response refers to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs recommended that the Government consider proposals to publicise the rights of the citizen to appeal against administrative decisions. I think there was a useful response because the Minister stated: >An Administrative Law Handbook is being prepared and will be distributed through Government outlets. Both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Ombudsman's Office have published information pamphlets and the Ombudsman and his staff have conducted a media campaign. Attorney-General 's Department and the staff of the Administrative Review Council have undertaken some seminar work in this field. There have also been *some* recent private publications. 1 think that this Administrative Law Handbook will be valuable because one of the problems referred to the Committee, and to the Regulations and Ordinances Committee, is the problem of people knowing their rights and knowing that they have certain entitlements. The Parliament continually creates laws and regulations and imposes obligations on people. It also gives them rights. But it does not do enough to tell people their rights and therefore there are people in the community who suffer inconvenience and hardship. Very often they are people who are not well educated, or are poor or ill, and they are not in a position to easily find out their rights. Such a handbook will be helpful in telling them their rights. The result of this exercise of looking at the annual reports is that the Government has responded somewhat positively in some areas; in others more could be done. Reading the reports of statutory bodies is the one means by which members of this Parliament can get to know their problems. As I have said, the Senate has to take a very close look at what the annual reports say. When weaknesses are demonstrated it is up to honourable senators to highlight them and bring them to the attention of the Government. It is then up to the Government to respond positively. I welcome **Senator Button's** short contribution. I am sorry that there is not more close attention given by many members outside the committees to the reports as they come down but, of course, I know that everybody in this chamber has a burden in trying to keep up with the paper which flows across our desks. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 484 {:#debate-48} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL RESOURCES Report on Commonwealth's Role in Water Matters Consideration resumed from 29 March, on motion by **Senator Georges** : >That the Senate take note of the statement. *(Quorum formed).* Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 484 {:#debate-49} ### JOINT COMMITTEE ON THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY {:#subdebate-49-0} #### Report Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by **Senator Georges:** >That the Senate take note of the report. {: #subdebate-49-0-s0 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory -- I simply wish to say that this report from the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory in many respects was a follow-up to the very significant report in the mid-1950s by a Senate select committee on the future of Canberra, as a result of which the Joint Committee was established to oversee the planning and development of Canberra as the national capital and the National Capital Development Commission was established as the planning and development body for this city. The report contains a number of significant recommendations which, in many respects, build on the recommendations of the earlier report to which I have referred, taking into account developments since that time and the many significant changes in the nature of this city and of the Capital Territory as a whole. The report was tabled in April and, as a result of the statement by the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** on 26 May 1978, Ministers are required to respond to parliamentary committee reports within six months. In the case of this report that period will expire in October. The Joint Committee hopes that the Minister for the Capital Territory **(Mr Ellicott)** in particular, but also other Ministers who have responsibilities bearing on the various recommendations made in the report, will be able to respond by October, or shortly thereafter, to the numerous recommendations made with respect to the planning of this city and the Territory, its administration and, in particular, the question of public participation. As we hope that the Minister for the Capital Territory and the other Ministers involved will be able to make the Government's views known to the Parliament shortly, I do not think that there is a need to say a great deal more about the report at this point. I have no doubt that the recommendations generally are well known to the members of this Parliament. All members of the Committee are looking forward to the response from the Government. We believe that if the Government is receptive to the thrust of the recommendations of the report and to many of the details, though perhaps not all, this will lead to an effective planning and development process in the Australian Capital Territory in accordance with the issues and problems that the Territory and the city of Canberra, as the national capital, now face. In particular, as I mentioned earlier, we feel that there is an increasing need in this city for the community to have a greater say in planning and development. There are limited opportunities here as a result of the lack of local executive government or a State form of government. We have made a number of recommendations including what we believe are significantly innovative suggestions for the establishment of community councils similar to some which have been established elsewhere in the world. As Chairman of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I leave the matter at that at this stage in view of the fact that the Committee is looking forward to the Government's response in the near future to its many recommendations on planning in the Australian Capital Territory. {: #subdebate-49-0-s1 .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator MASON:
New South Wales -- As no other honourable senator has risen to speak, obviously honourable senators, unlike me, are not affronted by the bland statement we have just had from **Senator Knight.** In view of the acute problems of Canberra, I feel impelled to say something on the matter although I have no prepared material. We have in this city one of the most depressed areas of Australia. It is a city that has been so manipulated by government policy that a large number of its citizens are completely in despair. It has an enormous unemployment rate. We have a situation in which young people cannot stay in Canberra because there is nothing for them to do. The city has monstrosities such as the new Belconnen shopping centre where a large number of retailers are slowly going bankrupt. It was a complete affront to me to sit here and watch the Senate accept the sort of statement that **Senator Knight** made. We have here, I believe, the beginnings of a great and important city. It is a city which has been messed around by bureaucrats to an extent which is intolerable. The city has been made into a place which cannot support itself. It has been given a thoroughly artificial and phoney industrial area. There has been no real attempt by any government, so far as I can see, to attract a sensible and useful industry to this city, which is a city in which a large number of people have been put I have been told by real estate agents that there are approximately 5,000 houses on the market in Canberra now. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: -- What absolute garbage. {: .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator MASON: **- Senator Knight** says that that is garbage. I would like him to produce reliable figures. {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator Knight: **- Mr Deputy President,** I seek your guidance. It is obvious that the honourable senator is totally ignorant of the report to which allegedly he is referring. It is necessary for him to have read at least the recommendations, if not the report as a whole, to speak in the debate? He is displaying his ignorance. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: **- Mr Deputy President,** I wish to speak to the point of order - The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- There is no point of order. I ask **Senator Mason** to confine his remarks to the report to which he is speaking. {: .speaker-L8O} ##### Senator MASON: -- My remarks, with respect, stem from my moral indignation and I will lay it on **Senator Knight,** who is supposed to represent the Australian Capital Territory. When he speaks in this place or anywhere else he should try to speak on behalf of the people he represents. I have made the points I wanted to make. That is all I wish to say. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 485 {:#debate-50} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL WELFARE {:#subdebate-50-0} #### Report Debate resumed from 3 May, on motion by **Senator Peter** Baume: >That the Senate take note of the report. {: #subdebate-50-0-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES:
Tasmania -- It is a most unexpected pleasure to be able to speak about this report tonight. I was not aware that the debate on the report would commence so soon. The Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare took on board with some trepidation the task of making an assessment or evaluation of Australia's health and welfare services. The Committee realised that this would be a difficult subject to deal with. We realised that it may take a long time and we realised that the problems in assessing the very varying types of evidence that we expected to get, and in fact did get, would create difficulties in producing a report. What we did not expect, first of all, were the reactions we experienced in the welfare and health service community generally to the fact that we were to look at the state of the evaluation of health and welfare services. Most of us, I believe, certainly did not expect the reaction to the report we experienced once we produced it. I wish to speak only briefly but I wish to repeat the sorts of things that I said outside this chamber after the report was tabled. The aim of the exercise was to study the quantity and the quality of the evaluation of health and welfare services in this community. At no stage did the Committee seek to evaluate any particular welfare services, any particular health services or any particular organisation. This was very hard to get across to the welfare community in general. As soon as we started to call for evidence and to question people about the evidence that they were producing we found that there was a great deal of suspicion in the welfare community as to why we should be doing this. It took a considerable time for us to convince the people in the welfare area that we were not sitting down to assess the effectiveness of what they were doing. It was obvious that people saw us as a threat to their funding and a threat to the traditional service that they felt they were giving to the community. Once we overcame this difficulty and got it through to the community that we were, in fact, looking at the extent of evaluation of people's services, we managed to get good evidence and to produce what I believe is a valuable report. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- We lost a year while we learned how to take evidence. {: .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator GRIMES: -We lost a year while learning that fact. We lost a year, I believe, reassuring most of the health and welfare community in this country that we were not about tearing them to pieces. We found in general that there had not been much evaluation of any quality of any of the health and welfare service in this community. This does not mean that we found that the health and welfare services of this community were particularly inefficient or particularly efficient. We discovered that in most cases there was no real way to tell one way or the other. That was very hard for many people to understand. I remember an editorial in the *Daily Telegraph* which I read early in the morning after the report had been tabled late the previous afternoon. It berated the Committee for wasting three years in order to discover that the welfare services in this country were inefficient. It was plainly obvious that the person who wrote that editorial certainly had not. read the report and certainly had not even read the recommendations in the report. When Committee member's were being interviewed by the Press, attempts were made continually to get us to say that everything in the country was bad and that we were wasting vast sums of money. It took considerable persistence and repetition to convince the interviewers that, in fact, that is not what we had been about. Some of the reactions from the public servants in the social welfare field in this country were, to say the least, interesting. We all had something to say about that at the time. Obviously their reaction was that this Committee was threatening their position in society. As one who is not very concerned about threatening people's vested interests and their positions in this society, that did not worry me and it obviously did not worry most of my colleagues on the Committee from both sides of the Parliament. It was disturbing to find that in this community organisations and governments in general are not evaluating what they are doing. They are going along blindly in the old ways, in some cases making assumptions based on values of the past, convincing themselves that they are doing a good job rather than setting out in any objective way to try to measure what they are doing. One of the problems we found was that people are not setting goals or establishing clearly in their own minds the aims of their various organisations. One pleasing thing is that there was an upsurge of interest in the evaluation of our health and welfare services, within both the Public Service and the voluntary sector, as a result of the inquiry and even before the report came out. I hope that this interest will continue. One of the most startling things we found repeatedly was the lack of information and the small amount of hard data being collected and evaluated in this community. We had very few means of measuring some of the most basic health and welfare problems because in the past we had not thought that this was necessary. Most reviews and assessments of the report have been favourable, particularly those from people who are active in the field and know what we are about. Unfortunately, some journals have misused the report to confirm their own political or philosophical prejudices about the state of health and welfare delivery in this community. Although the members of the Committee differed considerably in their philosophies and politics, the report was unanimous because we stuck rigidly to our original aim to assess the extent and quality of evaluation rather than to make value judgments on individual projects. Although my colleagues and I on this side of the chamber make no bones about our desire to change the distribution of wealth or of power itself in this society, we had no difficulty signing this report. Until we perform the sorts of evaluations that this report recommends we will have difficulty in producing rational and sensible policies to fulfil our aims. I believe that the report is a useful one. I believe that it should be read by anyone involved in the health and welfare area, and that includes everyone in this Parliament. I believe that it should be commented on after it has been read rather than before, as happened in the first few days after its publication. I enjoyed the evidence-gathering and discussions that went into producing the report and I am satisfied with its result. I hope that more people in this very important area, which is an area of huge expenditure in this country, will look seriously at the recommendations in the report in order to develop a more rational, economic and humane welfare and health system in this country. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 487 {:#debate-51} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Report on Departmental Expenditure on Newspapers and Periodicals Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by **Senator Rae:** >That the Senate take note or the report. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 487 {:#debate-52} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS Report on Capital Territory Health Commission Annual Report 1975-76 Consideration resumed from 9 May, on motion by **Senator Rae:** >That the Senate take note of the report. *(Quorum formed).* Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 487 {:#debate-53} ### STANDING COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL AFFAIRS {:#subdebate-53-0} #### Report Debate resumed from 10 May, on motion by **Senator Missen:** >That the Senate take note of the report. {: #subdebate-53-0-s0 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I take the opportunity in the debate on the motion that the Senate take note of the report to make some comments. It is obvious that when we deal with these reports at the time of their presentation, it is the firm intention of the person who moves that the Senate take note of the report that he will engage in some debate on the matter. If he intends to speak to the motion but it is not convenient to do so at the time the matter is called on, he should take the steps necessary to have the matter postponed. On the other hand, if the report has become irrelevant because of the passage of time, then of course we should drop it from the Notice Paper. We should not go through the farce of allowing reports to pass through this place so rapidly. A senator may be interested in a report but because he does not expect to have it debated on a particular night he neglects to do the necessary work to support his comments on the matter. We could accelerate our way through the Notice Paper tonight to the disadvantage of a senator who wants to speak to a report and has not had sufficient time to prepare. {: .speaker-K6F} ##### Senator Cavanagh: -- The Senate is no more interested in reports than is the Government. They are used only to keep back benchers busy. No one takes any notice of them. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I cannot engage in a debate on this matter with **Senator Cavanagh.** Perhaps when I have finished **Senator Cavanagh** can put his point of view. I think that we are in agreement. We are now debating General Business Order of the Day No.11 which concerns the report on processing law reform proposals by the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs. The matter is not listed on the business sheet and therefore **Senator Evans** who was granted leave to continue his remarks may not be aware that the matter has been called on. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- He is perfectly aware. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -Perhaps he is perfectly aware of it but does not wish to speak. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- Yes, he does. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -He does wish to speak? {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- In reply. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -The point I am making- some other honourable senator may wish to speak on it- is that unless an item appears on the business sheet it is likely to escape the attention of the honourable senator who has been granted leave to continue his remarks that the matter may be debated. It is only 9 o'clock and, at the rate we are moving through the Notice Paper, we possibly will finish General Business Order of the Day No. 22 or No. 24. {: .speaker-IE4} ##### Senator Archer: -- It is jolly good too. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- If the honourable senator thinks that that is jolly good the matters should not be on the Notice Paper in the first place. I am guilty of seeking leave to continue my remarks on a number of matters because I understood that the Senate was interested in them. I am finding myself in the awkward position of having to allow matters to go by for which I have been granted leave to continue my remarks and about which I know very little, if anything. I am starting to feel embarrassed by the fact that some matters are standing in my name and that I am sitting here and saying nothing on them at all. {: .speaker-UJ4} ##### Senator Walters: -- That is not unusual. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -The honourable senator is completely out of order. Her comments are also completely unfair. I put it to the Senate that we will have to take more care now and look at these reports from time to time. Those which are not relevant should be dropped from the Notice Paper so that at least we will know exactly what we are doing. {: #subdebate-53-0-s1 .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator PUPLICK:
New South Wales -- As a member of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs I wish to address a few remarks to the report. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What would you have done if I had not got to my feet? {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator PUPLICK: -I was fully expecting to receive the assistance of the honourable senator in this matter. I think I should commence by saying that **Senator Evans,** as I understand it, made a fairly detailed speech on the report when it was first brought down. Although the Notice Paper shows him as being in continuation, I believe that, in fact, he had concluded his remarks on this matter. One of the most important aspects of this report is to draw attention to the fact that the process of law reform is an on-going process and to draw to the attention of the Senate and to the attention of Parliament generally and, indeed, to the attention of those bodies that are professionally concerned with the question of law reform, the fact that the whole process of law reform is a matter which just does not concern simply the lawyers. It concerns not only the other members of Parliament who are as legislators equally responsible in the long run for drafting and enacting statutes. It is a matter, furthermore, that undoubtedly finds a great deal of sympathy in the wider community when people are continually affronted in their daily lives with the situation in which laws are no longer applicable, in which the courts and other bodies draw attention of the public and of the wider community to the failures of the law in certain areas and, indeed, to the inconsistencies of the law in certain areas. It will be seen in this report, for instance, that some attention is given to a particular example involving a matter of the law as it relates to families in which a judge of the New South Wales Supreme Court was able to draw attention to the fact that the operation of the law as it was, and even the operation of the law as it had been updated by the passage of the Family Law Act, nevertheless had brought about a situation which, from the community's point of view, was entirely unsatisfactory. Neither the Supreme Court of New South Wales nor the Family Court had the sort of jurisdiction that one would have expected after nearly 80 years of federal law affecting family matters and family relationships and which should have been solved long before this date. I want to turn to several of these specific recommendations which are to be found in the report entitled 'Reforming the law'. The first of these- I think this is an important one- is the recommendation that the Australian Law Reform Commission should continue in its reports to present detailed draft legislation to Parliament together with its reports for consideration. As honourable senators would be aware, once a reference is given to the Australian Law Reform Commission it obliged to report back to this Parliament. The Attorney-General makes the report available. In the past the Law Reform Commission has, most advisedly, dealt with this by appending, where appropriate, actual draft legislation. This is a technique which brings to the Parliament the sort of legislation which is prepared by people who are not part of the normal parliamentary system, not part of the Cabinet system, not part of the system involving parliamentary counsel and all the other adjuncts to the lawmaking process that are uniquely confined within the parliamentary arena. That statute proposals in detail come forward from the Law Reform Commission which has established, under the chairmanship of **Mr Justice** Kirby, a most enviable reputation for the amount of consultation, work, thought and argument that goes into its proposals, is a most worthwhile initiative. We have seen in recent reports of that Commission dealing with such matters as defamation and privacy specific details about what the legislative consequences of a report prepared by a body established by the Parliament to advise the Parliament ought to be. I think it would be a good example to be followed not only by those committees and commissions involved in the business of law reform, but also by those that are involved in recommending changes to statute law for the reports to contain some detailed recommendation about the changes that they want to see specifically in the law in question. Recommendation 5.5 of the report deals with the position of the relationship between law reform commissions and the Parliamentary Counsel. The Minister for Education **(Senator Carrick),** who is in charge of the chamber this evening, and other Ministers would be well aware that in recent years one of the greatest bottlenecks that has occurred in the analysis and the preparation of legislative proposals coming before this chamber and before the Parliament in general has been the lack of staff and the lack of expert persons available to the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. As a member who is not familiar with the detailed work done by Cabinet and Cabinet committees, I am nevertheless aware of the amount of time that is lost and the number of delays that are occasioned because of the necessity for parliamentary counsel properly to cast their eyes over every word that appears in statute law. The recommendation here that provides a flexibility of arrangements between the law reform commissions on the one hand and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on the other so that there is an exchange and a constant flow of personnel and ideas between these two particular important bodies in our legislative framework is a matter that is certainly worthy of far greater attention being given to it than the Government seems to have given until this date. As a back bench or private member of the Senate, I am most concerned to see some effect given to the proposals in recommendation 5.6 of this report. That recommendation reads as follows: >As a means of providing, among other things, an effective parliamentary opportunity for the consideration of law reform proposals neglected by the executive, there should be initiated a system to guarantee regular debate of Private Members' Bills, along the lines of the Westminster ballot procedure. I consider it most important that the Parliament should have the opportunity- far greater opportunity than it has had in the past- to deal with matters which could be described as private members' Bills. I want to say something about both private members' Bills and the proposal which refers specifically to the Westminster ballot. Under the Westminster ballot system members of the Westminster Parliament who wish, in the course of a parliamentary session, to initiate a private member's Bill give notice of their intention. The names of those members are then placed in a ballot and are assigned by lot a position on a list, which guarantees that the first couple of people whose names are on the private members' list at least introduce their private members' Bills and get them to the second reading stage in the Westminster Parliament in the course of that parliamentary session. I draw attention to two particular matters which I consider to be important illustrations of the effect of this system. In the session of the British Parliament which came to an end only with the decision of **Mr Callaghan** finally to submit himself to the inevitable judgment of the British population, a Bill on freedom of information had been introduced by the Liberal member for the Isle of Ely, **Mr Clement** Freud. The Senate Committee which presented the report which is before the Senate, namely, the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs, is almost at the stage of being able to bring to the Parliament its final report on the Freedom of Information Bill which was introduced into the Parliament by the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** some time ago. Freedom of information, which by and large has been resisted in most Westminster parliaments- certainly, by and large, it has been resisted in this Parliament and it has been resisted, in particular, in the United Kingdom Parliament- nevertheless came forward in the British Parliament as the subject of a private member's Bill which engendered a great deal of debate. It is unfortunate from the point of view of that particular legislative measure that there was no opportunity for a final vote on the Bill before the Parliament was dissolved, particularly as it had been indicated that there was very wide bipartisan support for the measure in question. Perhaps a more interesting example in some ways is the fact that the current British Prime Minister, **Mrs Thatcher,** made her first speech in the House of Commons on a private member's BUI. She put her name in the ballot procedure for private members' Bills and her name was drawn in the No. 1 position before she had made her maiden speech to the House of Commons. Her maiden speech was made introducing a private member's Bill, one very much along the lines of a freedom of information Bill because it was a Bill which sought to provide that meetings of local government councils throughout the United Kingdom could be held only in public and that the Press and members of the public should have access at all times to all aspects of local government meetings in the United Kingdom. Honourable senators who are familiar with the operation of local government in Australia undoubtedly have been affronted from time to time to see the alleged representations of the people- the elected representatives of the people- hive themselves off into private and secret discussion and make decisions which affect individuals and ratepayers without making themselves open to public and Press scrutiny. The Bill which **Mrs Thatcher** introduced as a private member's Bill passed through all stages in the House of Commons and was given a very speedy passage through the House of Lords. For some 25 years or so it has been part of the statute law of the United Kingdom. In Australia the record has not been quite as hopeful as one might have wished. For instance, buried somewhere in the Notice Paper of the Senate, after some three years, is a Bill standing in the name of our colleague, **Senator Bonner.** It is a Bill which raises important matters of principle. It is a Bill which is important to all members of the Aboriginal community throughout Australia. It is a Bill which twice has been taken through to the second reading stage in this chamber. It has then been pushed down to the bottom of various Notice Papers while we have debated every pettifogging Bill on poultry levies, book bounties, and dental alloys- just about any other matter of legislation, two-line legislation, including legislation making the rednosed wombat a protected animal. We have debated that type of legislation while legislation of particular significance to **Senator Bonner** and to the people whom he has a particular concern to represent in this Parliament has not been brought forward for proper debate in this chamber after some three or four separate parliamentary sessions. I think that is highly regrettable. In fact, I think that the Government stands somewhat condemned for the fact that that private member's Bill has been introduced and has not been taken through all its stages so that other members of the Senate have an opportunity to discuss it. As I said, it has been languishing on the Senate Notice Paper for a considerable period, buried fairly low down on the list. It is important, therefore, that a procedure outlined in a recommendation in a committee report, that the Executive should make opportunity available for the introduction of private members' Bills into the Parliament to effect law reform- law reforms initiated by private members of the Parliament and not law reforms dependent upon the whim of the Executive- is a procedure to which the Government should give far greater attention. The report contains considerable discussion about the number of private members' Bills which in the past have been introduced into the Australian Parliament and have not been dealt with. I think that every member of the Senate would find himself very much affected by the fact that one of the most significant parts of the Australian electoral system, namely, compulsory voting, was brought into the Parliament and passed through the Parliament as the subject of a private member's Bill. That piece of legislation, which has had a most profound effect on the Austraiian political system and the way in which it has developed, was introduced as a private member's Bill and passed through the Parliament. One could go back and find other examples of private members' Bills. The report contains other examples, including Bills relating to matrimonial law and Bills which were introduced by the Opposition and passed through the Parliament. I think it is regrettable that of all the parliaments with the Westminster system, with which we are familiar, and of all the parliaments in the democratic system, with which we are familiar, this Parliament is probably the one with the most restricted record in facilitating private members' Bills coming before the members of the chambers for consideration. I hope that the Government, when it presents its reply to this report- the six months required under the current system has not expired- will deal with this matter. {: .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator Missen: -- Not required. {: .speaker-TI4} ##### Senator PUPLICK: -Well the six months which the Government has accepted in principle should govern its responses to parliamentary reports. I refer honourable senators to paragraph 1 .6 of the report before the Senate, which states: >In the history of the Federal Parliament only eight Private Members' Bills have passed into law. One could say that that represents roughly one every decade. The report continues: >The more important of these measures involved the assurance of the lives of children under the age of ten years (Life Assurance Companies Act 1905), the exemption of persons from service on the grounds of conscientious beliefs (Defence (No. 2) Act 1939), compulsory voting (Electoral (Compulsory Voting) Act 1924), the establishment of a woman's domicile for the purposes of instituting proceedings in any matrimonial cause (Matrimonial Causes Act 1955), and the siting of the new and permanent Parliament House (Parliament Act 1974). It appears that we have no difficulty facilitating the consideration of private members' Bills which go to a matter of such supreme national importance- not to mention our own convenience- as the siting of the new and permanent Parliament House. The paragraph continues: >The other Private Members' Bills enacted were the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1909, the Supply and Development (No. 2) Act 1939, and the Australian Capital Territory Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Act 1971. Two Private Members' Bills are presently before the Senate: the Aborigines and Islanders (Admissibility of Confessions) Bill 1978 and the Constitution Alteration (Holders of Office of Profit) Bill 1 978, the latter of which has been referred to this Committee for enquiry and report. It is not uncommon for such Bills to be introduced into the Australian Parliament; what is uncommon is for them to be debated and enacted. I turn to only three other recommendations that the Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs came forward with. The first is that just as the Government has undertaken to attempt to reply to these reports within a period of six months, so we recommend that Ministers should be obliged to respond within six months of the receipt of the Committee 's reports by stating to the Parliament the Government's intention with respect to the Commission proposals in question. This means in effect that when the Law Reform Commission comes forward with a series of recommendations the Government should seek to respond to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in exactly the same way as it has undertaken to respond to reports which come to it from parliamentary committees. When one considers the amount of time, effort, money and intellectual ability expended by the Law Reform Commission in putting together reports and, in most cases, accompanying them with detailed legislative provisions, it is incumbent upon the Government not simply to accept these reports and leave them to gather dust around the place but to respond to the suggestions made to it by its own expert advisers on law reform by saying whether it intends to take any action on the law reform proposals in question. Paragraph 5.19 illustrates a matter which **Senator Missen,** the Chairman of this Committee, has already referred to in a debate earlier this evening. This matter goes not so much to staff ceilings as to funds. The paragraph states: >That sufficient funds be provided to enable the Australian Law Reform Agencies Conference to continue on a regular basis. Throughout this report we draw attention to the fact that if law reform commissions are to do their job effectively they have to have adequate sources of finance. It is of no use believing that simple non-expenditure on the law reform commissions is a way of saving government revenue, because if the net effect of that is to bring about a situation in which valuable proposals for law reform are not brought forward, we will find in the not too distant future that that is an extremely false economy. The final recommendation to which I wish to turn my attention is in paragraph 5.23, which reads: >That measures be taken to establish an efficient permanent secretariat for the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The work that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has been able to do in recent years, I think, has been notable. The attitude of co-operation between the Federal and State authorities on the important matters which require some uniformity in the law throughout Australia or which require a co-operative attitude between the Federal and State governments has been facilitated over recent years by the development of the Standing Committee. I think that the Standing Committee has been able to operate in an essentially bipartisan and cooperative manner. It has given high priority to the question of what is really in the public benefit and what, in terms of the co-ordination and arrangement of various law proposals, needs to be put on a national footing. This recommendation is that a permanent secretariat be set up. It does not have to be a large secretariat. It would be, I hope, a secretariat unlike some of those which **Senator Rae** finds so objectionable. It should be under the direct control of the Parliament and should not be given some sort of independent existence free from any degree of parliamentary scrutiny and control. It would be a small secretariat which could serve to act as the clearing house for the Standing Committee and as a permanent reminder that the process of law reform is not simply a one-off and ad hoc job whenever the Attorneys-General can get together or whenever a matter becomes of such a scandalous proportion that national action has to be undertaken to avoid national political repercussions. In conclusion I simply wish to say that the members of this Committee will be waiting with great interest to see what the response of the Attorney-General is to this report when the six months period is up. I think that we would be mindful of the fact that the use of private members' Bills in this Parliament is not a matter which lies within the hands of the Executive. It is not up to the Executive to facilitate or not facilitate the use of private members' Bills in this place. It is up to each member of the Senate individually to insist, when private members' Bills come forward and are considered by honourable senators on both sides of the chamber to be important matters, that it should be understood that the Parliament is not the Parliament of the Executive but is the Parliament of the individual members of the Parliament. When private members' legislation comes forward and is regarded as being worthy of debate it should take precedence, I believe, over the simple convenience of the Executive to get through its minor amendments and its technical alteration to this, that and the other Bill which from time to time it requires passed as much for the convenience of the Administration as for the better government of the people of Australia. I hope, therefore, that at the end of the six months period the Attorney-General will be able to report that the recommendations contained in this report are ones that the Executive is prepared to take the necessary action upon and that they will commend themselves equally to individual honourable senators who are prepared to take more of an individual responsibility and to shoulder more of an individual burden in ensuring that the law in Australia is kept under regular and constant review and that necessary reforms can be initiated and carried through by the activities of private honourable senators just as easily as they can at the whim and according to the timetable of the Executive. {: #subdebate-53-0-s2 .speaker-KUU} ##### Senator MISSEN:
Victoria -in reply- I would like to make a few brief comments in reply to this debate. I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken in this debate, **Senator Evans** and **Senator Puplick,** who are members of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs and who have stressed various recommendations of the report. I am sorry that at this stage the debate has not led to any expressed interest by other honourable senators because it seems to me that a number of the matters which are raised in this report are of vital importance to back bench members in the way in which they perform in the Parliament. The only other contributions to the debate tonight and on a previous occasion were made by **Senator Georges,** who is in the chamber at the moment, and by **Senator Cavanagh,** mainly by interjection. **Senator Georges** recognised that he was a little mistaken about the facts with regard to **Senator Evans,** who had in fact finished his speech. I am not criticising him for that because it was a natural misunderstanding, but I think that what was at the basis of his criticism was quite right. During the consideration of General Business tonight there has been a relative lack of interest in the debates. Few honourable senators have been prepared to speak on the various issues. More honourable senators perhaps have spoken on this issue than on a number of the others. The real problem in relation to General Business matters on the Notice Paper is that there may be few speakers on the early items but honourable senators quite naturally do not expect later items to come on for debate. It seems to me that if back bench members of the Senate are to gain any real benefit from consideration of General Business items there must be much more interest in the reports and other documents which are presented here. If we are not going to be enthusiastic about these matters, how can we expect governments and busy Ministers to be enthusiastic about them? It is necessary that a greater interest be taken in them. I am sorry that **Senator Cavanagh** has departed from the fray. He made, by interjection, a remark which should not be left in *Hansard* unanswered. He said that the only purpose of reports and the like was to keep back benchers busy- as though these reports came forward on that basis only. I do not think that **Senator Cavanagh** really believes that because he is himself a Deputy Chairman of the Regulations and Ordinances Committee and in that capacity he is constantly bringing forward probing areas and constantly keeping Ministers busy dealing with the matters that he so rightly raises as an honourable senator. Therefore, he does not practice what he suggested in his interjection. I do not think that he believes it. I believe that what he has suggested is not so; that members of the standing committees of the Senate are in fact enthusiastic and keen. It is a pity that we do not find more enthusiasm expressed, more reports read and more keenness evident. When reports are neglected and not acted upon for some period, honourable senators should rise in the Senate and do something about it. We are perhaps very quiet in that regard, when one considers that the report on the priority of Crown debts is now 15 months overdue and no decision has been expressed by the Government concerning its views. **Senator Puplick,** in an excellent contribution to the debate, has displayed an enthusiasm, which I share, for a better procedure for dealing with private member's Bills. I merely criticise, as I did by way of interjection, his remark which I know he did not really mean about a wait of six months being required so that the Government could report. I think he said: 'After six months'. I am sure that he agrees that we do not want governments to take six months to respond. One could have the dream that governments might be waiting eagerly for reports to come down in this place, and be ready to do something about them. That is perhaps too much to dream. But one would hope that governments and others who look at these reports would see in them matters that require urgent attention by the Parliament. The six months should be the maximum period during which some action could be expected. We should be able to hope, even if it happened only occasionally, that the Government would make a statement within two or three months of the tabling of a report concerning its proposals for implementation or otherwise. In the course of the debate which took place on this matter on 10 May, and in the course of what has been said tonight, it has been indicated that certain recommendations in the report are important. I refer to law reform and to the collecting of the reports of the Law Reform Commission of Australia. These recommendations ought to be implemented more quickly. We should ensure, as recommended in paragraph 5.11, that committees of the Parliament should have such reports referred to them. When the recommendations in turn come back they should be subject to the six months rule, so that there will be an element of timing and the Law Reform Commission reports will not go into the discard for a considerable period before being acted upon, when they are somewhat out of date and requiring further amendment. The recommendations that we have made, both in regard to the collection and assessment of law reform proposals, relate also to the coordination of the work of law reform, and to questions of uniform law, which are not as successful in this country as they should be. I hope that those recommendations will appeal to both the Government and to the members of the Parliament as worthy of constructive consideration and action. We await therefore with great interest and eagerness the reaction of the Government. I thank the members of the Senate and of the Committee who have contributed to the work on this report. I invite any honourable senator who has not read it to look at it and express his views upon it. I hope that we will find something coming from it so that the work of the Senate will again be found to be useful and justified. Question resolved in the affirmative. {: .page-start } page 493 {:#debate-54} ### SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT Motion (by **Senator Durack)** agreed to: >That unless otherwise ordered, the Senate at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 1 1 September 1979, at half-past two p.m., unless otherwise called together by the President, or, in the event of the President being unavailable owing to illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees. {: .page-start } page 493 {:#debate-55} ### ADDITIONAL SENATE COMMITTEE ROOM {: #debate-55-s0 .speaker-10000} ##### The PRESIDENT: -- I wish to advise honourable senators that at my request certain reallocations of accommodation on the Senate side of the building were undertaken during the last recess. As a result of these changes I am now happy to advise honourable senators that from Monday of next week there will be an additional Senate committee room available for the use of committees of the Parliament. Honourable senators will be aware that with the growth of the committee system there has been established a need for additional committee rooms in the building. I trust that the new committee room located in the Senate committee room wing will go some way towards meeting this demand. I thank the Telecom Australia officers based in Parliament House and the parliamentary officers concerned for their co-operation in this matter. {: .page-start } page 493 {:#debate-56} ### ADJOURNMENT Disadvantaged Persons: Social Attitudes- Compulsory Health Insurance- Pseudo-religious Cults- VIP Flights- Aid to East Timor Motion (by **Senator Durack)** proposed: >That the Senate do now adjourn. {: #debate-56-s0 .speaker-VJ4} ##### Senator WATSON:
Tasmania -- Following the discussion last week which centred largely on the drug problem, my conscience led me to examine the wider role of the disadvantaged in our community. I believe that the Senate is an appropriate chamber or forum in which to make such a study. The disadvantaged in our society are those who are regarded as being outside the community, people such as alcoholics, the homeless, the unemployed, the aged, the deserted wives and the mentally and physically handicapped. Unfortunately, a discussion of this nature usually tends to degenerate into little more than a theoretical abstraction, and I hope that my contribution tonight will not fall into that category. Such discussions often sound wonderful to those listening and some feel inspired to act, to help the disadvantaged. Regrettably, their enthusiasm is generally short lived. Rarely does such a discussion come to terms with the real problem. Frequently it is insubstantial, and no suitable solution is found. I hope that my talk tonight will not fall into this category of being just another superficial discussion, one that will be glossed over and forgotten. Rather I hope to offer some tangible solution. Disadvantaged people all share the status of being outcast, of being placed outside the society in which they live. They are not there solely due to economic reasons. In fact, there are other factors. If that were not so the solution could be quite simply found by the Government providing an equitable redistribution of income. All would then share equally in the resources of their country. Unfortunately, as I have said, this is not the case. There would still be those who would not be able to pursue the future of their choice, to live their lives as they would wish. I cite an example from Russia, where a reasonably equitable distribution of income has been achieved. Even in that society there is a disadvantaged community which includes religious groups and non-Russian residents. These people are denied advancement in Russian society and therefore are to be classified as disadvantaged. I repeat, not always can one argue logically that economic circumstances are such as to cause a person to be called disadvantaged. However, I believe that that is the major contributing element. Generally, it is those who do not fit into what I call the changing values or mould who become disadvantaged. Many Australians have become so self-centred that they have not time to think of other people. Unfortunately, I am one who believes that the sins of omission are often far greater than those of commission. The centre of the city from which I come has a relatively small population but when one includes the outlying suburbs its population rises to some 84,000. 1 believe this could be regarded as typical of many other towns in Australia. Hence I think that my comments tonight might be regarded as a microcosm of what is generally reflected in Australian society. I think two illustrations might help to prove my argument. Let us look firstly at one of them. I take the case of a widow, who is one of 3,000 people in Tasmania waiting for a Department of Housing home. This widow, with her two children, lives in a three bedroom house that the landlord has allowed to fall into a terrible state of disrepair. Not only is it draughty but also it is vermin infested and has only a makeshift kitchen. This widow was forced to rent this house as there was not other accommodation available to her. But when she complained to the landlord, he retaliated by threatening to raise the rent. The second example covers a contentious issue, but a service that is needed in our city. I refer to the Launceston Women's Shelter. I think every honourable senator would be aware of the valuable service that these shelters offer. However, the very fact that these shelters exist indicates just how uncaring people have become today. When a women has to go to one of these shelters it implies that she has nowhere else to go- no friends, no neighbour, not even a relative close enough to turn to or to trust in, or from whom she can find comfort and assistance. Since this shelter was formed four years ago over 1 ,250 women and children have had cause to use it. This assistance has not been appreciated by all within the community, particularly those in the near neighbourhood, because they complain that the peripheral activity of such an organisation attracts undesirables, for example irate husbands pursuing their wives. Neighbouring residents have requested that this shelter be shifted to an inner city area, despite the service that it provides. Obviously we all agree that these residences should not be subject to abuse from these men who are often in an inebriated state; nor should children be terrorised when answering the door to these agitated men. I would not like honourable senators to think I am suggesting that anybody should have to tolerate such a situation. The point I am making is that these residents are more concerned for themselves than they are for these desperate women who are seeking a refuge. Unfortunately, there have also been incidents when political bodies have used the disadvantaged in our society for their own point-scoring, and I must admit with some guilt that both major parties have been party to this. There is also the disregard for immigrants or potential immigrants to this country. The majority of letters to the local newspaper demand, for example, that Australia should ignore the plight of the Vietnamese refugees. 'We do not have enough jobs for Australians', they claim. I think we should really commend the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the Honourable Michael MacKellar, and the Victorian State Minister for Housing and Youth, Sport and Recreation, **Mr Brian** Dixon, as both of these men have displayed a very humane and sensible attitude towards immigrants, despite strong opposition from the extreme poltical wings of their parties. Both Ministers have called for an increase in the intake of Vietnamese refugees in to Australia. **Mr Dixon** has advocated a doubling of the present intake. Their arguments are not always based on humanitarian grounds; they are based also on economic grounds, that the increase would cause an increase in the demand for employment opportunities to such an extent, they believe, that the present unemployment situation would be alleviated. I quote the remarks of **Mr MacKellar** which appeared in the *Australian* on 17 August 1979. He said: >It would be a tragedy if Australia turned in upon itself as an isolationist continent, sitting on its resources like a dog guarding its bones, refusing to share, denying population growth and being timid about achieving the undoubted potential there is for building a prosperous, free and great nation. I hope that the attitude of these two men could be absorbed to some extent in the rest of our community and that our migration policy could be based more on humanitarian grounds than, as in the past, on economic or defence criteria. Unemployment has unleashed its own set of problems. I would like the Senate to consider the case of youngsters coming from the country into our cities with the hope of finding employment. Launceston alone has 2,025 people unemployed, and of those 143 are school leavers. Last month only 57 jobs were found. These boys coming in from the country districts are trapped into a most unpleasant situation. They suddenly find themselves away from their families. They cannot find gainful employment. They cannot really return home if they wish and at the same time retain their unemployment benefits. Yet how many of the residents of our town open their homes to these boys and girls? It is ironic that unemployment, which for so long has been a dilemma of the Third World or the emerging countries, is now part of our so-called advanced society. This presents us with major problems. At the moment we appear to be unable to cope as well as those in developing countries. I believe that part of the solution to this problem would be to raise the level at which people can earn incomes before losing unemployment benefits. This would only be an expedient, but it could certainly assist. I believe that the figures of $3 for those under 18 and $6 for those over 18 are insufficient, and that if the level were raised to $20 with a phasing-out period we would offer greater encouragement for employers to take on people who are now out of work. It is very hard for one to go from the position of being unemployed straight into a job. It is far easier to go from a position of being in a job into another job. What these people really need is work experience. My experience has been that employers are often reluctant to take on unknown quantities. But, as a temporary expedient, if these youngsters could find a situation where they could be accepted into part-time work, from there, after they had gained experience and if they showed interest, the employer would engage them on a full-time basis. The benefit of such a scheme would be that part-time work inevitably would lead to full-time employment. Let me now go to another situation of disadvantage in our community. This refers to the aged. Too many families nowadays are overanxious to put their close relatives, or even their own mothers and fathers, into homes for the aged. They do not want an intrusion or an interruption to their own lives. This contrasts very much with my recent experience in Papua New Guinea. Here, in this developing country, quite a number of people with whom I spoke, who were in quite senior positions in government and in private enterprise, in many cases were prepared to sacrifice, to give up their jobs, to go back to the village and live the village way of life if mother or father demanded it or if mother and father were sick. How does this contrast with our own selfish Western culture? How many of us give up our materialistic possessions, go back to mother and father and look after them in their time of need, when they are less in a position to look after themselves? I believe that these few examples that I have given tonight do tend to typify the general attitude of Australians, unfortunately, as being uncaring and unsympathetic. The following appeared in a French newspaper in 1870: >Moral indifference is the malady of the cultivated classes. I believe this is equally true and could be printed in every Australian newspaper today. Recognising that the disadvantaged are not singled out solely because of economic reasons and that their disadvantage results from members of society regarding them as outcasts, a solution could be to integrate them into society, to enable them to have the same rights and freedoms as everyone else. To counteract this attitude, we must not treat them as outcasts. These cultivated classes of Australia have become too materialistic. There are immense pressures by current moral values for us to keep up with the Joneses. We all recognise the importance of buying that yacht and taking that overseas trip. In this regard, children have become unimportant. This has been manifested by the declining birth rate and the increase in abortions. We deceive ourselves that we cannot afford to enjoy the pleasures of children if we wish to maintain a high standard of living and achieve an even higher level. I think that it is well for us to remember this in the International Year of the Child. In surrounding ourselves with beautiful objects, we have become rather insular. We are nothing more than empty shells because we have nothing more to give to society and we tend to become spiritually and morally void. The empty pews in the established churches on a Sunday are testimony to this. As T. S. Eliot has said: 'We are now hollow men'. The paradox is that the more we dwell on our own security the less secure we ourselves become. In caring for others, we become less conscious of the need for our own security. In caring about the needy, we do tend to gain an inner strength that needs no materialistic foundation for support. Therefore, a massive campaign is needed to be launched to alert people's minds to the apathy, to make people realise the invidiousness of their neglect and to foster a more caring and compassionate attitude within our society. This conscience raising campaign could be initiated along the lines similar to the very successful 'Life. Be in it', 'Have A Go', Project Australia or the International Year of the Child campaigns. All these efforts have been aimed at persuading people to realise that all is not right with our society, that specific problems do exist. With respect to the International Year of the Child, advertisers prompted people to visualise children as special people, with their own unique problems, needing to be treated in a specific manner. When the 'Life. Be in it' campaign began, most of us could see a little bit of the Norm lurking beneath our paunches. A 'care about your neighbour' campaign could aim at rectifying, as H. G. Wells described it in *The Research Magnificent:* 'The inertia, the indifference, the insubordination and instinctive hostility of the mass of mankind'. It could be incorporated into Project Australia. People do need to become aware of their cold-hearted attitude, their scorning airs of superiority. This awareness should make them despise such affectations. Instead, they must realise their nonsuperiority and learn warmth and compassion for other people. There are far too many walls in our society. These divisions need to be broken down before Australia again can progress. Fortunately, there are people who care. I have recently received representations from clergy in Tasmania regarding many of the matters that 1 have just outlined. Underlying their letters is the thought, however, that for the disadvantaged to be helped, the attitude of the general public does need to be changed. As one minister wrote: >Many are so intimidated by the conservative members of their respective congregations that they are afraid to speak out about issues affecting our way of life. Let us hope that we, in a like manner, few as we be in the chamber at this present time, are not intimidated by the constitutuents in our electorates, because I believe that it is up to us to bring about a changed attitude in our society. {: #debate-56-s1 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator COLSTON:
Queensland -- Over the past three years there have been a number of changes to health insurance schemes. These changes have received legislative backing from this Parliament. I do not intend to speak politically about the different health schemes this evening. Nevertheless I can say without being political that there was often confusion in the minds of the public about the full details of the Government's health proposals. One thing was quite clear, however, and that was that between 1 October 1976 and 31 October 1978, health insurance was made compulsory for the people of Australia. It is in relation to the compulsory nature of health insurance that I address my remarks tonight. Let me stress that I have no basic argument with the concept of compulsory health insurance. The Labor Government's Medibank was originally envisaged as a compulsory scheme. It was to be financed through a levy on incomes. Only the uncompromising attitude of this Senate made it necessary to drop that proposal and fund it through general revenue. When Medibank was introduced it provided compulsory universal health insurance in an equitable and simple package. In fact, there are strong arguments in favour of some form of compulsory health insurance. Without the compulsion, people may be inclined to gamble on their health and subsequently find themselves in serious financial difficulties. The benefit of compulsory health insurance is that every person in the community is guaranteed protection against ill health and accidents. That guarantee is surely the whole purpose of making health insurance compulsory rather than voluntary. Yet under the current Government's scheme- the scheme which operated between 1 October 1976 and 31 October 1978- there was no such guarantee. In fact, tonight I shall outline how people found themselves worse off under that scheme than if they had no insurance at all. I illustrate my case by referring to the circumstances of a man, whom I shall call **Mr Smith,** who came to visit me earlier this year. **Mr Smith** had been a contributor to the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society. He had entrusted his health insurance, then compulsory under federal legislation, to this society. In August 1978 the Hibernian Society was voluntarily wound up. Until then, he had assumed that he and his family were protected against medical expenses. **Mr Smith** had contributed about $500 annually to the fund. At the time of the collapse he had unmet claims for medical expenses of around $450 and rightfully had assumed that his claims would be met. However, when the Society was wound up contributors received only 28.5 per cent of their entitlement on medical claims. In addition, if they had prepaid their medical contributions they had only 28.5 per cent of those prepaid contributions refunded. In other words, they lost 71.5 per cent of their money. When **Mr Smith** sought my assistance I immediately contacted the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt)** to seek an assurance that contributors such as **Mr Smith** would not be penalised because of the failure of the fund. For a proper understanding of the case I consider it necessary to read to the Senate both my letter to **Mr Hunt** and his reply. My letter read as follows: >I wish to make representations on behalf of **Mr Smith** of a Brisbane address, who was a contributor to the collapsed Queensland Hibernian Medical and Hospital Benefit Fund. **Mr Smith** contributed around $500 annually to the fund, and at the time of collapse, he had un-met claims for medical expenses of around $450. > >Contributors have now been advised that they will only receive 30 per cent of their entitlement on medical bills. However, **Mr Smith** understands that the society is paying all hospital claims, business creditors and advance contributors in full. **Mr Smith** believes that this is unfair for those with medical claims, particularly large claims such as his. > > **Mr Smith** points out that Governments are quick to aid failing building societies, but are reluctant to come to the aid of health benefit societies whose members seek health insurance, not profit. He informs me that the sum needed to meet medical bills of contributors is only around a quarter of a million dollars. > > **Dr Klugman,** my colleague in the House of Representatives, recently claimed that the Federal Government had approved the fund's subscription rates as being viable and therefore had to share responsibility for its failure. In the absence of any convincing alternative argument, I can do nothing but agree with **Dr Klugman** 's claim. > >I would be grateful if you could consider the matters I have raised in relation to the Queensland Hibernian Medical and Hospital Benefit fund and advise me in due course. Before referring to the letter that **Mr Hunt** sent me in reply, I should say that there were two small errors of fact in my letter. The first was that 1 said that contributors had been advised that they would receive only 30 per cent of their entitlement in respect of medical bills. I subsequently found out that the figure would be 28.5 per cent. Also, in my letter it was mentioned that **Mr Smith** understood that the Society was paying all hospital claims, business creditors and advance contributors in full. Actually, only the advance contributors to the hospital fund were paid in full; advance contributors to the medical fund were repaid only 28.5 per cent. **Mr Hunt's** reply read as follows: >I refer to your personal representations on behalf of **Mr Smith** of a Brisbane address concerning his benefit claim from the Hibernian Australasian Catholic Benefit Society (HACBS). > >The management committee of the Hibernian Society took the decision to cease operations with effect from 28 August 1 978, and in accordance with the provisions of the National Health Act made application to the Federal Court of Australia to have the medical and hospital funds wound up. > >In accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Federal Court shall make such order for winding up as it considers to be most advantageous for the interests of the contributors to the respective funds. Within this context, the circumstances of contributors to the medical fund and contributors to the hospital fund were considered separately by the Court as such funds are separate entities in accordance with the registration provisions under the National Health Act and may not necessarily have the same membership. In fact the hospital fund had approximately 3,500 more members than the medical fund. > >At the time of ceasing operations the medical fund was in deficit whereas the hospital fund had a surplus. > >Before taking its decision, the Court ordered that meetings of creditors and contributors in respect of both funds should be held and their views reported to the Court. > >The Court's decision was handed down on 1 1 April 1979 and an Order issued that the hospital fund and medical fund be wound up. The decision of the Court in this matter is conclusive. > >While appreciating the financial difficulties faced by some former contributors to the Hibernian Society's medical fund, I regret that I am *not* in a position to offer any assistance to them. There is no provision under the National Health Act whereby I can approve of the Commonwealth underwriting organisations in financial difficulties. > >Organisations seeking to vary contribution rates, by virtue of adverse operating experience or to finance increased benefits, are required to seek my approval of such variations. These proposals are examined by a statutory committee, including a member of the Commonwealth Actuary, for report to me. This examination, which can only be based on the financial experience and data provided by the organisation, is primarily directed to the question of the financial viability of the organisation. > >Although organisations' financial operations are subject to Government surveillance, the management committees have a basic responsibility for their own affairs and to initiate action to correct any undesirable trends that may develop. > >In relation to HACBS, it was considered that the organisation was not in severe financial difficulties. Its management committee could have taken appropriate remedial action to correct the deficit which had developed in the medical fund. However, the organisation's management opted against taking such a course of action and instead, resolved that the organisation be wound-up. Subsequently, the organisation ceased operating at very short notice and, under the provisions of the National Health Act, an application was made by the Management of HACBS to the Federal Court of Australia to have the organisation wound up. > >I trust that the above information clarifies the situation. **Mr Hunt** stated in that letter that it is the Government's responsibility to approve the fund's subscription rates as being sufficient to keep the fund financially viable. On the other hand, he stated that the Government intends to accept no responsibility for a failed fund. So, the position of **Mr Smith** was that by law he was forced to take out some form of health insurance. He paid $500 in good faith to a fund approved by the Federal Government and then paid $450 in medical expenses for himself and his family. But because the Society folded he was unable to be reimbursed for his medical bills. Therefore, he is out of pocket by something close to $1,000 for medical expenses for one year. That is quite a sum, even for a high income earner. To a person on a low to middle income with a family to support it is a staggering sum. It we were dealing with a situation where insurance was voluntary there may be- I stress may be- a different argument. It might be argued that people who voluntarily take out insurance should take the normal risks involved and that if the society fails they should suffer the consequent loss. I do not subscribe to that view but, even so, health insurance at the time of which I speak was not voluntary. **Mr Smith** was simply complying with a Government direction. He, and others in the same position, paid dearly for doing what they were required to do by law. **Mr Hunt** admitted that the Government, in effect, approved the financial viability of the organisation. It was not a fly-by-night company operating behind closed doors without Government knowledge or supervision. It was a fund approved by the Federal Government at a time when health insurance was compulsory. Yet the Government took no responsibility for its failure. The victims of the Society's failure were left to suffer their financial loss, deserted by the Government which forced them into this situation. It means that we have a situation in which people, even after pa.ying their contributions, could not be assured that they were covered for the costs associated with illness. In other words, the whole point of compulsory health insurance as imposed by government decree was lost. People had no guarantee that even after taking out insurance they were covered against health costs. It is no wonder that some people think they are taking a bigger risk by paying health insurance than by remaining uninsured. In his reply to me, **Mr Hunt** expressed the view that the management committees of the various funds must be responsible for their own affairs and must undertake to correct any undesirable trends that may develop. This seems fair, but it does not go far enough. **Mr Hunt** said that there was nothing in the National Health Act whereby he could approve of the Commonwealth underwriting organisations in financial difficulties. I accept that. But is it beyond the wit of his Parliament to provide the necessary legislation to reimburse those who have innocently suffered because of other legislation passed by this very institution? Surely we can show that type of initiative, rather than say, in effect, 'Bad luck chum, the law will not let us do anything for you '. I cannot conclude without offering the opinion that the Hibernian Society itself is not blameless for the plight of the contributors. Indeed, the Government considered that the organisation was not in severe financial difficulties and that its management committee could have taken appropriate remedial action to correct the deficit which had developed in the medical fund. The Government, through its Minister for Health, says it was the organisation's management which decided to follow the course of action it did, and it was the management which opted to wind up the organisation. But by failing to take any action whatsoever, the Federal Government was not punishing the Hibernian Society. It was punishing the contributors who were complying with the law and paying contributions in good faith. I ask the Government to consider again the circumstances of this case and the indisputable fact that some people lost money because of legislation which passed through this Parliament. Surely we have an obligation to show compassion to some of our fellow Australians who were financially disadvantaged because of a law which was supposed to give them financial security. {: #debate-56-s2 .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP:
South Australia -- Honourable senators will be aware that I do not use the adjournment debate as a compulsive way of expressing a point of view. Therefore, I hope that they will bear with me while I outline as briefly as possible my concern over the operation of certain cults which shelter under the guise of religious organisations and which are operating in Australia. My concern has been highlighted by an article in today's Sydney *Sun* under the bold heading 'Sect terror chief here- Smuggled in with bomb devices'. I do not know whether there is any truth in that but it highlights the significance of what I have to say. I will quote the first two sentences of this article. It states: >A world terrorist expert for a religious sect has been smuggled into Australia in a light plane. He brought with him weapons and devices for remotely exploding bombs. I raise this subject as a Christian member of parliament and as one who believes in the democratic right of an individual to have the freedom of spiritual expression. I certainly would not wish to prevent or interfere with the activities of genuine organisations which offer spiritual satisfaction to their members. However, I have conclusive evidence that some pseudo-religious cults are operating in Australia. Their activities give me grave concern for two major reasons. Firstly, they give me concern because of the methods used to indoctrinate their victims which present a serious threat to the mental and physical health and which have resulted in some instances in the admission of people to psychiatric institutions. As responsible senators dedicated to the interests of the people we represent, I believe that we should have such practices examined by the appropriate Federal or State authority in order to establish the authenticity of the allegations I have made. Secondly, and again I have conclusive evidence of this practice, they give me concern because of the financial exploitation of cultists who have been converted to a cause. For the sake of brevity, I will give honourable senators an example of each of these categories. The first is a case of a young man aged 24 years who happens to be a personal friend of mine. He suffers from a hitherto incurable neurological disease and is currently confined to a wheelchair. Because of his illness he was interested in the socalled salvation offered by a spiritual cult which promised a better life after death. He was influenced to the extent that he handed over to the cult his entire life savings of $5,000 and was subsequently advised by his spiritual father to go overseas and enter a temple for further spiritual education. Of course, the cult provided him with a meatless low-protein diet. He was left alone in the bedroom for most of the time and was awakened at 3.30 a.m. after nights of study and prayer book reading. Being a conscientious and intelligent young man, this often kept him awake until fairly late at night. Fortunately for him, he became seriously ill with dysentery and feared that he might die there. I believe that this could well have happened had it not been for the timely arrival of his cousin, who was holidaying in that country at the time. Being unable to walk, he was, in effect, immobile and certainly it would have been impossible for him to travel some miles to the railway station. He has now left the cult and returned to his family. Two weeks ago when I was at his home he thanked me for alerting potential victims of these organisations and warning them of their operations in Australia. The second illustration to which I want to refer - {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Did he get any of the $5,000 back? What happened about the money that he gave them? {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- The money is gone. I am glad to say that he has been able to find employment although he suffers from a condition called Friedreich 's ataxia, which is a nerve-ending disease. For example, I telephoned him today and it took him about 10 minutes to get to the telephone. He was not very far away from itprobably about a distance equivalent to the width of this chamber. When he wants to walk around his home he has to stagger along a wall in order to gain support. The second illustration to which I want to refer is the interesting case of a lady from New South Wales who became involved with one of these pseudo-religious organisations because she felt the need of some spiritual satisfaction that apparently was unable to be fulfilled by her own church. This lady was married with a large family. Her husband was a fairly successful businessman. Her involvement soon extended to the stage at which she was away from home at spiritual meetings four or five nights of the week. She was selected for promotion, being an attractive and intelligent person, I understand, and one who could assist in the indoctrination of others. She was offered courses in spiritual education which cost from $25 an hour up to about $650 a day. Honourable senators might be interested in just one or two illustrations of the courses that they have to offer. The document that 1 intend to quote from is the *Times Communicator* of April 1979. It is an American publication representing the news and advertisements from the spiritual movements. They include the Americana Leadership College, Astro-soul, Growing Executives of Tomorrow, Inner Peace Movement, Peace Community Church and Profound Mystical Meditation. One of the courses that was offering and as far as I know is still offering is entitled 'Orientation Profile'. It takes one hour and costs $25. A course entitled 'Balance of Thought and Feeling Profile' lasts 1½ hours and costs $40. The course Soul Consciousness Profile' takes an hour and costs $45. For a course entitled 'The Dynamics of Astro-Soul: Instructorship Methods' on Saturday, 28 April, the fee was $200 and the refresher fee $ 100. The duration of the course was from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. On Sunday, 29 April, for a course entitled ' Inner Communication and Guidance: Instructorship Methods', the course fee was $200 and the refresher fee $ 100. The course was from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. I should point out that those figures are in United States currency. I seek leave to incorporate those documents in *Hansard.* I checked with the Minister for Science and the Environment **(Senator Webster),** who was previously at the table, and with the former occupant of the Chair, **Mr Acting Deputy President.** They have both given approval. Leave granted. *The documents read as follows-* >APRIL 28-29 > >1.' T' Courses > >Saturday, April 28 701-C-T: The dynamics of astro-soul: Instructorship methods > >This course prepares you to instruct course 701-C: The Dynamics of Astro-Soul. You will take a look at how to maintain your pivot point while you expand your boundaries and go beyond previous standards. You will review your life purpose and the ways you can put pressure on yourself by judging your progress along the way. (Prerequisite: 701-C) > >COURSE FEE: $200.00 REFRESHER FEE: $100.00 > >(U.S. currency) > >TIME: Saturday, 9.00 a.m.-4.00 p.m. > >Sunday, April 29 541-T: Inner communication and guidance: Instructorship methods > >Prepare yourself to instruct Course 341: Inner Communication and Guidance in the community. Expand your feelings of concern, discernment, inner discipline and gentleness in your spiritual leadership. Learn important keys to promote your courses. Experience five advanced techniques and understand each of them at a deeper feeling level. ( Prerequisite: 54 1 and be a current IPM subscriber) > >COURSE FEE: $200.00 REFRESHER FEE: $100.00 > >( U.S. currency) > >TIME: Sunday, 9.00 a.m.-5.00 p.m. > >Counselling courses > >Counselling courses will be available at all four National Conference Centres on the fourth weekend of the month according to your needs. If five people request a particular counselling course, it will be scheduled at the centre. > >If you wish to take a counselling course, write or call Washington, D.C. with your name, address, and telephone number, and the name of the counselling course you definitely wish to take. > >The deadline to contact the national office in Washington, D.C. to schedule a counselling course in May is April 26. > >If a minimum of five people request the course at any National Conference Centre, it will be given at that Centre. Plan early to get what you want! > >Counsellors' regrouping > >The theme for April is "Discerning Your Timing in a Counselling: Working with Spirit". If you are a counsellor you will not want to miss the Special Counsellors' Regrouping to be held Saturday evening, April 28th from 7.00-10.00 p.m. There will be a panel of experienced counsellors sharing on how to attract more counsellings, keys to polish your professional image and be in tune with the timing of Spirit. You will have time to ask questions regarding counselling. > >This fee is: $3.00 > >You will find it well worth your time to be there. > >PROFILE OF COUNSELLINGS AVAILABLE > >1001 Orientation Profile (1 hour $25) > >This counselling is a comprehensive profile of your spiritual energy and the personal communication system of your four spiritual gifts. You discover the order of your gifts and the percent you have unfolded them. You will also discover how much you have unfolded your constructive energy. Personal spiritual guidance is explained and you learn techniques to form a clear, two-way communication you can trust. 1001 Swing Update (1 hour $25) > >This counselling is an expansion of the 1001 Orientation Profile. It helps you refine your spiritual communication system as you discover which of your gifts are stable and which have a tendency to swing or vary in percentage when you encounter pressure. > >Through personal therapy, you explore the gift which is interfering with your inner communication. You will discover the keys to regain a balanced orientation to life and smooth flow of communication within. This counselling may be experienced more than once and will provide you with a continuous record of your own spiritual growth. 1002 Blockage Discovery Profile (1 hour $25) > >This profile helps you discover and identify patterns in your life that are holding you back from fulfilment and success. These patterns are usually the result of experiences you had early in life which you did not understand at the time. In the course of this counselling you discover ways to live your life more clearly based on your own true feelings rather than by interpretations you were taught to accept. 1003- A Percent of Balance in the Glandular System (1 hour $25) > >This one-hour profile helps you clarify your relationship between the spiritual and the physical natures of your life. You experience a profile of your seven spiritual energy centres and a personal therapy program that you can use for increased levels and personal unfoldment 1003-B Depth Therapy Profile (1 hour S30) > >This profile focusses on one of the glandular centres and explores the unconscious attitudes and feelings you have in that area. Through this exploration you will emerge with a stronger sense of security in areas such as self-acceptance, relating to yourself and your surroundings, your wants and needs, your incentive to accomplish, your identification and giving of yourself. 1003-C Chakras Depth Chart Profile (1 hour $35) > >This profile is a deeper exploration into one of the spiritual energy centres to uncover concepts or feelings which create unnecessary pressure in your life. You will explore habits, attitudes and unconscious feelings that stimulate tension and anxiety which could lead to physical illness. As you begin to understand why you feel uncomfortable in certain environments, you will clarify ways to release that pressure. 1003-D Spiritual Compatability Profile (216 hours $45 per person) > >This counselling is designed for two people to establish crystal clear communication and develop a closer business or personal relationship. Each person will discover how well the relationship meets the needs of both people involved. You discover how your spiritual nature interacts with others. You will understand the role your personal unfoldment plays in your relationship with others. As you clarify your personal loyalties, you will emerge with a new respect and understanding for yourself and your relationship. 1004 Balance of Thought and Feeling Profile *(Vi* hours $40) > >This counselling is presented in 2 parts. Each part is an indepth search into the unfoldment of two of the spiritual gifts. You discover the areas of balanced characteristics of each gift to a higher degree. A practical personal therapy program is explained to you which helps you continue to strengthen your best qualities. 2001 Universal Energy Chart (1 hour $45) > >As you begin to accelerate your spiritual development you may discover that there are thoughts and energies from past lives that may hold you back from the unfoldment you desire. Seeing a spiritual 'X-ray ' of your aura in this profile, you gain an understanding on a deeper level of how outside pressures and influences can affect your every day life. This discovery of impositions from the past and the present allow you to release these habits and thought patterns. 2002 Soul Consciousness Profile (1 hour $45) > >By the time you reach this level in the personal counselling program, the areas you are exploring are very subtle and refined. This counselling is available for each of your four gifts. In it you look at the relationship between your gifts and your spiritual energy centres. You see how pressure in one area may affect you physically or spiritually in another. Through understanding how your consciousness in one particular gift affects you, you clarify, pinpoint and release these pressures. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator JESSOP: -- Returning to the family to whom I have just referred, it might be asked why the husband did not cease providing money for this exercise. The answer is simple. The teaching of this cult is that if anything interferes with the cultist's spiritual activities he must dissociate himself from that interference, which in this case obviously would mean that this lady would have to leave her husband and family, all of whom happen to love her. The activities in Australia of these cults has resulted in a few associations being formed to expose them to the community. One of these is the Association Exposing Pseudo-Religious Cults, which is associated with the Concerned Citizens and Parents Association of Western Australia, and I will outline three or four of their main concerns, although the list is of considerable length. They are concerned about fraud, false pretences and misrepresentation, which they suggest are being used in cults' fund-raising activities and recruitment practices. According to their allegations, undue influence is being used by some cults to coerce recruits to hand over savings, personal property and income. They also are concerned that demonstrably wealthy leaders are making personal untaxed profits from the activities of some cults, selling goods under the protection offered to benevolent societies. They suggest that some cults are infringing the civil liberties of the individual by using techniques of mind control, including mental coercion and mind manipulation. A number of my colleagues have been concerned about the matter. I notice that **Mr Frank** O 'Keefe raised it in the House of Representatives during the adjournment debate last night. **Mr Sam** Calder also has demonstrated an interest, as have **Senator Don** Chipp and **Senator Knight,** who I understand may have something to say in a moment. I have no doubt that some people find spiritual satisfaction in these organisations and, as I mentioned at the outset, I do not wish to prevent their having their choice of spiritual expression. However, if practices are being employed which affect or endanger people's health and extort large sums of money from converts and their families, I believe it is time that the governments of Australia had a look at them. In relation to extortion by these sorts of organisations, I heard last week on the ABC, I think it was, of a case in America in which a former Scientology Church member, a young woman whose property and all her worldly possessions had been taken by the church, won a court action and was awarded $2m. The church had acquired all her worldy possessions and she was able to prove that that was against the interests of the community. I ask the Attorney-General **(Senator Durack)** to list this matter for serious discussion at an early meeting of Federal and State Attorneys-General. I apologise for keeping the Senate for 12V4 minutes longer than otherwise would have been the case. {: #debate-56-s3 .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator KNIGHT:
Australian Capital Territory -- I should like to add briefly to what **Senator Jessop** has said. I think it is worth reiterating that the sorts of organisations, sects and cults to which he referred are not a new phenomenon. They have been with our society and others for many centuries. But that aside, they do pose a very significant challenge to our society for a number of reasons. **Senator Jessop** has referred to one element of that, the questions of freedom of expression within our society, freedom of religion and freedom of travel. The latter question relates to difficulties that have arisen with members of some organisations and the issue of travel documents to such people, the issue of visas and the right to enter Australia. Having said that, I think it has to be conceded that because of some uncertainties about the activities of many of these organisations, the difficulties of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs **(Mr MacKellar)** and any government in this country have to be recognised when it comes to such matters as the issue of travel documents and visas. **Senator Jessop** has referred to a number of groups that fall within this area. Obviously, the Ananda Marga is the best known of these, along with the Proutist organisations that .at times are associated with the Ananda Marga. I simply make the point in passing that I have been familiar with these organisations for many years because I lived in India for a couple of years a decade ago. I keep in touch with members of the Ananda Marga and with the Proutist organisations in Australia and I have visited all the Ananda Marga schools in Australia, in Perth, Hobart and Sydney. I will say a little more about those organisations later. Similar organisations about which there is the sort of concern **Senator** Jessop has expressed include the Krishna Consciousness movement, the Church of Scientology, the Unification Church, frequently known as the Moonies, a name derived from the name of their Korean founder, and the Children of God. It is well known that these organisations have spread to many parts of the world. Very little research has been done on this, but I wish to refer to a book entitled *All Gods Children: The Cult Experience-Salvation or Slavery?* written by two American journalists, Carroll Stoner and Jo Anne Parke. With reference to the Krishna Consciousness movement, they point at page 63: >The group seems solidly entrenched as a counter-culture haven for some young Americans, though its future is highly uncertain. Today, the Hare Krishnas are everywhere. They have set up centres all through Asia, as well as in Europe, Latin America, the Fiji Islands, New Zealand and Australia. At page 66 there is a reference to the Children of God and to a report which estimated that in 1 974 there were 120 Children of God communes in the United States. It continues: >Since 1 974 it appears that the Children of God have toned down their United States operations and are mainly witnessing from travelling communes in other parts of the world, particularly Europe, South America and Australia. {: .speaker-KVK} ##### Senator Mulvihill: -- Didn't they murder a US Congressman? {: .speaker-KPV} ##### Senator KNIGHT: -No, that was the People's Temple, which is based in California. That incident occurred in Central America. The Children of God has been active in Canberra, handing out pamphlets outside a school, and some concern has been expressed by the community. I have referred to some of the important issues with respect to the protection of the rights of individuals who may be involved in these organisations, but there are many other issues that have to be taken into account. **Senator Jessop** has referred to some of them, and I would like to deal with those and some others. For example, there is the question of the recruitment of members to these organisations. In many cases, great concern is expressed about the methods used to recruit people, especially as they relate to the recruitment of children and the impact of such measures on families. There is also the question of the formation, because of community concern, of groups to counter these organisations, and **Senator Jessop** referred to this in passing. These groups sometimes take the form of parents groups who are concerned about the well-being of their children. I would like again to refer to the book which I mentioned earlier. On page 63 a reference is made to the Krishna Consciousness movement and the following statement is made: >In Australia, the Krishnas are causing the same kind of parental fury they spark here- That is in the United States- and anti-cult groups have been set up to fight them. That is in itself a development in our society where parent groups are being formed to counter particularly the recruitment measures of some of these organisations because of the concern of parents for their children. Questions are also raised about the establishment and conduct of schools and other training centres by these organisations, although I have to say that my own visits to Ananda Marga schools have left me impressed with the form of education and the alternative they offer. There is also the question of the commercial practices of these various organisations I have already referred to the issue of their entry into Australia and the difficulty that they pose for governments and for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. But this also raises the question of the right to travel which in turn raises the more general issue of personal liberty or any possible curtailment of the right of citizens in this country to participate in such organisations and their right to basic democratic freedom such as freedom of expression and freedom of religion. In expressing concern about these organisations in this Parliament I think it is important that we take into account and equally concern ourselves for the rights of people who may want to participate in some of these organisations. There is also the question of the relationship of these organisations with the Australian police and other law enforcement and related authorities. We must also consider the extent and adequacy of existing laws relating to these matters. These sorts of issues pose a quite fundamental dilemma for our society and I do not believe that we as a society are addressing it adequately at this stage. Any investigation that is being conducted is being done by the media and, of course, necessarily by security and police forces which are charged with the security of the community and nation and must pursue that task diligently. I believe they do. It then raises the question, because the matter is being pursued essentially through these two sources- the media and law enforcement agencies- as to whether it ought to be more effectively raised in our major public forums; that is, the parliaments of this country and in particular the national Parliament. It is my view that these matters should be dealt with and that an inquiry should be conducted by this Parliament, for example, so that a great deal more public information is available about the organisations to which **Senator Jessop** and I have referred this evening. Also we must look closely at questions such as the basic freedoms that are involved and the rights of people to participate in alternative lifestyles or organisations which others may find less attractive. I simply conclude by saying that I think the significance of this debate tonight is that the matter has now been brought before the Australian Parliament. **Senator Jessop** has made suggestions as to what might be done between the Commonwealth and the States and I have expressed my view that perhaps this Parliament ought to take a more active role in examining these matters. {: #debate-56-s4 .speaker-3E4} ##### Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -I regret having to detain the Senate tonight but I find it necessary in view of a speech which was made in this place earlier today concerning the tabling of the special flight manifests. **Senator McLaren** made a speech in which some assertions were made which would appear to indicate that I had improperly been a passenger on a VIP aircraft in the company of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** in Queensland during June of this year. I was quite unaware that **Senator McLaren** was to make this allegation so I was not present in the Senate to give my response at that time. I therefore have to take the next possible opportunity, which is the adjournment debate, to set the record straight about something on which **Senator McLaren** was absolutely in error. As I understand it, **Senator McLaren** informed the Senate that only members of the House of Representatives are entitled to travel by VIP aircraft within their electorates and in the company of Ministers. He said that senators are not allowed to travel on the special flights within their own States under any circumstances. He went on to say that Parliament has never been told of any change in the guidelines about passage and use of these aircraft. **Senator McLaren** was completely in error. He has taken a long-standing interest in the VIP special flight manifests and speaks with the apparent imprimatur of an expert on the subject in this chamber. I want to place on record the fact that he is quite wrong in his assertions about those special flights. After learning of his allegations I took the trouble to obtain a copy of the rules concerning the use of VIP aircraft. I received from the Minister for Defence **(Mr Killen)** a document entitled 'Rules for the Use of RAAF VIP Aircraft for VIP and VIP Party Travel'. The first rule is that members of the British Royal Family - {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator Georges: -- What is the date on that? Is that the latest one? {: .speaker-3E4} ##### Senator MARTIN:
QUEENSLAND · LP -- It is the current one; I have the personal assurance of the Minister for Defence on that. The first rule is that members of the British Royal Family, the Governor-General and the Prime Minister are their own approving authority and are responsible for approving persons travelling as members of their party. Therefore on a trip which the Prime Minister undertakes he is entitled as his own approving authority to take whomsoever he pleases on the aircraft. On the occasion in question he did include me and **Senator MacGibbon,** who was also named by **Senator McLaren.** He included a large number of members of the Press, officials and other people, as he is entitled to do. **Senator McLaren's** hostility, I understand, stems from the fact that some questions were asked when Labor was in government about the inclusion of apparently unauthorised people on VIP flights with Ministers. I point out to the Senate that this set of rules clearly indicates that the position relating to Ministers and who may travel with them on these aircraft is quite specific. It is subject to approval by the Minister for Defence and in certain cases the Minister for Defence can seek a waiver of those conditions- in cases of urgency when there are air strikes or for really desperate personal reasons- from the Prime Minister. But the Prime Minister himself does not have to seek approval of the Minister. The Prime Minister, along with the British Royal Family and the Governor-General, as the rules say, are their own approving authority. I accepted an invitation from the Prime Minister to accompany him on a very important tour to parts of my electorate in central Queensland so that he could see the very important industrial and mining development that was taking place. I was, of course, delighted to accept and I did so in the knowledge that there was nothing at all improper about the offering of that invitation and my acceptance of it. I refer to rule 7 which states: >In each instance the travel in VIP aircraft by a member of a VIP party is subject to the approval of the approving authority concerned. In this case it is the Prime Minister. Rule 12 provides: >Any requests for VIP aircraft travel by VIP and party are to be referred to the Minister for Air - I will come back to that- who (apart from travel by the Governor-General or the Prime Minister) will consider the request in accordance with these rules, and if satisfied, approve the request. It is quite clear that the Prime Minister's entitlement is very specific. **Senator McLaren** had heavy overtones in his allegations that maybe the rules had been changed and we had not been informed. I point out for the information of the Senate that these rules refer to authorisation by the Governor-General, the Prime Minister or the Minister for Air and later on refer to such departments and the Department of Civil Aviation. There has not been a Minister for Air in this country for some years. We all know that the Labor Government did away with that ministry and amalgamated a number of ministries into the Ministry of Defence. So clearly that document is at least seven years old. They are the current rules; nothing has been changed. There was nothing underhand. In fact, **Senator McLaren** was grossly in error in claiming that he knew the rules and that either there had been some breach of the rules or the Government was applying them in a different way. The guidelines have not been altered, although there is some speculation that they might be altered in the future. I travelled on that aircraft- as I said, I was delighted to do so- with the Prime Minister so that he could see, in my company, those areas of Queensland which are showing development, which is so terribly exciting to the future of my State and, indeed, to the future of this nation. I have absolutely nothing to apologise for in being on that aircraft. I was proud to be there and I quite freely admit that in this chamber. {: #debate-56-s5 .speaker-YH4} ##### Senator MacGIBBON:
Queensland -- I wish to follow **Senator Martin's** remarks with some remarks on a personal level. I will not cover as comprehensively the ground covered by **Senator Martin.** However, it has been reported to me that today **Senator McLaren,** following the tabling of manifests of VIP flights, named me as one of the passengers. It was alleged also that there was some degree of impropriety in my being a passenger. The basis of the alleged impropriety is similar to that applied to **Senator Martin. Senator McLaren** did not understand how, as senators, we could be passengers on such a flight. Having established that point, he went on to say that he was not aware that the rules had been changed. The first point I make for the record is that I was a passenger on a series of VIP flights during the parliamentary recess. According to my diary, that would have occurred on 13, 14 and 15 June this year. The track we flew was from Rockhampton to Gladstone and from Gladstone to Emerald by Hawker-Siddeley 748 of No. 34 Squadron; from Emerald to South Blackwater, to Norwich Park, Dysart, Moranbah- through all the great coal fields of the Bowen Basin- to Mackay by Chinook; from Mackay to Hay Point and from Hay Point to Mackay by Chinook; and from Mackay to Winton and from Winton to Brisbane by Hawker-Siddeley 748. Those flights were undertaken on legitimate electorate business and at the express invitation of the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser).** I was asked to accompany him on his tour. The tour was very favourably received, as honourable senators would expect. As the Prime Minister and two of the famous senators from Queensland were travelling through that area the tour was widely reported in the Press, with both pictures and texts. It had radio and television coverage. In fact, a very large Press corps travelled with the Prime Minister. That was not referred to by **Senator McLaren.** My source of information on this matter is the same as **Senator Martin's.** We went to the Minister for Defence **(Mr Killen),** the Minister responsible for the operation of VIP flights, and obtained a document headed 'Rules for the Use of RAAF VIP Aircraft for VIP and VIP Party Travel'. Rule 1 provides: >Members of the British Royal Family > >The Governor-General > >The Prime Minister are their own approving authority and are responsible for approving persons travelling as a member of their party. I shall put that in plain words so that **Senator McLaren,** if he ever returns to this chamber, will be able to follow them. It means that the Prime Minister has the responsibility of approving the travel of other persons on a flight which he undertakes. That establishes in black and white the legality of **Senator Martin** and me being passengers on those flights in Queensland. If we need any support for that, Rule 7 of the current Rules states: >In each instance the travel in VIP aircraft by a member of a VIP party is subject to the approval of the approving authority concerned. There are no grounds for suggesting that there was no justification for **Senator Martin** and me travelling on those flights. The rules permit us to undertake such travel. From my understanding, the rules have been in existence for quite a few years because they refer to a Minister for Air and the Department of Civil Aviation, and both the position of Minister for Air and the Department of Civil Aviation were abolished quite some time ago. I find no grounds to support **Senator McLaren's** case. I am grateful for this opportunity to put the record straight. {: #debate-56-s6 .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES:
Queensland -- I wish to speak on the same matter, **Mr President. Senator McLaren** is not here tonight. He was paired in anticipation of attending a meeting of a parliamentary delegation of which he is a member. I do not doubt that if he had been here he would have accepted the case put by **Senator Martin** and **Senator MacGibbon.** They pointed out something of which **Senator McLaren** and perhaps many of us may not have been aware, namely, that the Prime Minister **(Mr Malcolm Fraser)** was the approving authority. Perhaps we considered that he was the approving authority for a flight; that at any time he could authorise a flight from one place to another. But apparently, according to the rules which have been outlined tonight, he also is the approving authority for people who travel with him. That is a fairly wide privilege for him to have. There is one point I want to make to both **Senator Martin** and **Senator MacGibbon.** The Prime Minister undertook a flight throughout Queensland. I draw an analogy with a visit by him to a particular electorate to attend a particular function. It is quite possible that in such a situation he would issue an invitation to be present to the political representative of that area. That courtesy is normally extended. Even if the representative of the area concerned were a member of the Australian Labor Party he would issue an invitation to him. If that procedure is not followed now, it must be a thing of the past. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- There is only one Labor representative in Queensland, is there not? {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- No, there are three Labor representatives. The point I am making is that the Prime Minister was travelling through various areas of Queensland, and quite rightly so because they are important areas and he ought to see them. He took it upon himself to invite Queensland senators to accompany him on those flights. The point I am making is that as a matter of courtesy he should have extended to the rest of the Queensland senators an invitation to accompany him on those flights. He should not have confined his invitation to members of his own party. The flights for which he is the approving authority are public flights. He has the privilege of controlling them. He took it upon himself to invite **Senator Martin** and **Senator MacGibbon.** I accept that he had the right to do so. But I would have thought that on flights of that nature he would at least have extended the invitation- it might have been refused- to the other Queensland representatives. An issue has surfaced which ought to be looked at, namely, whether the Prime Minister is entitled to extend his authority to invite selectively representatives from his own party in a particular electorate and to ignore others. {: .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator Robertson: -- The cynic might say that he was electioneering. {: .speaker-7V4} ##### Senator GEORGES: -- I am not saying that. Perhaps I could say that, but I am not doing so. I am merely saying that the Prime Minister was in Queensland and making public flights- flights of the people. He invited certain senators from his own party to accompany him but neglected to invite other representatives. In future when he is travelling in a particular State and invites senators from that State to accompany him, I think that out of courtesy he ought to invite all the senators from that State to accompany him. {: #debate-56-s7 .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
Northern Territory -- I want to speak tonight on the broad topic of Australian aid to East Timor. Because of the lateness of the hour, I will be brief and just mention the facts of the situation. The reason 1 am seeking the indulgence of the Senate tonight rather than leaving this matter for some other time is that a number of appeals are being mounted for assistance to be given to East Timor. I refer to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Mr Peacock)** on 22 August when he said that $200,000 in aid was to be given by the Government of Australia to the people of East Timor, bringing to $950,000 the total contribution of Australia to that area. I commend the Government for that. There is no doubt that the aid is needed. The Australian Council for Overseas Aid, in its report of July of this year, opened with this sentence: >East Timor's claim on the attention and resources of enlightened aid development agencies is beyond dispute. Church authorities in East Timor- basically the Roman Catholic Church-say that 300,000 persons have been displaced because of the upheavals in East Timor since 1975. The Indonesian Red Cross told World Vision in 1978 that there were 165,839 Timorese people in refugee camps in East Timor or, as it would say, in Indonesia. The ACFOA report quotes an Australian Broadcasting Commission report of July 1979 as saying that 200,000 people had come down from the hills and other places into the refugee centres and that these people were suffering from malaria, asthmatic disorders and malnutrition. Aid has been sent by the Australian and the New Zealand governments and others and by agencies, but there are some problems associated with this aid. The report of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid summarises the points in this order: >All aid has gone to areas under Indonesian control only. > >Indonesia is very reluctant to admit foreigners. When they have been their visit has been brief and restricted. > >All the aid has been sought and given for emergency relief, not for production and reconstruction. > >No thorough independent assessment of the needs, no supervision of distribution, no implementation of an autonomous programme, and no evaluation of the Indonesian Government's aid programme, have taken place. > >All the grants have made to the Indonesian Red Cross for its programme. The effectiveness of the Indonesian Red Cross in distributing aid has been called into some question. The Australian organisation has said this of its colleagues in Indonesia: >They- The Indonesian Red Cross- certainly have the capacity to mount an effective disaster relief operation, but whether they have been permitted to in East Timor I do not know. {: .speaker-ME4} ##### Senator Peter Baume: -- When I went to Indonesia with Amnesty International we formed the same view. {: .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON: -- I thank **Senator Baume** for that contribution. There have been many critics. Amnesty International, to which **Senator Baume** referred, is one of them. I will refer to some others which are quoted in the report of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid. Many reports claim that the problem is one of distribution in one way or another. There appears this quotation: >As a matter of fact, the Government's aid is not lacking in quantity, but in the management of its distribution. There was some complaint about the fact that not enough emergency aid had been available when required. I quote again as follows: >For example, an IRC truck arrived at Remexio while the Foreign Ambassadors were there in September 1978. As people rushed to receive the first clothes and nutritious food they had seen for months, home guardsmen using sticks and stones tried to form them into queues. Even so there were only enough supplies for half of them. This sort of thing continues to happen. Another report states: >For example, in March 1 979, 5 tons of corn were delivered to Maubisse where more than 6,000 people had been waiting for it for five weeks. > >The report which tells of this incident, commented: 'If there is any food at all (for very hungry and sick new arrivals), it is usually very little and comes very late. Which makes the whole aid programme actually meaningless. ' There are other problems which have been said to be distribution problems but they are something else. There are widespread charges of administrative corruption, that is, aid intended for the relief of suffering Timorese is being misappropriated and used for other purposes by the Indonesian administration, that is, the Army, the Indonesian Red Cross and the regional government. I quote further from the report as follows: >There is help from everywhere but what happens to it is a mystery. Indonesia is a nation of all kinds of robbers and parasites. Another quotation states: >There is massive corruption associated with aid. Another quotation states: >At Maubisse in February 1 979 an average of 1 50 people a day came for treatment to the poorly stocked Government Health Centre whilst 'at the same time there were medicines for sale in the Chinese shop (at prices) people could not afford to pay'. The same applies in Dili, according to the report, which states: >Goods from the Australian Government chartered barge, *Alanna Fay* which arrived in Dili in January 1979, and medicines flown in from New Zealand were on sale at . . . Dili and another shop. > >The Polyclinic in Dili is notoriously short of medicines, while shops which sell both medicine and ordinary goods, are well stocked with medicines selling at prices few can afford. > >Aid supplies stored in the godown (warehouse) in Dili are being sold by the Indonesian army and IRC direct to the people or to Chinese and Timorese merchants. The Australian Government has indicated in the statements that it has made that it is quite happy with the Indonesian Government's distribution of aid. The reports suggest that there are many reasons for this. I quote from the introductory letter written by the compiler of the report as follows: >Although not covered in this report, Aid agencies wishing to reveal the situation in East Timor today may find themselves in conflict with the Australian Government which, since the early days of the Indonesian invasion, has acted to avoid criticism of Indonesian actions in East Timor. Australian investment in Indonesia, Australian interests in seabed resources south of Timor, American and Australian financial and military aid and public support of the current Indonesian military government, which form the basis of the Australian-Indonesian relationship', are clear barriers to any change in attitude or actions by the Australian Government in relation to East Timor. Whilst the Government may be happy, many people are not. This is the reason I have raised this matter tonight. I think that this unhappiness which people have may result in a reluctance to give any sort of reasonable response to appeals that may come from various areas- the Red Cross and others. They may be reluctant to send money or aid unless it is sent through the churches, because whilst Indonesia is not particularly happy with the Catholic Church 's handling of aid, it is prepared to let it do it. No doubt it has its own reasons for this which are fairly obvious. It is clear that, whilst the International Red Cross has been involved in the operation which the $200,000 has gone to support, there is not enough staff to give any decent supervision. There are three or four members of the International Red Cross at present in Indonesia. Obviously it would be quite impossible for them to do any real job of supervision. So I would put to the Senate that the Australian Government ought to make clear to Indonesia, through the contacts which it has through the Department of Foreign Affairs, firstly that Australia has a deep concern for the plight and suffering of the Timorese people. I think that this ought to be transmitted to the Indonesians to let them know what the people in Australia really feel. I have no doubt that there is a wave of feeling and sympathy towards1 the people in East Timor. No doubt this feeling would be strengthened if we were able to get more information to provide dramatic illustrations about these 300,000 people who are malnourished, sick and dying. The Government ought to make known to the Indonesian Government our desire to be involved in relief work, not simply to provide aid through money and materials. It ought to make some impression on the Indonesian Government of the necessity for foreign-aid workers to be present while the supplies are being distributed and the aid is being handed out. This will help to overcome any fears that the people of Australia may have that the material is not going to the most needy but is being siphoned off into blackmarket operations. The last point that the Government ought to press on the Indonesian Government is the desirability of parliamentarians being allowed to visit East Timor to see for themselves the problems that exist there, to watch the work that is being done by both the Indonesian Government and the Indonesian Red Cross and to see what else is needed. Surely, if nothing else, this would be a wonderful exercise in public relations. Yet for some reason the Indonesian Government is not prepared to let us go. I have here a letter dated 1 August which was written to me by the Indonesian Consul in Darwin. It states, inter alia: >At the present moment, the people of East Timor being actively carrying out the development in all fields, among of them education and infra-structure are the first priority, which quite far behind with the other Indonesian provinces, due to the longer period of the colonization in East Timor than other Indonesian territories. > >In implementing the development actively, the Local Government and the people of East Timor need concentration, unity of opinion and unity of firm will, so they do hope not being disturbed by any foreign conceptions or advice, which are generally causing disruption of unity of opinion and unity of firm will, which they have successfully kept during this time. > >The Local Government and the people of East Timor, therefore, wish the central Governmet in Jakarta, not to let foreigners visit East Timor for the time being, during the first stage of the developments are still undergoing. With respect, I must question whether that statement by the Consul really represents the view of the people of East Timor. I have a great deal of contact with people coming in to Darwin. As honourable senators will be well aware, many of the people in Darwin have relatives in East Timor and information comes to us by letter and in other ways. Much as I do not like to do so, I must question whether the Consul is really representing the views of the people of East Timor. It should not be difficult for us, with our resources, to find out whether that is so. In view of the lateness of the hour I do not want to prolong the discussion, but I make the final point that support for Timor has been expressed on both sides of this chamber. All of us, particularly those who have been involved, who have visited and who have known people from East Timor, want to help. We want to get behind the appeals which are being made by the Red Cross and others, and give them our full support. But we do need an assurance that the aid that will go to East Timor will go to the people who need it. Therefore, I ask very sincerely that the Government again consider its attitude to East Timor and perhaps see what can be done through diplomatic channels in this matter. {: #debate-56-s8 .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK:
Western AustraliaAttorneyGeneral · LP -- in reply- A number of honourable senators have taken part in the adjournment debate tonight. Unfortunately, I have not been able to be present throughout the whole of it, but I understand that **Senator Colston** raised the matter of a health insurance fund in Queensland. As that falls within the area of responsibility of my colleague, the Minister for Health **(Mr Hunt),** I will draw his attention to the remarks that the honourable senator has made. Turning to **Senator Robertson's** interesting remarks about aid to East Timor, I assure him, as he no doubt understands, that the Department of Foreign Affairs is particularly concerned about these matters. He has already made suggestions for consideration by it as to the better supervision of the aid that is going to East Timor. It is fair to concede that it is very difficult to confirm or deny reports that Australian aid is being misused. We have no people on the spot to really watch the situation as carefully as would be needed to make those judgments. {: .speaker-K2U} ##### Senator ROBERTSON:
NORTHERN TERRITORY · ALP -- If we could get there we could see for ourselves. {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK: -- It would help if members of parliament could get there. But there is the difficulty that officials could not be there all the time, nor could members of this Parliament. However, at certain critical periods the Department has had officials present. For instance, in regard to the aid that in September 1978 was delivered to Dili, Australian officials there were satisfied with the storage and distribution facilities employed. They were able also to make studies of the arrangements for its further distribution. It is also fair, I think, to note that the some New Zealand Red Cross officials undertook a similar monitoring exercise in January of this year and they were also satisfied. Therefore, I repeat, that it is difficult- without having officials present to monitor all the time- to ascertain where the aid is going and how it is being used and to state whether it is being misused. **Senator Robertson** has made some specific suggestions as to how we may better supervise the distribution. Certainly I will draw the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs **(Mr Peacock)** to what the honourable senator has said. The only other contributions that I believe call for any comment by me or by any of my colleagues were those made by **Senator Jessop** and **Senator Knight** in regard to what have been described as pseudo-religious cults. I am aware of concern that is being expressed at present in the community, particularly by some senators. **Senator Jessop** has taken a prominent part in expressing this concern. There certainly has been a good deal of Press comment about this matter. I have been asked questions about it. As the Senate would know, I have expressed considerable caution about what action it would be appropriate to take because these matters do raise very fundamental questions about freedom of religion- religious belief, religious activity. The major question is: What is the nature of the conduct which should be the subject of, I presume, not only investigation but also some action by government or by the law? Of course if there is evidence that activities are in breach of existing laws naturally they would be treated as any other breaches of law by any other people. {: .speaker-KKD} ##### Senator Jessop: -- I was thinking of the possibility of some action such as that in relation to a pyramid sales technique that could be considered as consumer protection or under trade practices law. {: .speaker-8G4} ##### Senator DURACK: **- Senator Jessop** has discussed this matter with me on a previous occasion. I think I suggested that if there were some conduct which involved the obtaining of money by some improper methods it could be looked at within the area of the Trade Practices Act, or it could even be termed to be conduct which is already offending some of the provisions of the Act. I think I did suggest that a complaint of that kind might be referred to the Trade Practices Commission. The major problem is to identify whether conduct is in breach of any existing law or whether it ought to be considered for attention by the law and for reform of the law to deal with it. I have also said that the matter has been considered on previous occasions by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The Attorneys had decided that there was really no action called for them on such previous consideration. It is not for me alone to place a matter on the agenda for consideration by the AttorneysGeneral. It is a convention of that Committee that matters go on the agenda by agreement of the Attorneys. However, I am prepared to write to my State colleagues and to raise the question with them to see whether they would be prepared to reconsider the matter. I think it would be proper to do that. As I have said, the conduct in most cases occurs within the States. Really the only direct responsibility that the Commonwealth has in regard to these matters is in the Australian Capital Territory, unless of course there was some conduct which, as **Senator Jessop** has suggested, could fall within the trade practices area. **Senator Knight** of course spoke on the same subject and suggested that there may be some justification for the Senate making some inquiries into the matter. That of course would be a matter for consideration by the Senate. I do not think I need comment further on that. Question resolved in the affirmative. Senate adjourned at 11.10 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 11 September 1979, unless otherwise called together in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day. {: .page-start } page 509 {:#debate-57} ### ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS The following answers to questions were circulated: {:#subdebate-57-0} #### Defence: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1083) {: #subdebate-57-0-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 24 November 1978: >What powers within the Minister's jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1975. {: #subdebate-57-0-s1 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -- The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Senate Question No. 1074 provided by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs *(Hansard,* 2 1 August 1979, pages 48 to 5 1 ). {:#subdebate-57-1} #### Housing and Construction: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1091) {: #subdebate-57-1-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Construction, upon notice, on 23 November 1 978: >What powers within the Minister's jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1975. {: #subdebate-57-1-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The Minister for Housing and Construction has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >I refer the honourable senator to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs' answer to Question No. 1074 (see Senate *Hansard* of 21 August 1979, pages 48 to 51). {:#subdebate-57-2} #### Home Affairs: Transfer of Powers to States (Question No. 1098) {: #subdebate-57-2-s0 .speaker-ISW} ##### Senator Wriedt: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 23 November 1978: >What powers within the Minister's jurisdiction have been transferred to the States since December 1 975. {: #subdebate-57-2-s1 .speaker-KAS} ##### Senator Webster:
NCP/NP -- The answer to the honourable senator 's question is as follows: >I refer the honourable senator to the answer to Question No. 1074 provided by the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister in Federal Affairs *(Hansard,* 2 1 August 1 979, pages 48 to 5 1 ). {:#subdebate-57-3} #### Alleged Social Security Frauds (Question No. 1457) {: #subdebate-57-3-s0 .speaker-9V4} ##### Senator Grimes: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Administrative Services, upon notice, on 2 1 March 1 979: {: type="A" start="1"} 0. I ) How many members of the Greek community in Sydney were charged in connection with alleged Social Security frauds. {: type="1" start="2"} 0. How many people have been charged and have later had those charges withdrawn. 1. What were the reasons for the withdrawal of those charges. {: #subdebate-57-3-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Administrative Services has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: {: type="1" start="1"} 0. 1 ) 183 persons have been charged in connection with the alleged Social Security frauds. Of these, 182 have been charged with conspiracy. The other person was not charged with conspiracy but with imposition. 1. Of the 182 persons charged with conspiracy, one has died. Of the remainder, 34 have had the conspiracy charges against them withdrawn. 2. The reasons for the withdrawal of the charges are as follows: {: type="a" start="a"} 0. The charge against one defendant was withdrawn because he had agreed to give Crown evidence; and 1. The remaining 33 charges were withdrawn on the advice of Senior Counsel on the basis that the admissable evidence available in each case was insufficient to establish a prima facie case. {:#subdebate-57-4} #### Townsville to Mount Isa Air Route (Question No. 1671) {: #subdebate-57-4-s0 .speaker-PF4} ##### Senator Colston: asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 4 June 1979: >When did discussions first take place between TransAustralia Airlines and Bush Pilots Airways in relation to the possibility of Bush Pilots Airways operating on the Townsville to Mt Isa route, as distinct from the discussions, held by both airways with the Minister's Department, referred to in answer to Senate Question No. 1515 *(Hansard,* 23 May 1979, page 2034). {: #subdebate-57-4-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >Under the Airlines Agreements Act TAA and Ansett have undertaken not to cease to operate a rural air service except after prior consultation with the Secretary to the Department of Transport with a view to the replacement of the service by an air service conducted by the holder of a charter licence to whom approval has been given to operate a regular public transport service in accordance with regulation 203 of the Air Navigation Regulations. > >The undertaking anticipates prior consultations between the Airline and the prospective operator but does not require the Airline to detail the manner of discussions that have been held on the subject. Accordingly I am unable to advise when discussions first took place between Trans-Australia Airlines and BPA (formerly Bush Pilots Airways) on this issue. {:#subdebate-57-5} #### Domestic Air Fares (Question No. 1692) {: #subdebate-57-5-s0 .speaker-KPO} ##### Senator Kilgariff:
NORTHERN TERRITORY asked the Minister representing the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 5 June 1979: >Does the Government intend to review the structure of domestic Tares, in view of the increasing costs per kilometre, as a result of the two airline policy for long-haul passengers to such places as North Queensland, Northern Territory and Western Australia; if so, will the Government consider increasing the flag fall components by approximately $2 on short-haul heavy loading routes in the south, thus reducing the price of long haul fares by substantial amounts estimated to be more than $50 per fare. {: #subdebate-57-5-s1 .speaker-EF4} ##### Senator Chaney:
LP -- The Minister for Transport has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: >The Domestic Air Transport Policy Review, which was completed last year, examined the existing domestic jet air fare formula used for determining fares on the routes of TAA and AAA. The Review Committee concluded that the 'flag fall ' component of the formula was too low, and that the distance component would better reflect the cost situation if it contained two elements for distance reflecting lower operating costs over longer distances. The Committee recommended that a revised formula along these lines be developed and that it be phased in over time. > >As a result of discussions between my Department and the two airlines on the Review's recommendations, a committee has been set up to examine the recommendation relating to air fare formula. > >Notwithstanding this examination there has already been a gradual movement in favour of long distance air fares, by increasing the flag fall by proportionately greater amounts than the distance rate component. > >Before the Review was commenced in July 1 977 the jet air fare formula was $9.13 plus 5.583 cents per km. It is now $ 1 7.00 plus 6.83 1 cents per km. Over the two year period flag fall has increased by 86 per cent and distance rate by 22 per cent. This has meant that the fare for a long distance route such as Darwin-Sydney has increased by about 25 per cent over the period compared with a 48 per cent increase in the fare for the short Canberra-Sydney route. > >Adjustments to the air fare formula are made when approval is being given to air fare increases. A uniform flag fall is used for all routes. Federal Deficit {: #subdebate-57-5-s2 .speaker-2U4} ##### Senator Carrick:
LP -On 31 May 1979 *(Hansard,* page 2418) **Senator Walsh** asked me, as Minister representing the Treasurer, a question without notice concerning the Budget deficit. The Treasurer has provided the following information in answer to the honourable senator's question: >In regard to the ratio of the Budget deficit to GDP the figures are as follows: The honourable senator also sought comment on a suggested contrast he portrayed between on the one hand, the Government's ability to appraise, during the course of 1975-76, the deficit outcome then in prospect for that year and, on the other hand, the Treasurer's reference in his statement of 24 May 1979 to the need for firmer figures than those available at that time, as a basis for a final decision about personal income tax arrangements for 1979-80. **Senator Walsh** asserted *(Hansard,* page 2419) that the reason advanced by the Treasurer for deferment of that final decision was that 'the Government could not estimate the deficit at the end of May '. What the Treasurer in fact said (House of Representatives *Hansard,* page 2392) was: the final revenue estimates for next year's Budget cannot be made until closer to presentation of that Budget and in the light of the final revenue outcome for the current financial year'. Quite clearly the Treasurer's concern was that insufficient information was then available in respect of the prospective budgetary situation in the year ahead (i.e., 1979-80), and his reference to the final revenue outcome for 1978-79 was in the context of date on that outcome being an input to the estimation process for 1 979-80. By contrast, the appraisal with which the Government was faced when it came to office late in 1975 referred to the then current financial year (i.e., 1975-76) which was by then nearly half way completed. It is common ground that estimating the Budget deficit is a difficult task, but broad trends can be discerned and orders of magnitude established; as pointed out in the then Treasurer's Statement to the House of Representatives on 4 May 1976, a continuation of the trends that were underway when this Government came to office would have seen a Budget deficit in the order of $4,700m for 1975-76.

Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 30 August 1979, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1979/19790830_senate_31_s82/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant