30th Parliament · 1st Session
| [TELEPHONE TAPPING AND MAIL ‘ INTERCEPTION | ](#subdebate-5-0) |
THE DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. T. C. Drake-Brockman) took the chair at 10.30 a.m., and read prayers.
page 749
page 749
– My question, addressed to the Minister for Social Security, refers to an answer she gave me yesterday in which she said:
The particular matter about which they were demonstrating related to a person who had voluntarily left his employment and was not entitled to unemployment benefit for a period of 6 weeks in accordance with the legislation.
I ask the Minister: What legislation? If, as we believe, there is no legislation, is it not a fact that the 6-week period requirement is the result of a direction by the Minister to the Director-General not to take into account any circumstances in which an unemployed person may need a benefit in this 6-week period? Is it the Government’s intention to introduce legislation to cover this detail?
– With regard to the answer given yesterday, I referred to the fact that an unemployment benefit is not paid until 6 weeks after a person has become voluntarily unemployed. That was the situation relevant in the case under consideration and it was the basis of the sit-in conducted in the Department in Melbourne. Early this year the Government announced that one of the guidelines for the payment of the unemployment benefit would be that a period of 6 weeks would elapse before such benefit would be paid if a person became voluntarily unemployed. Under the Social Service Act there is a capacity for the Director-General to pay a special benefit to persons whom he considers to be in necessitous circumstances. The Director-General reviewed the case put to him by the people conducting the sit-in and made the determination. Following many representations from the Social Action Group in Victoria there were considerable discussions with the Group about the application of special benefit. I re-state what I said yesterday, that under the Social Services Act the Director-General has the discretion to pay a special benefit to a person in necessitous circumstances. He makes the determination. He is the person able to do so under the Act.
– I ask a supplementary question of the Minister for Social Security. My question referred to the non-payment of benefits for a period of 6 weeks following voluntary unemployment. Is it not a fact that the Minister has instructed the Director-General not to exercise discretion in the case of people who have voluntarily left their employment and apply for a benefit in this 6-week period?
– I say again that the special benefit provision has been in the Social Services Act for a very long time. There is no direction to the Director-General about the exercise of his discretion in paying a special benefit to persons in any situation. The special benefit does not relate only to unemployed persons; it can relate to any person in immediately necessitous circumstances. The 6-week period for eligibility for unemployment benefit was announced by the Government earlier this year. The Commonwealth Employment Service, which is the body that determines eligibility for unemployment benefit, has made it perfectly clear that there is a 6-week period in which there is no eligibility for unemployment benefit if the person becomes voluntarily unemployed. I have given no direction to the Director-General with regard to payment of special benefit in any of the circumstances raised. In particular, I have given no direction to the Director-General with regard to the 6-week period for eligibility for unemployment benefit. As I have said repeatedly, it is for the Director-General to decide on the payment of special benefit in any of the circumstances in which he considers it is essential.
page 749
-Has the attention of the Minister for Education been drawn to the statement in the media that uniformed police now have the right to enter university grounds without the permission of the vice-chancellor? Can the Minister inform the chamber whether this long overdue right extends to all Australian universities or only to the 2 universities mentioned?
-I did see an article-I think, in the Melbourne Press- which indicated that the Victorian Government had conferred such a right on the police with regard to the tertiary institutions in Victoria. I should make these points clear: The universities are autonomous organisations. As far as possible, the Federal Government respects their right to conduct their own affairs. Constitutionally, they are the creatures of State legislation, not of Commonwealth legislation. Therefore the primary role of supervision, if such is necessary, must stem from the States, not from the Commonwealth. It is natural, therefore, that the Victorian State Government has intervened with regard to Victoria. Against that background the Commonwealth Government would not seek, unless invited to do so, to use Commonwealth police in such an atmosphere. Clearly the State governments, the universities and the State police can make whatever arrangements they wish.
Since the point is an important one, I reiterate what I have said in the Senate previously: There is no immunity on campus from the ordinary law of the land. One must understand quite clearly that the university campus confers on nobody any special privileges with regard to the law. A university student, an academic or a nonstudent an outsider coming on to the campusis subject to the law of the land, the same as any citizen elsewhere. Therefore it is clear that it is the responsibility of the university authorities to see that the law of the land is observed, and it is the responsibility of the police to see that breaches of the law do not occur. It is against that background that I was interested to see the item in the newspaper.
page 750
-Is the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry aware that a ministerial delegation from Australia visited the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics last year with the intention of examining the prospect of an agricultural agreement between that country and Australia? Is the Minister also aware that a joint communique was issued last July in Moscow, setting out the intention of both parties to enter into such an agreement? As the matter was not finalised prior to the change of government, can the Minister indicate whether the present Government intends to proceed with the signing of such an agreement?
-Senator Wriedt was good enough to let me know that he wanted some information about this matter. This is my current state of knowledge, to which I may be able to add other information next week: Australia has a history of worthwhile agricultural co-operation with many countries, including the U.S.S.R. This has operated in the past without any backing or any kind of formal agricultural co-operation agreement, although it is understood that this situation may need to be varied across the board. Because of his past position Senator Wriedt knows extremely well the interest of the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics in formalising arrangements for agricultural co-operation with that country. He says that, without any doubt, the U.S.S.R. has made suggestions about the form which that agreement might take following on the discussions last year. The Minister has told me to say that he is very much interested in developing the relationship with overseas countries. He has had discussions about the Government’s consideration of the terms of the agreement. The matter is under close attention at present. The Minister is consulting with various other Ministers about the situation and I shall keep the honourable senator up to date as best I can.
page 750
– My question is directed to the Minister for Social Security. I draw her attention to page 215 of the report of the AuditorGeneral which was tabled in the Parliament yesterday, where the Auditor-General refers to frauds perpetrated by beneficiaries’. He says that these are predominantly in relation to the unemployment benefit. He makes the observation that there has been a large increase in the number of frauds. Since the account of the Auditor-General lacks detail and since we are anxious to avoid any hasty or intemperate judgment, I ask the Minister whether she will arrange for more information to be made available to honourable senators on the numbers and types of these frauds?
-I would be prepared ‘ to make available any information that we have on the number of frauds that have occurred in the past year by beneficiaries and others in relation to the work of my department. I do not have any information with me here at the present time ] but perhaps it is appropriate for me to release that information to the appropriate Senate Estimates Committee.
page 750
-I direct my question to Senator Withers who is the Minister representing the Prime Minister. I am acting on the assumption that he is a reader of the Canberra Times. Several articles on security have appeared in that newspaper in which the New Zealand Ombudsman- a knight of the realm- Sir Guy Powels recommended to the New Zealand Parliament that there be an annual report which indicates the names of people who have been subjected to telephone tapping or mail interception during the previous year. I invite the Minister’s response to the constructive idea that he consider resurrecting the Townley Committee, which knows something about the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, to look at such a proposal.
-I suppose that the matter really falls within the responsibility of my colleague Senator Durack who represents the Attorney-General in this place, because the Attorney-General is responsible for the administration of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and of the Telephonic Communications (Interception) Act. It is an interesting suggestion which the honourable senator has made and I am quite certain that my colleague Senator Durack will pass it on to the AttorneyGeneral for Senator Mulvihill.
page 751
– I direct a question to the Minister for Education. Has the Minister received a letter from Professor Badger, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, concerning student allowances and expressing the view that the tertiary education allowance is now well below the poverty level? If the Minister has received this representation, has he had an opportunity to study its contents? Is he in a position to report to the Parliament on this matter?
– My recollection is that some two or three days ago I received a letter from Professor Badger, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. I read it and noted his comments regarding the present tertiary education allowance scheme and the effect of the level of allowance on those who are wholly supported by it. I would take that into account. To enable them to understand the situation honourable senators should be reminded that the present TEAS allowance was fixed at June 1 974 cost of living prices. The then Government, the Whitlam Government, in the Budget of August last year decided not to make any increase in the allowances. So the allowances, on June 1974 prices, were projected into this year by a decision of the then Whitlam Government and at a level well below the ordinary cost of living. Since then 2 things have happened. Due to the Whitlam Government policies inflation ran up to 17 per cent or 18 per cent, eroding the allowances, and unemployment moved up to 300 000, destroying the opportunity for students to get jobs. Where students depending fully on the allowances cannot get jobs, it is beyond doubt that they are suffering real hardship.
– What are you going to do about it.
– In response to the interjection, I am delighted to tell the Senate that, unlike the Whitlam Government, we will do something and that will be positive. I hope that within the next 2 weeks, or certainly by early October, the Government will announce to the Parliament and to the people of Australia allowances with respect to some 10 schemes of student allowances which will apply from next year.
page 751
-Is the Minister representing the Minister for the Northern Territory aware that an incident involving police and 2 pensioners, aged 54 and 60 respectively, recently occurred at Daly River and that both pensioners are now inmates of the Darwin Hospital? Did the police concerned use firearms? Were the pensioners assaulted by the police? Was a police inquiry held? Was any action taken against the policemen concerned? Finally, has the Minister ordered a top level inquiry into what appears to be a totally unjustified assault or does he intend to initiate such an inquiry.
– I noted a report on some occurrence which had taken place. I am not aware of the facts; they have not been presented to me. The honourable senator has asked various questions. If he puts them on notice I shall seek an appropriate answer from the Minister for the Northern Territory.
page 751
-Is the Minister for Social Security able to advise the Senate of the amount of money sent overseas last year by way of pensions paid to those who choose to live no longer in Australia? What are the basic requirements which must be satisfied before such payments are made to those who live overseas? Does the Government intend to alter those provisions?
– The question requires specific information. I suggest that the honourable senator place it on notice and I shall have it answered for him as soon as possible.
-Mr Deputy President, I wish to ask a supplementary question. Can the Minister give some idea of the basic requirements which must be satisfied or are they so complicated that this would be better done by way of notice?
– The requirements are somewhat complex. I believe they should be stated precisely. In addition to giving information about the numbers of persons who receive the pensions I shall see that the precise definitions are listed in the answer.
page 752
– My question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is about unemployment but it refers particularly to the subject of reduced apprenticeship employment in government departments and statutory authorities resulting generally, I think, from the reduction in capital works programs and staff ceiling policies about which I have asked questions fairly recently. I have been advised about the National Employment and Training scheme and the apprenticeship support schemes. I ask the Minister. As it is now clear that some more positive steps are necessary to ensure the employment of more young people, particularly apprentices and appropriate trainees, will the Minister consult with his colleague with a view to lifting staff ceilings in relation to the employment of young people in particular and to review programs wherever possible which might possibly ensure that young people will be employed. I suggest to the Minister that while it may be likely that improved apprenticeship support to employers and improved training schemes might be partly effective, a more positive role is to take more apprentices into employment.
– I am aware, as the Senate would be aware, of the great interest which Senator Bishop has in these matters. I noted that he asked a question of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Withers, last week about the effect on the Public Service staff ceilings generally. That is an aspect to be considered. I am aware of the great interest in the matter by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations whom I represent in this chamber. I share the concern that there should be adequate provision for an intake of appropriate levels of apprentices and trainees into Government departments. I will certainly pass on this question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and confer with him as Senator Bishop has requested.
page 752
– My question is directed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate and follows an Opposition senator’s question yesterday about the Liberal Party leadership. In the light of reports that the Labor Caucus has taken away from the Leader of the Australian Labor Party the power to sack Ministers unless he has the approval of two of the other 3 leaders in the
Senate and the House of Representatives and that such sackings are subject to subsequent Caucus approval, I ask the Minister whether the Government is considering any similar restrictions on the Prime Minister, or do the Government and the Government parties trust the elected Leader of the Liberal Party to determine the composition of the Ministry?
– I can assure the honourable senator that the Liberal Party and the National Country Party have no intention of adopting the rather peculiar and almost lemming-like desire of the Opposition to stay in Opposition. As I recall it, I said something yesterday to the effect that we once played around with a Labor-type system and went into opposition. After seeing how the Labor system worked out, the shambles which the Labor Government got itself into and the disputation that occurred, by a vote within the parliamentary Liberal Party- I think it was an almost unanimous vote- we abandoned that system and said that the proper way to conduct a party was to elect a leader, put full trust in him and let him select the Ministry. We have had experience over 23 years and that system has worked well. On the other hand, the Labor Party has a different system and has managed in 27 or 28 years to have only 3 years in government. I think that is proof of the pudding.
It is not for me to comment on how the Labor Party conducts itself; I wish it great joy in what it is doing. At the moment it elects its leader for 18 months at a time, but its problem is that it really cannot find one. I thought that a potential leader was going to announce yesterday that he would enter Parliament but he quit for some reason or other. I suppose it is an interesting exercise for a party in opposition to spend most of its time worrying about the powers of a Prime Minister. We prefer our system. It is by far the best system that we have discovered and if the Opposition really wants proof of the capacity of the Prime Minister to choose wise and capable Ministers I invite its observation of the front bench in this place.
page 752
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Environment, Housing and Community Development. Is he aware of the plight of people in Albury-Wodonga who have made agreements to sell their land to the Albury-Wodonga Development Authority? Can the Minister inform the Senate when such agreements will be adhered to and when sufficient funds will be made available for the Authority to undertake its commitments this financial year? Is the Minister aware of considerable public opinion in AlburyWodonga that the Government is attempting to abandon the development of this and other growth centres?
– The honourable senator asked a series of questions seeking information. If he puts his question on the notice paper I shall get him an answer.
page 753
– I address my question to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Last week the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and the Minister for the Northern Territory indicated that leases were being processed by the Government to enable Aboriginal fringe dwellers of Alice Springs to be provided with town services to allow those people to have electricity, water, showers, toilets and camping and housing facilities. In all, 6 or 7 leases either were completed or were being processed, with others being held in reserve for future use. In one or two cases the land was not available. Has a group of people in Alice Springs indicated to the Government that the Aboriginal people will not co-operate in the acceptance and handling of leases unless they receive all land requested as a package deal? If this is the case, what action does the Minister intend to take to ensure that the people concerned realise that by not accepting the leases, the aged, the children and other Aboriginal people will continue to live in an unhygienic, deprived state, lacking the basic facilities for a reasonable existence?
– I understand that the Central Austraiian Aboriginal Congress has issued a Press release indicating that the Government’s decisions on the granting of leases for certain town Aboriginal land claims fall short of Aboriginal expectation. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has announced already that he is seeking to work in co-operation and harmony with all members of the community in Alice Springs- Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal- to find appropriate solutions to alleviate the plight of many disadvantaged Aboriginal people in the area surrounding Alice Springs.
page 753
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Transport. Could the Minister inform the Senate whether the Papua New Guinea Government sought a rearrangement of the Australian shareholdings in Air Niugini that would enable the Ansett organisation to increase its shareholding to 25 per cent of the total shareholding, to the exclusion of Trans-Australia Airlines and Qantas Airways Ltd? If so, what action has the Government taken on the request?
– I read a report in one of yesterday’s newspapers, I think it was, purporting to say what Senator O ‘Byrne has suggested; that is, that Mr Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, had made such a statement. I have no particular knowledge of whether that is an authoritative and accurate report. I will invite my colleague the Minister for Transport to study the report and to give a response to the honourable senator.
page 753
– I ask a question of the Minister for Social Security. I refer to a statement made by the Minister in the Senate on 25 August. In that statement the Minister referred to the establishment of a national consultative group on social welfare to advise the Minister on current issues in social welfare which come within the responsibility of the Commonwealth. The Minister also referred to the proposed establishment of a social welfare consultative committee in each State and Territory to keep the Government informed of problems or difficulties encountered in the administration of Commonwealth welfare programs. Can the Minister indicate whether the Australian Capital Territory will be represented on the proposed national consultative group? Can the Minister indicate what action has been taken to establish a social welfare consultative committee for the Australian Capital Territory? Can the Minister say whether all organisations involved in social security and welfare work in the Territory will be considered for participation? Finally, can the Minister say when an announcement on the establishment of the Australian Capital Territory committee and the other committees is likely to be made?
– I have previously announced that a national consultative committee and State consultative committees are being formed. I expect shortly to announce the names of those people who have been appointed to those committees. In consultation with the Minister for the Capital Territory and the Minister for the Northern Territory I have finalised proposals to set up territorial committees which will work with me in an advisory capacity. I envisage that the State committees and the territorial committees will have approximately 6 members drawn from social welfare professionals, local academics in the social sciences, local government personnel, voluntary organisations and client welfare groups. The names of these people will be announced quite soon. The names of the prospective members of the Australian Capital Territory committee are under active consideration. I feel sure that with these consultative committees the Government will ensure that all questions of importance in the social welfare field will receive active consideration and attention.
page 754
– I feel that my question, which relates to trade, may come within the province of the Minister representing the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs. Is the Minister aware of the desperate state of the apple and pear industry in Australia? Is the Minister also aware of reports that there have been vast increases in the imports of canned apples from New Zealand? Does the Minister know that many Australian canneries have large stocks of canned apples on hand from local fruit growing areas? In these circumstances, can the Minister say what action the Government proposes to take to stop the dumping of New Zealand surpluses on our domestic market at a time of depressed conditions in Australia?
-After listening to the honourable senator’s question, I think it should be directed almost exclusively to the Ministers that I represent. Discussions will be held next week between Mr Anthony and myself and Mr Talboys and Mr Adams-Schneider about the general range of the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These sorts of matters will be discussed then. The import of canned apples from New Zealand does present a problem. It has been adverted to on other occasions in the Senate. I said then that the matter was under critical review and it is. The work is going on and I will try to obtain more information for the honourable senator.
page 754
– I ask the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations: Is he aware of the valuable work being undertaken by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations in educating training supervisors by utilising the staff and facilities of certain government defence factories at present operating below capacity? Will the
Minister consider the extension of such coordination to maximise the use of the facilities at the Weapons Research Establishment at Salisbury in South Australia?
– I am aware of the training program to which Senator Messner refers. However, as it is a question of policy for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations I will pass Senator Messner ‘s suggestion on to the Minister and I am sure he will get an early reply.
page 754
– My question is addressed to the Minister for Social Security. No doubt the Minister is concerned, as we all are, about the sharp increase in food prices for the month of August. A 1 .4 per cent increase in the consumer price index was registered for that month, according to the Statistician. As the consumer price index increase for the September quarter is expected to exceed 3 per cent and for the December quarter is expected to exceed approximately 5 per cent- the former by reason of the big increases in food prices and the latter consequent upon the commencement of the Medibank levy on 1 October- I ask: Will the Minister give serious consideration to consumer price adjustments to pensions before next May and thus prevent the hardships pensioners will otherwise suffer through the reduced purchasing value of the pensioner dollar?
-Honourable senators will be aware that the policy of the Government is to have at 6-monthly intervals automatic adjustments in accordance with the consumer price index movements. There will be an increase to all pensions in November this year and in May next year. The Government has not given consideration to giving another increase earlier than May next year. An increase has already been provided for November this year. I have been looking at some interesting figures which show the cost of implementing some of the suggestions made. I think it would be appropriate if I were to release information about the hundreds of millions of dollars that are involved in some of the proposals that have been made by some of the pensioner associations recently with regard to earlier increases. At an appropriate time I shall give the honourable senator some of this information to let him see the very real difficulty that would exist in doing more than we have committed ourselves to do, that is, to have the 6-monthly increases and to pick up the quarterly movements in the consumer price index. I accept that difficulties caused by increases in prices are sustained by people on fixed incomes and in lower income levels, but the policy is for 6-monthly automatic increases. I think the cost of doing more than that at this stage would be prohibitive.
page 755
– I ask the Minister for Science: Is it a fact that the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation Dairy Research Laboratory has just announced that it has developed a process known as UHT, that is ultra-high temperature, for preserving milk? Does this enable milk to be kept without refrigeration for up to 6 months? Further, in what way does this development differ from the UHT milk produced for at least the last 5 years by Bakers Milk in Tasmania?
– I am unable to answer the direct question asked by the honourable senator. My understanding is that the treatment of milk by ultra-high temperature is not a new process; it has been available for some years. It involves the treatment of milk by flash heating at above the normal temperature. Whereas a temperature of approximately 72 degrees is used for the pasteurisation of milk, under this process the milk is heated for some 3 seconds to 140 degrees. This treatment, plus the innovations in packaging, allows milk to remain in its fresh form undeteriorated for up to 12 months. I am unaware that Tasmania has had this process available, but I do realise that some remote areas in Tasmania are unable to get supplies of milk quickly. To be able to supply such areas is one of the benefits of this type of treatment. I shall obtain the answer for the honourable senator and give it to him.
page 755
-Can the Minister for Social Security advise the Senate whether family allowances are in some cases payable to Australian citizens who, together with their families, are temporarily overseas? If they are payable, what are the circumstances in which persons remain eligible to receive a family allowance?
– There are circumstances in which family allowances may be paid to persons who are overseas. I shall have a prepared answer on this matter given to the honourable senator.
page 755
-Can the Minister for Administrative Services inform the Senate whether his Department has received allegations of racial discrimination on Christmas Island?
Can he confirm or deny that Australian citizens of Asian descent working on Christmas Island are receiving wages up to 300 per cent less than the equivalent Australian rates? Do these allegations relate to the Department of Administrative Services? What steps, if any, are being taken to investigate these allegations?
-Yes, these allegations have been made by the local trade union secretary as part of his normal operations to keep his union members happy and no doubt to show that he is earning his pay. The people involved in the main are not employed by the Commonwealth Government as part of the Department of Administrative Services but are employed by the Christmas Island Phosphate Commission. I think an arbitrator is there at the moment in response to a long standing request by the employees on Christmas Island for an arbitrator to go there to fix rates of pay and industrial conditions. This Government appointed an arbitrator a month or so ago to do this. I understand he is at present on Christmas Island hearing claims put forward by the union. I think I should not comment further except to say that Mr Grassby, the Commissioner of Community Relations, was written to by the same union secretary. If there is any substance in the allegations I prefer to await the report of Mr Grassby rather than come to a judgment myself.
page 755
– My question is addressed to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. No doubt he would agree that it is very desirable, if we are to have strong government, that we also have strong opposition, and opposition where we can clearly understand where the leadership is. He will probably agree also that we need choice as far as possible in this community, as our Liberal philosophy advocates. Does he see any reference or possible reference to this aspect in the current predicament of Mr Robert Hawke who appears to find no possibility of getting into these august chambers? Has the Government considered in any way the possibility, since the Labor Party will not make any supreme sacrifices, that we on this side might make a sacrifice to find a place for Mr Hawke so that the Labor Party may have some choice in leadership?
– I rise to a point of order. Such questions make question time farcical. A Minister has a responsibility to answer questions relating to the area over which he has jurisdiction. How can he or his Department have any control over Bob Hawke? This is an attempt to smear people. That should not be the purpose of question time. I ask for your ruling, Mr Deputy President, whether the question is in order.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I believe that yesterday similar questions were asked by honourable senators from the other side of the House. In fact, I prevented Senator McLaren from asking a supplementary question of this nature. I do not like them any more than honourable senators do. I leave it to the good sense of honourable senators.
– A decent Minister would not answer the question.
-Perhaps, in Senator Cavanagh ‘s terms, I am about to become an indecent Minister. With regard to the broad philosophical thrust of Senator Missen ‘s first question, I think it used to be accepted almost as fundamental that the better the Opposition the better the Government. In the 3-year period between 1972 and 1975 the Opposition was the best that has been seen in this Parliament for many years. Funnily enough, at that time the country had its worst government. Therefore I am not quite certain whether that fundamental proposition is still true. With respect to Mr Hawke, I suggest that as Senator Missen is from the same State he might like to offer his seat in the Senate to Mr Hawke.
page 756
– I direct a question to the Minister representing the Treasurer. The question refers to the fact that a single parent will be made to pay the Medibank levy at the family rate. How can the Minister justify this levy rate when the tax rebate for married persons is $610 per year while the rebate for a single parent is only $350 per year? As it is acknowledged that the single parent family faces greater financial difficulties already, will the Minister investigate this matter further to see whether a more equitable rate can be struck for the single parent in line with statements by the Minister for Social Security that special groups will be catered for under new Government legislation. Further, will the Minister take action to rectify the anomaly wherein if a working husband and wife decide to pay the levy separately at single rates to a maximum of $2.90 a week the Taxation Department would demand that the husband pay an additional $ 1 50 at the end of the year to cover his wife and the $ 1 50 paid by the wife would then be refunded?
-I think it would be appropriate if I suggested to the Treasurer that he attempt to answer this question.
page 756
– I direct a question to the Leader of the Government in the Senate. In view of his little homily a few moments ago on the virtue of Prime Ministers having unlimited power to sack other Ministers, I ask: Can the present Prime Minister unilaterally sack a National Country Party Minister? If so, can we expect him to sack the Deputy Prime Minister for repudiating the Government’s stated economic policy by flying the devaluation kite last Monday?
– All I can say concerning the relationship between the coalition parties is this: For 23 years in government they could not have been better; for 3 years in opposition they were such that the Labor Government was turned out. In the last 10 months we have been working beautifully. The proposition just does not arise. It is a hypothetical question. I do not think it deserves an answer.
page 756
– Does the Minister for Administrative Services have ready to hand the cost of the Coombs Royal Commission into Australian Government Administration? If not, would he be good enough to get it for the Senate? What is the basis of the charge for copies of the report? Can the Minister say how the charge was arrived at? Is it intended to recoup the cost of the inquiry from sales of the report? Is this to be the practice followed in future in similar situations? Will the cost of reports of costly inquiries instituted by the Government be recouped from sales of the reports?
-I do not have at hand the cost of the Royal Commission conducted by Dr Coombs but I will obtain it for the honourable senator. It should be readily available. As to the basis of the costing of it, the honourable senator will know that we have been continuing the policy of previous governments, namely, that the price of these reports is based on what it actually costs the Government Printer for labour, material and the other normal administrative inputs in this area. We are not attempting to recoup the cost of the Coombs Commission because I imagine it would be about $lm. One would have to write a Gone With the Wind to get the sort of sales required to recoup that cost. The price of these reports is commercially based. As against that, in the case of each of these reports a large number of free issues are distributed. Free copies go not only to honourable senators and other members of this Parliament but also to public libraries, university libraries and the like. I understand that some hundreds of copies of the
Coombs report were given to various sectors of the Public Service unions which are more intimately involved in its recommendations. 1 think they were on the free list and that something like 200, 300. or 400 free copies were distributed. It is not as though the people directly affected, through their union representations, were being disadvantaged by being asked to pay for it. I think somebody suggested yesterday that some report cost $1,000 a page. Perhaps that person was referring to the same report.
page 757
– I direct my question to you, Mr Deputy President. It refers to the pictorial display on the lower floor of this building which has been updated and accurately depicts the present members of the Senate. For the benefit of those honourable senators who do not have the Peter Pan syndrome I ask whose responsibility it is to see that up to date photographs are displayed in that gallery.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I was in that area a fortnight ago and I noticed that many photographs were out of date, including those of some honourable senators who are not here, and I made some inquiries. I understand that the Joint House Department is responsible for displaying those photographs. The photographs are provided by the Parliamentary Library. I take it that they are the most up to date photographs and that the same photographs are provided for the Parliamentary Handbook. An interesting point arises out of this question. I understand that after the election honourable senators and members of the House of Representatives were asked to supply biographical notes and photographs. The photographs used are not provided by the Senate. Before the preparation of the Parliamentary Handbook the Parliamentary Library canvasses members of both Houses of the Parliament to supply it with up to date photographs or, if this is not possible, it would arrange to have the photographs taken. The photographs used are provided by the honourable senator or member, or by the Parliamentary Library.
page 757
– My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for the Capital Territory, refers to a situation which has arisen in the Australian Capital Territory this week as a result of the Government’s new policy of bus passes for school children. Several small children already have been left stranded at bus stops because they did not have bus passes. One particularly distressing case has been brought to my attention: A 5-year-old girl was put off a bus because she did not have a bus pass. She was approached by a passing stranger who attempted to force her into a car. She was rescued from that situation by another passing motorist. So she came to no harm. However, in the light of this situation, will the Minister undertake to review the new system of bus passes which already has caused distress and potential danger to A.C.T. school children? In the meantime will the Minister give bus drivers a clear and direct policy instruction that they are not to leave children without passes stranded at bus stops? Will the Minister confirm publicly that financial assistance is available from the Welfare Branch of the Department to parents who are unable to afford the $10 a child bus pass fee?
-The actual facts of the case are not known to me. I cerainly will seek information from the Minister for the Capital Territory. If the matters that the honourable senator has put forward are correct and if the events to which she referred did occur, the situation certainly should be looked at. I see no reason why any child should be put off a bus in this early stage of the new system. The honourable senator put forward 2 proposals. The first was that drivers be instructed correctly. I certainly think that instructions should be given clearly to drivers. The second was that in certain circumstances parents of children who are unable to afford the fee can obtain assistance. I will attempt to bring back to the Senate at the earliest opportunity a statement on the matter.
page 757
– My question is directed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. He will have noted from the report of the AuditorGeneral, which was released yesterday, disturbing revelations about the loss of spare parts for the Royal Australian Air Force’s Mirage fighters worth $34m and other extensive losses of lesser but still substantial amounts. Will the Minister arrange for an immediate investigation into departmental procedures in order to prevent losses of similar magnitude from occurring in the future?
-Yes, the honourable senator may be sure that there will be an immediate investigation. I have started that already. I think I ought to say one or two things to the Senate. This matter goes back into the past, long before my time. It also goes back into a confusion of departments in earlier days. These activities are old Department of Supply activities, I take it. That Department no longer exists. The activities belong partly to the Department of Defence. How they get into the Department of Industry and Commerce at the moment defies my understanding. It does not actually make Mirage aircraft or anything of that kind; but that does not matter. I have had some information gathered together. The matter needs to be followed through, and it will be followed through. The honourable senator should be in no doubt about that.
The information which I have so far- it may take some time to relate- is that the Mirage agreement provided for advance payments of the total agreed contract value to be made on agreed dates, independently of the dispatch value of parts and materials ex French works to Australia. That seems to me to be a strange way to do things. The Chief Purchasing Officer, London, placed orders on the French contractors for supply of parts and kits of parts to a stated value, but the orders did not list and price all individual parts. Parts and materials were dispatched against unpriced packing notes, and Australian representatives at the works checked the items against the packing notes before dispatch. The French contractors were required to follow dispatch of parts with fully priced invoices. This process was observed in the early stages of the program but progressively got in arrears. In due course invoices ceased to flow, and in terms of reconciling parts with invoices an amount of $34m is outstanding because we have been unable to obtain invoices from the French contractors. I would have thought that we would have stopped paying them then. Thorough checking, of goods received against packing notes was carried out in Australia. This was a duplication of the process also being carried out in the French works by Australian representatives.
A great deal of effort it is said, has been expended in trying to solve the blockage of invoices from French suppliers, and every possible means at our disposal has been pursued in order to be certain that goods have been received in accordance with the orders. There has been no evidence of non-receipt of items. It is intended, therefore, to try to tidy up this matter with the Treasury in an accounting sense. Looking at this matter, at first blush my impression is of a need for it to be thoroughly investigated and for processes to be laid down so that we can be perfectly sure that what we pay for we get.
page 758
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications. It relates to the joint statement made by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Post and Telecommunications on 9 September dealing with ethnic radio. In that statement the Ministers say that the Australian Broadcasting Commission would be asked to assume responsibility for ethnic radio. I ask the Minister: Firstly, has there been an answer to that request that the ABC assume that responsibility? Secondly, what additional arrangements have been made for further funding for the ABC to provide for the additional work of catering for ethnic radio? Thirdly, in view of the fact that the licences of stations 2EA and 3EA expire on 1 October and that there is considerable concern about the future of those stations, what has the Government determined about their immediate future?
– As to the 3 questions posed, I have no specific answer immediately available to me. I am aware of the Government’s intention to invite the Australian Broadcasting Commission to operate ethnic radio. I am aware that part of that policy is to ensure separate and discrete- I think the word is- administration and funding from the present situation. I am unaware whether the Australian Broadcasting Commission has responded or what particular funding arrangements have been made. I am unaware of the particular question relating to the 2 radio stations. Because of that I will draw the attention of the Minister to it and invite him to give a reply to the honourable senator.
page 758
– Can the Minister for Education indicate to the Senate the progress being made in relation to the establishment of the Interim Council for the Australian Maritime College to be situated at Launceston in Tasmania?
– In recent months written invitations were sent to a series of relevant organisations with regard to representation on the Interim Council. A good response has been received. I am hopeful that in the immediate weeks ahead we will be able to make some announcement as to the Interim Council. In any case, discussions on a number of aspects have taken place in an informal way with the Tasmanian Government. The matter is not standing still. The whole question of the interface between the Launceston College and the technical colleges has to be considered. The questions of land and sites are at the moment receiving attention. The Government is keen for the Maritime College project to get moving as fast as possible and I will look to an early announcement.
page 759
– My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the fact that the current level of unemployment in Tasmania is the highest in Australia, having more than doubled in the last 2 years, whereas notified vacancies have shrunk by more than 25 per cent? As background I state that in the worst affected occupations there are 1 89 unemployed for each rural vacancy, 21 unemployed for each semiskilled vacancy and 54 unemployed for each unskilled vacancy. Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to the latest published figures on school leavers which show that 21.3 per cent of last year’s school leavers in Tasmania have not yet obtained a job, as compared with the national figure of 14.2 per cent? Does the Minister agree that this is a situation which calls for very urgent and drastic action? Will the Minister consider establishing a joint task force between the Federal and State governments to examine ways and means of overcoming this problem?
– I am aware of the situation regarding unemployment in Tasmania. I am also well aware of the fact that the Minister whom I represent, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, is most alive to these problems which Senator Harradine has properly raised in the Senate. I do not have the details of the statistics which he cited but I naturally accept the figures which he has supplied. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations is concerned at the situation. I shall certainly pass on to him the proposal which Senator Harradine has made. I am sure that the Minister will give urgent consideration to it.
page 759
– I preface my question which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Primary Industry by reminding him of the recent takeover of the north west Katherine Meatworks. Is the Minister aware that the company has reduced freezer pack size from 60 lb to 30 lb? Does this increase the handling and associated costs of a meatworks which is already in some degree in financial difficulty? Does the Minister realise that the company, in addition to exporting prime beef, is exporting offal and brisket? Is the Minister also aware that the company is apparently subsidising the export of brisket by about 10c per lb. Will the Minister take appropriate steps to investigate the matters referred to with a view to encouraging more effective management of a meatworks badly needed in this pan of the Northern Territory to provide both killing facilities for local beef producers and to sustain the economic and employment situation in a very isolated area?
-I thank the honourable senator for that information. I shall certainly see to it that the matter is looked into.
page 759
– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Department of Education for 1 975.
page 759
– For the information of honourable senators I present the annual report of the Australian Shippers Council for the year ended 30 June 1976.
page 759
– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Australian Government delegation to the 60th session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June 1975.
page 759
– For the information of honourable senators I present reports by the Industries Assistance Commission on the following matters:
Due to the limited number available reference copies of the latter of these reports have been placed in the Senate Records Office and the Parliamentary Library.
– I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report on dairy marketing arrangements.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 760
– For the information of honourable senators I present the report of the Industries Assistance Commission dated 30 June 1976 entitled Batteries Part A: Storage Batteries (Accumulators).
page 760
– For the information of honourable senators I present a report by the Australian Population and Immigration Council entitled A Decade of Migrant Settlement: Report on the 1973 Immigration Survey.
page 760
- Mr Deputy President, I seek leave to have incorporated in Hansard a statement on the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal. A statement in similar terms will be made today in the other place by the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Howard).
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The document read as follows-
Honourable senators will be aware that prior to the election the Government parties undertook to abolish the Prices Justification Tribunal and to use the machinery of the trade practices legislation to promote fair prices.
Subsequent to the election the Government received representations from trade unions and other sections of the community to retain the Tribunal. In the light of these representations the Government undertook to review its pre-election undertaking and to have consultation with interested parties.
Public submissions on the future of the Tribunal were called for and, in response, submissions were received from individuals, firms, business organisations, trade unions and consumer groups.
The great majority of these submissions urged retention of the Tribunal. Most of them asserted however that the operations of the Tribunal should be modified.
A number of submissions argued against the absorption of the functions of the Prices Justification Tribunal into either the Trade Practices Commission or the Industries Assistance Commission.
The future of the Tribunal was discussed at length during the June meeting between the ACTU, other peak councils of the trade union movement and the Government. These discussions were followed by lengthy consultations between officers of the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs and officials of the ACTU. The Tribunal’s future was also discussed at the July meeting between the Government and the National Employers’ Policy Committee.
In addition, separate discussions have taken place between the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and employers’ representatives.
The Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs also canvassed the future of the Prices Justification Tribunal with the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations, business associations, and individual manufacturing and retail firms.
As a result of these discussions the Government has decided to retain the Prices Justification Tribunal but in a significantly modified form.
The Government has concluded that it would be unwise to transfer the functions of the Tribunal to either the Trade Practices Commission or the Industries Assistance Commission. However, the changes proposed to the operations of the Tribunal will assist in eliminating duplication of functions between the Tribunal and the two Commissions.
It is the Government’s belief that the emphasis of the Tribunal should change from that of a price approval body to that of a price surveillance body.
Figures supplied by the Tribunal indicate that since its inception nearly 90 per cent of price increases have been approved on the basis originally notified to the Tribunal. This clearly demonstrates that there is a high level of price responsibility on the part of Australian business and that there is considerable scope for reducing the administrative costs to business of complying with the notification requirements of the Act.
The Government believes that if the number of companies required to notify price increases is significantly reduced there will not only be considerable savings to firms but the Tribunal itself will be able to devote more resources to investigation of those areas where there is evidence of price abuse.
It is envisaged that greater use will be made of those provisions of section 1 6 of the Act which enable the Government to refer specific matters to the Tribunal for inquiry and report. This section was never invoked by the previous Government.
The Government is concerned to ensure that the cost to Australian businesses of servicing the requirements of regulatory agencies should be reduced as much as possible. It believes that this objective will be served by the changes proposed to the operations of the Prices Justification Tribunal without affecting the capacity of the Tribunal to act in appropriate cases.
It is proposed that the number of companies required to notify price increases be reduced in two ways.
Firstly, the turnover threshold for price notification will be increased from $20m to $30m.
It is estimated that with a new annual turnover level of $30m the total number of companies covered by the notification provisions will be broadly equivalent to the total number of companies when the Tribunal was established in 1973 and substantially less than the number of companies presently covered.
Secondly, the Government believes greater use should be made of the exemption provisions of the Act.
At present the Tribunal has power to authorise the exemption of an individual company or groups of companies.
It is proposed to amend this section of the Act to give the Tribunal power to exempt companies which meet certain criteria. These criteria will include companies which experience effective and extensive competition and smaller subsidiary companies.
A proper application of these criteria and other criteria to be developed will undoubtedly lead to a large number of companies being exempted from the notification requirements of the Act.
The Government is determined to ensure that the operations of the Tribunal do not interfere with the generation by companies of adequate levels of profitability bearing in mind the critical importance of profitability to investment and employment.
The Senate will be aware that during its early months of operation the Tribunal required companies to absorb a proportion of increased costs not covered by increased productivity. The limitations imposed on companies by the administrative constraints of the Tribunal were heightened in that period by more intensive import competition and monetary tightness. As a result, company profit shares fell by almost one-third from their historic levels of around 1 5 per cent of GDP to 10 per cent.
Honourable senators will also recall that in 1974 the former Prime Minister wrote to the Chairman of the Tribunal requesting that in future the Tribunal pay particular attention to the encouragement of investment. Whilst the present Government fully supports this proposition it believes that in the interests of confidence such a principle should be put beyond all doubt and not merely rest upon a letter to an independent Tribunal from the responsible Minister.
The Government therefore proposes amending the Act to make it clear that in all its determinations the Tribunal should pay full regard to company profitability with a view to maintaining investment and employment.
Other changes will simplify the Tribunal’s administrative and public inquiry procedures, will extend from 30 days to three months the period in which an approved price increase may be applied by a company and will provide for the Tribunal to report half-yearly on the main price increases within major industry groups and the principal reasons for them.
In order that early effect may be given to the Government’s decisions announced today, the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs has requested the Chairman of the Prices Justification Tribunal that the Tribunal consider using the existing exemption procedures of the Act to exempt from notification on a company by company basis those companies whose turnover fall between $20m and $30m per annum in advance of the actual legislative change giving effect to this particular decision.
Furthermore the Chairman of the Tribunal has agreed that the Tribunal will anticipate the amendments proposed to the exemption provisions of the Act by immediately commencing the preparation of schedules of companies which might qualify for exemption from the notification requirements of the Act under the amendments envisaged by the Government. Further details of action in this area will be announced by the Tribunal.
These steps will ensure that no unnecessary delays occur in giving effect to the new charter proposed by the Government for the operations of the Tribunal.
It is intended to effect appropriate legislative changes as soon as possible.
– by leave- I move:
I seek leave to continue my remarks.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.
page 762
– I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the notice of motion standing in my name.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
– This notice of motion relates to an amendment of the Australian Capital Territory City Area Leases Ordinance, which repealed and remade, in modified form, the provisions in the principal Ordinance which make it a criminal offence for a lessee to use his lease for a purpose not specified in the lease.
The Regulations and Ordinances Committee recalled the opinion which it expressed some years ago, when criminal penalties were inserted in the Ordinance, that breach of lease purpose is a civil matter and is not appropriate for the criminal jurisdiction. In relation to the present Ordinance, the Committee considered the provisions objectionable in that a person who committed a merely technical or trivial breach of a lease purpose in relation to a residential lease would be subject to the penalties provided by the Ordinance. It was considered that such a person ought to have a defence, for example, something to the effect that the breach he committed did not disturb the planning of the city. The Committee also considered that another provision in the Ordinance was unnecessarily harsh. This was a provision whereby a lessee would be guilty of an offence if he failed to furnish a statement in response to a notice requiring him to state the name of a person using or occupying a lease.
The Minister for the Capital Territory has considered the views of the Committee, and has given an undertaking that the Ordinance will be amended so that the question of breach of lease purpose will be transferred from the criminal law to the civil law. Where it is considered that a lessee has used his lease for a purpose not authorised by the lease, an application may be made to the courts for an order directing the lessee to take such action as may be necessary to stop the unauthorised use of the land. In the event of noncompliance with a court order, the court will be empowered to impose a penalty.
The Committee considers that these proposed amendments will properly safeguard the rights and liberties of lessees, and put leases back into the civil law where they belong. The Committee deprecates the tendency to introduce criminal penalties into areas, such as contracts, which properly belong to the civil law. This morning the Minister for the Capital Territory (Mr Staley) gave me an assurance that he will have the whole of the Ordinance reviewed so that the Committee will have a further opportunity to consider the Ordinance.
I would also like to point out that the difficulties involved with the Ordinance arise from the decision, which apparently was taken very many years ago, to use lease purpose clauses as an instrument of town planning, instead of a proper town plan in the form of a law to which all citizens must conform. In view of the Minister’s undertaking to amend the Ordinance, 1 withdraw the notice of motion standing in my name. I would like to thank the Minister for his cooperation in relation to this matter.
page 762
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The speech read as follows-
Honourable senators may recall that when introducing the National Health Amendment Bill 1976 the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) stated, in another place, that the provisions in the
Bill would be fully discussed with registered health benefits organisations in view of the sinificance of the provisions for those organisations. At the time when the Bill was being debated I also gave an assurance, on behalf of the Minister, that during the winter recess the provisions of the Bill would be carefully considered in the light of the comments made by honourable senators and members, and others, with the objective of achieving the most suitable arrangements for conducting private health insurance. The Bill before the Senate provides for further amendments to the National Health Act which the Government is proposing as a result of its discussions and deliberations during the winter recess.
The Government is confident that the adjustments which have been made will assure smooth and more effective operation of the new arrangements when they take effect on 1 October. As has been stated by Dr Catchlove, speaking on behalf of the Australian Hospital Association, and I quote:
The Government proposals for reorganising Medibank, have we believe, made the first real attempt to come to grips with the enormous escalation in health costs, while maintaining the principle of universal health insurance.
There are a number of provisions in the Bill which introduce new proposals, which I will explain. One of these is clause 20, which includes in Part VI a new division 1 A- benefits for certain contributors to standard hospital benefits tables. The new division provides for the payment of a subsidy by the Commonwealth to registered hospital benefits organisations in respect of persons who contribute to the standard hospital benefits tables of registered organisations but not to the standard medical benefits tables. This covers the situation of people on low to medium incomes wishing to retain the choice of their own doctor while in hospital. This combination of Medibank standard cover by payment of the levy plus private insurance for hospital-only will be cheaper for people in the low to medium income range.
When introducing the National Health Amendment Bill 1976, 1 indicated to honourable senators that the cost of this hospital-only insurance for a person remaining in Medibank standard was estimated at $ 1 35 a year or $2.60 a week- at the family rate- and would be payable in addition to the levy. When the contribution rates for Medibank private health insurance were being determined it became apparent that the family contribution rates for the standard hospital benefits tables would exceed $2.60 a week. It seemed likely that this would be the case with most other major organisations.
Because of its concern to keep the cost of this type of insurance within the reach of those with low to medium incomes, the Government decided to give a subsidy to hold the family contribution rate to $2.60 a week and the single contribution rate to $1.30 a week. This level of hospital insurance will cover contributors for public hospital charges in shared ward accommodation where they choose to be treated by their own doctor. The maximum rates of Commonwealth subsidy are based on the difference between the contribution rates for the standard hospital benefits tables for privately insured persons in Medibank private and $1.30 a week for single rate contributors and $2.60 a week for family rate contributors. For the information of honourable senators, privately insured persons are those who are covered for standard medical benefits and standard hospital benefits through registered organisations.
The Bill also provides for the rates of $1.30 a week for single contributors and $2.60 a week for family contributors, and for the rates of Commonwealth subsidies, to be varied by regulations. Clause 13 of the Bill substitutes a new section 73BB, which provides for the establishment and operation of reinsurance accounts by registered hospital benefits organisations. The decision to vary the existing reinsurance account provisions was made following discussions with representatives of registered health benefits organisations and the changes are designed to cause the arrangements to operate more equitably and efficiently. Basically, the reinsurance arrangements enable an organisation, after it has paid standard hospital benefits to a contributor for 35 days of hospitalisation in a year, to debit to its reinsurance account benefits payable to that contributor for the remainder of” that year. The Bill provides for the reduction of the qualifying period from 60 days to 35 days. This does not, in any way, affect the benefits entitlement of any contributor. It will ensure that the $50m a year the Government has undertaken to pay towards the reinsurance arrangements will be utilised. Provision is made for the qualifying period to be varied by regulations.
The new provision also varies from the existing section 73BB in the way in which it provides for a contribution year to be determined for the purposes of the reinsurance account. The section provides that where standard hospital benefits have been paid to a contributor for 35 days of hospitalisation in any year, the contribution year commences on the first benefit day unless that day falls within a previous contribution year. Special provisions covering special account contributors as at 30 September 1976, provide that where they attract hospital benefits for a continuous period of 35 days of hospitalisation from 27 August 1976, benefits in accordance with the standard table may be debited to the reinsurance account from 1 October 1976. In this case the contribution year for the contributor commences from 27 August 1976. Where a special account contributor has received hospital benefits for hospitalisation after 30 September 1975, benefits in accordance with the standard table may be debited to the reinsurance account on or after 1 October 1976 when the days attracting benefits first exceed thirty-five. In this case the year of the contributor commences on the first day of the days aggregating to the 35 days.
As a result of the Government’s decision that the Health Insurance Commission should operate registered hospital and medical benefits funds, it is not considered necessary for the Minister to have the power in all situations to direct an organisation to accept a person as a contributor. I believe that competition between organisations will render this unnecessary. However, it is considered that the Minister should have the power to direct an organisation to accept a person as a contributor, where he is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person was not accepted as a contributor to a standard benefits table on health grounds. Clause 1 4 of the Bill provides for this change in the Minister’s power of direction.
Clause 1 7 of the Bill substitutes a new section 73d. The new provision is similar in objective to the repealed provision. It enables a registered organisation to request the Minister to direct that services or treatment of any kind, provided or arranged by the organisation, be treated as the payment of benefits in respect of those services or that treatment. The provision specifies the manner in which an organisation shall make the request and the action to be taken by the Minister upon receipt of such a request. The Bill, in clause 22, enables an application to be made by a registered organisation, for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review a direction, or refusal to give a direction, by the Minister under new section 73d.
The Bill also provides for the repeal of the condition of registration, in sub-section 73ba ( 1) of the Act, that organisations continue to provide benefits for contributors to standard tables for 2 months after the period in respect of which contributions have been paid. This provision was only necessary to enable levy relief certificates to be issued. The Bill provides, in its stead, for it to be a condition of registration that a contributor to a standard table, whose contributions have fallen into arrears, shall be entitled, within a period specified in the rules of the organisation, being a period of not less than 2 months, to pay the arrears of contributions and retain benefits entitlements.
I would like also to draw the attention of honourable senators to clause 3 of the Bill which substitutes new definitions of ‘the standard hospital benefits table’ and ‘the standard medical benefits table’. The definitions have been varied to relate the benefits payable in accordance with these tables to the fees and charges applying in the States in which contributors receive treatment. The changes ensure that appropriate benefits are payable where a contributor or a dependant of a contributor incurs expenses while temporarily absent from his normal State of residence. A further amendment to these definitions enables regulations to be made prescribing additional benefits to be paid from the standard tables. This power is already contained in existing sub-section 73ba (2). However the amendment limits the scope of the prescribing power to the standard tables. A consequential amendment is made in clause 12 which omits sub-section 73 ba (2).
Clause 5 of the Bill amends section 57b to broaden the eligibility criteria for Commonwealth additional nursing home benefits. The purpose of the amendment is to enable these benefits to be payable in respect of all eligible persons, other than those who are privately insured in both the standard medical and hospital benefits tables. This amendment will mean that people entitled to the benefits of Medibank public will be entitled to these benefits and will remove an anomaly in the existing legislation. The Bill includes a number of technical amendments relating to references to dependants of contributors. These amendments are necessitated by the inclusion, by the National Health Amendment Act 1976, in section 4, of a revised definition of ‘contributor’ which does not include a reference to dependants of contributors. The amendments in the Bill cause provisions where appropriate to apply to dependants of contributors as well as to contributors.
Clause 23 of the Bill amends the eighth schedule to the Act by the substitution of a new table incorporating variations made to that table by regulations. The amendment has effect from 1 February 1976, the date of effect of the regulations. The amendment of the table in the eighth schedule is a statutory requirement authorised by section 55c of the Act. The Bill also provides for the continuation of Commonwealth payments in respect of late claims lodged by contributors to any organisations deregistered, with effect from 1 October 1976, under the transitional provisions in section 42 of the National Health Amendment Act 1 976. 1 commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.
page 765
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a first time.
– I move: That the Bill be now read a second time.
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The speech read as follows-
The Bill includes provisions relating to the payment of medical benefits for pathology services and to the hospital agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. The provisions relating to the payment of medical benefits for pathology services are based on recommendations of the pathology services working party established by the Government in April 1976. They are designed to curb the use of the medical benefits system to finance the rendering of unnecessary pathology services and to curb high Medibank expenditure on pathology services. It is proposed that the existing levels of benefits should continue to be payable where: Pathology items are rendered by a recognised specialistpathologist, at the request of another practitioner; the number of items performed does not exceed three; and the person in respect of whom the items are rendered was not at the time they were requested a private patient or out-patient of a recognised hospital.
The Bill provides for lower benefits to be payable where pathology items are rendered by recognised pathologists other than in the circumstances I have described or are rendered by other medical practitioners. The lower benefits are to be calculated on fees equivalent to 75 per cent of the scheduled fees for the 3 most expensive items, of the items determined during one day by a practitioner to be necessary for a patient. Where the number of items performed in either of the circumstances to which I have referred exceeds three, the Bill provides for benefits for the items, other than the three most expensive items, to be calculated on fees equivalent to 20 per cent of the fees that would otherwise apply.
The payment of lower rates of benefits for items in excess of three recognises the lower pro rata costs, particularly overheads, involved in performing a larger number of items. However, it is envisaged that there will be cases where it is inappropriate to apply the reduction principle and provision is made in the Bill to enable the Minister to direct that it be not applied in particular cases. To assist in the achievement of the objectives of these provisions the Bill further provides that the recognised pathologist rendering the pathology service as a result of a request must include on his account or receipt, or on the assignment of benefits form, where the doctor enters into such an arrangement with the patient, the name of the requesting practitioner and the date on which the request was made. Where the service was rendered otherwise than as a result of a request, the medical practitioner must include on one of the documents to which I have just referred, a statement that, on a specified date, he determined that the services were necessary. The Bill provides that medical benefits are not payable unless these details are supplied.
It is proposed that other changes based on recommendations of the pathology services working party be introduced from 1 January 1977, after final details have been determined and the legislation approved by Parliament. In view of the effective and representative participation of the medical profession in developing these revised arrangements, I anticipate that high quality pathology services will continue to be available throughout Australia and that the lower levels of fees for benefits purposes contemplated by the proposals will be generally accepted.
I wish to turn now to the provisions in the Bill relating to hospital agreements between the Commonwealth and the States. The Bill provides for the Commonwealth to enter into agreements with the States, on revised bases, for and in relation to the provision of hospital services. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Commonwealth to enter into agreements with the States on the revised bases under which the Commonwealth will share with the States the net operating costs of recognised hospitals. The Government proposes that the agreements should come into operation in respect of periods commencing on 1 October 1976 as the States Grants (Hospital Operating Costs) Act 1976 applies only in respect of periods up to 30 September 1976. The Bill provides for the repeal of schedule 2 to the Health Insurance Act 1973, which sets out heads of agreement and for a new Schedule to be substituted. The heads of agreement set out in the new schedule have been determined following discussions with representatives of all State governments.
The Government has been concerned at the open-ended nature of the Commonwealth’s financial commitment under the hospital cost sharing arrangements. It considers that it should have an adequate knowledge of, and opportunity to express its views on, the ways in which the costs it is to share are incurred and the need for them to be incurred. Head 5 in Schedule 2 in the Bill provides for a mechanism to be included in the agreements which will meet the Commonwealth’s needs in these respects. It is envisaged that the committees established to give effect to that head will comprise Commonwealth and State officials and that the budgets and variations to the budgets formulated by the committees will be subject to approval by the Commonwealth Minister for Health and the relevant State Minister.
Head 4, which is subject to head 5, provides for the Commonwealth to meet 50 per cent of the net operating costs of recognised hospitals in a State during the period of the agreement, or, an amount equal to the total of the amounts paid by the State from its own resources towards meeting those costs, whichever is the less. This was the basis for cost sharing in the former invalid agreements and the Government proposes that it be retained with the safeguards, against open.endedness, that will be provided in giving effect to head 5.
The heads also provide for all eligible persons, other than privately insured persons, to be entitled to receive, free of charge, care and treatment as hospital patients in recognised hospitals. Such persons are also to be entitled to receive, free of” charge, out-patient services at recognised hospitals other than particular services. The heads do not prevent an agreement from providing for privately insured persons to receive such care and treatment and out-patient services free of charge. The Government has advised the States that it seees this as a matter for decision by each State. I wish to remind honourable senators that a privately insured person in this context is a person who is covered for benefits in accordance with both the standard hospital benefits table and the standard medical benefits table operated by health insurance organisations registered under the National Health Act.
I also wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to head 9 which permits particular outpatient services to be subject to a means test, or charges, or both a means test and charges. This head has been included to give recognition to a situation that existed under the former invalid agreements whereby some States applied means tests or raised charges in respect of a small range of out-patient services such as dental services and those States intend to continue those arrangements. It is the firm intention of the Government that the range of services in this category should remain small and that the general principles relating to the provision of out-patient services should not be eroded.
The Bill, at the request of the States, provides for the repeal of provisions in the Act which authorise the making of daily bed payments of $16 a day to recognised hospitals. Amounts equivalent to these payments will be included in the Commonwealth payments to the States under the agreements. The Bill also provides for payments under the Act to recognised hospitals in the Territories to reflect the change in the financing of recognised hospitals in the States. Accordingly, it provides for daily bed payments to such hospitals to be discontinued. The daily bed payments of $16 a day will continue to be payable to private hospitals. Provision has also been made in the Bill for the validation of Commonwealth payments made in accordance with the former invalid agreements. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.
page 766
Bill received from the House of Representatives.
Ordered that the Bill may be taken through all its stages without delay.
Bill (on motion by Senator Guilfoyle) read a first time.
– I move:
I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT-Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted.
The speech read as follows-
The Government announced, during June 1976, its decision that the Health Insurance Commission should be authorised to carry on private health insurance business in competition with the private health insurance organisations registered under the National Health Act. The Bill before the Senate provides for the Commission to perform this role. The Bill provides for the functions of the Commission to include conducting medical benefits funds and hospital benefits funds. It further provides that the Commission, in carrying out this new role as a registered organisation under the National Health Act, shall be subject to all the provisions of that Act and regulations relating to the conduct of medical and hospital benefits funds by registered organisations. The Commission therefore will have the same rights and obligations under the National Health Act and regulations as other registered organisations.
The Government proposes that to the greatest extent practicable the Commission should use the same staff, buildings and equipment in carrying out its private health insurance functions as it uses for its other functions. The Bill provides for it to be a duty of the Commission to do this. However, it is important, in view of the Commission’s competitive role, that the costs associated with its operating medical and hospital benefits funds be clearly identified. It is also important that the Commission should not gain a competitive advantage due to its being exempt from taxation by virtue of its being a statutory authority. The Bill therefore provides for the Commission to determine, and whenever appropriate, re-determine, principles in accordance with which it is to apportion to its private health insurance functions and its other functions, costs related to its functions as a whole, such as salaries. These principles are to be subject to approval by the Minister for Health who shall consider the advice of the Auditor-General in relation to the principles before approving them.
The Bill further provides for the Commission to determine notional amounts of expenditure it would have incurred in respect of its private health insurance functions had it not been an authority of the Commonwealth and exempt from taxation. Examples of these costs that private health insurers have to meet are payroll tax, sales tax, stamp duty and rates. The amounts determined are to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
The Bill also provides that the Minister may pay amounts to a State, a State authority or local governing body equivalent to the amounts which he considers would have been payable to them in connection with the Commission ‘s private health insurance operations had the Commission not been an authority of the Commonwealth and exempt from taxation. The principles for apportioning costs together with any changes in those principles from the previous year, and the principles for determining the notional costs, are to be set out, by way of a note, to the annual financial statements of the Commission. This will ensure that a statement of the principles will form part of the annual financial statements and accordingly will be subject to the scrutiny of the Auditor-General.
Separate financial statements are to be prepared, in the form approved by the Treasurer, for the Commission’s private health insurance operations and its other functions. The whole of the Commission’s financial activities are to be audited by the Auditor-General. The Commission is to submit its annual financial statements to the Auditor-General before submitting them to the Minister and the Auditor-General is to report on the statements to the Minister. Copies of the annual report of the Commission together with the financial statements and the Auditor-General ‘s report on the statements are to be tabled in each House of the Parliament.
The Bill provides for the financial separation of the Commission’s private health insurance operations to be reinforced by providing for the Commission to maintain separate bank accounts for those operations from 1 April 1977. The commencing date of 1 April 1977 provides a period during which the Commission will be making the necessary administrative arrangements. There is provision in the Bill for the Commission to receive capital advances out of moneys appropriated by the Parliament to enable it to establish and conduct its private health insurance operations. An amount of $ 10m has been included in the Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1976-77 for this purpose. The Bill before the Senate also provides for the Commission to borrow moneys with the approval of the Treasurer for its private health insurance operations and for it to invest moneys standing to the credit of its hospital and medical benefits funds.
Provision is made for the Treasurer at his discretion to guarantee the repayment by the Commission of amounts it borrows. The Government’s intention is that the Treasurer would provide such guarantees only in the early years of the Commission’s private health insurance operations before it has built up reserves which it could give as security for its borrowings. It is not intended that the guarantees should be used to enable the Commission to borrow on more favourable terms than are generally available. I consider that the framework within which the Government proposes the Commission operate as a registered health insurance organisation will enable it to compete on equal terms with other registered organisations.
I wish to draw the attention of honourable senators to one other provision in the Bill. The Bill provides for the repeal of existing Part 1 1a of the Act which provides for persons to be exempted from the health insurance levy by becoming Medibank contributors. These provisions have become redundant as a result of the proposal to introduce individual and family levy ceilings. I commend the Bill to the Senate.
Debate (on motion by Senator Grimes) adjourned.
page 768
Motion (by Senator Withers)- by leaveagreed to:
That Senator Greenwood be discharged from the delegation from the Commonwealth Parliament to the Constitutional Convention and that Senator Durack be appointed in his place.
page 768
– I move:
We are adjourning now to enable Estimates committees to meet. Estimates Committee A will meet in the chamber; Estimates Committee B will meet in Senate committee room No. 1; and Estimates Committee C will meet in Senate committee room No. 5.
– I want to raise a matter in the adjournment debate. I am not sure whether the Senate is reconvening later today -
– No.
– In that case I raise a matter in connection with the point of order raised by Senator Cavanagh during question time today in respect of a question asked by Senator Missen. In your decision, Mr Deputy President, not to uphold that point of order you stated that frivolous questions had come from this side of the chamber yesterday. You went on to refer to the fact that you had refused me leave to ask a supplementary question because you considered or you inferred this morning that my supplementary question was going to be frivolous. Mr Deputy President, I question that. I want to state categorically that my supplementary question was not going to be frivolous. I wanted to ask Senator Withers for some further clarification, because the answer he gave to Senator Walsh could not be reconciled with a letter he had written to the Australian newspaper. I wanted to follow up Senator Walsh’s question with a supplementary question to get a definite answer from Senator Withers, which I did not get. That was the purpose of my rising to seek to ask a supplementary question. In my opinion it was not going to be a frivolous question.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- I did not say this morning ‘frivolous questions’; I said ‘similar questions’.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT- The Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday next at 2.30 p.m. The bells will be rung at approximately 12 noon to indicate the sitting of Estimates committees.
Senate adjourned at 11.45 a.m.
page 769
The following answers to questions were circulated:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Government regards the implementation of its land rights policy as a matter of high priority and, on 4 June 1976, introduced the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill into the House of Representatives. In a statement on 24 August 1976 the Prime Minister said that further debate on the Bill will not be deferred any longer than necessary and the Government is anxious to secure the Bill ‘s passage during the Budget Session.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
Has the Premier of Queensland, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, contacted the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs personally concerning his recent public call for the Minister’s dismissal. If so, what reasons has the Premier advanced for his actions in this regard.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
No.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The Prime Minister has asked me to reply to your telegram of 14 July to him. I am to say that the Government believes it would be inappropriate for hearings on traditional claims to proceed prior to the legislation being enacted. You should therefore not proceed with the Ranger or Borroloola claims.
I am however having further discussions with my colleague, the Minister for the Northern Territory, on the possibility of your hearing the more difficult Alice Springs land claims and I will advise you further when a final decision has been made.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications, upon notice:
– The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner (Question No. 920) Senator Colston asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
Has the Minister had any discussions, either formal or informal, or correspondence, with Mr Justice Ward regarding the latter’s possible removal or retirement from the position of Interim Aboriginal Land Commissioner. If so, what was the result of the discussion or correspondence.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
No.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
Did a delegation from the Northern Territory, including representatives from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, recently meet with the Minister to discuss Aboriginal land rights, with particular regard to the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. If so, (a) what was the composition of the delegation, (b) when did the meeting in question take place, and (c) if Mr Harry Giese was a member of the delegation, in what capacity did he take pan in the meeting and did he attend with the approval of the Minister and of the Secretary of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
On 8 June in Darwin, in company with the Minister for the Northern Territory, I had discussions with the Majority Leader of the Legislative Assembly and his Deputy about the complementary Territory legislation referred to in my second reading speech on the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Bill 1976. No delegation from the Northern Territory, including representatives from the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, has since met me to discuss land rights or the Bill. Mr Harry Giese has not been a member of any delegation I have seen on Aboriginal land rights.
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs: Proposed visit to Adelaide (Question No. 929)
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
Did the Minister cancel a planned visit to Adelaide on 2 August 1 976. If so, for what reason was the visit cancelled.
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
Following an invitation from a number of South Australian Aboriginal organisations I arranged to visit Adelaide on 20 August 1976. The invitation was withdrawn on 19 August and I accordingly cancelled my visit.
Football Park: Public Telephones
- Senator Young asked the Minister representing the Minister for Post and Telecommunications the following question without notice on 25 August 1 976:
As Football Park, which is the League football headquarters in South Australia, has been unsuccessful in its application for the establishment of public telephones, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that this sporting complex caters for thousands of spectators on Saturdays and on other occasions, and that the need for public telephones is frequently emphasised. Will the Minister give serious consideration for the early installation of some public telephones to service what is genuinely a real community need.
The Minister for Post and Telecommunications has provided the following answer to the honourable senator’s question:
Telecom Australia has advised that Football Park has been mainly used for football on one half day per week from approximately April to October each year, and on the odd occasion it has been a venue of other public entertainmentsports events, etc.
While Telecom Australia recognises the community need for public telephones by providing this service, often on an uneconomic basis, it is necessary to require that each public telephone receive at least a minimum amount of use to partially compensate towards the high cost of its provision and maintenance.
Although public telephones may be provided in restricted areas, the likely use of public telephones installed within Football Park would fall far short of that required to support one or more installations.
Consideration has also been given to the provision of public telephones outside Football Park but here again the likely use would be insufficient to cover costs.
In Telecom Australia’s negotiations with the South Australian National Football League several offers have been made with regard to provision of red coin telephones to be leased by that organisation, but so far the offers have not been taken up.
asked the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice:
– The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has provided the following reply to the honourable senator’s question:
The provision of the information sought on the basis of towns throughout Australia creates an inordinate workload. However, information on a regional basis covering Aboriginal Housing Association programs, State programs and the program of the Aboriginal Loans Commission funded by the Australian Government since 1968-69, is given below:
Cite as: Australia, Senate, Debates, 16 September 1976, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/senate/1976/19760916_senate_30_s69/>.