House of Representatives
4 April 1978

31st Parliament · 1st Session

  1. House of Representatives
  2. 31st Parliament
  3. 1978

Mr SPEAKER (Rt Hon. Sir Billy Snedden) took the chair at 2. 1 5 p.m., and read prayers.

page 899

DISTINGUISHED VISITOR

Mr SPEAKER:

– I inform the House that the Honourable Kingsford Dibela, M.P., Speaker of the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea, is within the precincts. With the concurrence of honourable members, I propose to provide him with a seat on the floor of the House.

Honourable members Hear, hear!

page 899

PETITIONS

The Clerk:

– Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers:

Pensioners: Home Maintenance Loans

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That it is necessary for the Commonwealth Government to renew for a further term of at least 3 years the States Grants (Dwellings for Pensioners) Act 1974-77, renewed for one year expiring on 30 June 1 978.

The demand for dwellings has not slackened as the waiting list (all States) of 12,060 single and 4,120 couples as at 30June 1977, showeth.

Your petitioners respectfully draw the attention of the Commonwealth Government to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Aged Persons’ Housing 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Reverend K. Seaman (now Governor of South Australia) which recommended additional funds to State housing authorities to meet the demand for low-rental accommodation in the proportion of $4 for $1 with the proviso that the States do not reduce their existing expenditure and

That the Act include married pensioners eligible for supplementary assistance and migrants as specified by the Seaman Report and that particular consideration be paid to the special needs and requirements of the prospective tenants in the location and design of such dwellings.

Furthermore, your petitioners desire to draw the Government ‘s attention to the hardship of many pensioner home owners caused by the high cost of maintenance.

The Social Security Annual Report 1976-77 shows that 24.6 per cent, or 283,000 home owning pensioners, have a weekly income in excess of the pension of less than $6 per week.

Your petitioners strongly urge the Commonwealth Government to establish a fund whereby loans can be made to means tested pensioners for the purpose of effecting necessary maintenance to their homes. Such a loan to be at minimal interest rates sufficient to cover administrative costs and to be repaid by the estate upon the death of a single pensioner before probate or upon the death of the surviving spouse in the case of married pensioners or where two pensioners jointly own the dwelling. Administration to be carried out by local government bodies.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris, Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Scholes.

Petitions received.

Citizen Forces: Long Service and Good Conduct Medals

The Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of the undersigned members and ex-members of the Citizens Forces of Australia respectfully sheweth:

  1. On 14 February 1975, the then Australian Government deprived the officers and men of the Australian Citizen Naval Military and Air Forces of the distinctive and historic Decorations and Medals for long service and good conduct, namely the Reserve Decoration, the Efficiency Decoration, the Air Efficiency Award, the Efficiency Medal and Long Service and Good Conduct Medals, awarded for long and meritorious voluntary service in the citizen forces.
  2. The proposed substitution of the National Medal for these Decorations and Medals varies the principle of selective recognition of efficient voluntary service in the citizen forces in that it recognizes the period of service only and embraces also full time service as well in the defence forces as in the police, fire brigade and ambulance services.
  3. This deprivation caused and is continuing to cause serious discontent amongst personnel of the Citizens Forces who willingly and cheerfully give of their spare time outside their normal full time civilian careers, to serve Her Majesty and Australia.
  4. The Reserve Forces of Australia have been recognized by the present Government as a valuable- and costeffective component of the Defence Forces. Anomalously, whilst the Government is actually supporting recruiting for these Forces it has imposed and continued this deprivation which as foresaid has depressed the morale of the Citizen Forces.
  5. Her Majesty has not cancelled the said Decorations and Medals. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray.

Your Honourable House take appropriate action to resume the award of the several distinctive Reserve Forces Decorations and Medals for Long Service and Good Conduct to members of the Royal Australian Naval Reserve, Army Reserve (CMF) and the RAAF Citizens Air Force. by Mr Falconer, Mr Lucock and Mr Shack.

Petitions received.

Immigration: Student Visa

To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth:

That in August 1977 Dr A. Subhadra of Gwandalan applied for a temporary Student Visa for her blind nephew Mr Sriram in India, to enable him to avail himself of the advanced additional aids and specialised equipment such as Optacon, Talking Books, Talking Calculator and possibly others not available in the Indian educational counterpart.

That the main purpose for this request is to take advantage of the splendid educational and social services the Australian Government so generously offers to the handicapped of the less fortunate countries, thereby enabling Mr Sriram to return to his home country, after qualifying, and devote his life to the teaching of the blind in India.

That in granting the Student Visa, no financial burden or expense will be incurred by either our government or taxpayer as Dr A. Subhadra has given written undertaking to accept the financial responsibilities involved.

That Dr A. Subhadra has also given an undertaking that Mr Sriram will return to his home country India on completion of his studies.

That this is a very special and genuine request from the many hundreds of Australians who have and still are benefiting from the professional dedication and missionary-like zeal of a doctor who has won the hearts and admiration of all.

Your petitioners accordingly and humbly request the Australian Government to reconsider the case and mercifully grant Dr A. Subhadra’s application for a visa for her nephew, as we respectfully submit that in so doing it will in no way contravene the Government’s policy but will enhance and endorse the image of the democracy we live under as yet another example of the high code of social justice so enshrined in our Australian way of life.

And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Morris.

Petition received.

page 900

QUESTION

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

page 900

QUESTION

CO-OPERATIVE FARMERS AND GRAZIERS DIRECT MEAT SUPPLY LTD

Mr E G WHITLAM:
WERRIWA, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I ask the Prime Ministen Have the Federal and Victorian governments given Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd the guarantee that the Prime Minister advocated four weeks ago? If so, what are the terms of the guarantee? Has the Prime Minister’s attention been drawn to the statement yesterday in the Australian Financial Review that he and the Premier of Victoria have interests in that co-operative? I therefore ask: Does the Prime Minister have a pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in the co-operative? If so, what is the interest?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · WANNON, VICTORIA · LP

-The proposal was that the Commonwealth and the State would share jointly in a $9m guarantee. It is against that background it is understood that the Co-operative Farmers and Graziers Direct Meat Supply Ltd will be able to gain a loan, pay out its existing creditors and, hopefully, trade its way out of a difficult situation. At the moment it is trading at a profit. It is against that background that the Commonwealth and the State governments were hoping to be able to act.

I have no pecuniary interest in the company. I cannot really say that over the years it would have been the best of investments. There are many farmers who invested in it. At one stage I think I was approached to invest in the company when it was originally getting under way.

Growers invested in it against the background that they should have their voice in the market place. But if investors receive their full funds back they will be very fortunate. I know that many growers invested in the company merely because they believed that some independent competition ought to be operating in the market place: I think it is against that total background that this situation needs to be examined. I am advised that the Treasurer is preparing legislation which will need to be put through the Parliament. Also, Supreme Court actions were taken either yesterday or the day before in Victoria. There will need to be some quite speedy action if the fortunes of the company are to be saved.

page 900

QUESTION

VISIT BY PRIME MINISTER TO JAPAN

Mr DEAN:
HERBERT, QUEENSLAND

– Is the Prime Minister aware of recent Press reports indicating that shortly he will be visiting Japan? If so, can he confirm the accuracy or otherwise of those reports?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The reports are accurate. Later today a joint Press statement from the Prime Minister of Japan and me will be issued. I should emphasise that the purpose of the discussions is not to go over bilateral matters between Japan and Australia which have been handled already by the Deputy Prime Minister and other Ministers. I ought to say also that a Japanese ministerial team will be in Australia, probably late in June, for the normal AustraliaJapan ministerial talks. The purpose of the discussions I will be having with the Prime Minister of Japan will be to canvass some major issues which we believe to be of concern to both countries in world developments and in the world economic scene. We will discuss also matters affecting north-south relationships.

As the honourable gentleman will know, many international discussions will be taking place throughout the course of this year. The next three of four months will be critical to the economic well-being of the world and to the trading position throughout the world. For some time this Government has been concerned to make sure that Australia is doing everything that it can to promote proper courses of action throughout the international community to the advantage of all countries. However, they are not bilateral matters. They are matters of some consequence and, in whatever way it may be, Australia has an obligation to play a role in a constructive and forthright manner. A joint statement with the Japanese Prime Minister will be issued, I think about5 o’clock today.

page 901

QUESTION

PAYMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TO ABORIGINALS

Mr VINER:
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister · STIRLING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

-The matter referred to by the honourable member obviously occurred some time ago, if it did occur. I do not recall any such communication. I will certainly check the files and let the honourable gentleman know the position.

page 901

QUESTION

LIVE SHEEP EXPORTS

Mr LUSHER:
HUME, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct a question to the Prime Minister. He will be aware that there has been a long series of union-inspired industrial disputes which have resulted in the disruption of rural exports. The latest in this long line of disputes has been that involving Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union pickets preventing live sheep exports from South Australia. What overall action can be taken by the Government to guarantee the right of exporters to export free of union interference?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been engaged over the last few days in discussions with the unions, with the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions and with leaders of farmers’ and graziers’ organisations in an attempt to seek a proper resolution of a matter which is of very grave and serious consequence. I think all honourable members know that many primary producers are in a very difficult situation at the moment. There have been drought and low prices for a number of commodities, but one market which has been a ray of light and hope for sheep growers and, which I venture to say, would have prevented many growers from bankruptcy has been the live sheep market in the Middle East. That market has been growing and it is an important market.

At the same time the carcass meat market in the Middle East is growing, but the speed with which that can expand is dependent upon the traditional practices of a number of people in Middle Eastern countries. It is also dependent upon the expansion of cold store facilities which, in fact, is taking place in the Middle East. Therefore, the two sides of the market are going ahead in a complementary fashion. I think the Minister for Primary Industry has proposals at the moment which would lead to an Australian contribution to the construction of additional cold store facilities. So we are conscious of that side of the trade and of the concern that has been expressed by meat employees for the continuation of their jobs.

Against that total background the Government believes that it is very important, indeed vital, that the live sheep trade continue. The Government believes that it should not be tolerated in a normal civilised society that specific groups can determine the nature and extent of Australia ‘s exports. Today I sent telexes to Sir Samuel Burston and Ian McLachlan in South Australia, which could be read out if they wished at a meeting which is being held in South Australia. The telex states:

The Federal Government has already supported action taken under section 4SD of the Trade Practices Act in relation to the live sheep export trade, and in the face of bans remaining in force will continue to do so. The law is there for a purpose- in this instance the free movement of trade and commerce into and out of Australia. This law will be upheld.

I also sent a telex to Mr Dunstan. It states:

The Federal Government has taken action to support laws of the Commonwealth in relation to the live sheep export trade.

I am sure the State will do likewise in its area of responsibility to ensure there is no serious breach of the peace.

I believe that a very serious situation exists. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has been devoting a major part of his energy in the last few days to achieving a resolution of the matter. I know that it is the very serious wish of the Government that a proper and fair resolution of the matter should be found and that the trade should proceed to the advantage and benefit of all parties. I think people have become very firm in their views in relation to this matter, but at the same time we need to understand that it is one that has to be resolved and that, therefore, there must be a will to resolve the matter before the trade can be resumed.

page 901

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS: WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Mr DAWKINS:
FREMANTLE, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer the Minister to section 3 of the arrangement entered into by the Governor-General and the Governor of Western Australia in 1973 which requires the Western Australian Government to consult appropriately with the Australian Government prior to its exercise of certain powers under the Aboriginal Affairs Planning Authority Act of Western Australia. In relation to the Western Australian Government’s intention to amend regulation 8 of the Act to override the power of the Oombulgurri people effectively to determine who is permitted to enter their land, has the Minister yet been consulted? If so, when and in what form? What was the Minister’s response to the proposed change? If the consultation was wholly or partly in writing, will the Minister table the documents?

Mr VINER:
LP

-Some time ago-I cannot remember precisely when- I received a letter from the Minister concerned regarding the possibility of the Government looking at the provisions to which the honourable gentleman referred. I noticed recent public comment by the Premier of Western Australia that he would be consulting with the Federal Government when his Government had decided what steps it would take. I have no doubt that, pursuant to the provisions of the legislation to which the honourable gentleman referred, the State Premier will be consulting with the Federal Government or directly with me.

page 902

QUESTION

BUDGET OUTLAYS

Mr BRADFIELD:
BARTON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– I direct a question to the Minister for Finance. I refer him to an article in the Australian Financial Review of today’s date about a proposed deficit of $6 billion. Is it a fact that in recent years there have been marked changes in the pattern of Budget outlays? Are these changes in the pattern of Budget outlays contributing to the difficulty in providing a balanced Budget and to the Government’s inability to boost industry?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-In recent years in Australia there have been substantial changes in the outlays in the Budget. Ten years ago, in 1967, the amount outlaid for social welfare was about 17 per cent of a Budget of about $6 billion. Today social welfare payments exceed 27 per cent of the Budget outlays. The proportion of the Budget outlays on health has increased from less than 6 per cent to nearly 1 1 per cent today. Education outlays have risen from below 3 per cent to virtually 9 per cent of the Budget outlays. So there have been enormous changes. I might add that 67 years after Federation we needed $6 billion of the taxpayers’ funds for the national expenditure; we now need $26 billion. In that context it is worth remembering that in the three years of the Labor Administration the outlays more than doubled, from $10 billion to $21 billion, with all the excesses that that imposed upon the nation. The honourable member asked me whether these changes have had a disadvantageous effect on some elements of the Budget. The answer is yes. If one looks at the assistance to industries one will see that all industries, including the rural industries, are now receiving a much smaller share of outlays than they were receiving 10 years ago or even before the effects of the Labor Administration were felt.

page 902

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

Mr HUMPHREYS:
GRIFFITH, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Was a meeting held in the Minister’s Canberra office on 14 March of this year with five members of his department to discuss new methods of funding Aboriginal programs? Did the meeting discuss a departmental memorandum on the future of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission? Did the Minister as a result of this discussion, instruct his Department to prepare a submission for Cabinet which would effectively abolish the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission? Did the instruction include the amalgamation of the Commission, Aboriginal land councils and Aboriginal enterprises functions into a new body directly responsible to the Minister?

Mr VINER:
LP

– A meeting was held in my office on 14 March between me and certain senior officers. It concerned not only the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission but also a number of other aspects of the administration of my Department. Obviously those matters are matters between me and the Department in the ordinary course of administration and in the exercise of my responsibilities. As I have said publicly, there are no proposals and at that time there were no proposals before the Government for the abolition of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. For some time the role of the Land Fund Commission has been under review.

At the meeting to which the honourable gentleman referred discussions were held concerning the possible relationship of the Land Fund Commission to the Government’s policy commitment to establish an Aboriginal entitlement capital account as well as an Aboriginal entitlement revenue account. Consideration was given and is being given to a way in which the two factors could be brought together so as to maintain the Government’s commitment to purchases for Aboriginals through the Land Fund Commission and the Government’s commitment in its policy statement to recognising the past dispossession and dispersal of Aborigines by the establishment of such a capital account. I might say for the honourable gentleman’s information that in the estimates for the next financial year provision is to be made for appropriations to enable the Land Fund Commission to make purchases in all States.

page 903

QUESTION

VETERANS’ HOSPITALS

Mr RUDDOCK:
DUNDAS, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Special Trade Representations and Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. He will be aware of the considerable interest of veterans in the wider use by the community of veterans’ hospitals and in particular the wish of returned men to be located in wards where they can share their earlier experiences with people who have served in war theatres similar to those in which they served. Will the Minister assure the House and veterans generally that the wider use of such hospitals will not diminish the service offered to returned men and that their individual views of where and with whom they ought to be located in hospitals will also be taken into account?

Mr GARLAND:
Minister Assisting the Minister for Trade and Resources · CURTIN, WESTERN AUSTRALIA · LP

– As the honourable gentleman will know, the Government maintains in each capital city of Australia a general repatriation hospital and a number of other hospitals for the use of veterans. Veterans have priority of admission to those hospitals, particularly the general hospitals. A significant percentage of non-entitled veterans known as ‘community patients’ is admitted. There are good reasons for that, which ought to be known to the House. Those reasons are that, by having a broader range of patients in types of treatment and in age it is possible to recruit doctors and nursing staff of a higher calibre and to utilise to a more efficient degree technical and highly specialised, very expensive equipment.

The honourable gentleman may have in mind the Concord Repatriation General Hospital which is in an area of Sydney many miles from any other general hospital and which the Government believes can offer a particular community service. But there preference is given to entitled veterans. That is clear and it has always been the case. It is necessary for the hospital administration to admit into wards patients who have to receive special treatment, such as psychiatric, surgical or intensive care treatment. That is the position with every general hospital in Australia. Obviously a medical judgment is involved. The position could hardly be otherwise. Where a veteran ought to be located, whether he should be admitted to a ward with other veterans and whether he favours that idea, are very much matters of viewpoint. Exservicemen have different views on the subject. Indeed some have expressed to me the view that they do not wish to enter repatriation hospitals. The Government sees a need to keep a spread and to admit some members of the community to repatriation hospitals. There will be no diminution in the services offered to entitled veterans.

page 903

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

Dr EVERINGHAM:
CAPRICORNIA, QUEENSLAND

– I direct my question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Did the Premier of Queensland in a letter to the Prime Minister dated 19 January 1977 complain about the activities of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission? Did the Premier argue in his letter that funds spent by the Commission represented an improper use of money in the current economic climate? Did the Premier ask the Prime Minister to intervene in three transactions by the Land Fund Commission before ‘any further and final steps are taken’? Did the Prime Minister later ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs for a full report on the land purchases as a matter of urgency?

Mr VINER:
LP

– There seems to be an accelerating interest in Aboriginal affairs on the part of the Opposition. I inform the honourable gentleman that when he was away from this House in the last Parliament a number of questions were directed to me on this matter. I think the then Leader of the Opposition asked me a number of questions concerning a property known as Archer River and some other land at Murray Upper and Cardwell. It is about those properties and the circumstances surrounding the approach by the Land Fund Commission to purchase them that the honourable gentlemen has asked his question. The properties at Murray Upper and bardwell were purchased. The purchases were completed by the Land Fund Commission. One was a leasehold property and the other freehold. The property at Archer River was a pastoral property. Transfer of that lease is subject to the consent of the State Minister. I had some discussions with the State Minister. As a result, it became clear that the State Government intended, as I recall, to establish a national park over a large part of the Archer River lease. Therefore, the purposes for which the Land Fund Commission was considering the acquisition of the property would have been frustrated. I suggest that the honourable member look in Hansard at the questions that were asked and the answers that were given with respect to this matter in the last Parliament.

page 904

QUESTION

NEW SOUTH WALES WHEAT: EXPORT

Mr MacKENZIE:
CALARE, NEW SOUTH WALES

-Is the Minister for Primary Industry aware of current strikes at Sydney and Newcastle by members of the Australian Workers Union and the Public Service Association of New South Wales which are placing in jeopardy a $50m market for New South Wales wheat in the Middle East? Can the Minister advise the House what action can be taken to preserve this valuable market and at the same time preserve Australia’s reputation as a reliable trading partner? Can action be instituted in this dispute similar to that presently applying to the Australian Meat Industry Employees Union blockade of live sheep exports in Adelaide?

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · NEW ENGLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

– Before coming into the House for Question Time I received a fairly long and detailed telex from Mr Cliff Semmler, the Deputy General Manager of the Australian Wheat Board, explaining that already serious repercussions are appearing for Australia’s wheat export trade as a result of the disruption to shipments from Newcastle and as a result of strikes by members of the Australian Workers Union and the Public Service Association of New South Wales which, I understand, are occurring on a rolling basis. Once one union returns to work the other goes out. Consequently there has been an inability to ship on a number of occasions. This has added a very significant direct cost to the industry and of course is prejudicing the long term future of Australian exports. On an examination of the circumstances of these disputes, I believe it is open to the New South Wales Grain Elevators Board, which is the employer in this instance, not only to take normal industrial action but also possibly to consider action under section 45d of the Trade Practices Act which is the section that is being used in other disputes around Australia that are affecting primary industry at the moment. I intend to take up the matter with my colleague, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, after Question Time.

It is important for the Australian community to realise that the Australian primary producer has gone through two very dry seasons. Generally, as a result of rising costs, particularly in handling and processing his product, the prosperity of the farmer is as low as it has been for many years. Industrial disputes of the order of that in Newcastle and the dispute affecting live sheep exports in South Australia and Western Australia are advantaging nobody within

Australia. Essentially, markets which otherwise would have been obtained for our products can be availed of by exporters of other countries. The long term effect will certainly be to the financial detriment of the Australian primary producer and, in my opinion, to the financial detriment of this country as a whole.

page 904

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND FUND COMMISSION

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND

-I direct a question to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I refer to his reply to an earlier question on the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission. I repeat the question which he evaded: Did the Minister, as a result of the 14 March meeting with officers of his Department referred to, instruct his Department to draw up a submission to Cabinet, the effect of which would be to abolish the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission?

Mr VINER:
LP

– Instructions which I give to my officers are confidential matters in the ordinary course of government. However, I will say this: I asked my Department to carry on the review of the future role of the Aboriginal Land Fund Commission, which had been under way since 1976. It was not in any way a recent review; it had been in progress for some time past. When that review is completed its findings will be put before me and I shall decide what I shall put to Cabinet with respect to the future long term role of the Commission. That decision will be made at some time in the future.

page 904

QUESTION

AUSTRALIAN TOURIST COMMISSION

Mr SAINSBURY:
EDEN-MONARO, NEW SOUTH WALES

– My question is directed to the Minister for Finance. I refer to the tourist industry which, as the Minister knows from his experience in his electorate and as I know from my experience in mine, is of increasing importance to our national economy. Is it true that the Minister has recently cleared the way to an increase of $300,000 in appropriation to the Australian Tourist Commission? If this is so, will these funds be directed to any particular activity?

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It is a fact that a few months ago an increase of about $300,000 was made in the vote for the Australian Tourist Commission. That maintained the Commission ‘s vote roughly in accordance with the previous year in real terms. There was a continuing restraint on the Tourist Commission. The reason for that action is that one of the great industries of the world is the tourist industry. We are also very concerned, as I hope every honourable member in the Parliament is concerned, about the growing gap between what we earn in Australia from tourism and what Australians spend overseas. We want to encourage Australians to go overseas but we also have to do more to encourage people from overseas to visit Australia. Therefore, the role of the Australian Tourist Commission is terribly important.

A lot will depend upon many policies of the Government, including policies with regard to transport. But this is an area in which promotion can help. We must bear in mind not only that the tourist industry is labour intensive and therefore has an employment potential which is of value but also that it touches every electorate in this country. It does not touch only my electorate which happens to include the Gold Coast, which of course is the premier tourist resort of this nation but, as the honourable member for EdenMonaro rightly said, the tourist industry touches every electorate. I think that we as a Parliament ought to take more interest in the overall industry and its development.

page 905

QUESTION

SUGAR

Mr LIONEL BOWEN:
KINGSFORD-SMITH, NEW SOUTH WALES

-I direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Resources. I refer to the fact that Australia has been obliged to accept a reduced export quota for sugar on the international market. Does this mean that there will be a great over-supply of sugar in Australia, with high cost extra storage facilities being necessary? Will the provision of these storage facilities mean also that the Australian consumer will be obliged to pay an increase of 15 per cent in the price of sugar? Is a further price increase projected for September? Further, are there some difficulties in the milling of sugar produced in northern New South Wales? Is it a fact that the refining company concerned is anxious to dispose of the mills in that area? If so, what guarantee can the Minister give to producers in northern New South Wales that milling facilities will be available?

Mr ANTHONY:
Deputy Prime Minister · RICHMOND, NEW SOUTH WALES · NCP/NP

-The Deputy Leader of the Opposition raised a number of questions. One of them, which is of particular interest to me, is the last one relating to mills in northern New South Wales because two of them happen to be in my electorate. It is a matter of very deep concern to the industry and to me that there be a satisfactory transfer of ownership of the mills to the growers in northern New South Wales. Consultations have been proceeding under the auspices of the New South Wales Government, and I am hoping that a satisfactory conclusion will be arrived at. The honourable member made reference to Australia’s obligations under the International Sugar Agreement. One of our obligations is to restrain our export deliveries in the hope that the international market might tighten. That means that we have to suppress the level of our production and to put in storage part of our production so that if world demand increases and prices respond accordingly adequate stocks will be available for the consumer countries. This is part of our international obligation.

In answer to the honourable member’s question as to whether this will have any bearing on Australian consumers, no it will not. The additional storage facility to be provided is to be financed by the sugar industry itself, generally by loan moneys which will be repayable, so it will have no implications at all on the domestic price of sugar. However, as the honourable gentleman knows, the question of the domestic price of sugar is to be considered by the Government. When the decision is made an announcement will be made to this House.

page 905

QUESTION

CURRENCY FLUCTUATIONS

Mr SHORT:
BALLARAT, VICTORIA

-My question is directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that the value of the United States dollar has slumped substantially against most major currencies m recent days? If so, does this pose a significant threat to international monetary stability and international trade? Does it also pose a threat to the recovery of the Australian economy which at present is under way as a result of sound economic management by this Government? If so, what measures does the Treasurer intend to take to prevent these international currency difficulties from having repercussions on Australia? In particular, will the Treasurer take early steps to facilitate the development of provisions to enable forward cover to be taken on capital transactions?

Mr HOWARD:
Treasurer · BENNELONG, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

-I think all honourable gentlemen will be aware of movements in the value of the American dollar against other major currencies that have occurred not only over the past few days but also over a slightly longer period. I would hesitate to describe those movements as having the consequences ascribed by the honourable member on international monetary stability and trade. Of course, it is a matter of significance not only to Australia but also to the rest of the international trading community when movements of this order in the value of the American dollar against other major currencies occur. I have on a number of earlier occasions indicated to the House the attitude of the Government insofar as the management of the Australian exchange rate is concerned in relation to fluctuations in the value of the American dollar.

I again draw the attention of the honourable gentleman to the statements that I have made on a number of occasions regarding the determination of the Government to make substantial additional overseas borrowings in support of the Australian dollar. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the raising of a $US350m loan facilitated through the Deutsche Bank and announced the day before Easter, just several weeks ago. This loan raising in fact represented the largest ever fixed interest placement by a foreign government in the Eurodollar market. It indicated the extraordinarily high credit rating of Australia in international monetary markets. In the circumstances it was a conspicuous tribute to the reliability of Australia and the trust placed by overseas investors in the Australian economy and, indeed, in the policies being followed at present by the Government.

I also draw the honourable gentleman’s attention to a report in today’s Australian Financial Review which indicated the prospects according to the United States Commerce Department, for United States capital investment in Australia during 1978. It will be apparent to the honourable gentleman from those comments that the Government naturally is keeping under close scrutiny the impact on the Australian economy of fluctuations in the American dollar. The question the honourable gentleman raised about providing forward cover against capital transactions is one of those matters that properly ought to be the subject of on-going consideration by the Government of exchange rate management. That on-going consideration is occurring and I can assure the honourable gentleman that that on-going consideration includes consideration of his proposition regarding forward cover.

page 906

QUESTION

COMMUNITY YOUTH SUPPORT SCHEME

Dr JENKINS:
SCULLIN, VICTORIA

– My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Is it a fact that the Community Youth Support scheme projects are financed on a sixmonthly basis? Are CYSS groups aware of finance being available only until 30 June 1978? Is CYSS to continue after that date? If so, when will the groups be advised of the finance to be made available to them in the future, both short term and long term?

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · CORANGAMITE, VICTORIA · LP

-The Community Youth Support scheme, which was an initiative of this Government, now involves- from memorysome 220-odd projects throughout Australia.

Mr Cohen:

– The scheme is a waste of time and money.

Mr STREET:

– I am interested to hear the honourable member for Robertson comment that he considers the projects are a waste of money. Currently some 7,500 young people are taking part in the projects. About 31,000 young people nave participated in the projects since the scheme was originated and a great many of them secured permanent employment during the time they were involved in the projects. There are so many examples of that happening that I thought the honourable member would have been aware of them. Quite apart from the fact that CYSS keeps young people oriented towards work, it has helped a great many of those who have participated in the scheme to obtain permanent work. The honourable gentleman raised the question of the future funding of CYSS projects. He may be aware that recently I issued a Press statement indicating further Government support for the continuation of the program and a greater ability on the part of the State committees which supervise CYSS to grant support for projects up to 12 months instead of 6 months and also to maintain a closer surveillance over the scheme to ensure that those which do not meet proper criteria for the expenditure of public money are no longer supported. There have been examples of some CYSS projects being less successful than others. But I emphasise that overall the scheme has provided the chance for thousands of young people to maintain an interest in work and, in fact, has enabled them to be placed in employment.

page 906

QUESTION

UNITED NATIONS PEACE-KEEPING FORCE

Mr YATES:
HOLT, VICTORIA

-Can the Minister for Foreign Affairs tell us whether the Secretary-General of the United Nations has asked for any help from the Government in the form of logistic support for the peace-keeping force in the Middle East? On the other hand, has he offered to the Secretary-General any help for the peacekeeping force in the Middle East? Thirdly, can he tell us what is the nature and role of No. 5 Squadron of the Royal Australian Air Force which, I believe, has done some remarkable work in assisting the United Nations peacekeeping force at Ismailia and over the Sinai?

Mr PEACOCK:
Minister for Foreign Affairs · KOOYONG, VICTORIA · LP

-The short answer to the first part of the question is no, a request was not made. As to the second part of the question, we are already giving support, as evidenced by the last part of the question. I add to that my own remarks about the outstanding Australian contribution in a number of areas to the United Nations peace-keeping forces. The value of that contribution, whether in regard to a helicopter contingent, the police force, et cetera, is not generally known. We were requested early in 1976 when the Secretary-General visited Australia to give additional assistance by way of helicopter support and we responded positively to that request. On this occasion we were not asked for assistance, but I underline that in situations such as that which occurred recently in the Lebanon a balance of representation is sought Our assistance was sought in 1976. It is not unusual that it was not sought in 1978.

page 907

QUESTION

ABORIGINAL LAND COUNCILS

Mr HAYDEN:
OXLEY, QUEENSLAND · ALP

– Did the Prime Minister tell the Premier of Queensland in a letter dated 9 December 1976 that the Federal Government would reject any request for assistance for Aboriginals from the proposed North Queensland Land Council? Did the Premier in a letter dated 19 January 1977 note the Prime Minister’s assurance on that matter? Does that confidential undertaking between the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier apply to any or all other Aboriginal land councils in Queensland?

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
LP

-The activities of the Land Council and the Land Fund are separate and need to be seen separately. It is much more pertinent to note that over the last two or three months the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and I have had a number of discussions about various aspects of Commonwealth policies in relation to Aborigines with a view to getting greater expedition into the pursuit of those policies in the State of Queensland.

page 907

QUESTION

BEEF SALES TO JAPAN

Mr O’KEEFE:
PATERSON, NEW SOUTH WALES

– Can the Minister for Trade and Resources clarify for the House the outcome of his discussions in Japan concerning the desire of the Australian beef industry to increase its sales of beef on the Japanese market?

Mr ANTHONY:
NCP/NP

-An important part of my mission to Japan was to re-emphasise our concern about access to the Japanese market, which is an extremely important one for our beef. Last year it was the second major market, but it is a highly restricted one. It operates on a sixmonthly quota basis. That is something that has not pleased us and we would like to see annual quotas. Also, high charges are imposed upon imports into Japan. On a couple of occasions in Japan I detailed the additional costs involved. To simplify it, I pointed out that Australian chilled beef lands in Japan at $1.77 a kilogram and retails to the Japanese consumer at about $12 a kilogram. That is due in part to a levy and duties imposed once the beef lands, but is also due to a very costly distribution system within Japan.

The Japanese Government informed me that it is doing what it can to reduce some of the costs of distribution so that the high cost to the consumer can be reduced. The price of beef in Japan would be the highest in the world. The Japanese Government gave me an assurance that for this six-monthly quota period we can expect a 5,000 tonnes global increase, with another 5,000 tonnes increase in the next six-monthly period. From what I was told, I believe that we can look forward to a continuation of that 5,000 tonnes increase each six-monthly period. That will put us close to an annual quota of 100,000 tonnes this year, but I have made a plea to the Japanese Government for quotas up to about 130,000 tonnes by 1980, which would get us back to somewhere near the figure for 1 973-74.

page 907

INQUIRY INTO WHALES AND WHALING

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

- Mr Speaker, for the information of honourable members, I present the terms of reference of the inquiry into whales and whaling which has been established by the Government to review Australia’s policies in this field. The inquiry will be conducted by the Honourable Sir Sydney Frost.

page 907

AUSTRALIAN WINE BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 29 of the Wine Overseas Marketing Act 1929, I present the annual report of the Australian Wine Board for the year ended 30 June 1 977.

page 907

AUSTRALIAN EGG BOARD

Mr SINCLAIR:
Minister for Primary Industry · New England · NCP/NP

– Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947, I present the annual report of the Australian Egg Board for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 907

CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION COMMISSION

Mr STREET:
Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations · Corangamite · LP

– Pursuant to section 70 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904, 1 present the annual report of the President of the Australian Conciliation and

Arbitration Commission for the year ended 13 August 1977.

page 908

HOSPITALS AND HEALTH SERVICES COMMISSION

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

Pursuant to section 32 of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission Act 1973, 1 present the annual report of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission for 1976-77.

page 908

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS (LOANS GUARANTEE) ACT

Mr STALEY:
Minister for Post and Telecommunications · Chisholm · LP

– Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loans Guarantee) Act 1969, I present a statement of payments made during the year ended 30 June 1977 in respect of all guarantees given under that Act.

page 908

AUSTRALIAN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL

Reports and Ministerial Statement

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:
Prime Minister · Wannon · LP

– For the information of honourable members, I present two reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council- ASTEC. Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement in respect of the reports.

Leave granted.

Mr MALCOLM FRASER:

-The first is a report on the activities of the interim ASTEC, which was formed on 29 April 1976 and terminated on 29 March 1977. The second is a report by the permanent ASTEC, established by the Government in April 1977, on energy research and development in Australia. The Government is most conscious of the vital need, for the future development of Australia, to utilise the nation’s science and technology resources efficiently and effectively. As these valuable resources are limited, it is the Government’s task to encourage their use rationally and wisely in Australia’s best long-term interests. To assist us in this task, ASTEC has been established as an independent body of the highest quality and standing to advise us on the application of Australian scientific and technological expertise to national problems, and on any other matters relating to science and technology which may be referred to ASTEC, or which it chooses to examine on its own initiative.

The interim ASTEC was re-established by this Government in April 1976 with the principal task of advising on the arrangements for a permanent Australian Science and Technology Council. It presented its report to me in

November 1976, and I tabled that report, and announced the formation of the permanent ASTEC, in the House on 19 April 1977. The first report I have tabled today presents details of the other activities of the interim ASTEC during its period of operation. Among the more important of these activities was the advice ASTEC offered on three matters referred to it by the Government in August 1976. These matters were: Whether Australia should establish facilities to receive information from Landsat, the United States of America’s earth resources satellite; whether Australia should participate in the first world-wide experiment of the global atmospheric research program and the extent to which the Commonwealth should be involved in the co- ordination of information on Australia’s unique flora and fauna.

The Government has already taken action on the first two of these questions, our decisions being in line with ASTEC ‘s advice which was of great assistance to us. The third matter is presently being considered by the Government and I expect the Minister for Science (Senator Webster) to make an announcement on longterm organisational arrangements for biological surveys within the next few months. ASTEC ‘s advice to the Government on these three matters is reproduced in full in the report.

The second report I have tabled today is the report by ASTEC of October last year on Australia’s energy research and development needs, a topic which I asked the Council to examine as a matter of high priority. In preparing its report, the Council received submissions from a wide range of people in the community and was assisted by a number of other recent reports on energy research and development. In particular, the Council derived useful information from the report on solar energy by the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources tabled in May last year, and reports by the Institution of Engineers and the Department of Science referred to in paragraph 1.4 of the Council’s report. Honourable members may be aware that on 15 December 1977 the then Minister for National Resources (Mr Anthony) released a report of the National Energy Advisory Committee on a similar topic.

ASTEC ‘s report confirms the assessment of the National Energy Advisory Committee on priorities in energy research and development and the Committee’s views that there is scope for a significant increase in our effort on energy research and development. At the same time, ASTEC’s report recommends machinery for the proper co-ordination of such increased expenditure. I consider the ASTEC report on energy to be a most valuable contribution to our planning to meet Australia’s future energy demands. The Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) has derived considerable assistance from the report in developing proposals to implement the Government’s undertaking, announced prior to the elections last November, to expand the energy research and development program, and to establish a high level body to advise on special measures to administer that program. Further details of these matters will be announced by the Minister for National Development in the near future.

Finally, for the information of honourable members, I should mention that the permanent ASTEC has in the past year assisted the Government on a number of important matters concerned with government science, including providing comments on various reports submitted to the Government, and consulting with departments on a number of current issues concerning science and technology. ASTEC ‘s major activity has been the preparation of a comprehensive review of the state of science and technology in Australia in 1977. This report is expected to be available by mid year, and I am confident that it will be a most valuable document in the development of Australia’s science and technology policy. It will provide the basis on which ASTEC will formulate its future advice to the Government and will play an important part in the process of government decision making on science and technology.

I announced in the House on 19 April of last year that the Government intended to establish ASTEC as a statutory body to give it the status, permanence and stability required to allow it to undertake its important role in advising the Government on science and technology. I shall be bringing forward legislation in the present sitting of Parliament to achieve this objective. I present the following paper:

Australian Science and Technology Council- Ministerial Statement, 4 April 1978.

Motion (by Mr Sinclair) proposed:

That the House take note of the papers.

Mr KEATING:
Blaxland

-The House will be pleased to receive the reports of the Australian Science and Technology Council. The Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) mentioned two reports, the first dealing with specific references from the Government on the Landsat satellite, atmospheric research and Australia’s flora and fauna. The second report deals with the question of Australia’s energy policy and seeks advice from ASTEC as to the way in which such a research and development policy should be administered. The Opposition has not had the benefit of a prior look at the reports, but from the Prime Minister’s statement it is obvious that the reports have drawn on evidence submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources in its inquiry on solar energy and the reports presented to ASTEC by the Australian Institute of Engineers. At this time I must take time to compliment both those bodies for the comprehensive and valuable nature of those reports.

The Opposition naturally is pleased to see any progress by the Government on energy matters to date. Since the Government was elected in December 1975, we have seen little progress in terms of firm action by the Government in the formulation of an energy policy. Committees have been established and reports have been presented, ad nauseam, which then seem to find themselves locked away in some Minister’s desk, never to see the light of day. I made the point recently that whilst the Government has been in office for well over two years there has been no firm energy policy announced, yet in the United States after merely six months in office the Carter Administration had a whole package of conservation and general energy development proposals before the American Congress. The fact that both governments were elected virtually simultaneously indicates clearly the malaise in the thinking of this Government in relation to this important question of energy. The only firm policy announcement we have heard from the Government was the announcement made by the Minister for National Development (Mr Newman) a couple of weeks ago in respect of the utilisation of liquid petroleum gas in Australia. This is welcomed. It is only a minute part of the kind of policy Australia clearly needs at this time.

By contrast, the Opposition has thought long and hard about the question of energy. Its policy was written and articulated clearly at the Federal Conference of the Australian Labor Party in Perth in July 1977. The reports of that Conference have been presented. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard ‘the section of the reports dealing with energy research and development policies.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

F Energy Policy

Recognising or asserting that unlike many industrialised countries, Australia is rich in energy resources such as coal, natural gas, uranium, and until recent years, petroleum; Australia’s abundance of low sulphur coal, in particular, and the level of insolation coupled with favourable climatic conditions, make Australia ideally suited for research into alternative energy sources, such as coal conversion and solar power; the diversity of Australia’s energy resources and the country’s dwindling reserves of petroleum make it imperative for Australia to formulate a national energy policy, so that a long term energy plan may be implemented to provide Australia with an energy mix consistent with its long term requirements and available supplies; a national energy policy must be based on a recognition of the gradual depletion of non-renewable energy sources; social consequences of energy decisions; environmental impact of growing energy demands; and the implications for Australian decision-making of the global maldistribution of energy use; and have as its aim a long term sustainable energy economy, in which energy resources and technologies are appropriate to the needs and goals of the Australian community; and should encompass the careful use of fossil fuel reserves as a bridge to longer term future; promotion of energy awareness in the public and private sectors and amongst individuals; a strong program of energy conservation; and a gradual and planned shift to renewable energy sources; a Labor Government will 1 1 implement a policy on fossil fuels including

  1. a ) promotion of further exploration;
  2. close investigation of present and future fossil fuel requirements, efficiencies of use and alternative uses, conservation of reserves, regulation of marketing and export and overall planning to cater for the depletion of reserves;
  3. increased attention to alleviating the environmental effects of fossil fuel use; and
  4. continued investigation into the gasification and liquefaction of coal; 1 2 implement a program of energy awareness including
  5. fostering energy analysis in the private sector, and energy impact statements for new development; and
  6. encouraging individual consciousness of the energy costs of decisions through education, provision of information and labelling of consumer goods for energy efficiencies;

G National Fuel and Energy Commission 1 3 establish a National Fuel and Energy Commission to

  1. assist the Australian Government in developing and implementing a co-ordinated fuel and energy policy;
  2. together with the Department of Minerals and Energy, provide the Australian Government with expert advice on energy;
  3. be composed of representatives of the National and State Governments and of producers and consumers of energy;
  4. be funded directly by the Australian Government, and in turn be responsible to the Australian Government through the Minister for Minerals and Energy;

  5. be responsible for the preparation of a blueprint for Australia’s future energy requirements and an inventory of Australia’s energy resources, and will specifically-

    1. monitor the exploration, development, transport price, marketing and use of energy hydrocarbons, fissionable materials and generative water, with the object of achieving the best energy balance for Australia;
    2. in co-operation with the Australian Science and Technology Council, be responsible for the national coordination and Federal funding of energy research and development in Australia, including particular research relating to coal conversion and solar energy, and determine an order of priorities for such research. The Fuel and Energy Commission will provide the Australian Government with detailed knowledge of existing energy research programs and of the resources available in Australia to carry out the greatly expanded research and development effort necessary to ensure that Australia has access to the new technologies necessary for the development of alternative energy sources at the appropriate time;
    3. evaluate and advise on the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Petroleum, particularly those concerning a national refining policy and the use of liquefied petroleum gas in Australia;
    4. advise on the adoption of measures to protect the environment from energy pollutants, by legislation where necessary, and by policies designed to encourage the domestic use of non-pollutant fuels; and
    5. evaluate the benefits arising from a vigorous program for the conservation of energy, aimed at extending the life of Australia’s dwindling oil reserves through the more efficient usage and substitution of alternative energy where possible, while maintaining Australia’s current high standard of living, and assist the Australian Government in implementing such a program, together with one for increasing the recovery rate from our known energy deposits, while having due regard to the environmental considerations mentioned above;

H Energy Research and Development Fund 14 establish an Energy Research and Development Fund under the administration of the National Fuel and Energy Commission, to be substantially financed from monies collected under the proposed secondary profits tax flowing from energy production, to enable the vital research and development of alternative energy technology to be carried out;

Mr KEATING:

-In the policy we envisaged the establishment of a national fuel and energy commission. Because of the limitation of time I will not read out the functions of that commission, but item (ii) of the policy states that the Commission will: in co-operation with the Australian Science and Technology Council, be responsible for the national co-ordination and Federal funding of energy research and development in

Australia, including particular research relating to coal conversion and solar energy, and determine an order of priorities for such research. The Fuel and Energy Commission will provide the Australian Government with detailed knowledge of existing energy research programs and of the resources available in Australia to carry out the greatly expanded research and development effort necessary to ensure that Australia has access to the new technologies necessary for the development of alternative energy sources at the appropriate time . . .

The point is that, even on a casual observation of this policy, it is obvious that my party has thought long and hard about this matter. We are over a year and a half ahead of the Government in its thinking. The Government still has not formulated any clear machinery by which it can establish permanent co-ordination and funding of a research effort in Australia. More importantly, there is the immediately emerging problem of the deficiency of crude oil in Australia, which I think is Australia’s most pressing energy problem. As honourable members know, at the moment Australia receives 70 per cent of its crude oil from indigenous sources and 30 per cent is attributable to imports. Yet by 1985, if no new oil fields are found, the reverse will be the case. Thirty per cent will be coming from indigenous sources and there will be a 70 per cent reliance on imports. This lack of energy independence and the cost to our balance of payments and the parity of our currency will be very severe indeed for this country. Even if we were to find a large oil-bearing structure today and decided this very day to start development, it would take eight years to bring such a development on stream. So it would be 1986 before we saw any tangible benefits from a discovery today and a policy to move on today with development.

Again, in the area of natural gas there has been a malaise in government thinking. The Government thinks it is sufficient to give the goahead to the North West Shelf project when it ought to be an objective of government policy to raise the utilisation of natural gas in Australia to reasonable levels. At the moment gas utilisation runs at about 8 per cent of Australia’s total energy picture, whereas the world average is around 2 1 per cent. This seems a sensible policy as it looks as though Australia will have sufficient quantities of natural gas for the foreseeable future. It is a direct replacement for oil and particularly for imported oil, being heavy gravity oil, where the heavy end products are presently used for burning in industry. So natural gas can provide a real substitute. Yet there is no direction of government policy towards upgrading natural gas exploration. It is regarded as a spin-off from oil exploration. There have been no real endeavours to make sure that a coherent gas policy is developed for Australia.

The other issue which the Government must be attending to shortly is the implementation of a conservation policy. If we cannot find oil the sensible thing to do is not to use so much of what we have. We on this side of the House believe that the Government ought to be attending to fuel economy targets for motor vehicles. Australian motor manufacturers are not required to meet any fuel economy targets, whereas their counterparts in other parts of the world have been required to do so for a long time. Again, the Government seems to be languishing in the development of a policy towards energy efficient vehicles. Given the size of this continent and the distances between the capital cities, one would have believed that this would have been a priority. The point is that the Government has done very little about energy. What we need is a quite massive research and development effort.

I make the point again that the Labor Party has said that, in government, it will establish an energy research and development fund under the administration of the national fuel and energy commission, to be substantially financed from moneys collected under the proposed secondary profits tax flowing from energy production, to enable the vital research and development of alternative energy technology to be carried out. What we need is a well funded and co-ordinated research effort into alternative energy technologies. We have never had that. To date the Government has received reports and has sat on them. We hope that the fine work by the Australian Science and Technology Council will be taken note of by the Government and that it will be the forerunner to a clear definition in this House very shortly of the Government’s energy policy.

Debate (on motion by Mr Hodges) adjourned.

page 911

AUSTRALIAN WAR MEMORIAL

Mr ELLICOTT:
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for the Capital Territory · Wentworth · LP

Pursuant to section 23 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1962 I present the annual report of the Board of Trustees of the Australian War Memorial for the year ended 30 June 1977.

page 911

ASSENT TO BILLS

Assent to the following Bills reported:

Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1978.

Northern Territory Supreme Court Amendment Bill 1978.

National Water Resources (Financial Assistance) Bill 1978.

Territory Authorities ( Financial Provisions ) Bill 1 978.

Bounty (Polyester-Cotton Yarn ) Bill 1 978.

Control of Naval Waters Amendment Bill 1 978.

Australian National Railways Amendment Bill 1978.

page 912

PROTECTION OF AUSTRALIAN TERRITORY

Discussion of Matter of Public Importance

Mr SPEAKER:

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

The urgent need for the Government to make a clear statement on the future protection of Australia’s territorial integrity.

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

More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their placesMr SCHOLES (Corio) (3.22 )-This matter of public importance gives the House a limited opportunity to debate a matter which is of extreme concern to a substantial proportion of the Australian population and which should be the subject of very clear and definite statements by the Government. On 24 January of this year, following some very high level public relations exercises and general public concern arising out of the incursion into Australia of an aircraft carrying large quantities of marihuana and because of the arrival in Australia of refugee boats without prior detection, the Government announced that it had set up a committee of permanent heads to discuss means by which surveillance and the protection of Australia’s territorial integrity could be assured and that that committee would report back to the Government for action within a month. It is now 4 April. After the period of a month had elapsed- I am fairly certain that this is accurate- the committee had not even met to discuss the propositions which had been put forward by an interdepartmental committee which had met and which was continuing to meet after that time.

The question of Australia’s territorial integrity and the surveillance and protection of the Australian coastline is one which is regularly under discussion, especially in northern Australia. Recently in a Four Comers program the Leader of the Majority Party in the Northern Territory Legislative Council indicated- I think quite properly-that he considered the Commonwealth had a responsibility to provide for the defence and surveillance of northern Australia, a responsibility which at this stage has not been accepted by anyone. The Minister for Defence (Mr Killen), who unfortunately cannot take part in this debate because of another commitment, has made a number of statements, including some in answer to questions in this House, which I hope were meant to be funny but which unfortunately I feel I must take seriously. One was a suggestion that $3,000m worth of Orion aircraft should be purchased to undertake this task. Another was an attack on Mr Everingham, whom I have mentioned before in which the Minister indicated that he was suffering from the Darwin heat when he made some of those suggestions.

A number of other statements by the Minister both inside and outside this House clearly have been designed to make the point that the defence forces should not accept this responsibility. I want to make it absolutely clear that in my opinion the protection of Australia’s sovereignty is a defence responsibility and should be undertaken on that level. The Government should make it quite clear that that is its policy decision and should then require the defence forces to meet that obligation. I understand the reluctance of the defence forces. It is a question of money. Who pays? Does the money come out of the existing budget, which is quite obviously inadequate to meet even the Government’s policy pronouncements made in the White Paper of 1976, which are in almost total disarray at the moment in meeting the timetable set out in that document? But that does not solve the problem of surveillance and it does not solve the problem of who will be required to carry out the task. I believe that the answers lie in political decisions of the Government following its acceptance of advice which it said it was to receive nearly a month ago but which apparently it has not received yet. What I think has happened- I think this is fairly accurate- is that a bartering situation is taking place within the interdepartmental committee not on who will do the job but on how much money will be provided if so-and-so does it. Line-up positions are being taken.

There is an attractive alternative suggestion. I say ‘attractive’ because if it is not examined it could seem attractive. It is that we set up a separate independent coastguard force to carry out what the Minister for Defence has termed ‘civilian surveillance’. I do not know exactly what civilian surveillance’ is or how it would be defined as against defence surveillance. It is attractive because most Australians have seen the

United States Coastguard in action in all sorts of glory situations on television programs. But Australia is not the United States. The only thing which would equate us with the United States is the approximately similar length of our coastline. The United States Coastguard has 35,000 men and its equipment, except for a couple of capital items, would make it a superior force to the Australian Navy. Anyone in this House or outside who suggests that that type of force could be set up financially or otherwise within the Australian context I think has not heard of the Treasury and certainly is not aware of the amount of Australian budgetary funds available to defence and which could be made available for additional requirements in providing civilian surveillance. That sort of force is something which can be watched on television screens very cheaply but cannot be financed out of public funds in Australia.

What are the alternatives? We could set up some low level force which would do a job of some nature with equipment which would be paid for either by reducing the amount of funds available to the defence forces for their operations or by an additional appropriation of funds. It would be operated by a civilian structure which would have to duplicate many of the communications, command and training structures that exist already in the defence forces and which would almost certainly and inevitably be manned by persons who would leave the defence forces in order to take up senior positions in that area. That is the way the force would be established and it would then become a public relations exercise in the Australian community to build up that empire further. The other alternative is for the actual work to be done by the Australian defence forces which have the training, the capacity and certainly the need in the public eye to undertake this type of work at a time when there is no obvious defence threat. The defence forces need an area of actual identifiable activity at this stage, and this is one area in which that can be done. Quite obviously the funds must be made available by the Government. The Defence budget does not allow for that type of alternative expenditure. The equipment required is a matter of judgment. Certainly patrol boats are on order. It may be necessary to purchase different types of sea-going craft to those which the defence forces would want in a normal defence situation. Aircraft costing far less than the Orion about which the Minister, I think jokingly, answered a question in this House would be required.

The questions are: When will a policy announcement be made; what will that policy announcement be; and who will be responsible? I would say to this House, and I think most members would agree, that the protection of the territorial integrity of continental Australia and its territorial waters- they are shortly to be expanded for economic purposes if not for total claims- is the responsibility of the defence forces. It is the responsibility of the government of the day to set out the policy guidelines and the financial arrangements under which that territorial integrity will be protected. At the moment that is not happening. There is a back room haggle between departmental representatives about who will receive the spoils and there is a public debate in which it is suggested clearly by the Minister responsible that the defence forces should not carry out this role because it is not a proper role for them in that it does not involve direct defence against an invader or an attacker. The Minister has suggested on a number of occasions recently that his requests for funds to provide adequately for the defence forces are not receiving a hearing in Cabinet. The situation is that at least one section of a department- it is not the first time this has come up- is seeking to establish a second subliminal defence operation for a specific purpose in the surveillance area.

Where does defence end and civilian surveillance start? One of the problems which is obvious to everyone is that we must be able to detect any persons seeking to make an incursion into Australian territorial areas. It is not easy. The proposal, which has been mentioned in this House by the Minister, of the Jindalee radar system would give some form of protection in this area. But it is five to ten years away; it is not now. The existing radar capacity in Darwin and what used to be in Amberley- it is currently having a rest while some parts are obtained in the next 12 months or so-is limited and the actual surveillance which is being undertaken is less than comprehensive and certainly does not offer any deterrent. The incursion by the aircraft which caused the hoo-ha earlier in the year with subsequent reports of another one and the arrivals of fishing boats or refugee boats in Darwin were undetected. That may not happen now but it certainly did happen. I do not know how anyone would make the determination that that was a civilian problem because the people on the boats were refugees or that it was a defence problem because they were terrorists possibly seeking to wreak havoc in Darwin for some obscure or obvious political reason. How would one make that judgment merely by watching them sail up Darwin Harbour, because that is the first time Australia knew about some of them?

If a civilian surveillance capacity is established, who will pay the wages? By now someone on the Government side must have worked out that the first thing that will happen is that the naval forces will be robbed of recruits and personnel who would like active operational service which can be obtained in patrol boats and in the area of surveillance. The surveillance will be paid for either by additional funds being made available- this would get over the major defence organisational opposition- or by the money being taken off the defence budget and provided through another department. They seem to be the alternatives. In this area the defence services which are opposing at this stage the undertaking of the work are showing poor political judgment. But that is another question. The Minister is also showing poor political judgment in that he is seeking to shed a function which the defence forces ought to be carrying out and be seen to be carrying out. Even though this may not be part of a shooting war defence proposition, it is part of our territorial integrity and part of the defence of Australia.

The White Paper on the Government’s fiveyear program for the defence of Australia, which I am assured is still current with some modifications, sets out that one of the capacities the Australian defence forces must have is a capacity to provide defence against minor incursions. This includes surveillance of our coastline. These are functions which have to be undertaken and which the Government has indicated will be undertaken but which at the moment the Minister for Defence is suggesting should not be undertaken by the defence forces.

There will never be enough money available for the functions of government and certainly there cannot possibly be sufficient funds to meet the requirements of any modern defence force which wants to be in readiness to counter any contingency. If the Minister for Defence abrogates the responsibility for the protection at all levels of Australian territorial integrity, the chances of successful argument even for relatively adequate funds within the budgetary consideration decline. The actual surveillance force becomes a second force operated by another department. It becomes ineffective.

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

Mr CONNOLLY:
Bradfield

– I think it appropriate for me to compliment the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) for his wisdom in proposing this matter of public importance. It is the first time over the last threeodd years that we have seen any member of the Opposition take any interest at all in the defence of this nation. The honourable member has also, quite rightly, emphasised the difficult decisions which have to be taken in this area. As a general statement I will not argue with him on the substance of the facts which he has given. We need to see the whole context of this problem. We are talking firstly about the territorial integrity of Australia; that is, not just the physical land mass but also the sea around us.

In the near future we will legislate for a fisheries zone which will increase from our coast by some 200 miles the area over which we have jurisdiction. In terms of total area this represents a sea mass approximately equivalent to the land mass of Australia. It is obvious that any government of this nation has to consider very seriously how we can effectively overcome the real difficulties caused by the size of the area over which we have to maintain some jurisdiction.

The first responsibility of government is to provide a nation with security from armed attack and from the constraints of independent national decisions imposed by the threat of such attacks. That is the introduction to the White Paper introduced into the last Parliament by Mr Killen, the Minister for Defence, in November 1976. As the honourable member for Corio is aware, that document is still relevant today. It is also worth emphasising that this Government, under no circumstances, will run away from what we see as a primary responsibility of effective national administration. However, a clear distinction must be made between peacetime law enforcement and the protection of the nation’s sovereignty. I suspect that on this point the honourable member for Corio and speakers from the Government side will have some area of disagreement.

It is a matter of established practice that law enforcement does not demand 100 per cent enforcement. Since when have we caught every speeding driver, every break and entry offender or every traveller who brings goods in or takes goods out through an international airport whether such goods involve marihuana or the taking out of protected Australian wildlife flora and fauna? At the same time it must be emphasised that in recent months we have seen an increase in the number of refugees who have arrived off the Australian coast. We must again question whether their presence represents a de facto military threat or merely an illegal incursion into Australian national sovereignty.

The primary purpose of our defence- this is the point which I think the honourable member for Corio was trying to make- according to the defence establishment, is based essentially upon the prospect of military threat which involves entirely different considerations in terms of Australia’s territorial sovereignty. A major difficulty we are facing in that area is the sheer cost of updating our equipment and our personnel and maintaining a high standard which at all times is within our capacity to pay. We also have to consider the fundamental problems of lead time which is related to the updating and reequipping of our forces.

In recent years, dating back to the time of the previous Minister for Defence, Mr Barnard, there has been an increasing community interest in drugs which have been dropped off our coast and in refugees who have arrived in small boats. In addition, we must not forget infringements to our territorial sovereignty caused by illegal fishing. In recent years ships of a number of nations have entered Australian territorial seas illegally and have taken from them substantial resources of Australian fish. It can be equally argued that as a nation we have not successfully, up to this time, tried to utilise those resources to our own satisfaction. But the fact remains that last year the South Pacific Forum, of which Australia is a member, agreed that we would work towards a 200-mile resources zone. The first objective is that we will have a 200-mile fisheries zone. We understand that enabling legislation will be introduced in the near future.

That decision will face us with two fundamental problems. Are we to say that no nation has the right of access to our zone without specific Australian Government approval? Or are we to take the view that as the resources of that zone are at present beyond our capacity to adequately farm and husband it would be more appropriate for us to enter into fisheries agreements with nations such as Japan, Russia and other states which may be interested, with the primary objective of ensuring that Australian companies through joint ventures in particular will be given some opportunity to gain access to the resources of those fishing grounds and that Australia as a nation will thus gain directly? These are real problems. They do not just cover the question of defence: but transcends foreign policy, domestic policy and, of course, primary industry policy.

Let me refer more specifically to the question of defence and whether responsibility for our coastal surveillance should be a primary defence function, or a function of some other department such as the Department of Transport which currently provides the chairman for the interdepartmental committee which is examining this issue. I am pleased to see that the Government and the Opposition appreciate that the physical environment of Australia emphasises the importance of maritime surveillance, reconnaissance and offshore patrol.

The White Paper lays out specifically the Government’s program in this regard. We have been told by the honourable member for Corio that it is time we made a further statement. I emphasise that the White Paper is still the basic document upon which the defence policy of this administration is based. In this context, we have the LRMP- the long range maritime protection force- which consists of P3 Orion aircraft based at Edinburgh. Additional Orions have been purchased and they are based at Townsville. The difficulty with this particular aircraft is that it is not only an extremely expensive item of equipment but so sophisticated that its primary role is to seek out and destroy submarines or to seek out surface vessels of at least 2,000 tonnes deadweight.

The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the refugee ships that have arrived off the Australian coast weigh substantially less than 2,000 tonnes. I would deign to suggest that most of the deep sea fishing boats which also impinge upon our territorial fishing resources also weigh below 2,000 tonnes. Therefore, the P3 Orion obviously is not the ideal piece of equipment to use, despite the fact that at this time it is regarded internationally as one of the most effective maritime search and surveillance aircraft in the Western world.

When one looks at the scale or alternative aircraft which we could purchase one runs into a whole series of problems related specifically to the sheer size of Australia: The fact that we do not have sufficient usable airfields within the specific zones of activity. Although we take the view that the North West Shelf area of Australia to Cape York should be regarded as the primary area of concern, ‘ it cannot under any circumstances be taken as the only area. We see quite often that drugs are discovered on beaches, and found on boats with radio homing devices attached to them and so forth, in the southern seas off Australia. Therefore, the point must be made that we are not talking about just a specific area of the Australian coastline. Although there can be zones of activity which require more action than others, primarily we have to have some capacity for surveillance over the entire coastal area of Australia by air, sea and land.

The honourable member for Corio also made the point- quite rightly so-that perhaps we should be considering the question of a coastguard. This is something to which the Government is currently giving serious consideration. The word ‘civilian’ has been used in this context to differentiate a non-military service. Whether a coastguard could be one means of achieving this or whether we should have a component added to the defence establishment- by calling it a coastguard’ if we wish- or whether we should have a coastguard type facility established within the Department of Transport or the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, which is responsible for customs arrangements at the present time, has to be decided.

Some very rough figures which have been taken out on this subject would suggest that the cost of running a very basic coastguard operation for Australia would be some $500m. The cost of cutters, for example, would be about $2 50m, small patrol craft another $30m, aircraft $20m and further infrastructure at least another $200m. In addition, actual annual running costs, allowing $20,000 for each man, which would be the basic cost including overtime, additional shore leave facilities, accommodation and so forth, including stores, fuel, rations, would be approximately another $200m. What the Government needs to consider and certainly what the Opposition needs to appreciate is that we are talking about extremely large sums of money.

Whilst it is very easy for the electorate to take the view that in matters of health, education and social welfare, for example, governments should be prepared to spend whatever is necessary, it is extraordinary that when we start to debate matters of defence, suddenly we hear the cry from the Opposition: ‘What is the Government doing about it? Why is it not spending more money?’ This comes from an Opposition which during its three years in government did nothing at all to demonstrate the slightest degree of interest in the defence of this nation. I only hope that the honourable member for Corio, now that he has the shadow portfolio of defence, will bring to the Opposition a greater degree of interest in this matter than we have seen previously.

As we are talking about figures, let us see the problem illustrated in terms of Government Budget outlays by function over, say, the last financial year, 1976-77. Appropriations for defence represented 8.8 per cent of Government outlays, education represented 8.9 per cent, health represented 10.6 percent and social security and welfare- wait for it- 27.2 per cent. Of course, other items of expenditure were considerably less. What we simply have to ask the Australian people is: ‘Where are those cuts going to be made? What are you prepared to go without so that Australia can have a truly effective defence structure?’ As this Parliament will realise in the not too distant future when it hears from the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) when he announces a decision on the TFF, we are speaking of enormous sums of money for which the average citizen probably will not see in the foreseeable future any direct results. We do not have parades down the streets; we do not have great flypasts. Why is this so? It is because, frankly, they cost too much. Our defence establishment at the moment needs every cent it can get its hands on to make sure that it has adequate training facilities and equipment to perform its primary task, which I put to this House is the physical defence and the territorial integrity of Australia in time of threat.

The role performed by the defence establishment in recent years in the context of coastal surveillance certainly is well up to its capability. But to achieve that objective has meant that men and equipment have been put to functions for which they were not originally designed or trained. This nation must seriously consider whether it is prepared to pay that cost. A possible alternative would be to have a totally new concept, for example, a coastguard, whether it be an adjunct of the defence services, or whether it be a totally civilian operation run by the departments which I mentioned earlier. These are important decisions. On that I agree with the honourable member for Corio. It is indeed very advantageous for this Parliament and for Australia that we appear at last to have reached the stage where the representatives of the Australian people on both sides of this chamber can seriously discuss in a bipartisan manner what is a primary responsibility of this Parliament, namely, the integrity of Australia.

Mr BRYANT:
Wills

-To begin with, I should like to set the record straight. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) did not advocate a coastguard service. In the short time at his disposal he discarded the idea of a coastguard service as impracticable. Nor did he say that we should have some continuous and absolute police force system watch over the approaches to Australia. There is not much point in talking about whether one approves or disapproves of access to Australia if one cannot do anything about it- if one cannot find out about or does not even notice people who are entering our territorial seas. That is the first issue I should like to make clear. I hope that the speech by the honourable member for Corio is not misunderstood in that regard.

The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) made several points in what one might call a contentious political way, which I should challenge. He claimed that we have not shown any interest in defence over the past three years or so. It is difficult to show interest publicly in matters of defence or anything else which is debated in this Parliament when debates are constantly gagged, when Ministers never come into this chamber and make statements about anything, or, if they do so, as soon as they start to lose an argument they close down the debate. Honourable members on this side of the House have much the same interest in defence as have our friends opposite, except that when we were in government we did something practical about the matter. It was the Labor Government which continued with the purchase of the FI 1 1- a very difficult decision to make. It was the Labor Government which put the careers of members of the armed services on a substantial footing. It was the Labor Government which ordered the Leopard tank and took a number of other initiatives to secure the defence position of Australia which prevailed at the time.

We do not say that the present Government is running away from this issue; it has just gone to sleep on it There is no doubt that the people of Australia are concerned about the situation which has developed- that it seems to be possible for anybody in the most unseaworthy vessel to invade our snores. I know that it would be in the long term that we would have to worry about hysteria generated by concern that tens of thousands of people were going to invade our shores. But it still intrigues all of us to consider that, with our enormous array of facilities in the defence system, the transport system and so on, we can be sneaked up upon by fishing ships which have come all the way from Vietnam. We want the system changed.

We are not going to embark upon an argument whether people ought to be allowed to come here; that is not the issue. But territorial integrity- speaking in the same terms as my colleague the honourable member for Bradfield and relating it to the seas surrounding the mainland of Australia-has to be assured. We shall decide whether it is necessary to prevent people from coming here after various other decisions have been made. But we must create the apparatus by which we can be absolutely certain that we know who is coming to Australia, why they are coming and what we should do when they do get here. I am not intrigued by the argument that surveillance is a defence function. The facts as I see them are that there is a problem to be faced. So we have to look at the available resources with which we can tackle the problem.

I have some figures I would like to cite. We do not want to become neurotic about what might be called the continuous incursions into Australia, but in 1973 there were 283 sightings of fishing vessels. The number increased to 43 1 in 1974. According to figures in the report of the Department of Transport, the Marine Operations Centre investigated 1,482 incidents during 1976-77- three or four a day on average- and of that number 173 were separate sightings of fishing vessels. I suppose it would not matter all that much if all these vessels caught most of the fish that they look for now, but there is no doubt that Australia’s fishing resources are of a limited nature and we must not allow them to be taken from us. However, that is only the thin edge of the wedge in a world situation in which all sorts of other things may happen to us.

On the question of whether surveillance is a civil or a defence responsibility, I think that whilst the actual policing of the system, the final management of the system and what is done about it should be civil decisions, perhaps the actual Defence Force has the apparatus with which to carry out the job. I do not think the decision as to whether surveillance is a civil or a defence function is mutually exclusive. We already have in Australia rather large surveillance forces. The Customs Bureau has surveillance apparatus. There are the police forces in each of the States. The Department of Transport has a very large navigational aid and radar system, but it does not cover the whole of the Australian continent. The State investigation systems are there. They can patrol parts of the coastline. There are also the environmental people, the fisheries people, the people who monitor oil spillage and so on. There is a very large but disorganised apparatus, although the Marine Operations Centre under the Department of Transport has brought some cohesion into surveillance in recent years.

What is the situation insofar as the armed Services are concerned? I suppose this is a subjective value view of what might be called the Australian temperament, but I do not think the people who join the Australian defence services are properly conditioned to spending their lives doing very little. It may be all right for a person who joined the services in somewhere like Belgium or Holland where men are not accustomed to going away on expeditionary forces, where the horizons are bounded by a closely knit society and there is a long tradition to take matters very quietly. I am absolutely certain that the morale of the Australian defence forces would be raised by the use of personnel constantly in operations which they think provide gainful employment. I think that in what might be called a morale building sense it is essential to use our armed Services in this way.

The Royal Australian Air Force already has a duty in regard to surveillance of the sea around the Australian coastline as much as it has over the mainland. The Navy has a similar duty as regards sea search. I suspect that the Army has the capacity and ought to be practising to protect continuously our land and our coastline. The Army in many respects has the necessary equipment. It is perhaps not appropriate for the task that we have before us, but that is part of the development of our history. In the past Australia- we have not quite grown out of it- has become totally accustomed to conditioning itself to other people’s wars and fitting itself into other people’s theatres of operations. I do not know whether we have yet grown out of that practice. I do not think any member on either side of this House, the people in the defence forces or the people in the civil section of the structure have yet conditioned themselves to look at a new Australian environment in this regard. We have the manpower and we have some special skills.

The task of the armed forces in the first instance is in general intelligence, keeping surveillance over a situation so that we know what is going on around the country, both on our shores and beyond. I refer to things such as illegal incursions, whether they involve fishing, smuggling or immigrants. The resources for the actual surveillance are more readily available in the defence forces than anywhere else. It seems to me on the simple logistics of the matter that this matter of surveillance ought to be one for the Department of Defence.

I am disappointed that the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen) has not chosen to take part in this discussion. The honourable member for Bradfield chided the Opposition and said that we do not take much interest in defence. If we raise a matter such as this I do not think it is asking for too much to ask the Minister for Defence to take part in the debate. If honourable members look back over the pattern of debates in this Parliament in the years until the return of this Government in 1976 1 think they will find that on nearly any issue on which a major debate was coming up or on any new issue such as this the Minister concerned or a member of the Ministry took part on behalf of the Government.

I think we have before us a very important decision to make, and that is: What kind of defence force and what kind of apparatus should we design to cope with the problem which is ahead of us? I think we have to apply ourselves to this question in a different way. The honourable member for Bradfield and the honourable member for Corio both raised the issue of what equipment we should have. We know from the various studies that have been done that 1 5 or 20 Nomads operating on the north coast of Australia are able to cover almost 50 per cent of the coast. Although the latest Nomads are a bit more expensive they are still cheap by international standards. We have in Australia a very large defence research capacity, both for the development of new ways of conducting surveillance and in the manufacturing of equipment, but mostly it is underemployed. I believe we could not at this stage make out a good case for anything else but for the Department of Defence to be responsible for the principal operational role in this field. The civil services may well then come into the operation when it comes to doing something about the malefactors or in deciding the methods of interception to be carried out. The actual structure of the Defence Force makes it the appropriate choice to do the job. The Services would have logistics practice. It would give the Navy practice at sea. The Air Force obviously needs both practice and equipment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:
WIDE BAY, QUEENSLAND

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

Mr NEIL:
St George

-It is most important to obtain a bipartisan attitude to defence matters. The motion is welcomed because in bringing forward this matter for discussion today the Opposition has had an extraordinary change of heart. The question is whether or not the Opposition as a whole is sincere in this matter or whether the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) and the honourable member for Wills (Mr Bryant) are well meaning persons who are out on a limb in their own party. I remember that it was not so many years ago that the Labor Government under the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr E. G. Whitlam) gave away Australian patrol vessels, some to Indonesia. The former Leader of the Opposition, a former Prime

Minister, had the hide to go to Tasmania at the last election and say, in an attempt to get votes, that Tasmania would be a great place for a patrol vessel base.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this matter for discussion which has been proposed by the honourable member for Corio. I question whether or not the Opposition has raised the matter in sufficient depth at all. I appreciate that there are limitations of time in debate on matters of public importance, but there is a great difficulty which this raises in that there is a temptation to gloss over the issue, to pluck straws out of the air or to wave a magic wand and say that this is the way to do it. The first question to be asked is this: Is the Opposition sincere about the financial implications? In the 1975-76 Budgetthe last Labor Budget which was brought down by the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden); the horrific Hayden Budget- the Defence vote was 8.5 per cent of the total Budget outlay. According to the figures I have here, that was the lowest vote for many many years and certainly the lowest since the early 1960s. Since then the budgetary allocation has been increased. I will be the first to criticise constructively the Government if the $ 12,000m five-year plan is not kept on target- there are grounds for supposing it may not be on target, and I will criticise the Government for that. I point out that the Government has provided the additional funds which this Opposition was not prepared to do when it was in office.

The question that should be directed to the Opposition is very simply this: What government services will be cut in order to provide the money it has properly asked for today or what taxes will it increase to provide the money it has properly asked for today? There has not been one word about that. I would expect that if the two honourable and sincere members went into the Labor Party Caucus meeting tomorrow and asked for either some restriction on government expenditure, if Labor were to get into office again, which will not happen, or some increase in some taxesLabor will never get the opportunity to do thatthey would be howled down in their Party room. We have to get the matter into perspective.

The next thing I want to do is to point out to the House and to the country what is being done at present. I am not satisfied and I do not think any member of the House is satisfied with the adequacy of our surveillance efforts at present, but a great deal is being done. The first point to remember is that surveillance is designed to provide early warning of changing strategic circumstances. It is different from reconnaissance and there is civilian and military surveillance and reconnaissance. We have a very important organisation which was set up in 1975 for the purpose of managing and co-ordinating off-shore surveillance for civilian purposes, which is what has caused the present difficulties. On it we have the Department of Primary Industry and the former Department of Customs and Excise, which now comes within the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, as well as the Department of Health, the Department of Transport and, of course, the Department of Defence. The Department of Defence is the main provider of equipment. The most recent annual figures available to me show that 2,000 flying hours and more than 800 patrol boat days were provided by the Department of Defence. That would mean the expenditure of a significant amount of money- many millions of dollars. That money is not recouped. I have said in the House before that that money should be recouped. It should be government policy to have it recouped. In addition, it is probably little known by the public that Australian merchant ships, fishermen, navigational aid vessels, lighthouse keepers and civil aircraft at present are providing about one third of the total surveillance reports which are received. I expect and hope that this surveillance will be considerably expanded.

The Government members’ foreign affairs and defence committee will be sending between six and eight members, as soon as the House rises at the end of this two-week period, to inspect first hand our facilities in the north and west to provide assistance to the Government in that regard. Those members will inspect the technical facilities which are available and to which the Opposition did not refer- for example, the excellent, world-leading radar system known as Operation Jindalee, which, if and when it comes into operation, will detect vessels and aircraft over many miles. I hope that it will be given the very high priority that it ought to be given in the allocation of funds. The Opposition should indicate where it would find the money to boost the Jindalee system. I am quite confident that the Government will find money to boost it.

Honourable members opposite already have cited the large amount of successful work that has been done. Hundreds and hundreds of sightings have been made. The Tracker aircraft have been destroyed in the main but they will be back on deck soon. More than 2,000 sightings were made by Tracker aircraft in a specific four-week period in 1 975 in Operation Trochas, which was most successful. Other similar activities could be engaged in at various times. About 30 per cent of the planned effort is diverted to urgent tasks. That is a regular occurrence. Operation Trochas in 1975 and 1976 was an additional task. That is the situation although the 200-mile territorial zone has not yet been established. Surely any government statement would have to include that aspect. The Opposition knows full well that the Government is very close to making a statement in regard to the 200-mile zone. It goes without saying that both aircraft and ships have to operate together. I am quite confident that they will be able to do so in the near future. The Trochas operation showed that an intensive surveillance operation coupled with considerable contact by patrol boats and fear of confiscation could be very effective as a means of ensuring compliance with applicable laws. I hope that those types of activities will be repeated as soon as possible.

I should like to say something about the establishment of a coastguard service. I, for one, would take considerable persuading to be convinced that a coastguard service is the most appropriate method of dealing with the problem. I think Australia’s economies of scale as to the composition of our forces and the costs involved would not allow us the luxury of such a separate force and a separate command. The Government has yet to consider the matter fully. Together with other members, I want to look into it further. But strong reasons would have to be advanced to convince me of the need for a coastguard service, which would require initial base finance facilities before it could be set up and which would be a duplication of another bureaucratic structure. If the defence forces were recouped for the services they provided instead of being forced to provide those services without recouping money they would be able to carry out those activities quite well.

I am also reminded by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) of the excellent work carried out by the territorial boundaries sub-committee of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. That sub-committee travelled on Orion aircraft and other aircraft carrying out the surveillance of northern Australia. It produced a report which is of considerable value to the Government. I am not certain that one can talk in terms of brand names at this time. The ascertainment of the appropriate equipment is best left to the specialists. I think that the more members of this House recommend the Nomad aircraft or other aircraft the more they are getting into an area which is not necessarily one in which they are fully competent. Equally good arguments could be put up for the use of the HS748 Coastguarder or the maritime version of the F27 aircraft. Let us not forget that the FI 1 1C aircraft can, if necessary, be used in a very sophisticated reconnaissance role because they are getting a very valuable reconnaissance palate.

Let us not also forget the potential value of satellites. The Government is well aware of this matter. I point out that there are two types of satellites- geostationary and non-synchronous. The geostationary satellite must remain at 36,000 kilometres and the resolution from there is low. If we are to have non-synchronous satellites we have to have a number of them. Merely to put up one non-synchronous satellite would cost $40m. The launching costs, the ground control processes and other facilities that go with them, including additional satellites, would add immeasurably to the initial cost.

Before I conclude my speech I want to refute the attacks that regrettably were made on the Minister for Defence (Mr Killen). Firstly, the Minister has not exercised poor judgment at this stage. He has said that there are various options still before the Government and we have to wait until a particular report is available, which should not be long- although it is a very complicated subject, and we get a decision on the 200-mile zone. Secondly, the Minister’s statements recently could not be taken as jocular, particularly when one bears in mind his supplementary answer of 2 March. Thirdly, the honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes) even pointed out why the Minister for Defence regrettably was not able to take part in the debate today. I welcome the debate. It is a constructive matter. It is an important topic in the national interest. There is no point in becoming hysterical. More must be done but the public must be prepared to foot the bill. That is the vital question. This Government will provide the money. I regret to say that the Opposition certainly would not provide the money. If it can show its bona fides on that matter, I would certainly welcome it.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-I wish to make a personal explanation.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:
WAKEFIELD, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

-Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?

Mr SCHOLES:

-Yes, I have been misrepresented in relation to the context of my speech. The first point is that the question of funds in this area does not come into question because the Government has already stated that the funds will be made available.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The honourable gentleman will show how he has been misrepresented.

Mr SCHOLES:

-I am saying that I have been misrepresented in relation to the context of my speech, which comes under a different Standing Order. As to the challenge to our bona fides in relation to the gift of patrol boats to New Guinea, I think the House is aware, if the honourable member for St George (Mr Neil) is not aware, that that was to meet a commitment made by a previous government.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-Order! The discussion is now concluded.

page 921

TARIFF PROPOSALS

Mr FIFE:
Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs · Farrer · LP

– Pursuant to section 29(2) of the Industries Assistance Commission Act 1973, 1 present the report of the Temporary Assistance Authority on screws for wood. I move:

The Customs Tariffproposals I have just tabled relate to proposed alterations to the Customs Tariff Act 1966. Proposals No. 11 place before Parliament, as required by law, tariff changes made by Gazette notice during the Easter recess. The changes implement the Government’s decision on the recommendations made by the Industries Assistance Commission on elevating work platforms which formed part of its report on commercial motor vehicles, parts and accessories.

Proposals No. 12 implements the Government’s decision on recommendations made by the Temporary Assistance Authority in its report on screws for wood. The effect of the decision is that the rate of duty applying to most imports of woodscrews will be increased to 40 per cent. The temporary additional duty will not apply to imports of woodscrews from New Zealand, Papua New Guinea or certain developing countries. A comprehensive summary of the changes contained in the Proposals has been prepared and is now being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Proposals to the House.

Debate (on motion by Mr Willis) adjourned.

page 921

SUPERANNUATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Eric Robinson:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr WILLIS:
Gellibrand

-The Bill now before the House provides a very extensive array of amendments to existing legislation concerning superannuation for Commonwealth Government employees. The amendments are quite technical, for the most part thoroughly non-controversial, and accordingly the Opposition does not oppose them. Indeed, the legislation is so complex and of so little interest to all except superannuation specialists that it would be tedious and quite wasteful of the time of the House to discuss the Bill in detail. There are, however, a couple of matters that the Opposition wishes’ to raise before giving its consent to the legislation. The principal reason for the legislation is to plug the gaps and iron out the anomalies that were perceived in the new Commonwealth superannuation scheme first put forward by the Labor Government in 1975 but not passed until 1976, and then only in a rather watered-down form. The introduction of the new scheme had become a matter of real importance as the old scheme had reached the point of absurdity, with some contributors paying as much as 40 per cent of their salary each week into the fund. The new scheme removed that possibility and basically provided for superannuation contributions of 5 per cent of salary, with pension and/or lump sum benefits on death or retirement.

The legislation now before us is confined very much to tidying up both the new scheme and the application of the new principles to the old scheme. There are precious few improvements from the point of view of contributors or pensioners. Indeed, there are only three of any note. One concerns the extension of the permissible period for election as to the form of benefit that the employee or dependant desires to take. The extension of the period in which to make this important decision from one month to three months is commendable and should make it less likely that people will make their election without having considered thoroughly which option is most suitable to their particular circumstances. In respect of such elections, the Bill provides for the possibility of the cancellation of an election if the Commissioner deems it appropriate so to do. Such a provision certainly represents an improvement because a contributor or dependant could make an election on wrong advice, and to provide that he must simply put up with a decision reached in such circumstances for the rest of his days, as the current legislation does, is harsh indeed.

The Bill changes that, but it is decidedly vague as to what criteria the Commissioner shall take into account in deciding whether to cancel an election. The Bill simply provides that the Commissioner take account of such matters as are prescribed by regulation, if any, and any other matter he deems relevant. The Bill could hardly be less specific. This is not a trivial point because many people may feel that the example quoted in the second reading speech of the Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson), that is, where all relevant information was not available at the time of the election, may well apply to them. The Opposition would like to know whether any regulations are to be prescribed in respect of this matter and, if so, what they are to be. If the Government is still thinking about this aspect, as seems to be the case, we would urge it not to be too restrictive in determining grounds for obtaining cancellation and, in particular, to provide as a broad ground for cancellation the nonavailability of all relevant information. The only other notable improvement concerns the case where a contributor or pensioner dies and leaves more than one spouse, such as where a married male contributor lives in a de facto relationship with another woman. The new scheme gave recognition to de facto spouses and the amending legislation now before the House enables each surviving spouse to choose between pension and lump sum in the same way as other spouses in respect of their share of available benefits.

Other than those three minor but worthwhile improvements, the Bill consists mainly of machinery type amendments clarifying the 1976 legislation, correcting drafting errors in it and eliminating anomalies that have arisen. There are two other changes about which I wish to comment, however, and they concern the matter of taxation exemption for the Fund and the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the charging of certain management costs to the Superannuation Fund. The Bill gives the Government power to provide by regulation that the Trust and the Fund may become liable to taxation. Judging from the Minister’s second reading speech, the Government is likely to remove at least some of the current exemptions.

We find it difficult to believe that the Government has not already given this matter substantial consideration and that it has in mind providing for the removal of some tax exemptions such as stamp duty, perhaps. In any event, we do not believe that the Government should conduct such procedures by stealth. If any action is taken in this regard an announcement should be made by the Minister, either in this House or publicly outside it, stating what is being done and why, rather than simply prescribing the regulation and giving it no publicity other than the formal gazettal required.

The amendment providing for certain costs of management to be charged against the Fund is subject to a similar criticism. Here again, the amendment simply provides for regulations to prescribe that some costs can be charged against the Fund. Surely the Government has thought about this to the point where it knows what costs it wants to charge against the Fund and Trust and why. Yet we received no enlightment in the Minister’s speech; no explanation as to why the legislation is being changed. If it is to be provided that costs such as sharebrokers’ costs, mortgage preparation charges, estate agents’ fees and the like are to be charged against the Fund, then the amendment would not seem unreasonable, but if all the costs of running the scheme were to be charged against it the impact on the Fund could be quite substantial. The Opposition considers that, during this debate, the Government should clarify its intentions in respect of these two matters of taxation and the allocation of costs. It shows contempt of the Parliament for the Government not to provide it with information as to why it is seeking certain powers when it is asking for Parliament’s approval for those powers.

One other matter of superannuation policy which is not covered strictly by this legislation but which impinges on it concerns contributors to the old scheme now transferred to the new scheme. The division of their total allocation as between basic and supplementary contributions has become a matter of some contention because contributors will have the option of taking the supplementary amount in cash when the distribution is completed later this year. The Government set up a committee to advise it on this and other related matters and the committee’s report, known as the report of the Committee of Five, recommended by a three to two majority that a method of division be adopted that would provide a supplementary contribution and therefore the right to some cash refund to almost every contributor. The alternative method advocated by the minority, both of whom were actuaries, would have provided a supplementary contribution to only 30 per cent of the contributors and that 30 per cent would have tended to be the longest serving section of the Public Service, many of whom paid high proportions of their incomes into the Superannuation Fund before the new scheme was introduced.

Not unnaturally, some of those contributors now feel that they should receive the best end of the deal and are plugging for the Government to reverse its acceptance of the majority report so that their cash refunds will be larger. However, the reality is that the peak organisation representing Australian Government employees, the Council of Australian Government Employee Organisations, supports the majority report, as does the Superannuated Officers Association, although that is a very small organisation. The key point in all of this is that, whichever method is adopted, the total allocation to each individual contributor is not affected, and that may not be understood by some contributors, who believe that their past contributions are to be used to provide the supplementary contribution and hence cash refunds for other younger officers.

These matters are very complex and confusion can easily arise. I believe that the Government would do a great service to all contributors if it took the trouble to explain more fully to them what it is doing and what their rights are. As things stand, the Government seems to be doing its best to be secretive, thereby causing great anxiety to many public servants nearing retirement. Finally, I request the Government to assist in the understanding of this whole subject by reprinting the 1976 Act, as amended, as quickly as possible or at least to have the Commissioner for Superannuation issue a consolidation in the near future. This is decidedly difficult legislation to follow, especially now that it is being amended considerably by this Bill. Without a comprehensive publication of the Act, as amended in one form or another, those people who are interested and involved in this area will have a difficult task in determining just what it is that the Parliament has decided.

Mr BRADFIELD:
Barton

– I rise to support the amendments that the Government is making by the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill. As the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) has said correctly, this is a lengthy and complicated Bill which deals mainly with machinery amendments or alterations in the drafting deficiencies which emerged from the 1976 legislation. The Bill consists of some 42 pages. While the amendments are all necessary to rectify these deficiencies that have emerged from the 1976 legislation, at the same time they amend many of the regulations contained in the original legislation that was passed through this House in 1922. The Bill honours an undertaking given by this Government in 1976 when the new scheme was commenced. The Government gave the undertaking at that time that if any shortcomings emerged in the operation of the scheme necessary remedial action would be taken. This legislation embodies the necessary remedial action.

The Minister for Finance (Mr Eric Robinson) pointed out in his second reading speech that the changes contained in this Bill did not vary the basic benefit and structure of the scheme as introduced in 1976. Many Commonwealth public servants throughout the country will be pleased that those improved conditions brought in by the 1976 legislation remain unaltered. I should point out also to members of the Superannuation Fund that the relevant amendment still allows Fund members to receive automatically their future increased payments in accordance with increases in the consumer price index. This puts at rest previous reports which suggested that the provisions under which the Superannuation Fund operated would be altered so that future increases in payments would be based on the consumer price index increase or the increase in average weekly earnings, whichever was the lowest. If such an alteration had been made, Commonwealth public servants throughout the land would receive the worst of two pluses.

I am pleased to say that the position remains as originally intended- that is, that automatic increases are based entirely on increases in the consumer price index. In my office in the electorate of Barton, I have received many calls from concerned Commonwealth public servants who were worried that increased payments may be altered in the fashion that was suggested. These people in my electorate now can have the satisfaction of knowing that they will be treated fairly. I know that Commonwealth public servants in retirement throughout Australia will share in this satisfaction. The amendments also arrange for the old scheme to be wound up. Contributors who were members of the scheme prior to July 1976 at some time in the future will benefit from the proceeds of the winding up of the old scheme.

Obviously, many other amendments are contained in the 42 pages of the Bill. They deal with rectifying the many anomalies that have shown up, particularly in regard to de facto relationships and orphan children. The Minister said in his second reading speech:

The Bill corrects an anomaly in regard to the benefit entitlements of children of those contributors who died in service before 1 July 1976.

He went on to say: . . children of deceased contributors aged 21 to 25 undergoing fulltime education will now be entitled to benefits in the same circumstances as the children of pensioners who died prior to 1 July 1976.

This is quite correct. The Minister went on to state:

The 1976 amendments made spouses’ benefits available to a wider range of persons including, under certain conditions, a de facto spouse and the spouse of a marriage after retirement.

As I have mentioned, the amendments rectify these anomalies and improve the scheme that was introduced in July 1976. In the explanatory memorandum attached to this Bill, the following statement is made about the new scheme:

The new scheme is, on the contributions side, simpler in concept than the existing arrangements and, after the initial transitional stage, will be simpler to operate.

This Bill confirms the Government’s continuing concern for the many Commonwealth public servants to ensure that their conditions of employment and their benefits such as superannuation keep pace with the employment conditions available in the private sector. It is extremely important that we always take note of this fact. We must maintain always the working conditions of Commonwealth public servants whose work is very important so that they are not disadvantaged in any way in relation to the working conditions and benefits provided in the private sector. I am pleased to say that the amendments contained in this Bill do just that. I have much pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Eric Robinson:
MCPHERSON, QUEENSLAND · LP

– in reply- I thank the honourable member for Barton (Mr Bradfield) for reminding the House of the benefits that will flow from the Superannuation Acts Amendment Bill. As he said, it carries out an obligation which we gave that if the superannuation scheme needed adjustment or improvement we would not hesitate to do so. The Bill now before the House reflects discussions with Public Service unions and goes a long way towards sorting out the anomalies and the problems that have emerged during the period of the scheme’s operation. I assure the Opposition spokesmen on superannuation matters, the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis), that I will look very closely at the comments he made in his speech this afternoon. There is no desire on the part of the Government to be secretive about this matter. In fact, my desire in all matters is to be as informative as I possibly can. In this matter it would be helpful if the Opposition were informed on every aspect. If there is more information that I can give the honourable member, I will do so.

One problem has emerged. I refer to the question of an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Under the Bill the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be composed of a presidential member- a judge- and two nonpresidential members. It has been put to me that some appeals could be unfortunately delayed if there is a requirement that a presidential membera judge- be available on all occasions. My first reaction was that perhaps we should not have that requirement in the Bill. But if it were deleted we could be in the position in which the non-presidential members could, either directly or indirectly, be beneficiaries of the superannuation scheme. Therefore, it may not be desirable for people in that capacity to sit on a tribunal and to adjudicate on a particular matter. I inform the House that the Government is now considering that matter. If there is a view that the legislation should be amended, bearing in mind the problems that have emerged, I will inform the honourable member for Gellibrand of the Government’s decision. The Bill brings about a commendable improvement. As the honourable member for Barton said, it in no way changes the basic benefits. In fact it improves what is a very desirable- indeed, a generous- scheme for the Public Service.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

Third Reading

Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.

Bill (on motion by Mr Eric Robinson) read a third time.

page 924

DISCUSSION PAPER ON PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE

Ministerial Statement

Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion by Mr Viner:

That the House take not of the paper.

Dr KLUGMAN:
Prospect

-This paper was presented to the House on 15 March. Because the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) spoke at some length on that day summarising the paper and providing some options, I took the opportunity to speak immediately after he had spoken. This is a disadvantage now because it means that I have only five minutes to speak on this paper after having read it. When I spoke on 15 March I had not had the opportunity to have a good look at the paper. I wish to reiterate a couple of points. The first is that, from a political point of view, it is terribly important to realise that whilst Medibank is considered to be a big issue, it is not the main issue so far as health costs are concerned. It is silly to blame Medibank. I have given the House the figures before, and they appear again in this paper. The year before Medibank was introduced the increase in health care costs in Australia was 36.8 per cent. The year after Medibank was introduced the rate of increase dropped to 27 per cent. I am not suggesting that 27 per cent is a good rate of increase, but the point I am making is that long before Medibank was introduced there was a significant increase in health care costs. The Minister has, of course, acknowledged this fairly recently.

The second point is that there were large increases in payments for medical rebates the year before Medibank was introduced. There was an increase of 5 1 per cent in that year in the amount paid out by private funds, and the private funds were the only ones insuring. It is important for us to remember that by altering Medibank or by altering fund payments we do not necessarily affect total health care expenditure. I think many honourable members would like to affect that expenditure, but I am not convinced that health care expenditure is excessive although I agree that it is excessive for what we get in return. I do not necessarily agree that health care expenditure ought to be less than the 7.5 per cent of the gross domestic product that it has now reached in Australia. Excellent arguments can be put that if anything it ought to be higher, but I do not have time to go into that today.

The important point is that there are three basic methods of payment for health care. These are direct payments by the patient at the time of receiving the service, payment by contribution to insurance schemes which basically spread the risk over a larger number of people in the community or over the whole community and, finally, through taxation by which some patients pay more and some patients pay less, depending on their incomes. Most of the debate in Australia over the last few years basically has been on the mix of those methods of payment. Inasmuch as those methods of payment affect the actual quality and efficiency of health care delivery it is important to argue about them. Otherwise I do not think it is important to argue about them. It is much more important to argue about the methods of improving health care delivery and improving the effectiveness of health care delivery, and I am pleased to say that the Minister at least and, hopefully, members of the Cabinet now realise that blaming Medibank is not the solution to the problem. Obviously what happened was that the back bench believed the propaganda during the election campaign that all our troubles and the high cost of health care were caused by Medibank. Therefore, they came to the obvious, simple solution that they would abolish Medibank completely and that would be the solution to the problem. Of course that is not true, never has been true and the Minister now agrees with me on that point.

In the two minutes that I have left to me I want to draw the attention of the House to Appendix HI of the paper. Appendix III deals with a national health insurance project and what ought to be done before any changes are made. It is important to remember that we should not make any changes until we have information about the possible effect of those changes. Appendix III states:

A3.1 There is very little analysis available in Australia or elsewhere, to tell us what possible effects different health insurance proposals would have on costs, on our usage of health care, on the available supply of beds and doctors or on our ‘health’. Thus the first gap is a detailed analysis of each proposal to enable policymakers to make informed choices. They should know: how those arrangements increase or decrease the use of different services or the quality of the services provided: and how the use of these services ultimately affects ‘health ‘.

A3.2 We do not have any comprehensive data to tell us what is the ‘best’ type of health insurance system, and the best’ possible method of paying doctors, and the ‘best’ method of financing hospitals and other community health services. A health insurance project would seek and analyse the needed data on all three aspects.

A3.3 In most nations, until about the early 1970s, the general tendency has been for governments to initiate a new program, or change an old program, without any detailed analysis of the likely consequences of the change.

Let us hope that this Government will not decide to initiate new programs or change the program significantly without knowing what is happening. Mr Deputy Speaker, because I do not have much more time to speak, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the rest of Appendix III, which is only two pages.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows-

A3.4 A national health insurance experiment (or project) would attempt to find answers to the following critical questions:

What is the effect on the individual and the families of health insurance arrangements which require them to pay a larger or smaller pan of the bill for health care, either at the point of contact, or in a higher percentage of the total bill? In particular, how does it affect their usage of different types of health care (e.g., hospitals, doctors’ office visits, domiciliary care, self-care and so on )?

How would any changes affect the supply of these services? Would doctors work less, charge patients more or order tests more discriminately? Would the changes lead to more hospital beds, more nursing home beds and less of other services? Would it affect the workloads of doctors in particular communities or in certain specialties?

How would these changes affect the health of the population? Can we develop a health insurance program which positively affects health by giving people access to new prevention programs or rewards them for “good healthy living habits? In other words, can we develop an effective Health Protection Plan rather than an insurance plan?

What effect would any alternative scheme have on the costs of administration of private health insurance funds, Medibank, or other government departments (for example, Taxation)? Would it require new forms, new accounting systems, new records systems, larger computers and more claims processors?

How will any proposed changes affect the quality of medical care received by people? Will it cause doctors to offer less treatment? Will hospitals be able to acquire needed equipment?

A3.5 The steps involved in a Health Insurance Project might include the following:

selection of a random sample of Australian families who would be eligible to participate;

offering of a number of Experimental Plans to these families, with each plan having a different combination of copayments, coinsurance rates and maximum expense limits. Some of the Plans might include enrolling the families in any Prepaid Health Plans that were then in existence, or even creating some;

families enrolled in each of the Experimental Plans would submit claims (or medical expense reports) to the Project just as they would submit claims to a private health insurance company. The Project would pay these claims. The enrolled families would also be required to submit biweekly health reports to the project, i.e., brief questionnaires that collect information on use of health care, self-perceived health status of the family and other indicators.

A3.6 There would be a need for a Project Team, to be involved in pre-enrolment interviews, enrolment and postenrolment interviews and surveys. The pre-enrolment phase would include a baseline interview of a large sample of families, with selection into the Health Insurance Project being on the basis of the information they report in the baseline interview. This method ensures that roughly equal numbers are enrolled in each of the Experimental Plans offered.

A3.7 The cost of the HIP would depend on how many Experimental Plans would be evaluated, how large a sample of individuals and families would be enrolled in the different Experimental Plans and the duration of the experiments. It is anticipated than an evaluation of the effects of the most feasible alternative Experimental Plans (perhaps 5 in number) could be completed within 18-24 months. A sample of up to 1,000 families would be adequate for such a project. Preliminary estimates suggest that the unit cost of each family’s enrolment in the project would be the sum of the average premiums paid for health insurance at the moment plus whatever additional benefits are included in each Experimental Plan. In addition there would be costs of administering the project through the Projects Team.

Dr KLUGMAN:

-I draw the attention of those people who are interested in health care financing to those proposals and to the vast gaps in our present knowledge. We cannot come to a reasonable decision without filling those gaps.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Giles:

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

Mr CARLTON:
Mackellar

-I welcome the statement by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) on the containment of health costs. It is a welcome recognition that the problem will be tackled in another way or, we hope, will be freshly tackled this year. It may be a problem which will require further attention in successive years. It is a problem where there is difficulty in separating emotion from fact, not only amongst the conflicting interests involved in the health profession but also amongst the patients themselves. It can always be said with a great deal of force that when somebody is ill they are often in an emotional state. They are not in any position to consider costs effectively. They are in a very weak position in relation to the suppliers of health services, and there is also an understandable need on the part of parents and children or relatives and friends to provide for the person who is sick the best possible attention without immediate regard to the cost. If we continue that view through the whole of the management of our health services we run into considerable difficulty. Therefore, there is the unhappy acknowledgement I think we all approach this conclusion very reluctantly- that there must be some containment of costs at the point of ordering of each service so that there is some concern for the cost of that service.

That is an awfully simple thing to say in the relative calm of this chamber, but it is an awfully difficult thing to apply at the time of an illness or an accident. Nonetheless I think we must look the problem in the eye. The Minister’s statement makes it quite clear that this Government already has begun to tackle this problem in a very substantial way. Whilst the proportion of our gross domestic product being devoted to health services has increased substantially over recent years, there is some indication that a halt already has been called to the rapid expansion of that as a percentage of the gross domestic product. The Government certainly has a responsibility to ensure that we get value for money spent. Every health dollar spent must be spent wisely. We must balance the conflicting claims of efficiency in the provision of health services and the social equity which we must, as a matter of policy, apply to the whole area.

Despite Government action to date, there are still pretty severe problems in the whole health area. I think it is fair to acknowledge within this chamber that some of them go back a very long way. Very many of them were introduced as fresh problems during the period of administration of the present Opposition, but I think it is fair to acknowledge that some of the difficulties go back to the original health schemes introduced in the early 1950s. I think the present Minister for Health in his approach to these problems is certainly mindful of the fact that it is a very complicated area and it will be difficult to get the best possible solution. Once we have a solution proposed not everybody will like it.

What are these pretty severe problems in the whole system? Firstly, there are certainly declining marginal benefits from additional expenditure. From looking at the vast increase in health costs over the last seven or eight years as a percentage of the gross domestic product, it is hard to say or to produce evidence that there has been any substantial improvement in the health of Australians. There have been vast increases in expenditure and no clear evidence of improved health. Also, there are no agreed measures of the effectiveness of health services. R. B. Scotton, writing in the Australian Quarterly of June 1 977, said:

The conceptual and practical difficulties involved in output measurement are such that it is most unlikely that, for health services as a whole, broad policy choices can ever be based on firm calculations of costs and benefits.

However far we go into this subject we will be left with making certain rough and crude judgments based on the evidence at the time and without looking forward to that oasis or that mirage of effective measurement of benefits.

Just to make things difficult, there are also what I believe to be corrupting- I do not say corrupt’- influences within the existing system. Under the present financing arrangements for health costs, patients often do not give any more real attention to the expenditure of, say, $9 on the provision of professional services for themselves or their children than they would give to spending $9 on going to a McDonald’s restaurant with the family for an evening meal rather than having it at home. This is an unfortunate thing, because the provision of health services for a family is one of the most serious expenditures that any family should approach.

The future need as regards health services is something that each family should sit down and think about in a very responsible manner.

Under the arrangements which have built up over the last few years, it is possible in many circumstances for people to approach this situation without any regard, literally, for the cost. That, I say, is a corrupting influence. It leads to an attitude of mind which inevitably means a more expensive health service and in many respects a less effective one. We also see these corrupting influences within the professions. I have no doubt that there are many instances where people go out of their way to abuse the system. These abuses are the subject of continuing inquiry by the Government and its agencies. There are unfortunate examples of people being charged with offences and so on. I am sure that these apply in only a minority of cases and, of course, they have to be tackled.

More important than those studied abuses are the ones which arise out of the corrupting influences of the system. I submit that each time a doctor decides that pathological tests or tests of some other kind are necessary for a patient or that some reference to a specialist who provides a fairly expensive service is necessary, there is a corrupting influence at work if virtually no financial restraint is placed on the making of that decision. Over a long period this gradually produces a rot in the system which leads to unnecessary expenditures and also to those services not being valued in the way that they should be.

Aspects of the system which lead to this kind of treatment are the bulk billing provisions, which, except in the case of pensioners, are very damaging and difficult aspects of the present system, and referrals, where there is a maximum gap of only $5 to be paid by the patient and where, in effect, the general practitioner can refer people to a specialist without any real concern for the cost of the professional service. A multiplicity of tests can be asked for. That presents particular difficulties in the hospital area. Doctors resident in a hospital or visiting specialists have a capacity to order, virtually without any control by the patient or external agencies, a wide variety of services of enormous cost. I do not have the time to cite individual cases this afternoon, but if one examines the performances in different hospitals one is surprised by the incredible variation one sees in the cost per patient for relatively similar diseases and conditions just because of the differing ordering patterns of the staff within those hospitals.

Hospitalisation in itself also can be part of this corrupting influence. The very fact that hospital beds are available seems to be one of the main determinants of their use. If we examine the comparative figures for the States- we find these in the Sax report that is before us for discussionwe find that in Victoria the number of hospital beds per head of population is substantially less than the number of hospital beds per head of population in the other States. There is no evidence that I have been able to find, and I have searched for it, of any increased rate of mortality or morbidity within the State of Victoria as a result of fewer hospital beds being available per head of population. In Queensland the cost per head of population of hospital accommodation is less than that in any other State. I think that it is the lowest. Victoria is the next up the scale, and the other States are substantially above that. Yet, with the exception of certain isolated and Aboriginal communities in Queensland, there is no evidence of any greater morbidity or mortality rates there as a result of there being a lower cost per head of population for hospital beds.

All these influences within the present system, where there is very little immediate control over the incurring of public costs and also over the private costs of insured patients, are leading to a system in which the professions themselves can be corrupted. Unfortunately they begin to be corrupted not only in the undue expenditure of moneys but also in their approach to their professional tasks. I recognise that in some instances there are very grave difficulties and that it is not possible in a legal sense for people to be too careful in this regard. For example, in casualty departments of hospitals at weekends junior members of the medical profession usually have to deal in turn with cases that are, to put it bluntly, quite undeserving and cases of accident or immediate concern. There is a necessity for those junior staff to cover themselves legally, often by referring pretty well every patient to a specialist, at some considerable cost to the public purse and also to private insurance. Perhaps that problem can be looked at more carefully because that procedure as it is commonly adopted in casualty departments leads to quite excessive expenditure on unnecessary specialist treatment. In general the problems of referrals and of corrupting influences has to be examined from a cost point of view. I believe that a closer look at costs by those ordering the services also will lead to a better professional approach within the purely professional context.

What are the major costs about which we are concerned? As far as I can make out from the figures provided by the Minister for Health from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for costs incurred by the nation in 1976-77, about $5,800m was involved. Of that total some $3,380m was incurred as institutional costs and, of course, the biggest amount, $2,540m, was incurred in general hospitals. Non-institutional costs which would include for the most part medical and dental services, amounted to about $2 billion. Other smaller amounts made up the total of nearly $6,000m. How can we do something about each of these areas? With institutional costs in the short term maybe all we can do is to clamp down budget-wise on the institutions themselves and try to force them to allocate their available dollars in a more satisfactory way. In the longer term we have to look carefully at the number of beds available and see whether we should be providing additional beds irrespective of the need as it is determined area by area.

With reference to medical expenses, I think we have to look once again at the gap and see whether there should be any insurance for the gap. Also I think we have to look at the elimination of bulk billing and the Medibank ceiling. I believe that people in higher income groups should be forced to insure privately. We should look at the percentage of each account paid by the patient,. These are very difficult problems. I would have liked to have available more time in which to speak about them in detail but I hope that the Minister will look at them as we approach the Budget considerations.

Dr EVERINGHAM:
Capricornia

– It is rather disappointing that the honourable member for MacKellar (Mr Carlton), in the last one and a half minutes of his speech, offered solutions which appear to be limited to clamping down on the budgets for hospitals, the availability of beds and the patient’s pocket and increasing the gap which the patient has to pay. I do not have any ready-cut solutions. I think that a reading of the conclusions of the paper would indicate that it is a rash person who offers readycut solutions and that there will be a long haul in working out solutions to these problems which I think the indications show will get worse before they get better, even though we undertake a strenuous program of investigation, education and consultation with all the groups involved.

Like the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), I am not sure that it is inappropriate to have 7.5 per cent of gross domestic product devoted to health care. After all, as the honourable member for Lalor (Mr Barry Jones) said in his maiden speech, we live in not only a postindustrial society but one in which the mix of primary, secondary, tertiary, quaternary and quinary industries is changing rapidly. We have to expect that labour intensive services such as health care will eat up a continually increasing proportion of gross domestic product in the foreseeable future. The more we computerise and the more we mechanise, the more we will have to pay for individual services. I suppose it is true that as inflation increases the increasing costs ought to be shared among those people who are now called upon to pay the costs of health services, including to some extent in many respects the patients themselves. It is appropriate to look at spreading that load equitably among the various categories of patients other than the rather simple division we now have of those patients who are on pensions and those who are not and one or two other minor categories along those lines.

I am not averse and I feel that the Opposition would not be averse to some consideration of capacity to pay in looking at the contributions derived from people. In fact the original Medibank concept recognised this in the matter of the levy contribution. When that was denied by the Senate the alternative was adopted of funding the contributions from general revenue, which is derived to a large extent from income tax levied according to capacity to pay. So it is not inappropriate to say mat the gap or other out-of-pocket expenses of the patient also ought to be related to the capacity to pay. Such schemes as the subsidised health benefit scheme and the pensioner medical service are partial recognition of this. But they are fairly superficial cosmetic steps. There are limits to how much such schemes can take care of the problem because if any great relief of public funds is to be derived the bulk of the cost must be taken from the higher income segment of the community. It is a very small minority and prohibitively high rates of contribution would have to be imposed on it to make a very significant impact. I do not think that offers very much of a solution.

Certainly, as the honourable member for Mackellar and other people over the years have pointed out, increasing the contribution of the patient has the advantage of placing some deterrent to overuse of health care services by the patient. If the doctor is considering that burden on the patient it also offers some deterrent to the overuse of services when the doctor knows that he will be unpopular if he increases the outofpocket cost to his patient. The doctor may be deterred from giving too many referrals for complicated tests, expensive procedures and operations of doubtful benefit. However, again there are limits to how much difference that sort of fiddling with the contribution of the patient will make to overall costs. Some doctors are blithely unaware and in fact are rather proud of the fact that they ignore the aspect of the cost to the patient. Their attitude seems to be, particularly in the more affluent areas which have always had a higher concentration of doctors, that ‘if the patient cannot afford to pay the fee he should go public; don’t come to me; I give you only the best care.’ Very often the unspoken corollary is: ‘It is going to cost you’.

One serious deficiency in the information that is fed to the Government and to those people who have to try to design better schemes and to contain costs is that the private health insurance industry has not taken any initiative to develop claims review procedures which would help to assess just where economies can be made and where claims perhaps ought to be funded at a lower level of benefit. Such things have been mentioned as routine circumcisions; and perhaps we could include such treatments as cosmetic operations and ones that are least medically necessary for one reason or another. Perhaps lower rates of benefit could be.specified for those operations to which the conclusions of the paper referred. Again there is only a small proportion of operations with which this can be done and I think there is a far more significant chance of economies if the people who are responsible for incurring the costs are involved, instead of trying, as it were, bureaucratically or by executive clerical action to point out categories that should be funded at a lower rate. The doctor who makes the referral, who orders the procedure, who orders the admission to hospital or who prolongs it should be involved in the review procedure. Not only should there be a peer review of the practice of doctors in this regard but also a hospital review.

In the days when hospitals were far more embattled and limited in their funding and their resources it was generally accepted by doctors that the medical superintendent or an official with some responsibility for the budgeting of the hospital could lean on doctors even in the use of hospital facilities for private patients. Doctors accepted this as a reasonable thing because they realised that the funds and the facilities were limited and that they were dependent on the good will and the provision of these services from the hospital sector of health care. Now that it seems that doctors are more inclined to assert that all facilities of unlimited standards must be made available at their behest and theirs only this is becoming a little more difficult. A long and patient re-education process will be required in consultation with Australian Medical Association spokesmen and other spokesmen of the prescribing professions to work out a mutually responsible formula whereby there will be peer review and also a review by those who are responsible for providing the facilities that doctors use and to which doctors seek access. I refer mainly to hospital services.

Doctors themselves cannot be the only people involved in the review process. It is not only peer review; it is also total health authority review in consultation with others. It should certainly involve all those in the health care team including lay people who take an interest in health care. In the old days we had hospital boards. We are moving now to things such as community health centre committees and the various community welfare organisations which have an interest in a particular kind of disability and an interest in setting up a service for persons with particular diseases and handicaps. All of these consumer organisations- let us call them that; I refer also to associations of hospital patients in particular hospitals and parent and child care organisationsshould be brought into that review procedure. Not only should we include State and Federal authorities, local governments, hospital boards and the various professionals but also the consumers. It is not just peer review or just a system review; it is a community review. The review is a tall order. It is complicated and difficult. It will not be done for peanuts. A lot of the increased health costs should be going into expanding evaluation more rapidly than, I believe, the rate of growth of the gross domestic product devoted to health care. We should be looking at the evaluation, the communication and the deliberation as the major growth area that is called for in solving these problems and at rationalising facilities, techniques, attitudes and standards of behaviour by individuals in health care services.

One of the most urgent areas outside the hospital institutionalised sphere- I am moving into the more professional relationships sphere- is the need to prevent an unnecessary oversupply of doctors as it is expressed in the discussion paper. I suggest that this matter does not relate just to the supply of the doctors; it relates to demand. If we can demonstrate to the consumers that paramedical people such as nurse practitioners can in many cases give them more satisfactory and more prompt services and can more easily communicate on human level than can the top professional who is very often rushed, busy and highly technical in his language and even brusque they may not want a fully qualified doctor for a lot of their health care problems as the point of first contact. If this idea can be implemented, particularly in the public hospital sector, it will lead to greater job satisfaction for doctors let alone a greater economy for patients and health departments. It will often provide far better preventive and educational services which have been stressed in the paper as a high priority. It will tie in better with the community involvement I spoke of such as in the health centre committees. If we can lessen the ivory tower specialisation we will get some economies, a better service and a better individual responsibility. There is not only a responsibility for saving money but also a responsibility for one’s own health.

I believe that one thing that has to be looked at if we are to get the co-operation of doctors is a system of incentives to economise. One incentive has been referred to briefly in the discussion paper as the health maintenance organisation formula. Also I think we can offer specific incentives to doctors in the existing system of practice if we facilitate the use of computer integration of doctors ‘ records to get the information we want. I think this would be a big help in getting the information we badly need.

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

Mr LLOYD:
Murray

– Firstly, I commend the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt), who is present during this debate, for instructing the Hospital and Health Services Commission to carry out this study and present this discussion paper on health care financing. Secondly I commend the Minister for the encouragement he has given- this is witnessed now by the debate which is taking place- for public discussion on the general question of health costs, health insurance and the sharing of health costs. He has referred to this matter in various Press releases. He has said that he wants the public genuinely and as much as possible to seriously consider the important question of increasing health costs. I also commend Dr Sax. This study was his last job as chairman of the now disbanded Hospital and Health Services Commission. I wish him well with the new social welfare policy secretariat. The Minister in a Press release and in a statement accompanying the tabling of this discussion paper refers to the question of accelerating health costs. In a Press statement of 7 March the Minister said:

A significant drop in the rate of increase in health costs has occurred since 1 October 1976 which is a direct result of the Government’s modifications to the health insurance system. Therefore, the Government’s policies are working, but more needs to be done to curb the continuing overall increase in the costs of health care. The figures show a preliminary estimate of total national health expenditure in 1976-77 as $6,254m compared with $5,224m in 1975-76 and $4, 109m in 1974-75. This represents an increase in 1976-77 of 19.7 per cent over expenditure the previous year compared with an increase of 36.6 per cent in 1974-75 and 27.1 per cent in 1975-76. A comparison of the proportion of the gross domestic product represented by the total health expenditure over the last four years illustrates the point.

In 1973-74, the percentage of GDP was 5.92 per cent. In 1974-75, the percentage was 6.83 percent. In 1975-76, the percentage of GDP was 7.38 per cent. In 1976-77, the percentage of GDP was 7.67 per cent.

In examining those figures we find the proportion of Gross Domestic Product increased by 15.4 per cent in 1974-75 over the previous year.

In 1975-76, the increase was 8.1 per cent while last year, the increase dropped dramatically to 3.9 per cent.

He then details some of the measures which the Government has taken to reduce this acceleration in health care costs. In the same Press release he refers to measures taken:

To curb abuses of the system by both doctors and patients through the use of unnecessary services, particularly pathology services; to end the open-ended nature of the Commonwealth financial commitment to the States under the original hospital cost-sharing arrangements; to restore the competitive position of private hospitals by ensuring that public hospital charges were raised to more realistic levels; to ensure that benefits are no longer paid to relieve governments, public authorities and employees of costs that would, but for Medibank, have been borne by them; to legislate so that insurers accept their responsibility in workers compensation and third party insurance cases; to introduce major improvements to the Nursing Home Benefits Scheme to give financial security to all patients and share the financial load with the private health funds.

In the statement accompanying the presentation of this discussion paper, the Minister again referred to these issues. He makes the point:

This Discussion Paper demonstrates that the causes -

That is, for the escalation in health costs: . . are varied and interrelated. The trend towards more and more of the nation’s resources being devoted to health care is consistent with the trend in almost all developed countries of the world. However, there is no reason for complacency in Australia.

There is no reason for complacency simply because we are going the same way as other nations and are experiencing the same problems that face them.

In the discussion paper and the many other papers that have been presented in the recent past on this problem of accelerating health care costs, the point is made that this is a universal problem. People’s expectations run ahead of the ability of government or of themselves as private individuals to pay for the technology- the increasing specialisation- of a modern health care system. This is understandable to a certain extent because of the logical fear of ill health that any person can hold and the belief that if he or she can get the best that is available in the world it should be obtained at all costs. The point is made by various people that some form of rationing is essential. In the extremes, we have, first, the capitalist form of rationing, which means that certain people cannot afford to pay for all the necessary health care; therefore the total percentage of gross domestic product attributable to health is kept down. The other extreme is the socialist answer which, in its severest form, means simply that the overall percentage of the GDP attributable to health costs is restricted and the system is allowed to ration itself. The result is the same, in the sense that there is some restriction on entry to and use of the health system. As I see it, in Australia we have tried to steer a middle course between these two extremes.

Canada is probably the best example of another country trying to steer the same course as we are trying to steer. Canada ran into this problem a few years ahead of us and at the present time is endeavouring to impose some partial restrictions or disincentives to try to restrict the acceleration in health care costs and is doing so in the same way as we are thinking of taking some of these steps at present. We have the dilemma of people having a contradictory view: On the one hand they say that more should be done for them with health care costs but somehow or other it is not they as taxpayers or individuals who should pay; it is somebody else who should pay. To a certain extent, that attitude was sustainable in relation to government generally in the 1 950s and the 1 960s, up to the time of the decision by the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries- OPEC- that because of increasing productivity or affluence in most Western nations, it was possible to have a bit both ways. Government expenditure on a whole range of services, including health, could be increased but the individual was still left with a real increase each year in the level of disposable income. Those days are past.

Health is not the only area of government expenditure in which we must face up to this new situation. I would suggest that equally, those responsible for education expenditure should be called upon to accept a greater degree of accountability for the increasing percentage of government expenditure that is required in that area, particularly when one looks at the new demographic projections which reveal that our population is not increasing at the rate at which it was suggested a few years ago it would increase. A whole range of recommendations in the health and education areas are no longer appropriate or valid as a result of the slower growth in our population.

A further question concerns people becoming dependent on government to solve all of their problems. Government cannot solve all of the problems that people face. There is a patientconsumer responsibility just as there is a government responsibility. A further responsibility rests upon those engaged in the health care profession. Dr Sax refers to this aspect in dealing with cost sharing by patients. Really both sides of the Parliament to a certain degree accept this point. He states:

The questions that remain to be settled are not whether or not patients should pay a share of the costs, but how much of them they should pay and whether or not everybody should pay the same charges.

In other words, there is some degree of agreement between the two sides; the question is: To what degree should the patient bear this charge both in relation to responsibility to him as an individual and as a disincentive to unnecessary health care usage by him.

In some recommendations- not necessarily from Dr Sax but others that are available at the moment- the question of patient co-sharing of costs relates not just to medical costs but also to hospitalisation costs. In other words, the argu-ment is that there should not be a complete form of insurance for those who can afford to pay for their hospital charges. There appears to be agreement with one of the recommendations by Dr Sax, which is supported by the submissions of the Voluntary Health Insurance Association, against the use of front end deductibles for the purpose of patient responsibility. They both question whether that would achieve its desired end. Dr Sax refers to the point in this fashion:

Deductible ‘ may either be a sum of money which must be paid during any period of time before the insurer will cover all or pan of the balance or it may be the costs of a particular number of specified services.

He goes on to make the point that if we have only a small deductible, such as $50 to $ 100 each year, really that will have no great effect on hospital expenses. It is hospital expenses which make up the largest percentage of total health care expenses in this country.

However, if the figure is far higher than $50 to $100-say, $400 or $500-the likely result is that it would have a significant effect but the action would be socially unjust. The amount involved might be high enough to deter those who would be seeking advice. There does appear to be some agreement from some areas that, although there should be a greater degree of patient responsibility in payment for a percentage of health care costs, the argument in relation to the front end deductible proposal is not the right one. Really, the responsibility must go beyond the patient.

I believe that the laws of supply and demand are reversed in the medical or health care situation. The closest anology might be drawn with Parkinson’s law on the bureaucracy. I cannot remember the quotation exactly, but it really boils down to the demand increasing to meet the supply; in other words, if a certain number of hospital beds are available they will be filled and, if there are a certain number of doctors, those doctors will see that patients continue to return often enough to ensure that they have adequate income. A point is made on this aspect in relation to the supply of doctors in Australia and the answer is the same that Canada seems to have come to with respect to the supply of and the demand on doctors.

A further question arises in relation to what happens once the patient gets into the system. He goes to his GP and, from that point, the responsibility is largely out of his hands. He believes that he must do what is right as recommended for his health. The responsibility is then transferred to the specialist and also to the hospital in relation to its admission policy, the length of the patient’s stay, and, among other things, the tests to be carried out while the patient is there. The question of trying to achieve responsibility in seeking to limit increasing health care costs rests to a large extent on those in the health care profession. I do not believe that those in that profession have accepted that degree of responsibility to this stage.

Another question to be considered is hospital efficiency. One action that the government has taken is to modify the 50 per cent proportion of hospital costs that it pays in common with the States. My understanding is that the States have not sorted out new forms of budgeting arrangements which encourage incentive and efficiency at the individual hospital level. To the credit of the present Minister for Health, since becoming Minister he has pushed ahead with the accreditation of hospitals, with utilisation review and peer review generally, which at present rests with the Australian Medical Association, to come back to the Minister in some acceptable form. I repeat the point that there is a great responsibility on those in the system to accept accountability. I make the point that I think would be correct for any modern government in the Western world that where a group or a profession is given the chance to do something about self-regulation and accountability it is very wise to accept that which is given to it otherwise government will do that for it. I believe there is a clear message in what the Minister has put to the profession at the present time, because the profession itself has to accept that it has not some sort of open-ended arrangement with a distant government. The same people who make use of the system talk in the same breath about paying too much tax or, as we see from time to time under the present arrangements, an increasing temptation within the profession to become involved in corruption.

Many suggestions have been put forward in the Sax paper. Some of them are short term, such as the question of updating patient payments with safeguards of course for those people who are not in a position to pay. I for one believe we must have some son of universal base for our health insurance system. There is also the question of overall budget restrictions, but really we must look at the long-term effects which to me, particularly in the hospital area, offer a greater possibility of more effective action, accreditation utilisation review incentive budgeting and so forth. To me it is essential that in our desire to restrict increasing public expenditure on health care we do not do this just by transferring the costs from the public sector to the private sector. We have to do something that is constructive and have a structure that will contain overall costs. This will take time and will take the co-operation of government, the professions and the patients themselves. We are hindered by a lack of hard statistics in many of the crucial areas.

Any review of health insurance which follows the Sax paper- the Government’s concern in this area is obvious- should be considered and staged so that the right decisions are made at the appropriate time. I believe the Australian public is rather confused at the present time because of the rapid changes that have taken place in health care over the last seven years.

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

Dr CASS:
Maribyrnong

-This discussion paper on paying for health care prepared by the Hospitals and Health Services Commission presents some of the relevant statistics and information necessary for establishing an effective and efficient policy for health care in Australia. As the Commission itself noted, there remain glaring gaps in our data. It would seem obvious that to make major changes to the present system before completing the data base would be foolhardy in the extreme. For example, where are the statistics on the rate of increase in general practitioner services over, say the last ten years? This is the area in which basically the patient initiates service. We are told often that the whole problem is caused by patients overutilising services. Where are the statistics to show that there has in fact been an increase compared with, say, the rate of increase in specialist services of various sorts and hospital services?

John Deeble recently made an estimate of these figures. He thought that there had been an increase over about the last, I think, ten years of about 20 per cent in general practitioner services, which would hardly account for the dramatic increase in costs. He estimated that there had been an increase of about 80 per cent in specialist consultations. I do not recall seeing his estimate of the increase in surgical procedures. He estimated that the increase in X-ray services was over 100 per cent. I cannot recall the exact figure. He estimated that the increase in pathology services was over 300 per cent. Those servicesspecialist consultations, X-ray services and pathology services- are not patient initiated, and charging the patient before a service is utilised is of no help to the patient. It simply means that the patient may say: ‘I cannot afford it. I will not have it’, without any estimate of whether the patient needs it or not. It should be the doctor’s judgment in those areas, not the patients’ responsibility to decide that they do not need a specialist consultation.

The Commission’s paper singles out private health funds for criticism for their lack of cooperation in providing statistics on claims for health benefits, and rightly so. If the private funds are concerned to prove that the present system is more efficient than the original Medibank, with its comprehensive system of data collection, then they should be willing to provide the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) with all the information he requests. The continual delays suggest an inability on the part of some private funds and an unwillingness on the part of others to provide the required information. Many of the recommendations made by the Commission in this paper relate to containing costs in institutions- the most expensive part of the system- and on pilot projects into systems of health financing. The key role of the doctor in utilising health services and his absolute discretion in this regard are recognised by the Commission. There are recommendations on the monitoring of the medical profession’s performance, for example, via peer review, accreditation and medical audit. The discussion paper recognises that the community cannot afford to let the health professionals name their own price.

The Commission, to a large extent, shies off the fundamentally important issue of how to contain doctor initiated services or doctor initiated over-utilisation. The paper singles out the methods of paying the doctor as the significant factor in the demand for service and finds that ‘it is the doctor who is, and must be, the gatekeeper’ of the system. Incentives for cost control should be aimed at his behaviour’. It points out that there are advantages to the doctor in the fee-for-service system of payment. This is set out at page 34. It states:

The major criticisms that have been raised -

That is, against the fee-for-service system- include references to the possibilities that this form of payment encourages inessential procedures, visits, tests, referrals, and hospitalisation; the use of better paid procedures rather than equally effective but cheaper alternatives; the discouragement of substitution of less expensive personnel, such as nurses and social workers, even when this may be appropriate; and the lack of influence on maldistribution of doctors.

We should note that all of these are costly features in the present inadequate health care system. The Commission concludes that ‘there is a need for Australia to pursue evaluation of alternatives to fee-for-service systems’. Where is this statement to be seen in the recommendations? It just disappeared. Was it considered, only to be put into the too-hard basket because of the opposition of the medical profession? This opposition of the medical profession was spelt out at page 13 of the discussion paper in the following words:

The doctors fight for the retention of private medical practice on a fee-for-service basis not only because that is the best way to preserve their authority, independence, status and income. Many believe that it is in the best interests of their patients.

That is a belief, I dare to suggest, which does not stand up to scientific analysis or statistical analysis. Has the superior quality of medical care on a fee-for-service basis, compared with salaried service, ever been demonstrated? I have never seen such a study. Some of the criticisms listed by the Commission in the discussion paper tend to confirm my view. The fee-for-service system is a method of payment which pays the doctor for treating an illness, not for keeping people well. The uncharitable could argue that under this system the doctor has a vested interest in people being ill or, as Ivan Illych implied, in causing illness. Many experts argue that higher quality care at a lower cost would be possible via preventive care rather than treatment of episodic illness.

The Commission’s discussion paper concluded that ‘prevention of illness and disability accompanied by effective health education, has the greatest long-term potential for containing the general inflation of health expenditures’. What happens to preventive care in the present system? The doctor who wishes to practise medicine in this way with the emphasis on keeping people healthy is financially penalised under the feeforservice system. He cannot charge anyone for conducting health education sessions on nutrition or preventing accidents or on home care of minor illnesses. He cannot charge for not giving people repeat prescriptions for valium and sending them to a counsellor instead. He cannot charge for referring a patient to more appropriate allied health personnel such as social workers or physiotherapists. Under the fee-for-service system, the more patients seen and the more services performed in the time available the greater the doctor’s income. Who in the community could resist the temptation to boost his income, particularly when over servicing can be so easily represented as commendable diligence on behalf of one’s patients?

The report notes that incentives to preventative care within a well insured fee-for-service practice, could lead to no more than an upsurge of so-called secondary prevention of doubtful efficacy. This involves the early detection of disease by screening large sympton-free populations at great cost, for little benefit. Such clinics are already operating in Sydney and probably in Melbourne and are of doubtful value in helping to maintain the health of the community. But they are very good businesses- highly profitable. The report argues that preventive care will obtain much better results through public sector intervention rather than by providing additional incentives in private practice. That is true. A public health education program must be developed and evaluated along with other prevention programs. But incentives could be offered to doctors if a different method of payment were being used. The Government should look hard at setting up pilot projects to test the efficacy of this proposition. In its chapter on alternative health care systems the report states:

There is evidence that the dilemma faced by those who seek to pool consumer risks effectively without inflating health care costs cannot be solved in a system in which responsibilities for pooling and for supplying services are totally divorced.

In other words, an insurance system which is divorced from the responsibility of supplying the services cannot solve the problem of increasing health care costs. This is the nub of the problem of health care costs in Australia. Put another way: The doctors who are responsible for supplying the service have no responsibility for collecting and pooling the costs. The report examines pre-paid group practice, particularly the health maintenance organisation. The report concludes:

Best results are reported from Prepaid Group Practices without fee-for-service payments expected from the subscriber or the managing organisation.

Or, I might add, without fee-for-service payment to the treating doctor because that is inherent in those studies. I will give a couple of examples. In an article in the Social Security Bulletin of May 1976 entitled ‘Contrasts in HMO and FeeforService Performance’, the finding is given that hospital use was significantly lower in group practice plans than in fee-for-service systems. In the group practice plans the doctors were on salaries. I will give some of the figures. In a group practice the annual rate of admissions per thousand people was 46. In the ‘controls’- that is, in practices where the doctors worked on a feeforservice basis- the admission rate was 1 14. There was not much difference in the average length of stay, the figures being 7.4 days per patient for the group practice and 7.7 days for the ‘controls’. So it is not that the patients admitted on the recommendation of doctors on a salary are in hospital for a shorter time. That is not true. The length of time is the same. The fact of the matter is that far fewer people are put in hospital. We have been told by a number of people that it is in the institutional areas that most of the costs are incurred. The article to which I have referred states:

Surgical rates reveal similar patterns. The rates for grouppractice plans -

That is, salaried doctors- were half those of their controls.

That is a very significant figure. Another recent example is the figures that were published in August 1977 by the Foundation for Health Care Evaluation. It listed the patient days in hospital per thousand of population in various cities, such as New York, where the patients treated on a fee-for-service basis numbered 1,495 and St Paul-Minneapolis, where the figure was 1,391. In Chicago the figure was 1,390. A number of other major cities are listed and the figures are about the same. They range from 1,395 to 848. Only one city had a figure below 1,000. I ask honourable members to compare those admission rates with the admission rate for patients treated by health maintenance organisations where the doctors were on salary. In St PaulMinneapolis, the twin cities, the admission rate was only 561 compared with the figure of 1,391 for the twin cities for doctors operating on a feeforservice basis. Throughout the whole of America, taking the figure for all the health maintenance organisations, the hospital admission rate was only 450. There is an enormous reduction in the hospitalisation of patients when doctors are on salaries compared with when doctors are paid on a fee-for-service basis.

The Commission recommends Government support for such organisations, but, as their application has been possibly only in limited areas of the United States, many suggest that to look to health maintenance organisations for a total solution would be a mistake. That avoids an analysis of why the health maintenance organisations have spread so slowly. The reason is simple: No one makes enormous profits out of health maintenance organisations. No one is willing to push them or to peddle them because there is no profit to be made by the entrepreneurs. If they are to be pushed they will have to be pushed by governments. Most of them are associated with large community hospitals. In a country where most of the medical practice is private and where the whole ethos is a fee-for-service medical practice, as is the case in Australia, these organisations will not spread unless a government consciously pushes them.

It is a shame that the report did not seize the opportunity to stress more forcefully the need for testing the various methods of paying doctors. For example, there could have been a more definite suggestion to establish salaried health service units, properly controlled in terms of staffing in relation to the patient load and carefully assessed in terms of peer review and auditing. In this way, a comparison could be made between the performance of these salaried services and the private fee-for-service medical practice which is so popular in this country. I am convinced that if a proper controlled experiment were run we would discover the answer to the runaway costs of health services in this community. It is not due to the irresponsible behaviour of patients. Patients simply feel sick and consult a general practitioner. Whatever happens from then on- if excessive utilisation occurs- is the responsibility of the medical practitioner. If we are suffering excessive health costs in this country it is due, sadly, to the irresponsible behaviour of too many medical practitioners.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I wish to make brief reference to the final comments of the honourable member for

Maribyrnong (Dr Cass). He virtually exonerated all patients, including himself and myself, although he is a doctor of medicine in his own right and rendered most useful service to me many years ago. I challenge his statement that the blame rests solely with the medical profession. When one considers the increase in medical usage in this country one sees that between 1955 and 1968 the number of private medical services per head of population rose by approximately 50 per cent in all States to figures varying between 3.2 per cent per annum in Victoria and 4.16 per cent per annum in South Australia. In 1967-68, the Australian average for private medical services was 4.2 per cent. It was 4.7 per cent in 1975 and it is estimated now to be approximately 5.6 per cent.

I hold the view that people can get to the stage that when the smallest problem confronts them they turn to a doctor for consultation. I believe that medical care should be easily attainable, but if it were not available so cheaply or easily there is a strong possibility that people may think twice before they consult a doctor whereas presently they do not hesitate to consult a doctor.

Dr Cass:

– Are you suggesting that they go to the doctor for fun?

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-Of course there are people in this chamber who do not go to the doctor often enough. The previous speaker, the ex-Minister, is shaking his head in disagreement. We are embroiled here in what is mainly a philosophical disagreement. He can shake his head and I can shake mine and we will never come to agreement. However, I firmly hold that view, as I am sure most members of this side of the chamber do. A lot of members on the other side of the chamber, misguided though they sometimes may be, support the view held by the honourable member for Maribyrnong- a view which is wrong.

When dealing with the escalation of health care costs in this country- and I am not going to indulge today in a denigration of the Oppositionit is only right that we recall the preMedibank days when the cost of health care was so much less than it is now. I notice that in this report it is stated that in 1960-61 the national health bill was around $700m- the honourable member cannot shake his head to that-and that by 1975-76 the bill exceeded $5,200m.

Dr Cass:

– But that was before Medibank started. Be honest.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-It has perhaps gone even higher than that.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jarman)Order! I suggest to both the honourable member for Fadden and the honourable member for Maribyrnong that they address their remarks to the Chair.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

-The point is that, whether or not the figures are slightly inaccurate, there has been a massive increase. I know that there has been something called inflation in this country, but there has been a huge increase in the contribution that we are making as a nation to keep ourselves well. Earlier speakers have referred to percentages in terms of our actual expenditure. I am not going to go over that ground, but there is no denying the fact that the cost of health care in this country has risen dramatically and it has risen in the way that members on the Government side of the House when in Opposition predicted it would rise. I recall all too clearly the days in 1 974 when the then Government had a little trouble getting legislation through the Senate. Following the double dissolution when we went to the people, one of the questions put to the people to enable the joint sitting was the introduction of the Labor Party’s health care system. We came into this very chamber for the joint sitting, and I remember sitting on the other side of the House opposing this legislation vigorously until the end. The Labor Government brought in its senators, who joined with Labor members of the House of Representatives to pass the legislation and, by sheer weight of numbers, this country was handed a health scheme which, since the day of its inception has been a sheer disaster and an alldevouring machine.

Dr Cass:

– I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not object to facts, and the fact is that the increase occurred before Medibank was introduced.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

-That is not a point of order.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– That is right. Labor came in at the end of 1 972 and inflation followed shortly after that Government’s arrival. Of course costs were on the increase by the time Labor brought its legislation into this chamber. As a Queenslander I was very pleased to hear the observation made by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who drew to the attention of the chamber the fact that the cost of hospitalisation in Queensland is lower than in any other State. Yet the conclusion cannot be reached that because the costs are lower the form of health care in Queensland is inferior to that provided in other States.

Mr Lloyd:

– Only a Queenslander could say that.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I am reminded that only a Queenslander could say that, but let me assure the House that the honourable member for Mackellar is not a Queenslander and he made the pertinent observation that the fact that we spend more does not mean that the actual return will be increased proportionately. The honourable member for Mackellar is agreeing with me, and it is pleasing to have his confirmation that I did not misunderstand his comments.

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to put forward a view that I do not believe is unique in this country. Some months ago in Queensland I expressed the view that it was time we reviewed the entire Medibank concept. That concept means compulsion. I recall the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), when he was either a back-bencher or a front-bencher in the pre- 1972 days, and later when he was Minister for Health, referring to the figures of those who had actual health cover as indicating the reason why we had to have compulsion. Honourable members on this side of the House said that some 94 per cent of the people of Australia had health care cover and members of the then Opposition, later the Government, claimed that about 90 per cent of the people had such cover. Of course, if there is any place in Australia where figures can be made to work magic it is Parliament House, Canberra. The facts are that, at the worst, 10 per cent of Australians were not covered for health care. So to accommodate 10 per cent of the population we introduced a health scheme which has been nothing but a monster since its inception.

From the reaction to my comments in Queensland, I believe that it is time we considered scrapping the entire Medibank concept. I am not attacking the agency, but public reaction was so strong that it indicated that a high percentage of that 10 per cent who had no health care cover were people who wanted to carry their own risk. Whether they were wise or unwise in adopting that attitude is not for a government to decide by imposing upon them a system of compulsion. We nave now reached the stage where a sizeable percentage of our population will turn to the doctor in the event of a splinter under the toenail. It does not matter what it is; see the doctor. These days the doctor runs a charge system whereby there is an added charge if the service is given after a certain hour or on weekends. By introducing the health scheme we took from the doctor his individuality, his right to practise with devotion, and we threw him into a machine. The previous speaker singled out the doctors as being the cause of the failure of Medibank. In the early part of this decade doctors more than any other people warned Australia what a Medibank-type scheme would do. Doctors more than any other group opposed Medibank, knowing full well that its introduction would lead to the destruction of attitudes in their own profession. Furthermore, the doctors knew that it would bring to Australia the tried and failed system of health care in the United Kingdom. If the United Kingdom, a country which once ruled the waves, had continued to spend on its navy about a half of what it has spent on its health system, no doubt it would have continued to rule the waves.

We have today an opportunity to examine what has been done. Whilst I have advocated that it is almost time we threw out the Medibank concept, that does not mean I am throwing out health care. I believe in health care. Recently, I was a member of a committee that examined some of the problems. I now concede willingly that the problem is not as easy to solve as I might have seen it to be originally. But I believe that Australia must be prepared to grasp the nettle and not be frightened to move right away from the concept which was introduced by a Labor Government and which has been continued by the present Government.

Finally, I wish to praise the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) for having had the courage to make the first alteration to the scheme -

Mr John Brown:
PARRAMATTA, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

– He sacked you as Deputy Government Whip.

Mr Donald Cameron:
FADDEN, QUEENSLAND · LP

– I do not praise him for sacking me as Deputy Government Whip. That has nothing to do with this praise. I would not be praising him for something like that. I praise the Prime Minister because he had the courage to say: ‘We really do not know what the Australian health system is costing. I will introduce a system so that you, the individual, will make a contribution’. If the people are given something for nothing all the time, they will cease to consider the actual cost to themselves, as indirect as it might be. Now we have an Australia which has come to the realisation that this position just cannot continue, that we must do something with our health care program. I say to the Minister for Business and Consumer Affairs (Mr Fife), who has just relieved the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) so he can attend a meeting, that he should take the message to him that Australia is waiting for the Government to do something dramatic.

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

Sitting suspended from 5.58 to 8 p.m.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-The Hospitals and Health Services Commission produced a discussion paper on paying for health care which, despite the limitations of its terms of reference and the obvious predilection of this Government to blame the victim, got to the heart of the matter of the reasons for escalating health costs. It is unfortunate that the logic of the paper’s central thrust is not followed with stronger and more specific recommendations, save in the area of asking for more money from health consumers. The subject of the paper is controversial, for several reasons. Firstly, the Commission noted:

The desire to live, to be well, to maintain full command over one’s faculties, and to see one’s loved ones free from disease, disability or premature death are amongst the most strongly rooted of all human desires.

In other words, there is an inherent emotional content to the subject of health costs. Secondly, the paper involves and touches upon the interests of a profession and a related set of interests which have an impressive record of imposing their will on successive governments almost throughout the entire course of Australian history. Even the Queensland Premier will not be immune from this set of influences. Thirdly, it has been written for a government that has demonstrated no positive interest in health reform, that has no clear sense of the underlying issues involved and whose record has always been that of uncritical support for the rulers of Australia’s health empire. Given these factors, the Commission is to be congratulated for producing a paper in which the principal obstructions to reducing health costs in Australia are clearly identified.

The rather more tentative character of the recommendations can be excused because it is after all governments which have the responsibility in the light of the facts to grasp the nettle and take effective action. The key thesis of this dicussion paper is set out in chapter 38 at page 14. It states:

The lesson of Australian history is that major changes in the organisation and financing of health services are not likely to succeed in the face of concerted opposition from the doctors. They are at the heart of the system . . .

They largely determine the demands on those resources. They must share major responsibility for professional standards, for justifying resource consumption, for rationalising facilities and services, for limiting fee rises and for ensuring observance of fee schedules.

However, Robert Maxwell, an international policy analyst who is quoted in the paper, has stated:

The insulation of the medical profession from concern about resource use seems to be the most important single problem on Australia ‘s health care scene.

This, as I have suggested, is the central theme of the papers and the authors return to it again and again. It is a theme which has been taken up more and more by ordinary people around this nation who are coming to see that the people to whom in the past they were prepared to give the highest status and rewards are the same people who, with all too few exceptions, have fought, through their professional associations and with the support of other sections of the health industry, notably the insurance funds, to work against all proposals for change and reform and especially against any change which would result in community control over health costs. There is evidence in the paper which will sustain the proposition that this profession, which has made the strongest claim for its ethical standards, is prepared to use that status that was willingly conferred on it by health consumers and by patients as a weapon against the very people to whom it should give priority. The power of the doctors to act as entrepreneurs selling their services and as an agent for the selection of services has been used as a way for doctors in this country to increase their own wealth and power.

The crux of this discussion paper is that the escalation of health costs cannot be blamed on either the health consumers or, for that matter, the Labor Government. It is the responsibility of the health industry and the people who control it. The paper argues that it is the doctor who occupies the crucial role of the gatekeeper in the health system and that no system of cost control can succeed if it is not aimed at affecting his behaviour. In chapter 79 the discussion paper again emphasises that it is the doctor who is the key decision-maker. After the patient has made the initial contact with the system the doctor allocates health services by recommending revisits, referrals to specialists, ordering of laboratory and x-ray investigations, recommending hospital admissions, operations and length of stay in hospitals and prescribing of medication.

Only a relatively small proportion of the total cost, perhaps as much as 30 per cent, can be laid at the door of the patient. Beyond the point of his visiting the general practitioner he is in the hands of the system, and the responsibility for costs surely shifts almost exclusively into the hands of the medical profession. The cost structure associated with the living and decisions of even a single doctor in the report is underlined by figures which are cited from a Canadian report which suggest that each new Canadian doctor entering the system costs the community $150,000 a year-$70,000 a year for salary and $80,000 in secondary costs associated with the process which I have just described. In a recent series of articles published in the Melbourne Age Dr Pickering, the President of the South Australian Branch of the Australian Medical Association, was quoted as suggesting that in Australia each new doctor generated $ 100,000 per year in associated costs on top of an estimated $70,000 salary that he is likely to receive. Specialists probably generate in addition to their $100,000-plus salaries immense costs in terms of associated specialised services.

We are dealing with a wealthy and very powerful profession, and it needs to be emphasised that it is not merely a profession. It is a group of people who have become central to what can be thought of as a health empire in which this profession is playing a crucial role. Let us look, for example, at public hospitals which are costing the Australian taxpayer thousands of millions of dollars each year. Whose interests are these now gigantean institutions serving? I think it can be argued that with the ever-increasing specialisation of the profession and of hospitals, the larger teaching hospitals are moving more and more to serve the interests of an esoteric profession. Such hospitals are less and less subject to the establishment of overall health planning priorities and are using their considerable resources in ways which are not always in conformity with any proper democratic processes. They are highly elitist institutions which need to be placed in the context of proper controls, not in the sense of administrative and accounting efficiency but in terms of responsibility to the health system as a whole and particularly to the public.

It can be argued that almost all of the weight of our health resources is being directed to those people who are close to the end of the life cycle and that fewer resources are going to serve the vast bulk of the population who are some of the way through their lives. Through this whole process of spending public money, whether in the community or in the hospital situation, there appears to have developed little in the way of proper checks on the power of doctors to determine costs and prices. Doctors who argued that cost controls built into Medibank Mark I were regulatory and coercive and who at that time supported self-regulation through peer codes have since apparently changed their way of thinking.

The paper suggests that after the passing of a year and a half since the review of professional standards was proposed, there is little firm evidence of an operational plan for peer review coming into existence. As expenditure is continuing to soar the Commissioner notes that there is growing disillusionment with the system of natural controls. The Commission suggests that the alternative may have to be a system of formal controls instituted by law and regulation.

Just as the doctors have failed to develop systems of peer review, so their allies in the funds have resisted their obligation to provide data to the Health Commission which would have been readily available if Medibank Mark I had not been (destroyed. Specifically, the paper states:

The private insurance industry has not taken overt initiatives to develop claims review procedures that are necessary for studies of health service utilisation and the implementation of utilisation review.

Further, the report suggests that it is essential that statistics on claims for benefits be available for analysis. The Commission suggests that the supply of information from private health funds is incomplete and that much of the information that has been supplied has not been analysed. The Commission concluded:

Without such data, reviews of the use of specific services, or of the medical services generally, are severely inhibited.

That means that one cannot work out what it costs to deal with a particular class of patient and one cannot evaluate the medicine that is being practised in the community. The Government’s dismantling of Medibank destroyed the possibilities of establishing a reliable national basis for the collection of statistical information relevant to the evaluation of health systems. Apparently such a basis does not exist within the State hospital systems. Dr Brand, the executive director of the Preston and Northcote Community Hospital, which is a large public hospital in my electorate, recently pointed out that there are great variations in the cost structures of the principal hospitals in Melbourne but there is no basis on which to make effective comparisons. In his view, the variations that exist are essentially administrative. However, currently little is being done to set standards, measure costs and grant funds accordingly. He said:

For example, how many nurses are needed to look after 30 acute medical patients or 200 casualty attendances a day? How many resident medical hours are needed for a specified number of patients? What should be the standard food cost per patient and the standard of linen usage? We do not know. All we know is that there are enormous differences between hospitals and these differences mean millions of dollars per year. Standard costing is well known in industry, why not in hospitals?

The problem that we face in relation to health costs in this country is that we have allowed a monster to be created that may not be subject to control by democratic processes. There is no evidence that a consensus can be achieved because what has come into existence is an immensely powerful coalition of interlocking institutions and processes that tend to act in concert. They control vast resources and can, if necessary, defeat political attempts to achieve only limited direction and control.

It is one thing to talk, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) did earlier in this debate, of a tendency towards corruption in the profession, but this is not the heart of the problem. Rather, a structure has been created the collective interests of which are rapidly moving beyond rational direction. The examples he mentioned of overt corruption are but the tip of the iceberg. The basic problem is that the whole structure- the interlocking connections between the doctors, the funds, the investment private hospitals and the control over the admission policies of large hospitals by the medical technocratsis an empire that is unable to insulate itself from democratic control and responsibility. This is the reality which lies behind this discussion paper and these political forces stand between us and substantial control over health costs.

If there is an area of the report which justifies some criticism it is the neglect of the significance of the broader area of prevention and particularly societal determinants of the community’s health. There are references in the discussion paper to some of the psycho-social determinants of people’s health and the inappropriate way in which some of the psychological problems that people confront are often approached in a way which reflects the physical or organic prejudices of the medical profession. However, the more serious issue is the way in which the report, at least in its general discussion, tends to by-pass the analysis of the relationship between people’s health and the pressures which are exerted on them by the way in which our society currently organises itself and its economic activities. A significant proportion of the costs which are generated in the form of health services flow, for example, from the way in which the transport system is organised, with high levels of individual accidents and side effects, such as heavy pollution levels, which have enormous impact on the overall standards of community health. Another example is the whole area of industrial health and the impact of pollutants and noise levels within particular industries. A number of other occupations are particularly stressful.

In my view, the determinants of people’s health are not simply the result of individual decisions and life styles. People are also subject to pressures which flow from the type of social and industrial organisation which is characteristic of this and other Western capitalist societies. A change in the basic way in which society is organised is likely to be fundamental to a shift in the total proportion of costs necessary to be spent on health care. The discussion paper goes on to suggest, however, that the prevention of illness and disability, accompanied by effective health education, has the greatest long term potential for containing the general inflation of health expenditures. It is perhaps unfortunate that the report has so little feeling for the social, environmental and industrial determinants of people’s health. It is one thing to criticise the obsession of the current profession with sophisticated technologies; it is possibly even more important to spell out an alternative framework which might be adopted by the health profession in its search for improved standards of community health.

Finally, the principal recommendation of the report is that people should pay a larger share of health costs directly out of their pockets. That does not follow from the report. That is not consistent with the argument of the report. If one is to be consistent with the argument as a whole then one has to look at a whole variety of means which result in controls over the health system as a whole but particularly over the medical profession.

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

Mr DEAN:
Herbert

-In speaking tonight to the discussion paper before the House, I shall work on two bases.

The first is that some form of compulsory health insurance is desirable and necessary. That form of compulsory health insurance makes sure that everybody is covered. Before the introduction of Medibank some small percentage of the population was not covered, and it is desirable that those people be covered. If they are not prepared to cover themselves, some form of compulsory health insurance is necessary. I suppose it also ensures that there will be some residue of finance available to support other parts of the scheme.

The second base on which I work is that some system of private or additional voluntary insurance should be available. There is no evidence available that I have seen and certainly none in the discussion paper that there are significant savings to be demonstrated by doing away with private insurance. So some system of private insurance should continue. At the same time this keeps open an avenue for nongovernment employment of personnel. It also keeps open an avenue for choice and the ability to obtain some better, further or wider coverage, if a person wants to pay for it.

Earlier in this debate the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) said that to outlay 7.5 per cent of the Budget on health is not to outlay too much. He went on to indicate that he was not terribly concerned about that. What he did not apparently address himself to today was the fact that there has been a very rapid escalation leading to this level in recent times and that if that escalation is not contained in some way and contained quickly all of us will be in for a troubled time. He does not seem to be concerned either about overseas experiences, yet the discussion paper clearly points out the way in which, to take two examples, in Britain and in Canada, there have had to be changes and ceilings put on this business of government assisting in the medical care area.

To my mind, the paper points out that we must act quickly to contain some of the costs which seem to be almost out of control or which, if they are not yet out of control, are certainly giving every indication of being out of control in a very short period. For the benefit of the honourable member for Prospect let me quote from page 85 of the discussion paper, which refers to the Californian experience and which states:

Unless a social instrument other than Government evolves and functions adequately in the public interest, it seems inevitable that Governments (Commonwealth and State) must act to satisfy taxpayers that their $ 1 ,700m annual subsidy of recognised (public) hospitals can be fully justified. Similar controls might be considered for private hospitals, unless all subsidies are withdrawn.

The case for being concerned about the level of health costs is clearly demonstrated. The suggestion by the honourable member for Prospect that there can be no real concern about a 7.5 per cent take from the Budget is to my mind quite unreal.

The honourable member for Capricornia (Dr Everingham) made almost the same point. I refer him to a comment he made in March 1975 when he was the Federal Minister for Health. He said:

My objection to providing the best possible care for all is simply that no economy, no regime, no health administration could stand it, nor can the great bulk of doctors and patients.

Mr Birney:

– Who said that?

Mr DEAN:

– That was the honourable member for Capricornia. So obviously there have to be controls, there have to be checks and we have to do something about them now.

I can understand the concern of the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass)- a similar concern was expressed by the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe)- about the need for more reliable statistics on national health care generally. While he may be able to make out a case for that, still he does not answer the immediate problem this House has to face and that is the problem of rapidly escalating health care cost to the Government and people of Australia. It is a problem that we must grasp and about which we must do something immediately. Unless we do, the whole thing will get out of control completely or more out of control than it is at the moment.

The honourable member for Batman referred to the need for reliable statistics and he seemed to suggest that that was a marvellous argument for making sure that we had complete Medibank coverage and no private insurance at all. I must say that the logic of that argument escapes me. If we want statistics in certain areas we can get those statistics. It is simply a matter of ensuring that the methods and the forms for obtaining them are set up. I cannot see the logic of saying that they must be collected on a Medibank basis only. It is simply a matter of the Department of Health and the other people concerned being geared to accept and collect statistics in certain forms. I feel that the honourable member’s introduction of that argument really detracts from the matter about which we are talking tonight, that is, the discussion paper on the business of health care in this community.

I would like to express my concern about limiting hospital expenditure. This area is discussed fairly widely in the paper. One of the more important areas when we talk about limiting hospital expenditure concerns bed availability throughout the community. In this regard I would refer the House to page 79 of the discussion paper. It mentions the effect of the availability of hospital beds and goes on to point out that a comparatively generous supply of beds is associated with high expenditure. A table is then shown. If we leave Queesnland aside for a moment because it has some special circumstances, it is clear that the State with the lowest bed /population ratio, Victoria, has the lowest health costs in the hospital scheme. It is significantly lower. So it is quite clear that bed availability is one of those important areas at which we should look when it comes to the question of limiting hospital costs.

As I said, that is the picture leaving Queensland aside. Taking Queensland into account, the figure for annual gross operating cost per head of population for that State is even lower than the figure for Victoria. But Queensland has even more beds per 1,000 head of population than Victoria. Indeed it has as many as anywhere else in the whole Commonwealth.

The paper makes the important, but I think probably somewhat overlooked or not sufficiently discussed, point that Queensland has this low cost because it has comparatively few private patients in its public hospitals, it pays its hospital specialists on a salaried basis for sessions worked and it has a centralised firm control over staff establishments and the purchase of supplies. It seems to me that this point hints at a certain area in which further study, more so perhaps in the long term, can be undertaken beneficially. Of course Queensland has had a form of free hospital system for many, many years. Many people have made quite derogatory statements about its system, suggesting that it was somewhat backward compared with other States. I do not think there are any mortality or morbidity statistics to prove the point. The fact is that Queensland had its own system of free hospitalisation for many years and hand in hand with that it had this centralised firm control to which the discussion paper referred- a control that takes considerable interest in staff/patient ratios, equipment levels and overall management.

I know from experience that in Queensland, Hospital Boards are quick to whinge and complain about the restraints placed upon them by the Queensland Health Department. The fact remains that those controls exist and from that we can see that in Queensland there is a lower annual gross operating cost per head of population in the hospital system.

It follows from that that we can draw two areas for further discussion, areas about which we can profitably do something with regard to health costs. The first area concerns the controls that can be undertaken in relation to staff ratios, management, equipment levels, standards and the rest. That is not to say that the Commonwealth will take over those controls. It cannot do that in the States. But at least the Commonwealth can be aware of the possibility of those sorts of controls, and being aware of that it can then more adequately assess the level of subsidy and assistance that ought to be given to hospital schemes throughout the country. It is not a case of going for the lowest common denominator but it is a case of studying in the long term the controls, efficiencies and benefits that can be obtained from a closer watch on the whole area of hospital administration. The second area- I have already referred to the table which shows the bed supply effect- is that the availability of finance from the Commonwealth level can be worked out on perhaps a lower bed/population ratio than might exist in some of the States at present.

I suppose we can go further, as the discussion paper suggests, and propose an even cruder method of going about it, and that is to start by simply imposing flat ceilings and be done with it. It would seem to me that that is altogether too crude and even if it is done as a matter of expediency it does not take away from the fact that profitable areas for further attention and consideration concern the strict application of controls within the hospital systems and, secondly, the availability of funding on a lower bed/population basis.

The Commonwealth’s part in funding hospitals has to take account of federalism. It is not a question of the Commonwealth imposing its controls on the State schemes but rather taking account of all the evidence available in the country and making a decision as to the level of funding available to the States. What the States do from there I suppose is a matter about which they will be concerned.

In the short time left to me I would like to refer briefly to the doctor/patient cost side of health care. The honourable member for Capricornia when he spoke earlier today found that the gap proposal, that is the difference between a Medibank benefit and the cost of attending a doctor to be met by the patient, was somewhat abhorrent. But it seems to me that he could offer no alternative method of controlling some patients in seeking care and controlling some doctors in providing it. It should also be borne in mind that m the overall scheme of things a gap method does not necessarily mean that too much of the cost will fall on those people who can least afford it, because the fact is that the compulsory levy rises as incomes rise. I would go further and align myself with the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who said earlier today that that ceiling might have to rise even further than it is at the moment or indeed it may have to be abolished. If that happens those people who can afford to pay more will be paying more of the overall cost of health care in this community.

Getting back just to the simple gap proposal, it seems to me that it is certainly not unfair or unreasonable at all. Of course, the more that the higher income earner provides in the overall scheme of things towards the total cost of health insurance, the greater the possibility of keeping that gap as small as possible. I have no time to develop some of the methods that could be used in keeping the doctor/patient cost of health care down. I have referred to the gap situation. It may well be that we should end bulk billing, abolish the levy ceiling and so on.

This matter comes down to a concluding message. During this speech I have expressed concern about adequate checks, balances and controls both on the hospital side and the doctors’/patient side. The whole community has to recognise that medical care is not some higher form of activity beyond and above checks and controls. The community, the medical profession and the hospital system must recognise and accept that fact.

Mr WEST:
Cunningham

-The discussion paper certainly contains one basic truth. As mentioned by the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in his statement, it is provocative in many respects. Certainly, its conclusions are arguable. I will return to the conclusions in a moment. First, I refer to paragraph 12 of the paper which sets out the way in which health costs have risen since 1 96 1 . In that year health costs totalled $700m. In 1974-75 they were up to $4, 129m. In 1975-76 they rose further to $5,235m. In 1976-77 they were up to $6,254m. These figures are significant. They prove beyond doubt that health costs had taken off long before Medibank was instituted. The facts are there. In 1974-75, the year before Medibank commenced operations, health costs had increased to $4.1 billion from $700min 1961

In the first year of Medibank operations health costs rose by 26 per cent. After 1 October 1976, when the Government emasculated the Medibank service, health costs still rose by 20 per cent. That means that if it was the Government’s intention to reduce health costs significantly by its surgery of 1 October 1976 it was singularly unsuccessful. Of course, its measures were designed to do more than that. They were designed to drive people back to the private funds. In that aim they were successful. At present 55 per cent of contributors throughout Australia belong to private funds or to Medibank Private. Some 32 per cent belong to Medibank Standard. Some 12 per cent belong to Medibank Standard in addition to contributing to hospital table 1. But the moves were certainly unsuccessful in controlling costs, if that was the central issue. Costs went up, as I have said, by 20 per cent, to $6.2 billion. All that happened was that the Government was successful in transferring health costs to the contributor. The conclusions of this report further that concept. I believe that the report is aimed at protecting the system of fee-for-service payment to doctors.

The paper concludes with three basic points. It states that we should retard the rates of expansion in the use of medical and hospital services, reduce the rate of growth of government expenditure on health services and reduce the rate of growth in health insurance contribution rates. The report purports to outline in depth how this can be achieved. I disagree with most of the contentions. The first point that is canvassed is a system of cost sharing which is a euphemism to increase the percentage of medical bills paid by the patient. The paper suggests that we should go back to the bad old days prior to Medibank when patients and contributors paid some 30 per cent to 40 per cent of their medical bills for specialist, general practitioner and ancillary services. Let us look at what can happen in that situation. Since Medibank we have been successful to a degree in providing for all but 1 5 per cent of bills to be paid with a supposed maximum payment of $5 if doctors charge the common fee. The problem now is that many doctors and specialists do not charge the common fee.

Let me digress for a moment and tell the House about a case that I came across the other day. A young couple came into my office with a heavy bill for an abdominal operation performed in Sydney by a specialist. It was for $700. They had a cheque from a private insurance fund for $325. So they had to pay $375. The main part of that Bill related to item 6669. I am told that the common fee or standard fee for that item is $200. The surgeon’s fee was $400. The paper actually urges that the patient or the contributor should pay a higher percentage of his hospital bills and has the audacity- the absolute gall- to argue against allowing patients and contributors to insure against an increased gap. I find that most peculiar in light of the fact that many surgeons, specialists and general practitioners today are greatly exceeding the common or standard fee as I have shown.

The second point canvassed at length is that perhaps we should increase the Medibank Standard levy or at least increase the ceiling of $300 per year. There is no case at all for increasing the Medibank Standard levy. Contributions are already indexed to wages. The third point with which I find a great deal of disagreement is the canvassing of the so-called deductible system where contributors may be asked to pay a certain fixed amount of the total medical costs for an individual or a family for the year. What this really does is reduce health insurance to the level of motor vehicle and other types of insurance. Certainly the view of the Austraiian Medical Association, which for reasons other than mine, is against that proposition.

I refer the House to a report that appeared in a major national newspaper concerning remarks of Dr Lionel Wilson, the Vice-President of the Australian Medical Association. Dr Wilson said that he was strongly opposed to gimmicks such as front-end deductibles, no-claim bonuses and limits on the number of medical services for which benefits could be claimed. The report stated:

Dr Wilson said schemes like the front end deductible, under which the patient pays the first fixed amount- say $100- of his medical bills, would have the same unhealthy deterring effect as increasing the gap. It would fall hardest on the poor and chronically ill who could least afford it, he said.

Another media scribe was more explicit and perhaps more humorous when he said:

Think of the front-end deductible scheme as a sort of front-end off-loader. It off-loads the initial cost of medical services from the funds on to the patient.

The AMA has given its reasons for opposing such a system. I oppose it for the same reasons as the honourable member for Prospect Dr Klugman, who is the Opposition spokesman on health. Both suggestions- cost sharing and deductibility- may well have the effect of deterring people who are showing symptoms of a serious illness from seeking early medical attention.

Another two points are most controversial. The paper makes the amazing assertion that hospital capital expenditure ought to be reduced because there are too many hospital beds and if surplus beds are available there will be a tendency to fill those beds at all costs. Therefore health expenditure will be increased. A similar agrument is advanced to illustrate that too many doctors are being produced today by universities. These conclusion are surprising especially in relation to hospital beds. I would argue against the claim that there are too many hospital beds. That may be the case in some areas. But we certainly do not have too many beds in the Cunningham electorate. I can assure the Minister of that fact. Even if we were starting to produce more hospital beds and doctors than the present system can use, I think it would be far better to start employing those surplus doctors as salaried staff in hospitals, outpatient departments and medical centres throughout the nation rather than to talk about reducing the number of doctors just to protect the present fee for service system. I agree with the honourable member for Maribyrnong (Dr Cass) who said that there are better ways to pay doctors than by the fee for service system. The report of the Hospitals and Health Services Commission canvasses at length alternative methods. Basically, it deals with four systems. The first is the fee for service system. I will not go into that system any further at the moment. It mentions, secondly, the capitation system, which is the system used at this time in the United Kingdom. It canvasses next the case payment system being used now in West Germany. Finally it comments on what I would argue to be the best system of all; gradual movement to a system of salaried medical practitioners and specialists working on a sessional basis in public hospitals. I will explain to the House exactly how the systems work in the United Kingdom and West Germany. The United Kingdom uses the capitation system whereby the doctor is paid a fixed sum for each period during which he takes responsibility for a patient on a panel of people for which he is contracted to service. The report of the Hospital and Health Services Commission states:

In West Germany, the Association of Health Funds remunerates the doctor in accordance with the standard fee schedules after he has submitted the patient’s ‘sick certificate’ which records the individual’s services rendered. Each doctor is allocated points in respect of these services, and the average number of points per doctor is calculated each quarter. If the doctor’s average is at or below the national average, he receives full payment, but if it is above he may receive a cut-back.

The report does not recommend the merits of these types of systems. There is a need to reduce overall health costs- not just to transfer the burden to the user- blaming the public for using services ordered by doctors who are motivated by fee for service payments- and I refer to services supplied in many cases by private pathology centres and x-ray centres which duplicate hospital services. What is wrong with salaried medical services in hospitals? Universities are run by governments and paid for by taxpayers. Why are doctors any more sacrosanct and entitled more than any other skilled workers trained in government technical education institutions to set their own fees? The Australian Medical Association and the General Practitioners Society have the Government well and truly bluffed- and so, too, have the private health insurance funds. Let us have no more of this nonsensical humbug about the patients and contributors being to blame for rising health costs. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Donald Cameron) fell for this trap because he is afraid to examine the root causes of the problem. Fancy blaming patients! How can a layman assess whether tests and services ordered by doctors and specialists are necessary? The main deficiency of this report- the last, expiring act of the now defunct Hospital and Health Service Commission- is that it seeks to restrain rising costs by transferring them to the patient while making no recommendations regarding replacing the expensive fee for service system of paying general practitioners, specialists, surgeons and private ancillary centres with a long range plan of expanding salaried medical services. As a pre-requisite to such a restructuring, the Government should abandon its misguided attempts to prop up the 150 odd private insurance funds which duplicate each others services.

Mr HODGES:
Petrie

-I think it is only right and proper that there is at the moment a national debate on this very important and vexed question of the escalation of health costs. Indeed, the figure in respect of the cost of health care services nationally has increased beyond the 1976-77 level of $6.3 billion to approximately $7 billion. No wonder the public is concerned about this figure. I believe that the concern in the community arises from the level of contributions being paid yearly by individuals- that is, the family- at a base of $300 for contributors to Medibank and, of course, some $400 to $550 for contributors to private health insurance funds.

I believe that contributors, particularly the young Australian family, look at the number of times they attend doctors in a 12 month period and relate the number and cost of consultations to the annual contribution they must make to Medibank or the private health insurance fund. It is obvious in that respect that many healthy young Australian families find themselves contributing far more to the fund than they are receiving by way of benefits. So there is no doubt that something must be done either to identify the cost to the Australian public or to put some ceiling on health costs throughout the nation. Whatever system is adopted and whatever amendments are made to the present system, I believe we must have adequate and good health care for all Australians. At this stage I will define what I believe is adequate health care. I believe it is to be defined in terms of the readily availability of health care for all Australians. A good standard of health care must be a standard that is acceptable by world standards and all Australians should have available to them this adequate, good health care regardless of their affluence, wealth or income.

Having said that, I look now at some of the methods by which I believe we can contain medical and hospital costs in Australia. A number of options is put forward in this discussion paper, Paying for Health Care, by the Hospital and Health Services Commission under the leadership of Dr Sax. Firstly I look at something which has been mentioned by a number of speakers today: The method called front end deductibles. Front end deductibles operate with the patient paying the first $50, $100, $300, $400 or whatever the set figure is, before they actually start to take advantage of the insurance scheme to which they contribute. I look now at some of the arguments in favour of front end deductibles. No doubt such a system would result in a reduction in contribution rates. However, the extent of the reduction may not be as great as would appear on the surface because the premium rate would be reduced only in respect of the premiums necessary to cover the specified amount of the deductible.

Another argument in favour of this system is that there is an awareness on the part of the patient- I believe this is vitally important- that he has to pay some of his health costs completely out of his own pocket. After all, everyone has to pay. I think, as the Minister for Health has said so frequently, there is no such thing as a free meal. The front-end-deductible system would identify the cost for the patient, and there would be less likelihood of patients making visits to a medical practitioner for what one might term minor or frivolous medical problems. In other words, they would tend to look after themselves a little more; they would go to their pharmacist; they would make themselves more aware of the procedures to adopt to combat very minor or unimportant medical problems that arise.

Let us look at the pitfalls that one can fall into under the front-end-deductible system. Once the maximum deductible amount of $300, for example, was reached there would be no further incentive for a patient not to go to a doctor. Indeed, if a person had to go into hospital and spend two or three nights there the maximum front-end-deductible amount would be reached very quickly. The payment of the first $300 or $400 could result in undue hardship on some people. In other words, this payment may penalise some people who may be embarrassed because they may not be able to find that amount of money all at once if the expense came in a lump sum. There would be tremendous administrative difficulties involved in the front-end-deductible system. So all in all I believe that it would be unwise to adopt the front-end-deductible system.

Similarly, the no-claim bonus system which applies to motor vehicle insurance would be unsuitable. Under this system if a patient made no claim or claimed below a certain amount in the previous year he would receive a bonus. A lot of people would find this system very attractive.

Mr Hunt:

-The healthy people.

Mr HODGES:

-The healthy people, yes, as the Minister for Health reminds me. Let me say this to the House: People very often would tend to defer important medical consultations. I believe that it would be a tragedy if people under the no-claim bonus system deferred an important visit to the doctor which to them at the time may not appear to be important but may prove to be important in the future. Therefore I would rule the no-claim bonus system and the frontenddeductible system as being unsatisfactory for Australia.

Let me look at some of the methods by which I believe we can contain health costs and make the public more aware, despite the claims of members of the Opposition. Of course in any scheme there will always be some inequalities. We would hope that we could work towards minimising the inequalities in any scheme. First of all, let me deal with patient moiety. In my view the patient’s contribution has to be increased, and I differ strongly with the Opposition in this regard. Anywhere that there is a service that is free at the point of delivery there will be a tendency to abuse the service. At the moment there is an 85 per cent return to the individual for all standard consultations that a person has with a doctor. I suggest that we reduce that refund and make it about 65 per cent or 70 per cent.

Let me look also at bulk billing. Unfortunately we have a system of bulk billing. I want to exclude of course from any consideration at this stage pensioners and the patients who are treated under the repatriation system because I believe that individuals who enjoy the benefits of bulk billing should be allowed to retain them. However, let me look at other categories of patients. At the moment many medicos in this country accept the 85 per cent of the common fee as the full payment for consultations. Therefore, there is no identifiable cost to the individual. At the moment the patient contributes a maximum of $5 for any one service. This is the figure that was set, I think, back in the Gorton Government days in the early 1970s. I suggest that that patient contribution of $5 be increased to $10 or $15 and that the refund be reduced to about 65 per cent or 70 per cent.

Another area that causes concern and does not allow the patient to identify the cost is the fact that today a person can insure himself for the gap, that is, the difference between his contribution and the amount that is paid by the health insurance fund or by Medibank. I believe we should abolish gap insurance because at the moment people are able to insure themselves for that 1 5 per cent. They can go to their doctor, submit a claim and not have to pay lc for any visit they make to their medico. Unfortunately with bulk billing- I want to go into this a little morethere has been some gross exploitation by some members of the medical profession. It is unfortunate that people who purport to have high ethical standards would be involved in a practice such as the exploitation of health insurance schemes, not on a minor scale- I have spoken before in this House on the subject- but indeed on a major scale. In one particular case which was referred to me recently a doctor earned in excess of $300,000 in one financial year from bulk billing alone- one doctor on his own in one practice. In another financial year he earned almost $200,000 from bulk billing. It would be physically impossible at the current consultation rate for one person to see such a large number of people to earn that amount of money and, if he did see them, to administer reasonable care and attention to them. That is perhaps an extreme example of exploitation of the scheme. We must abolish bulk billing except in respect of the disadvantaged people in our community, such as pensioners and the repatriation patients.

Another point I wish to make in relation to patient moiety concerns people who seek hospitalisation. At the moment a patient who receives medical and surgical treatment and nursing care in a hospital of course can be insured for the full amount. That is the position at the moment. Indeed, the cost of board and lodging is included. I think it is important to consider that all of us have to keep ourselves in our own homes. Yet, under the scheme at the moment we can go into hospital and receive hospitalisation, medical care and attention and all the ancillary services and be covered for full board and lodging as well. Until such time as we identify that cost I believe there will be no incentive for patients to leave hospital- not that they would want to leave earlier than their health permits. Nevertheless, when one considers that the administrators of hospitals have a tendency to ensure that all the hospital beds are occupiedthe provision of hospital beds is another pointand that their hospital bed occupancy is the highest in the country or higher than neighbouring hospitals there is an incentive for them to keep people in hospital unnecessarily.

There are two or three other points that I wish to make. One of them once again is in relation to patient moiety. It concerns the outpatient departments at hospitals. I believe there should be a contribution by patients who receive treatment at outpatients departments in all of our hospitals. No service should be completely free at the point of delivery. I move on to the very difficult question of the provision of hospital beds. I want to make a couple of comments because, unlike some of the previous speakers, I believe that the number of new hospital beds should be restricted. I say this because at the moment the development program being undertaken in cooperation with the States is, I believe, in some areas at least, out of hand.

The country hospital systems are important. I do not for a moment detract from that point. But with escalating costs and low occupancies they are expensive hospitals. They are expensive in a capital sense to provide and expensive to maintain. The cost per patient per day in some country hospitals is as high at $300. Indeed, in some of the larger centres and metropolitan areas it is as low as $150. Some hospitals with 10, 15 or 20 beds have a daily occupancy of only two or three. The aerial ambulance services and the flying doctor services could be utilised to better advantage.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MartinOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr HAYDEN:
Leader of the Opposition · Oxley

– The great problems confronting this country, in common with all the advanced industrialised countries of the world, in seeking to control the upsurge in health costs will not be resolved with shibboleths. Nor will prejudiced minds be able adequately to respond to these problems. A great deal of the response of the conservatives in the coalition parties has in fact been of this nature. They have indulged in name calling and drawn on slogans rather than address themselves to the heart of the matter. The problem cannot be resolved by tinkering with health insurance systems. One must in fact consider a complete restructuring of the way in which health services are provided and the way in which the deliverers of health services are paid for those services. For my part, it was comforting to read some parts of the discussion paper on paying for health care which we are now debating. Paragraph 59, which refers to the private health insurance scheme which applied prior to the introduction of the original Medibank system, states:

This inefficient arrangement -

It is referring to the private health insurance scheme- was dropped when Medibank was introduced in 1973. and it immediately became apparent that the goal of basic universality had been attained with remarkable administrative efficiency.

That is a very important point because as recently as February of this year the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) in public reports was associating the upsurge in health costs generally with the introduction of Medibank. It is quite clear from that paragraph of the paper that in fact the original concept of Medibank was an efficient arrangement and an improvement on what applied previously. Paragraph 6 1 of the paper refers to the altered system of Medibank- Medibank Mark II, as it was quite wrongly called by Government spokesmen- and states:

Although the 1976 changes maintained universal cover and equity, they did so at some cost to simplicity and efficiency. An ‘opting out’ scheme does add to costs because of the operations needed to determine eligibility.

Of course, what that statement is saying in a none too thinly veiled way is that the alterations in fact increased the cost of health insurance in this country. One has only to look at the cost of administering the Health Insurance Commission, according to the latest figures available, and compare it with the cost of administering that Commission under the original Medibank arrangement. Under the original Medibank arrangement the administration costs were about $50m, covering the whole of the community. A year later the costs had gone up to $54m, covering only 45 per cent of the community. If we add to that the very significant total costs involved in the administration of all the private funds, we get an insight into the enormous increase in administration costs which have been created and which have to be borne by the community as a result of the changes introduced by the Government.

It is the nature of many Government spokesmen to suggest that bulk billing, which we introduced as part of the Medibank scheme, was responsible for a substantial increase in the cost of health insurance. The Australian newspaper of 22 March 1978 contained an article directly pertaining to this matter. Normally I would approach reports in newspapers with some caution, but when the Australian reports on what the Government is going to do or what is confidential and circulating secretly within the Government corridors, we know full well that it is equivalent to an official disclosure. The article stated:

The latest computer figures shows that bulk-billed patients use fewer medical services than privately insured patients.

The figures are understood to be contained in a report by a special working party appointed by the Minister for Health, Mr Hunt, to inquire into bulk billing.

It stated further:

Bulk billing is the cheapest and most efficient way of paying health insurance benefits, the report is believed to conclude.

I wish that the Minister for Health would make that report available. It confirms the point we made when we introduced bulk billing that it was a much more efficient administrative arrangement than the previous arrangement and the arrangement which would continue, to some degree, of individual billing. But bulk billing had more advantages than that. Bulk billing, to put it in its bluntest terms, meant fee fixing, although I was always too delicate to spell it out as directly as that in the debate with the medical profession. The doctors were equally delicate to avoid spelling out that that was the reason for concern about it and why they opposed it. The fact is that that is why I was keen to have it introduced and that is why the medical profession was at least equally keen to try to prevent it being introduced.

If we had had universal bulk billing we would have had universal fee for medical services in this country. That is easily attended to insofar as the rate of utilisation is concerned. It is a simple matter of monitoring the utilisation rates of medical practitioners. The central computer system which we established in the Health Insurance Commission was, among other things, programmed to provide the sort of information which would allow government, at very short notice, to acquire utilisation rates for various medical practitioners in the community. The medical profession knew that full well, too, and was always too delicate, again, to discuss its concern about that. It knew that if it did discuss the matter it would be exposing its own pecuniary motivations in so much of the opposition to the

Medibank proposals which it presented when we were in government.

I want to lay to rest the assertion that Medibank created an upsurge in the cost of health services. The Minister, who is rather dexterous in doing this sort of thing, likes to use as a basis for his argument statistics which have rather broad breaks between the years. He likes to refer to health expenditure as a proportion of the gross domestic product and to suggest that it is all related to the introduction of Medibank. If one looks at the figures, year by year, one notes that the more rapid rates of acceleration occurred under the previous system of health insurance and that, if anything, they have eased down in more recent times. For instance, in 1973-74 the proportion of expenditure on health costs in this community was 5.9 per cent of the gross domestic product. In 1974-75, it was 6.8 per cent; in 1975-76, the first full year of Medibank, it was 7.1 per cent; and in 1976-77 it was 7.7 per cent. It is very important to remember that in 1975-76 not only the full cost of Medibank was met but also $166m, or about five months in total, of medical bills from the preceding year were met. It was a problem of leads and lags and the introduction of a new scheme which was much more efficient. So the total amount spent on Medibank in that year and, accordingly, on health services included a substantial amount from the preceding year and at the same time- unlike preceding years- met also practically the full cost of health services for that year.

We are not going to make any real progress in the subject of controlling health costs in this community until there is some sane and informed discussion. We have to recognise the sorts of abuses that arise which are not related to health insurance- for example, the way in which specialists have been over-utilising medical services. One cannot blame the patients for that. Specialist services are provided on referral from general practitioners. On 23 February in this Parliament the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and I discussed details of this matter. Hospital utilisation represents the most expensive area of all health services. In many areas of Australia we have a ratio of hospital beds to population which cannot be justified and we have, for instance, a maldistribution within the States. Accordingly, there is a requirement not only for monitoring of the way in which health services are provided by medical practitioners but also for monitoring of the way in which hospital bed services are provided. The more beds that are provided the more they will be occupied. That is a well-established principle in health economics.

We need the other physical services that I mentioned before and which the honourable member for Prospect has dealt with in much more professional detail than I have. We need tissue audit to ensure that specialists such as surgeons are not removing clean organs unnecessarily from patients. We need general utilisation peer group review committees. In discussing the nature of cost increases, certain increases took place when we were in government that were thoroughly justified. The fact that they had not occurred earlier was an indication of the injustice that applied within the health services system. For instance, resident medical officers received long overdue increases in payments and improvements in their conditions of work. Nurses received long overdue increases in payments. Equal pay was introduced. All of those things were necessary and, to the extent that they had not been provided before, the system and the community had been imposing unfairly on those people. We should have been prepared to pay our way.

I have said that we need a sane and sensible debate on this subject. One of the unfortunate features of the debate on health insurance is the way in which it has been marred by sheer shallow political opportunism on the part of conservatives within the coalition. One well recalls the passionate opposition to health insurance levies when Labor originally proposed the system of Medibank. Yet we now have them at a much more onerous rate than we proposed, introduced at a most inauspicious moment in terms of economic management. One can well recall the heated controversy that the then Opposition, now the Government, generated about the distribution of membership cards to all members of the community for the Medibank program. We proposed that it should not be mandatory for people to present the card when making a claim. This Government requires it. The coalition partners, when in Opposition, were disturbed at the proposal that we should introduce a public enterprise system like Medibank. They have in fact introduced Medibank Private as a public enterprise undertaking, and with good reason. It is the only way that the Government can keep the private health insurance funds in line and honest. When we were in government we sought to introduce legislation which would comprehensively control the operation of the private funds. There is no doubt that before we were in government the preceding conservative governments had had trouble privately in controlling private health insurance funds. One reason that the Government can now do that is that it has Medibank Private as a lever. But it also needed legislation to do that. We sought to bring in that legislation and it was rejected totally by a hostile Opposition majority in the Senate. Subsequently, one of the earliest pieces of legislation introduced by this Government was brought in by the present Minister for Health, one of the most vociferous objectors to the legislation when we proposed it while in government.

The solution to the problem of health costs is not going to be achieved by making health services more expensive for the users of those services. If it is proposed that patients should pay more, all that is going to happen is that families will be disadvantaged as against single people, large families as against small families, low income earners as against high income earners, the ill as against the healthy. It is my advice, from quite reliable sources, that the Government has not been totally forthcoming in its consideration of this matter. This report is only one of the matters before the Government, and I wish that I had time to go through the various paragraphs of the report. I regard it as a rather shoddy and uncraftsmanlike document, the best effort for a mid-term assignment by an undergraduate, but nothing more. It falls well short of the standard the Parliament should expect.

What the Government is really considering privately is the introduction of deductibles. That means simply that a patient will pay a specified amount of total health costs each year. Whether the amount is set at $50 a year or $500 a year, to a great degree it will discriminate against the ill. For instance, because of major illness a patient could be required to pay a very large amount of money in a short period and he could well find that at one specific point he has to pay the amount of $50, or it might be $500. That might well represent a severe strain on his limited finances. It will mean that the private health insurance schemes will have two funds, a cheap one for the healthy and an expensive one for the not-so-healthy. It will encourage people, as has happened in America, to gamble on the state of their health. The fact is that in America today there is a long-standing passionate debate about the deficiencies of health insurance, very largely because they have variations of this concept of deductibles. The basic Medibank concept will become a repository for the aged, the disabled, the chronically ill, the ethnically disadvantaged and the poor as the system of health insurance reverts to more and more complexity and greater and greater dissatisfaction. That is not the way to solve these problems, and I regret that this Green Paper is so defective as a document of detail on such an important matter.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER:

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

Mr SHORT:
Ballarat

– I am delighted that the Government has provided the House with an early opportunity to debate the Discussion Paper on Paying for Health Care and I congratulate the Leader of the House (Mr Sinclair) for providing adequate time for the paper to be discussed. More importantly, I congratulate the Government on arranging for the Hospitals and Health Services Commission to have the paper prepared in the first place and I congratulate Dr Sax on the quality of the document. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), I happen to believe that this document is a very important and well researched one- a document that is going to have considerable long-term implications and consequences. The paper is extremely comprehensive in its coverage of the issues involved and the whole question of the financing of health services. It should be compulsory reading for all persons with an interest in the subject, which I think would include most Australians. The paper has the great virtue of being a discussion paper, and I am delighted that we have it. I think that in this Parliament we ought to have many more discussion papers than we do have. As the Minister for Health (Mr Hunt) stressed when presenting it, the paper does not necessarily represent the views of the Government and the Government is therefore not locked in to any firm views at this stage. That is good because it gives the community at large the opportunity to present its view to the Government, to be taken into account when decisions come to be made. It also has the virtue, or it should have, of promoting a non-party political debate in this House about the issues involved. I was pleased to note that many speakers on the other side adopted a nonparty political approach, and I was very saddened indeed that some of the leading spokesmen for the Opposition did not see fit to follow that line.

The problems facing us in Australia in the area of health care are enormous, at least so far as the cost of health care and its financing are concerned. Indeed, I believe that there are few more important issues to be resolved than this one, and I use the word ‘resolved ‘ advisedly. It is patently obvious that there is a major problem and it will not go away of its own accord. The problem affects each and every member of the community and each and every taxpayer. The simple fact is that the cost of health care in Australia has escalated to a point where it is absorbing so much of our gross domestic product that it is imposing an onerous burden on each member of the community, either through private contributions or through taxes. It is pre-empting expenditure that might well be better spent in other areas and it is making the task of overall economic management by government increasingly difficult. The pointing out of these simple if unpalatable facts is one of the great strengths of Dr Sax’s discussion paper. His proposals for possible solutions, of course, will be the centre of keen discussion, but no specific solutions can really be forthcoming until there is a general community awareness of the size and nature of the problem.

The problem simply is that we cannot afford continuing increases of the magnitude of recent years, increases that brought the total health bill of this nation to $6,254m in 1976-77, with an even larger amount estimated for the current year. Indeed, for the nine years to 1975-76, total health expenditure in this country rose by 329 per cent, an increase that has far outstripped the rate of increase in wages, prices and population. Between 1971-72 and 1975-76, as the Discussion Paper Paying for Health Care points out, only 8 per cent of the increase in health expenditure was attributed to population changes. Fiftyeight per cent of the increase was due to the higher prices for medical and institutional services and 34 per cent of the increase- that is, more than one-third- was due to increased usage of services in terms of both volume and intensity. Of course, had the usage been less the amount of the increase in total costs due to the higher prices element would have been correspondingly less.

The issues involved in all of these matters are very complex. They include changing medical needs, changing medical aspirations, changing influences and attitudes by the medical profession, changing technology, changing aspirations by potential patients and the methods of financing health costs. All of those changes require careful identification of the underlying factors and examination of the reasons behind them before conclusions for change can be reached confidently. The complexity suggests that any new arrangements to solve these problems- I agree completely with Dr Sax hererequire meticulous planning with long lead times and careful attention to public relations.

I want to touch briefly on those particular areas which seem to me to be the most important. These are the attitude of doctors towards encouraging patients to utilise more and more sophisticated specialist services, the cost of running hospitals and capital costs, and the financial incentives or disincentives to potential users of health services. As the Discussion Paper states, the doctor is the key decision-maker. It is the doctor who allocates health services by recommending revisits, referrals to specialists, ordering laboratory and X-ray investigations, recommending hospital admissions, operations, length of stay in hospital and so on. Dr Sax uses an interesting term. He states that the doctor is and must be the ‘gatekeeper’ of the system. This is particularly important in the case of hospital costs. It is the doctor who in large measure determines the use of hospital services, the costs of which have grown more than any other element within the health care system. Doctors must be made more aware than many of them are at present of the cost of establishing new hospital facilities and of the cost of running and servicing those facilities. Rigid cost benefit analysis must be applied to the decision-making process to determine whether new facilities should be established. As the Discussion Paper states- again I agree very much with the contents of this paragraph- there must be a strict evaluation of the necessity for capital expenditures on new hospital construction and a rationalisation of specialised facilities between hospitals on an intra-regional and inter-regional basis.

Hospital boards of management have an important role to play in this matter as well. Most boards are manned by highly worthy persons, many of them leaders in their local communities. At present, however, at least in Victoria, these boards do not have the positive incentives to be as cost conscious as they might. This is because of what I regard as the ridiculous system of forcing hospitals to return any savings at the end of each year to Consolidated Revenue. I particularly commend to the House paragraph 181 of the Discussion Paper which, amongst other things, states that there should be the development of a system of positive incentives to reward efficient public hospital managements instead of the negative incentives inherent in the current system which returns savings to State treasuries.

Dr Jenkins:

– We ought to copy Canada.

Mr SHORT:

-That is a possibility too. It would involve the use of a uniform accounts mechanism that is being developed. The paragraph goes on to state:

Agreement would be reached on methods of making allowances for unexpected factors which could cause expenditure overruns, and then a scheme might be negotiated for the return to the hospital of a portion of any savings for specified purposes. Such a return from savings would constitute a positive incentive to achieve expenditure limitations.

Of course, the Discussion Paper points out that there are potential difficulties in such a scheme including deliberate over-budgeting. It therefore suggests that pilot projects would be necessary to evaluate the approach in groups of different hospitals. I believe that this is one of the most important paragraphs of the review and I hope that both State and Federal Governments will look very closely at it. At the moment, there is no doubt that major disincentives exist to make hospitals not as efficient as they might be, given the present financial arrangements. I am also very attracted by the following paragraphs in the Paper, paragraph 182, which makes the following suggestion:

Consideration could be given, in the context of revised Commonwealth-State cost-sharing arrangements, to the use of global budgets for all publicly organised health services in a region. Commonwealth contributions to the States might then be based on a formula which aggregates existing payments from several discrete cost-sharing programs. Such arrangements would provide incentives for closing down under-used services or unnecessary duplications of units, and for the use of cheaper alternatives to hospital care to compensate for closures . . .

Improvements in these areas are long overdue. But they will not in themselves cure all the problems. Productivity is also very important. I have a major hospital in my electorate- I am sure I am not atypical in this respect- which has the same number of hospital beds as it had 7 years to 10 years ago. But over the same period the total staff at this hospital has doubled. This is because of changes in the nurse training system, greater job specialisation by non-specialist staff and perhaps for other reasons. These are matters which I believe require most urgent consideration. They do not appear to receive, on my reading of the Discussion Paper, much, if any, attention. But there is no doubt that they have been a major factor behind the increase in hospital costs in recent years for the simple reason that wages and salaries comprise 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the total costs of running hospitals. Decisions in these areas are important and will not attract full community acceptance.

Even more difficult are the decisions that may need to be taken in respect of the proportion of medical bills to be met by the patient. Most of us would accept that it is desirable that patients should pay a certain proportion of their health bills themselves. The question at issue is: What proportion? I believe that the debate on this subject often tends to get out of proportion and to lose its perspective. The argument tends to ignore the real issue, important though that argument is. The real issue in the end is that the community must bear the full cost of health care. It must do so either through personal direct contributions or through taxation. The only solution in the end really lies in educating both potential patients and the medical profession as to the need not to over-use medical care. Both groups need educating. Perhaps the medical profession needs educating more than the patients. It is worth remembering that, despite the enormous increase in health costs over recent years, we are not noticeably more healthy nor do we live longer.

Finally, I express the view-I think it is related to this fact- that we pay far too little attention in this country to preventative medicine as distinct from curative medicine. The Discussion Paper makes the point that the present health financing system provides little inducement to undertake greater effort in this area. I hope that the Government will take full note of this point in framing any future decisions on improving our health system. In this context I particularly have in mind the increasing problem in our community of alcoholism and drug dependence. These growing diseases in our community are causing increasing social, health and economic problems. I believe that unless we as a nation tackle those problems we will see them become increasingly more difficult and more tragic for many people. No one in this Parliament would deny that it is axiomatic that all Australians must have access to essential health services without financial hardship preventing them from obtaining this. But as the Discussion Paper points out, there seems no doubt whatsoever that this can be achieved at less cost than is now involved.

I commend the paper as a frank exposure of the issues involved. I believe it forms a vital basis for community discussion on the vital issues involved and for government consideration in formulating the ongoing future decisions that obviously are required if we are to obtain the best value for our health dollar and a reduction over time in the proportion of our resources going into health. If we do not achieve this we will not stay healthy. We will simply strangle ourselves to death economically.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-I listened with some interest to the debate on this paper. I believe it is a bit like the curate’s egg, as is a lot of the discussion. Honourable members have talked a lot about the onerous question of health costs- onerous because the percentage of the gross domestic product that is outlaid on health has risen to such a high percentage. They forget that before we had a more sophisticated method of health financing it was very onerous for the individual who had to pay health costs from his own pocket and who, in many cases, went without because he was frightened to seek medical attention because of the cost involved resulting, in many cases, in unnecessarily shortened lives.

It is obvious too that one of the most interesting parts of this Paper has not been terribly well read. I think that this aspect deserves more attention by members of this House. I refer to Appendix I which gives a review of the history of health service financing in Australia. I want to make a number of comments on that. Appendix I refers firstly to the beginning of health insurance and then deals with mutual aid or friendly societies which operated under a capitation system and which were in existence for many years. Even at that stage doctors were worried that the Government might intrude into the financing of health care. They formed their own benefit funds to try to prevent this. As is mentioned in this history, part of the Constitution empowered the Commonwealth to legislate on insurance, and the matter was discussed in this House many years ago. In 1923 the Royal Commission on National Insurance recommended a national insurance scheme to cover sickness, invalidity and maternity and superannuation benefits and a separate national health scheme to provide medical care. It failed because of opposition from employers and friendly societies. The nature of the system might have been different, but the principle and the thought behind it were similar.

In 1938 R. G. Casey introduced the National Health and Pensions Bill. When speaking to the Bill he expressed the then conservative Government’s fear of the financial implications of free social security and its wish to preserve the dignity and the self-respect of the recipient of benefits by having him contribute financially towards the scheme. In 40 years members on the other side of the House have not advanced one inch from that position. Despite that attitude they legislated for insurance to provide medical care and other benefits. Only the war interrupted that scheme.

I move on to Curtin ‘s expression of the belief that national health services, like education, should be available to all. Honourable members will recall the stormy days of the 1940s. A scheme was introduced whereby at least government hospitals in the States were paid for their beds and provided treatment of patients occupying those beds without means test or fee. One of the aspects of today’s debate on which I want to comment is the confusion about hospital beds. Some members have appreciated that there are different categories of hospital beds, that there are private hospitals and private investment hospitals financed by doctors and others interested in the health care held, quite apart from government hospitals, which play a role in increasing the cost of health care. I move from that situation to the introduction of the National Health Act in 1953, when some payment went to government hospitals but the major part of the payment depended on the individual taking out voluntary health insurance to receive a further amount.

I graduated in medicine 25 years ago, and my experience with health insurance was in the period before the introduction of Medibank. I knew only too well that many people could not afford the voluntary health insurance that gave them the extra benefit. I saw the bad debts that occurred even amongst those who could afford voluntary health insurance. Despite the patching up that went on it was, overall, a most unsatisfactory situation. So I welcomed the introduction of Medibank. I welcomed even more some of the programs that went with it, such as the introduction of community health centres. The honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Short) spoke about preventive medicine. One of the best steps that was taken in the national health scheme was the development of community health centres. If they had been allowed to operate as was originally intended when they were introduced, if they had been allowed to operate with salaried staff in the communities where they were needed, where there was no need for fee-for-service to attract finance, they would have continued to play the real role they started to play in preventive medicine in the community, with doctors and paramedical workers able to go out into the areas they served to look at so many of the problems that arise in those communities and so many things that could be done in a preventive fashion.

My colleague the honourable member for Batman (Mr Howe) spoke about the failure of hospitals to have a mechanism for comparing costs. He mentioned the work of Dr Ian Brand, at Preston and Northcote Community Hospital, where I am a member of the board of management, and referred to his attempt to use Hospower. This is a system whereby hospitals try to compare their costs. Because of the lack of a true comparative mechanism there can be no true comparison, and that is the criticism of the system. It is said by some people that Medibank led to overutilisation. Several weeks ago there was a statement by Dr Deeble to the effect that on the introduction of Medibank there was a 2 per cent increase in patient visitations to doctors, but that there was a 100 per cent increase in the referrals for diagnostic tests or specialist opinions. It is said that the doctors are the gatekeepers of the scheme. There is a group of diseases called iatrogenic diseases which are doctor produced, and I wonder whether on those figures much of the increase in health costs is not iatrogenic. Some of it is probably very deliberate.

We have all been shocked by recent court cases, not only those in the social security area but also those in other areas, in which doctors have been shown to be making fraudulent returns. This also points up a defect in the medical training that the doctors receive. Our training is, or has been, directed to the more complicated and exotic complaints rather than to the common problems, the common stress situations and the common minor illnesses with which most of the patients attend. Not enough emphasis has been placed on the social aspect of medicine and on the need for care in ordering expensive tests.

Mention has been made of the availability of hospital beds. There appears to be an excess number. Let us look at the availability of government hospital beds and of private hospital beds, particularly in that group of private investment hospitals of which I spoke. I must admit to having a feeling that it is unethical for members of the medical profession to have shares in private hospitals. There is a financial inducement for them to refer patients to those hospitals and for overuse of beds. I think that they should be divorced from the activities of those hospitals. From an examination of the availability of beds there appears to be a skew deviation. If a person can pay the extra money, pay the higher fees, pay the gap insurance and so on he can get a bed, but there is a relative shortage in the public area. One of the basic reasons for the increased cost to the Government of the scheme lies in the old argument of fee-for-service versus salaried service. Time does not permit me to develop that theme and to mention the experiences of Flexner’s view in the early 1900s, the Kaiser health scheme and organisations such as the Windsor health service in Canada.

Mention was made of incentives for hospitals. Canada introduced such incentives in hospitals when the grants made to hospitals initially were based partly on the average bed cost for hospitals in a Province and partly on the average daily bed cost of that hospital itself, which gave an incentive for the hospital to get below the average. Unfortunately, I have little speaking time left, but I want to look at a couple of the conclusions in the discussion paper. Conclusion 2 on page 102 states:

Increased use of medical and hospital services and increases in fees and prices have, resulted in a very rapid growth in expenditures.

We need to make an analysis of that increased use of medical and hospital services and who brings it about. We need to make an examination of who causes the increases in fees and prices. As honourable members know, the suggested Australian Medical Association schedule of fees differs from the Government schedule. Conclusion 3 states:

It is concluded that patients should pay a larger share of the costs of health care directly out-of-pocket for three reasons: to retard rates of expansion in the use of medical and hospital services -

We do not necessarily accept that that is a fact and that it will lead to better health- to reduce the rate of growth of Government expenditures on health services -

I suppose that it would work there, but whether that is a good thing is another matter- to reduce the rate of growth in health insurance contribution rates.

I would like to know more about that mechanism because when I turn to conclusions 20 and 21 I find the following:

C20. It is essential that statistics on claims for health benefits be available for analysis. The supply of information from private health benefit organisations is incomplete . . .

C2 1. A number of matters require intensive study:

Increased direct payments by patients impinge most heavily on the poor.

It goes on to ask a number of questions which are not as yet answered. If they are not answered I have doubts about a number of the other conclusions that are made in this paper. I would like to be able to expand on that further but time will not allow that. I think that the matter requires further examination.

Mr HUNT:
Minister for Health · Gwydir · NCP/NP

– Firstly, I would like to thank all those who have participated in the debate this afternoon and this evening on the Discussion Paper on Paying for Health Care. I join with other speakers, excluding the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden), in complimenting the Hospitals and Health Services Commission for the production of this discussion paper. It has been a provocative paper but it has been a stimulating document. It has evoked discussion both in this Parliament and outside it. It has provoked discussion in the community generally. There have been many newspaper editorials on it, medical writers have written about it and my office has received hundreds of letters from people outside this place expressing a view upon the paper. This is the sort of stimulating discussion that I want to see generated.

I do not want to hear just from the medical profession, the hospitals associations and respective party groups. I want to hear from the individuals in the community and a great number of people have taken the opportunity to discuss the issue with me personally and to write to me. I thank them very much for the interest that they have taken. After all, health costs affect everyone in the community. There is no way that we will escape health costs. It does not matter what modifications we make to the health insurance system. People will make their own contribution by one means or another- either by means of paying levies, paying income tax, paying health insurance contributions, paying directly out of their pockets or by a combination of these methods. The fact of life is that health costs in this country have escalated to alarming levels. The people have become aware of that. I think that in itself will have an effect upon the providers of health care who, after all, are members of the community, as indeed are the consumers. We all live within the community and we all ultimately accept a responsibility for trends that occur once we realise there is a problem.

Many constructive suggestions have been made tonight. Some of the contributions have been based more on ideological concepts rather than on facts. However, the debate has been a reflection of public concern about health costs. The paper that we have been debating places into a historical context and perspective the trends in the consumption of health services and the expenditures on them. It directs attention to the factors influencing usage and expenditures. It undertakes some discussion about the reasons for the cost explosions in the hospitals and throughout the system itself. It is a most useful study and will be quoted for some time to come. We have all identified the problem, and to some extent the reasons for that were the changes that we made to health insurance on 1 October 1976. In the six years to 1976-77 we have seen health costs explode from $2,232m to $6,254m. That is big money when one considers that the value of our iron ore, wool, wheat, meat and coal exports for the last financial year was $4,500m. So health costs in this country have been about one and a half times as great.

The changes that we made to health insurance on 1 October 1 976 quite deliberately transferred a considerable portion of health costs from the taxation pool- the pool to which taxpayers contributeto individuals, to the community. People pay according to their means through the taxation system- through the levy- or by way of premium if they choose to insure privately. The changes on 1 October removed from Consolidated Revenue much of the cost and exposed to the people the costs so that they could see them and so that they could feel them. Thus public awareness has been created, which I think is extremely important to enable us to come to grips with the problem. The problem has been identified in this country and overseas in most Western countries by economists and well informed people for many, many years but it has been only in more recent times that the man in the street and the doctor, the provider of health care, have become concerned about the issue.

I suppose that in considering the problem of health costs in a country like Australia where we have a high standard of living we must take into account the fact that most people place great value on life and comfort. Therefore I do not suppose that it is unreal to expect that a community such as ours would have a growing amount of its gross domestic product spent on health care. Without naming them, in some of the underdeveloped countries where life itself does not assume the value to individuals that it does in our country their order of priority would not be as high as ours, so far as health care is concerned. To some extent perhaps that is why in Western countries where there is a relatively higher standard of living we have seen this escalation of the gross domestic product expenditure on health care increasing year by year. What are the reasons for the great explosion in health care costs in the last six years? Basically, the universal health insurance system I think has made people, certainly the providers of health care, less cost conscious. Secondly, there is the great explosion in wages and salaries in the health care cost area. More than 75 per cent of those people who are employed are females and with the equalisation of pay conditions naturally there was a large explosion in health care costs in the wages area in 1 973-74. That is why there was a great explosion in health costs the year before Medibank became operative. Enormous wage and salary adjustments were made in the hospitals sector. I am not arguing that it was right or wrong. The fact of the matter was that so many of the women who were employed in these areas were underpaid compared with other people in the community and adjustments had to be made.

Dr Klugman:

– In that case surely it was right.

Mr HUNT:

– I am not arguing. I said that I am not saying that it was right or wrong. But if you wish me to commit myself I think the nurses of this country deserved to be paid far better than they were in days gone by. The introduction of Medibank itself did not impose any discipline upon the system. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Hayden) talked about the inefficiency of Medibank Mark II but I do not suppose there was ever a system introduced into any country that was less cost efficient than the Medibank operation itself. The Medibank hospitals agreements were open ended so far as the States were concerned; the whole system was so open ended that it led to all sons of abuses. No attempt was made before we came into office to set up medical services committees of inquiry. These have since been set up in each State. We have introduced the concept of peer review to the medical profession and the Australian Medical Association has indicated its willingness to go ahead with it. We have taken measures to overcome the very heavy costs of the diagnostic services to the community in the areas of pathology and CAT scanning and in the other high technology diagnostic areas of medicine. We have gone to tremendous lengths to try to obtain the co-operation of the providers of health care in rationalising resources and the system generally.

I am pleased to say that we have had tremendous co-operation from the AMA and responsible members of the medical profession. We have tackled the problem of fraud and abuse and certainly the overuse of services where we have been able to catch the culprits. So I think tremendous progress is being made and it is being reflected in a slowing down in the rate of acceleration of the increase in health costs in this country. I demonstrate that by saying that in 1973-74 5.92 per cent of gross domestic product was spent on health; in 1 974-75 the percentage was 6.83 per cent; in 1975-76 it had risen to 7.38 per cent; and in 1976-77 it had risen to 7.67 per cent. The percentage increases in DGP were: Between 1973-74 and 1974-75 there was a great leap of 15.4 per cent; between 1974-75 and 1975-76 it increased by 8.1 per cent; and between 1975-76 and 1976-77 the increase was 3.9 per cent. But what is more interesting is the services per head of population on the medical side. In 1974-75 there were 5.3 services per head of population, rising to 5.94 services in 1 975-76, an increase of 1 1 per cent. The figure fell to 5.82 services per head in 1976-77 which was a net reduction of 2 per cent. Those figures give firm indications that the measures that we took in October 1 976 are in fact working.

But we are not complacent about the situation. We are currently reviewing the whole health insurance system to see whether there are other ways to ensure that the rate of acceleration of health cost in this country does not crowd out our capacity to spend essential resources on other important areas in the economy such as social welfare, the need for job creation, the need to assist industry to employ people and so on. If we allowed health costs to grow uncontrollably we would deny a capacity to help people in other ways. So for that reason alone it is essential that we adopt a responsible position as a government and it is essential that we try to give some leadership to the community, to the doctors, to the hospital administrators and to all those people who are associated with health care delivery in this country.

Judging from the submissions that have come to hand and the attitudes that are being expressed to me and to the Government, I am quite satisfied that there is a willingness on the part of most of the medical profession, the hospitals themselves and the State governments, regardless of their political persuasions, to come to grips with this problem. I am quite confident that if we give ourselves adequate time to deal with this problem we will be able to shape the health insurance system in Australia so that it will be second to none in the world. I believe that we have a health system that is probably second to none. We have very good basic resources in this country. I do not think I have ever heard anybody really seriously criticise the quality of the resources and the services that are available to the Australian people. Our real concern is to ensure that the dollars that are being spent on health care in this country are being spent wisely and prudently

I assure honourable members that the Government will continue to review the situation. It will continue to take whatever measures it thinks are necessary to ensure that the dollars are being wisely spent in the best interests of people and at the same time will ensure that nobody is denied easy access to high quality care in this country regardless of their income level or geographic situation. We have even moved to try to make it easier for people living in remote areas to get specialised attention within the universal health insurance system in this country. We will not allow a situation to develop where people will be denied access to proper health care.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The Minister’s time has expired.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

page 956

BOUNTY (DRILLING MACHINES) BILL 1978

Bill returned from the Senate without amendment.

page 956

SOFTWOOD FORESTRY AGREEMENTS BILL 1978

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 9 March, on motion by Mr Sinclair:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Mr SCHOLES:
Corio

-The Opposition does not oppose the Softwood Forestry Agreements Bill 1978 which provides funds for the continued maintenance of existing softwood plantings under the softwood forestry agreements. However, on behalf of the Opposition I move an amendment in the following terms:

That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Government should continue to provide funds to the States for new plantings in the same proportion as in previous agreements, of about 50 per cent, in order to ensure that reasonable continuity of planting rates is maintained ‘.

The purpose of the amendment is to seek a continuing Commonwealth contribution to plantings of softwoods in Australia. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics in a study released last year estimated that plantings of 30,000 hectares would lead to a domestic surplus of softwoods by the year 2020. It is the opinion of the Opposition however that if Commonwealth support for plantings falls off the States will not increase their expenditure in order to obtain a level of plantings which would bring about that surplus situation. In fact, a deficit situation will be created.

The industry, in the softwoods area, is fairly cost effective when compared with imported timbers. The softwoods section is relatively efficient. There seems to be a sound economic case for a continuation of the Commonwealth ‘s providing funds for such plantings. The Opposition believes some conditions should apply to the availability of those funds. One condition is that cognisance be taken of the report on softwoods of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. This report was presented some time ago. We believe that any clearing of hardwood forests for the purpose of replanting would not be in the best interests of the long-term future of the natural environment or of the nation. Plantings on already cleared land which is becoming available for this purpose can be and are being undertaken commercially. We believe that Commonwealth assistance at this level would ensure a continued planting arrangement which would provide Australia with a substantial proportion of its timber needs into the distant future.

Obviously there are good economic reasons for seeking to obtain a reasonable level of timber from our own resources. One of these reasons obviously is the continuing cost of freight. Any significant shortfalls could well be extremely expensive in freight terms and in purchasing terms in the near future. Obviously supplies of timber at relatively competitive rates are available for importation to Australia at this stage. If, however, Australia reaches a shortfall situation where it becomes significantly dependent on imports the rates at which we purchase could well change considerably. The amounts of money which would be involved if the amendment were accepted would not be great, but they would contribute to a continuity of supply of softwoods for timber and other purposes.

My understanding is that softwood planting is a fairly good income earner for those who undertake it. It brings in something of the order of $ 120 to $ 130 a hectare per annum which is a better return on land usage than is available from a considerable number of more popular or better publicly accepted activities. There are obviously delays m collecting returns.

The Opposition, as I have indicated, does not oppose the Bill. The amendment seeks to have the Government continue the agreement whereby the Commonwealth provides funds, on a 50 per cent basis, for future or continued plantings of softwoods. My understanding is that most States would like to continue these programs. Experience suggests that they are more likely to do so if Commonwealth funds are made available. A fairly rapid drop-off in expenditure in the States can be expected if Commonwealth funds are not reallocated into this area.

The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins), who will second the amendment, will deal more fully with the environmental aspects. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that whilst wishing continuity we also make it clear that we do not believe that it should be at the cost of the destruction of hardwood forests or the clearing of new lands for the purpose. Adequate lands are available which are already cleared. These can be utilised for this purpose with good commercial effect. We believe that the environmental aspects of replanting should be taken into consideration and be part of any agreement under which funds are made available for the purpose in the future. As I have indicated, the Opposition does not oppose the second reading of the Bill but asks the Government to give consideration to the matters contained in the amendment.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:
FORREST, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

-Is the amendment seconded?

Dr Jenkins:

– I second the amendment. I reserve my right to speak at a later stage.

Mr PORTER:
Barker

– I speak in support of the Softwood Forestry Agreement Bill 1978 which is of great economic and social consequence to the forestry industry in Australia generally and especially to my electorate. I look for the moment to the development of the forestry industry. In South Australia the first forestry tree nurseries were started in the south east of the State in the late 1870s. Since that time the industry has grown to a position in which the whole of the forest reserve in South Australia, for which the State Woods and Forests Department is currently responsible, I am informed, totals 129,000 hectares of which the net standing area of coniferous pine plantations to which this Bill relates is about 75,000 hectares. The net standing area of pines in the south east of South Australia alone at 30 June last year was 61,321 hectares, representing about 81 per cent of the total State plantings. Private pine plantations amount to some 17,000 hectares of which some 14,500 hectares is owned by two industrial forestry companies, Softwood Holdings Ltd and South Australian Perpetual Forest Ltd.

Given the limited amount of natural forest, especially in South Australia, the previous Acts have been important to the development of this industry. In 1967 the first Softwood Forestry Agreement Act was passed with the intention of providing Commonwealth assistance to the States on an annual basis to allow the States to achieve a total annual plantation rate of 23,700 hectares by the end of the five year period. The second Softwood Forestry Agreement Act of 1972 reversed downward the annual planting rate from 23,700 hectares to 22,120 hectares. The rate actually achieved was nearer 25,000 hectares per annum and in addition 8,000 hectares was planted privately. In 1967 Australia had about 300,000 hectares of coniferous plantations. This increased to about 450,000 hectares in 1972 and to over 550,000 hectares in 1975. Overall, the two previous arrangements have had a significant effect in adding to the States expansion of softwood production by financing planting and maintenance of about 100,000 hectares of plantations.

One of the main reasons for the introduction of these Acts was the general acceptance at that time that it would be in Australia’s long term interests to become self-sufficient in forest products. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics report of 1977 on the Australian softwoods products industry similarly indicated that it would be in Australia’s economic interest to be self-sufficient in areas such as wood pulp and newsprint. The regional economic advantages to be obtained from increases in the growing and processing of Australian forestry resources are extremely important, expecially when forestry plantations and processing industries can be established in rural and decentralised areas. These industries obviously provide jobs in areas which greatly need them and assist generally in the decentralisation effort.

The BAE report gives estimates of softwood plantation rates to be obtained for the period 1 976- 1 980 that would allow Australia to become self-sufficient in wood supplies by the year 2002. Its conclusions state a rate which is well below the annual average rate of 33,800 hectares planted during the 1970-75 period of which 8,300 hectares were private plantings and 25,500 hectares were plantations on Crown land. It is worth mentioning that the Commonwealth funded about 50 per cent of these pine plantations on Crown land during the period of the 1972 Softwood Forestry Agreement Act. The revised BAE estimates are well below the annual average planting rate of the 1970-75 period and other information available to the Government, including of course the downward revision of population forecasts, led to the conclusions stated by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair) in his second reading speech on this Bill. He said that: . . further agreements along the lines of those authorised by the 1967-1972 and 1976 Acts were not justified at this time. It -

It’ being the Government- . . considered however that it should continue to provide finance to meet the same proportion of the States maintenance expenditure on the total area of softwood plantations established in the 1 1 year period, as the area of Commonwealth assisted plantings bears to the total area of planting in that period.

In other words, this Bill provides an upper limit of $4.2m to cover the costs of maintenance of the plantings financed by earlier Commonwealth assistance. The amount to be received by South Australia will bc 5229,300. Further, the Government will review the situation regarding additional land purchases prior to the commencement of the second of the five years in the program.

I make now a couple of observations about this industry which has caused and, indeed, is causing some public concern. Firstly, I refer, as did the previous speaker, to the environment. In 1974 the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation inquired into the operation of the 1967 and 1972 Acts with particular reference, which I will mention in part, to their environmental, social and economic impact. The Committee’s first three findings were:

  1. Australia’s timber resources are relatively small and should be conserved in the long term interests of the nation.
  2. There is a need for a softwoods planting program, possibly on a lesser scale than that planned at present.
  3. Timber is a versatile, renewable material which compared with other building materials can be produced at lower costs, with far less use of our dwindling energy supplies and with less damage to the environment.

The Committee made other recommendations but I think it is important to note those that I quoted as they provide a sound rebuttal to our more radical environmentalists.

The second point I make is that the forestry industry, like nearly every other industry in Australia, suffered and continues to suffer from the disastrous consequences of the period of Australian Labor Party government. The high inflation rate, the huge increase in labour costs and industrial lawlessness suffered by Australia during that period priced workers out of jobs. The result in the timber industry was a speeding up of the shift to mechanisation. In 1972-73 107,387 people were employed in forestry and forestry industries in Australia. In 1974-75 105,004 people were employed. In 1975-76 97,797 people were employed. That is a loss of some 10,000 jobs in this industry in three years. So it is not only this Bill but also the Government ‘s continuing success in restoring economic sanity which will benefit the forestry industries and assist the States in endeavouring to maintain employment in these industries at the present levels. I can assure the House that this must be one of the most important factors to be considered. It certainly is to the people in my electorate, in towns such as Meadows, Mount Burr, Millicent, Nangwarry, Tarpeena, Mount Gambier and other towns, who rely on this industry.

Finally I want to raise the question of government intervention in this industry. Clearly the nature of the industry, the long-term investment period and other factors necessitated government assistance. However, in South Australia this has now gone much further. Recently the Government in South Australia bought a large share of a relatively small timber retailer in

Mount Gambier. The Government said at the time that this was to provide an outlet for the State’s wood and forestry operations. The State department is a very large supplier of timber. So it was quite clear that this outlet which will service only a relatively small market really was not what the State Government was looking for. If the State Government were genuine, if it wanted to get into marketing, I just cannot understand why it did not get into marketing in Adelaide where there is a much larger market.

I believe the real reason was that the State Labor Government thought that it would just put its toe in the water to test the temperature, to see how much outcry there was in South Australia against this further socialisation of private enterprise and to see whether this State Government takeover of private enterprise in South Australia would be considered by the South Australian public to be okay. I warn the people of South Australia that if there is not much of an outcry and if there is not a continuing outcry I believe the Dunstan Government will press on with its takeovers of South Australian industries. Clearly such a philosophy is quite contrary to my own, but I suppose it would not be so bad if the State Government were efficient. At the moment it is having difficulties in running the Government, let alone private enterprise as well. The State Government’s Budget has blown out to a deficit of about $26m this year and its efforts in the field of private enterprise are no better than its efforts elsewhere. I refer to one instance. The South Australian Meat Corporation is run by the South Australian Government. Its costs are among the highest costs of abattoirs in Australia. It is pricing itself out of the market and its workers are losing their jobs. As a result of a misconceived belief by the workers in that industry, they are now picketing the export of live sheep.

Mr Cohen:

- Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member for Barker has gone slightly wide of the provisions of this Bill. What he is saying now has absolutely no relevance to this Bill.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Drummond:

-I must uphold the point of order. I refer the honourable member for Barker to the Bill.

Mr PORTER:

-Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can understand the Opposition’s concern about this matter because many primary producers are gravely affected by the union action in South Australia. I think it is very important as far as the forestry industries in South

Australia and the jobs of the people in my electorate are concerned that the same thing does not happen to them as has happened to the people who work for the South Australian Meat Corporation. Those people are losing their jobs. I do not want the same thing to happen to the people in my electorate who are in the forestry industry. The South Australian Government has not shown that it is able to run the corporation. I do not believe it will be able to run the private enterprise that it is trying to get into in forestry. I make this warning to the people of South Australia and ask them for their support: Stop this Government before things get worse. We have already paid a high price for the Labor Government in South Australia. We have even gone as far as paying for Don Dunstan ‘s legal action for damages in the Supreme Court. We are paying the costs of the Crown Solicitor. I warn the people of South Australia that it is very important that this takeover of private enterprise, especially in the forestry industry, should not be allowed to continue. I support this Bill.

Debate (on motion by Dr Jenkins) adjourned.

page 959

ADJOURNMENT

Community Youth Support Scheme- Middle East- Fraser Government- Floods in New South Wales -National Information Policy -Export of Live Sheep-Unemployment

Motion (by Mr Adermann) proposed:

That the House do now adjourn.

Dr JENKINS:
Scullin

-At Question Time today I asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Street) a question about the funding of Community Youth Support Scheme projects. I received an answer which indicated that CYSS, like motherhood, was very desirable, but I did not receive an answer to my question. It so happens that many project officers working in CYSS are trying to make what is in many ways an unsatisfactory scheme work. Yet the basis of the funding of CYSS is only for a short-term period. The Professional Officers Association in Victoria has written to the officer in charge of the scheme in Victoria pointing out that the six-monthly funding limits the effectiveness of the scheme in many ways. Much of the time has to be spent in preparing submissions, and no planning can go on except for the most short-term contingencies. Among the staff there are people with considerable expertise and considerable feeling for persons for whom they are working, but this short term six-month financing makes it quite impossible for them to plan their future course. This limits the efficient functioning of the projects.

At Question Time today I asked: Is it a fact that CYSS projects are funded only until 30 June 1978? They are funded only until that date. There is a guarantee of funds only until 30 June. The officers have no indication at this stage, in April, what finance will be available to them after 30 June. The one answer I got today from the Minister was: Yes, the scheme is to continue. That is not much for the people involved in those projects in Victoria who must plan ahead, in the job they are trying to do.

I mention this matter because I have been cooperative. We have a quite reasonably successful project operating in my area. Heaven knows, there is enough work there to be done. The staff are suffering the problem of having to plan programs with short-term finance. If this scheme is to play a meaningful part in combating the effects of unemployment the officers who are trying to support the affected young people at a time of high unemployment- often involving young people who are in the transition period between leaving school and taking their first job, a time when they feel that their future is in doubt and a time when they feel their place in society is in doubt- must be supported. If this short-term attitude on funding of the scheme is to continue, if less than three months before the finance is due to run out they have no idea what the Government’s future commitment will be, all the protestations in the world destroy the work these eager young officers are trying to carry out. I ask the Minister to take note of the question I asked today and to try to give the officers who work under that scheme, if not me, an answer to it.

Mr SIMON:
McMillan

– I should like to refer to an interview in a This Day Tonight program on IS March between Mr Sam Lipski and Mr Bill Hartley on the Israeli reprisals following the El Fatah raid of the Saturday before. I will refer to the transcript of that program. It concerns me that the person who introduced the two speakers, Mr Clive Hale, perhaps did not properly introduce Mr Bill Hartley. To the embarrassment of some honourable members opposite, he was described as a member of the Australian Labor Party and a known advocate of the Palestinian cause.

When one reads the full transcript one can see that no viewer would have been in any doubt about who Mr Bill Hartley is and what he represents. He was described in that interview as having said previously that the Israelis were ‘a cabal of murderers who have the gall to claim that they are heading a responsible nation state’. I should have thought that the person introducing him would have gone on to describe Bill Hartley as an anu-Semite and a supporter of the terrorist tactics of El Fatah. Mr Bill Hartley described El Fatah as a ‘liberation arm of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation and the core organisation of the PLO’. He made another incredible statement when he said:

Now as far as that operation the other day I defend operations in what basically is occupied territory.

Mr Bill Hartley is a man who endorses and defends a terrorist organisation bent on the destruction of Israel. He is a man who supports an organisation which believes that the bombing and murder of civilian men, women and children is an acceptable means of settling international disputes and solving many of the long-standing problems in the Middle East, such as the settlement of Palestinian refugees. If one reads the transcript further one will see that the viewer was given some indication of the twisted mind of this particular gentleman, Mr Bill Hartley, when he said:

The Israeli don ‘t care about the lives of their own people. If they can reject one Palestinian demand they would be prepared to wipe out half of Tel Aviv to achieve that end . . .

That absurd conclusion by Mr Bill Hartley is fairly typical of the utterances he has made. The people of Israel respect and treasure life. The people of Israel love life, respect it and are prepared to fight for it. To suggest that they would kill their own people in the way in which Bill Hartley has described it is absurd and labels him for what he is. I would label him as a twisted and bitter anti-Semite who is wracked by hate of anything and anyone connected with the state of Israel.

The action taken by the Israelis was not an act of retaliation. It was prompted by the brutal and senseless murder of Israeli men, women and children. It was an act of self-defence by a sovereign state to protect its citizens. In case there is any doubt about the position of the state of Israel, I refer honourable members to a report on the Middle East of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which was chaired by the former member for Fremantle, who was a highly respected member of this House. In the preface it is stated:

The stakes are higher for Israel than for almost any other nation on earth- there may well be national extinction and genocide. The Ashkanasy (European) Jews have recent memories of genocide in Auschwitz, Belsen, Dachau and the Warsaw Ghetto. The Oriental Jews have memories af violence and expulsion from Arab states. The Jews will not again submit to genocide. They will not be helpless, as were so many of Hitler’s victims.

In conclusion I should like to emphasise a few points. It would be well for people like Mr Bill Hartley to remember that the PLO is bent on the destruction of the sovereign state of Israel. No responsible government would tolerate unwarranted, unprovoked terrorist attacks on its citizens. The Government of Israel has no alternative but to remove the source of the terrorism which damages the security and wellbeing of its people. The people of Israel seek peace in the troubled and explosive Middle East area. That is now recognised by the Government of Egypt and President Sadat. Israel has been abused. Israel is ready, willing and able to enter into just and peaceful settlement, as are other responsible leaders in the Middle East. I condemn the remarks of Mr Bill Hartley. I trust that if he ever appears again on a program such as This Day Tonight he will be more suitably described as the twisted man that he is.

Mr FitzPATRICK (Riverina) (10.35)- I rise tonight to make the statement that the Fraser Government has set a lamentably low standard of government to open up another three years on the Treasury benches. Those words are not my words or the words of the Labor Opposition; they are the words of an editorial in the national businessmen’s daily newspaper, the Australian Financial Review. They were not written about the current disgraceful affairs at Aurukun. They were written about the action of the Government regarding increases in health insurance charges, which, of course, is another disgraceful affair. Those words appeared in the 3 January 1978 issue of that newspaper.

I believe that Australians now remember the propaganda of the Liberal-National Country Party caretaker government in the 1975 election campaign. In that campaign the Labor Government was presented as a crisis-ridden government. Australians will remember the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr Malcolm Fraser) to put sport back onto the front pages. Unfortunately in the 100 days or so since the Fraser Government was given a second chance to govern the country, in the interests of all, the affairs of the Government have been very much in the headlines. The Aurukun situation is not an isolated case. The health funds affair, the Kerr affair, the International Business Machines affair and the circumstances that led to the resignation of the former Treasurer and present Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr Lynch) have all occurred during the reign of this Government. All these controversies have occurred in the space of three months. They have occurred during the period of office of a coalition government which promised stable government for Australia. Of course, we have been warned that there is worse to come. We have been warned that a record deficit is coming up. I remember the comments made about the deficit during the Labor Government’s term of office. We were told that we could not afford our living standards to increase at such a rate. Let us examine what the Australian Financial Review has had to say about the present situation. On Thursday, 2 March, under the heading ‘Howard changes deficit tune’, it stated:

Faced with the prospect that it will end up with a Budget deficit this year higher than last year’s the Government, after continually hammering away at the importance of the size of the deficit, yesterday switched to saying that there was no need for concern on this front.

Why the Government thinks we should be unconcerned is obvious. The deficit is not used to build hospitals, to extend the sewerage systems, to build homes for young married couples or the aged or to provide employment opportunities, as it was during the term of office of the Labor Government. It is used to give relief to multinational corporations. On 27 March, Philips Industries Holdings Ltd announced that it anticipated an operating loss of $558,000. After using up the various tax concessions and deductions made available by a large deficit, the Philips company made an operating profit of $2,774,000. 1 suggest to the people of Australia that they should compare those concessions and deductions with the cuts that the Government waved around at the last election and which came into effect last February. The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the Melbourne University estimated that 43 per cent of the benefits from the tax cuts would go to the top 10 per cent of income earners. They have given the Prime Minister another $70 a week. The people of Australia must be constantly on the alert to ensure that the Government bows to the wishes of the people of Australia, including the people of Aurukun, the young married couples, the homeless aged persons and the unemployed.

Mr O’KEEFE:
Paterson

-A fortnight ago in the Lower Hunter region the biggest flood for many years occurred. The flood caused tremendous devastation to farmers in the Maitland district and to those living beside the Williams and Paterson Rivers. The farmers in the Lower Hunter area are very large suppliers of vegetables to the markets in Newcastle and Sydney, and because of the tremendous and incessant rains that have fallen over the past five or six years they have experienced a number of floods. It is estimated that in many cases they have lost crops of potatoes, carrots, cauliflowers and other vegetables valued at upwards of $4,000. In past years farmers whose land has been devastated have been able to obtain loan funds at low rates of interest, but the stage has now been reached where they are unable to service those loans. What they require now, following this last disaster, is grant money to enable them to buy seed and fuel, repair their fences and employ labour so that they can get back into production.

I repeat: Grant money is required by these farmers to enable them to achieve a viable state and get back into production. Where they have no income as a result of this disaster they are entitled to social security payments, but those payments last for only a few weeks. They should be extended until such time as the farms are in production once again. Not only has my area been affected but also that of the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Lucock). Gloucester and Dungog have suffered severe flooding and farmers there have lost crops and are in serious plight.

The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Sinclair), together with members of the Opposition from the New South Wales State Parliament, visited this area last week and he is well acquainted with the problems faced by the farmers. I too covered the area on a charter flight and can say that the disaster is very serious. I am asking the Government to view it seriously and to make grant money available to farmers whose lands have been devastated. As I said, it is no use making money available to them at low rates of interest because they are unable to service their present loans. To incur further loans would be disastrous financially for them. This is a serious economic problem for the city of Maitland and the farming area in the Lower Hunter. As a result of my speech tonight I hope that those farmers will get some sorely needed assistance. I hope that the Minister and the Government will view the situation seriously and ensure that that assistance is forthcoming. I might add that dairy farmers in the area also have been affected. Their output of milk has been seriously affected. Nevertheless they have some income and are thus prevented from receiving any social security payments or assistance. They too are facing serious problems.

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

-The Australian community should work out a national information policy as a matter of very high priority, and there are 10 brief points that I want to make. One: All Australians are entitled to free access to information and library services of acceptable standard relative to the affluence of the State, regardless of where they live, their social and economic position, their language, their age, their mobility or physical disabilities. Two: The effective working of democracy depends on the availability of adequate information and the capacity for its independent evaluation. The right to know, to be informed, is basic to every person. Access to information and the right to its availability should be vigorously pursued. In our society, access to information is a vital resource of government and of the public and, like other resources, it should not be concentrated in the hands of the rich. Three: The Australian community is divided between the information rich and the information poor. Women, migrants, the aged, the young, the poor and the handicapped are victims of inadequacies in the information delivery system. Information facilities are remote from those who need them most. They do not know what is available and do not know how to remedy their lack of information.

Four: The enormous inequity in information transfer means that the position of the individual compared to governments and corporations may deteriorate rapidly. The increasing volume of available information may lead to, firstly, an increasing tendency towards specialisation and the fragmentation of knowledge; secondly, a growing sense of alienation or anomie from many people who feel unable to understand what is going on around them; and thirdly, a risk that power will move towards the technocrats and away from generalists such as members of parliament and general institutions such as parliaments. Five: Information problems should not continue to be treated in the narrow perspective of science and technology and left to scientists and experts alone. They should be envisaged in the broader context of knowledge and social welfare in which information is regarded as a fundamental resource. Six: Governments must not allow automated systems and networks to develop in a chaotic fashion for strictly commercial motives. They must understand and plan for general control over the new technologies that will come into use everywhere within the next 10 years.

Seven: As recommended in the Coombs report on government administration, a Commonwealth information advisory council should be set up to define and codify, firstly, the right of access of individuals or public and private bodies to this information resource and the inherent limits to this right; secondly, the political and social guarantees which individuals and institutions can legitimately expect, including protection of privacy and professional secrecy; thirdly, the basic rules of reciprocity which should govern relationships between public and private systems and networks; fourthly, a code of ethics tor professions and industries concerned in this field.

Eight: The provision of public library and information services should remain the collective responsibility of Commonwealth, State and local governments, funded in part by each of those levels of government, as recommended by the report of the Horton Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries, which has not yet been discussed by this House. Nine: Public libraries must become information resource centres, including local data banks, information about access to government services, with greater emphasis on non-book material such as gramophone records, tapes, cassettes, microforms and audio-visual materials generally. Ten: The expansion and extension of all library and information services should be achieved through co-operation and or contract and the formation of library systems and networks, again as recommended by the Horton Committee, with each service retaining its autonomy within the overall State plan for the development of these services. Already existing information services should be co-ordinated and integrated to avoid duplication and waste of resources.

Mr NEIL:
St George

– I wish to add my voice to the voices of honourable members who are urging the Government to take all reasonable and proper steps in relation to the dispute that is preventing live sheep from being exported from Australia and in relation to the general issue. I do not know what the position is as of this moment, but as of a short time ago the union is reported to have rejected a compromise. Australia’s primary industries are in very serious difficulties, and I do not believe that people in the cities sufficiently acknowledge that. I can assure members of the House, however, that there is a growing awareness within the cities and within the electorate of St George of the difficulties that this nation faces and of the problems of both primary and secondary industries.

Unless we co-operate as a nation, unless we have broad understandings of national problems and unless everyone in this country tries to pull his or her weight, this country either will go through the floor or bounce very badly on the bottom for a great deal longer before we get out of our economic difficulties, despite the great efforts of this Government in the last two years. If trade union leaders maintain their present attitude in regard to this dispute, they are worthy of nothing more than the severest censure. I do not think that I can recall a strike, except for the mail strike which took place recently, in which the union involved has had so poor a case, has been so badly led or has adopted such a stupid attitude to cut off its own head as is occurring with the strike in South Australia that is preventing the export of live sheep.

The Middle East market is a very important market for Australia. Australia already is losing out badly to at least three Eastern European countries which are now selling their produce in many of the Middle East countries. They are able to sell their produce because under their systems of government, through dictation and direction, combined with the guarantees that they are able to give of no industrial trouble, they can guarantee supplies to countries which want to purchase their products. A few years ago when Australia first entered the overseas market for live sheep, our industries had to do so in the democratic way. They did so by negotiation without the backing of governments that could direct resources to certain areas and they did so in the face of union difficulties. It is well known that the Australian ability to sell in the Middle East market has been prejudiced severely by union activities. Those activities are the same types of activities that prevented sales of primary produce at various times to Indonesia and to Chile.

Australia ‘s trade with the Middle East countries has been developing little by little. But since 1973, particularly in relation to countries such as Saudi Arabia, we have had to import vastly more in dollar terms than we have exported to them. Previously, we had a more favourable trade balance. Australia is a developing country as well as a developed country. It is ridiculous to say that we do not have to rely to a great extent on our primary industries. They still are our very major industries from the point of view of exports. The trade in live sheep with the Middle East is now earning Australia about $100m per annum. But what do the workers in these unions in South Australia do? They go on strike. They not only prejudice the immediate sales but also throw the entire market into jeopardy. Countries like Saudi Arabia simply will not put up with this state of affairs. They will cut off the entire purchase if we are not reasonable with them and if we cannot guarantee supply.

We have a situation now in which the unions claim that because of a possible loss of work by slaughtermen they will strike. They do not seem to realise that, if the industry goes down the drain, no jobs will be saved. They do not seem to realise that, if the level of exports is reduced, most of the sheep will be kept as wool cutters.

They do not seem to realise that, if the trade booms, the whole of the economic structure in Australia will develop and that their jobs will be much more sound. I urge the Government to press the use of section 45d of the Trade Practices Act as strongly as possible. I am reminded of what happened a few years ago when a union prevented the wool clip being transported from Kangaroo Island to Adelaide. The union concerned had an injunction laid against it. Its leaders refused to obey the injunction and were gaoled for contempt of court. Even trendy Mr Don Dunstan was forced to refuse political requests to release the leaders from gaol. The unions eventually backed down as they ought to do in this case.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar) Order! The honourable members dme has expired.

Mr HOWE:
Batman

-A great deal has been said in this House, particularly by honourable members on this side of the House, about the problem of unemployment. I draw the attention of the House to unemployment as it affects my electorate and as it affects the northeastern corridor of Melbourne where currently more than 10,000 people are unemployed. In particular, I refer to the way in which the Government is exploiting not only the unemployed people of this country but also those people who are endeavouring to work with the people who are unemployed.

The honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) referred earlier this evening to the way in which this Government has been quite indecisive in relation to its commitment to the Commonwealth Youth Employment scheme. I think every honourable member on this side of the House would have very strong reservations about the efficacy of that scheme. Its only purported purpose is to instil the work ethic into people who are currently unemployed. The young people I have met through that scheme do not appear to lack that ethic. What they lack is access to jobs, but that scheme will not meet that problem.

Nevertheless, operating within my electorate are at least four centres which are funded through that scheme and which have attracted a number of young people, some of whom have considerable qualifications and experience in working with young people. I believe they are doing a very good job, but they are operating in a situation in which they do not know beyond the next couple of months whether their operations will be funded. So they live in a situation of constant uncertainty. It seems to me that if the

Government establishes a scheme such as the Commonwealth Youth Employment scheme it ought to make up its mind and it ought to give at least those people who are working within such schemes a degree of certainty. The present level and period of funding seem to me to be quite inadequate. It seems to me that the Government ought to commit itself, if it intends to commit itself to the scheme at all, for a period of at least 12 months. It ought to give the people who are working in the scheme some frame within which to plan and some sense of security.

Honourable members might say that it is bad enough that the 20 or 30 people working within such schemes in my electorate are living in uncertainty. But let us turn to the Public Service and in particular the Northcote branch of the Commonwealth Employment Service. One is also confronted with an example of the scandalous way in which this Government treats not only the unemployed but also the people whose responsibility it is to work with the unemployed. In 1975 that office was opened in a small shop front in High Street, Northcote. At that time it had a staff of about seven members. That same branch of the Commonwealth Employment Service located in that same small shop front has a staff of 20 members in 1978. Those 20 staff members are crowded together in an office which has no partitions between the people who work there. Anybody who goes there to be interviewed and to be counselled has to be dealt with in an atmosphere which amounts to a public meeting. That is the way in which this Government is exploiting the unemployed and those who work with the unemployed. It has not even offered to create a proper facility for a branch of the Commonwealth Employment Service which deals with 200 people a day. That branch has no conference room. It has one toilet which has to be shared by the 20 members of the staff. The situation in the office is scandalous. It reflects on the Minister for Social Security (Senator Guilfoyle) and on the Government. It creates an impossible situation for those people who are going through one of the greatest periods of hardship that they will ever experience in their lives. This Government is a heartless government, an unfeeling government. It kicks the unemployed of this country in the guts and at the same time it is prepared to exploit people who have a certain degree of idealism and hope and who are attempting to deal with the problem. It is a problem being created and exacerbated by the most insensitive government we have had in our history. I draw the attention of the House to the situation, and I also inform the House that delegates from region 14 will be at Parliament House tomorrow when people will gain some understanding of the situation if they take the opportunity to meet those delegates.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr MillarOrder! The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr LUCOCK:
Lyne

– I support strongly the remarks made by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr 0 ‘Keefe). There are bridges and roads in the areas to which he referred. These also have to be supported by the ratepayers, and the ratepayers are the farmers. It is necessary that grants should be made and that social security payments should be made until those people in the affected areas are able to draw an income. That is one of the matters which I believe we have to face. Unfortunately one of the New South Wales State Ministers said that one particular area, the Manning, cannot be gazetted as a disaster area. If it is not a disaster area, I would hate to see one, because in such an area there would be no one left at all. I believe that in view of the serious circumstances pertaining not only in the electorates of Paterson and Lyne but also in other electorates in the total area of coastal New South Wales there is a need for a reappraisal of the attitude taken in relation to assistance being given to those people because they have been set back so many times as a result of floods. I believe that the Government has a responsibility to look at the situation in a way that it has never been looked at before.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Millar:

Order! It being 1 1 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.15 p.m.

House adjourned at 1 1 p.m.

page 966

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE

The following answers to questions upon notice were circulated:

Interpretations of De Facto Marital Relationships (Question No. 3)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Are different interpretations of de facto relationships applied by various Government departments.
  2. If so, do the opposing definitions used by the Taxation Commissioner and the Department of Social Security disadvantage the individual and benefit consolidated revenue as a consequence.
  3. Why does the Taxation Commissioner treat a de facto spouse as single while the Department of Social Security treats a de facto spouse as married.
  4. Will he take action to eliminate these differing interpretations.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. No, not always. In some cases, the use of the special definitions confers an added benefit. In other cases, they preclude payment of a benefit.

For example, the provisions under the Social Services Act extend eligibility for a wife’s pension (sections 31-33 of the Social Services Act) to a de facto wife. Were it not for those provisions, eligibility would be restricted to de jure wives. Similarly, the provisions can also result in a cohabiting couple receiving a higher amount by way of combined pensions than they would if they were treated as separate entities and the ‘halving principle’ (by which the income of each party is taken to be half the combined income of both) were not applied.

The provisions, however, can also result in refusal of pension or a lower rate of pension being paid where a de facto marriage partner is in receipt of income. In the case of widow s pension and supporting mother’s benefit, it may also mean that pension or benefit is not payable because the claimant is treated as a married woman and not as a widow or supporting mother.

  1. The Taxation Commissioner does not necessarily treat a de factor spouse as single. For example, in determining whether a taxpayer may be entitled to a deduction in respect of housing loan interest, the income of a partner must be accounted for as for a legal spouse.

The basic rationale behind the interpretations applied is to ensure that a man and woman, who for any reason live together in circumstances similar to that of husband and wife, are not placed in a better position than a legally married couple.

  1. The matters will be examined further when the relevant legislation next comes up for review.

Sugar: Contract with Japan (Question No. 4)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has he been in contact with the Japanese Government regarding the disputed Australian-Japanese sugar contracts.
  2. If so, by what method and on what dates.
  3. Will he table in the Parliament transcripts or copies of any communication.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 had two discussions with representatives of the Japanese Government concerning the long term sugar contract with Japan.

In February 1 976 1 had talks on this subject with Mr Abe, the then Minister for Agriculture and Forestry. In July 1977, in Canberra, I spoke with Mr Sugiyama, Director-General, Food and Marketing Bureau, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. In these discussions I emphasised the importance we attached to the contract with Japan and expressed the hope that a satisfactory settlement at the commercial level could be reached. In addition, the then Department of Overseas Trade consulted me and kept me fully informed concerning the numerous discussions on this issue which took place both in Canberra and Tokyo after December 1 975, between Australian and Japanese officials and sugar industry representatives.

A successful commercial resolution to the dispute was reached on 26 October 1977 and was supported by letters exchanged between the Australian and Japanese Governments dated 1 1 November 1977.

  1. See (1)above
  2. The records of the conversation are confidential and it would be inappropriate for me to table these in Parliament.

Beef: Return to Grower (Question No. 7)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What is the average landed cost of Australian beef per kilogram in (a) Japan, (b) the United States of America and (c) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
  2. What percentage of the average landed price is received by the grower.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Precise details of the landed cost of beef in overseas markets are not available. Prices for individual sales depend on conditions surrounding each contract as negotiated between Australian exporters and overseas importers. The Australian Meat and Livestock Corporation is, however, able to supply ‘representative’ prices for the United States and Japan. For example, the average price for Australian boneless cow beef c.i.f. New York in the week ended 9 February 1978 was approximately SA1.6 1 per kg. For the Japanese market in the same week, chilled beef was quoted at around $ A 1.68 per kg f.o.b. : some SA0.22 per kg would need to be added to bring this to a c & f basis landed in Japan. I understand beef sold to the USSR over the past year has been at prices generally comparable with those received from the United States market.
  2. It is not possible to obtain a satisfactory measure of the general percentage of the overseas average landed price of meat that is returned to the cattle producer. Calculations could be made for particular consignments where separate allowance can be made for a number of variable elements including producer’s selling costs, processing costs, carcass dressing percentages and meat yield, return from byproducts, costs of storage, handling and shipment and the range of selling prices for the various cuts of meat involved. Direct comparison of saleyard prices for cattle with average export meat prices can thus provide no more than a broad guide to the general relationship between cattle prices and returns from meat. It cannot take full allowance for variable elements and in particular for any change in prices between the time of purchase of cattle and the sale of the meat or any difference between the composition of exports and the meat cuts produced by a number of carcases. On 9 February 1978 average saleyard prices for cows in capital city markets in Australia ranged from some 42c to 56c per kg carcase weight. These average prices per kg of bone in carcase meat were equivalent to some 26 per cent to 35 per cent of the price being quoted for Australian boneless cow beef in New York in the same week (SA 1.6 1 per kg).

Registrants for Employment: Caringbah and Wollongong (Question No. 14)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many persons were registered for employment at the (a) Caringbah and (b) Wollongong Commonwealth Employment Service Offices at the end of each month during 1976 and 1977.
  2. ) How many and what proportion of these persons were (a) female and (b) male (i) under 2 1 years of age and (ii) 2 1 years of age and over.
  3. What were principal work categories stated for each group referred to in part (2).
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. (2) and (3) In view of the volume of requests for detailed labour market information and the time involved in extracting and preparing such information, I have arranged for local offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service, when requested by a member of Parliament, to provide readily available raw data which may be relevant to the question. I suggest that the honourable member contact the Officers-in-Charge of the CES offices concerned.

Defence Service Homes (Question No. 22)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has any land, in addition to that listed in answer to my questions No. 1401 (Hansard, 7 December 1976, page 3454) and No. 944 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2530), been purchased for Defence Service Homes; if so, what was the purchase price.
  2. Has any land listed in those answers since been sold or developed; if so, (a) what land was sold, (b) what was the sale price, (c) to whom was it sold, (d) which areas have been developed and (e) what was the cost per block of developed land.
Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1)No

  1. (a), (b) and (c) Yes. A parcel of 1.2 hectares of undeveloped land at Mulgrave, Victoria, has been sold for $129,314 to the City of Waverley, Victoria. 371 separate blocks in various estates have been sold to individuals. Prices ranged from $2,346 to $ 13,500.
  2. (d) and (e). The Defence Service Homes Corporation has developed 21 hectares of land at Campbelltown, New South Wales, with an estimated average cost of $7,500 per block and 5.7 hectares of land at Wantirna, Victoria, at an estimated average cost of $ 1 1 ,300 per block.

Pensions paid by Department of Veterans’ Affairs (Question No. 23)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

How many persons in the electoral divisions of (a ) Hughes and (b) Cook currently receive pensions from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and how many persons are receiving each type of pension.

Mr Garland:
LP

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

There are 2,878 people in the Division of Hughes, and 4,338 in the Division of Cook in receipt of pensions from the Department of Veterans ‘Affairs. The numbers of persons in receipt of each kind of pension are shown in the table below. It should be noted that these figures are not mutually exclusive, as some pensioners are in receipt of more than one type of pension.

Advertising (Question No. 27)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period: (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975; (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976; (c) 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977; and (d ) 1 July 1 977 to date.
  2. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. ) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1 977-78.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. (a) $1,196

    1. $6,949
    2. $18,624
    3. $13,297.
  2. ) No advertising campaigns have been undertaken. Advertising expenditure was related to the recruitment of staff.
  3. Division 490-2, Item 04- Australian Fisheries

Division 490-2, Item 08- Forestry Scholarships

Division 490-2, Item 10- Administrative- Incidental and Other Expenditure

Division 490-3, Item 03- Agricultural Extension Services

Division 490-3, Item 10- Australian Plague Locust Commission

Division 494-2, Item 05- Bureau of Animal HealthIncidental and Other Expenditure

Division 495-2, Item 04-Inspection Services- Other than Meat: Incidental and Other Expenditure

Division 497-2, Item 04- Bureau of Agricultural Economics-Incidental and Other Expenditure.

  1. Not applicable. Request for advertisements are forwarded to the Australian Government Advertising Service which arranges placement in newspapers and periodicals.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.
  4. Nil.

Advertising (Question No. 48)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 and (d ) 1 July 1 977 to date.
  2. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. ) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1 977-78.
Mr Garland:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: (1-7) The Department of the Special Trade Representative (formerly the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator) was established on 17 July 1977. No expenditure has been incurred on advertising and services by the Department.

Advertising (Question No. 49)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14December 1975 to 30 June 1976,(c) 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 and (d) 1 July 1 977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. (a) $24,300 (this includes an amount of $12,000 for Darwin Cyclone compensation advertising).

    1. $36,800.
    2. $ 107,400.
    3. $75,900.

  2. Advertising by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is primarily concerned with the provision of resources functional to the Department and maintaining the necessary liaison with its clientele. In the periods concerned there was additional advertising for the filling of staff vacancies, due to recruitment difficulties. The additional cost was:

    1. June-July 1976- Medical Officer vacancies in Queensland were advertised in Britain- approximate cost $1,000.
    2. May-July 1976- Nursing staff vacancies in Victoria and South Australia were advertised in Britain and New Zealand- approximate cost $ 1 , 700.
    3. March 1976- Advertisements placed for the postgraduate course in Geriatric Nursing held at Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales- approximate cost $400.

In addition to the amounts listed in (1 ) above, expenditure was incurred for Departmental publications for the purpose of informing Departmental clientele about the benefits available to veterans. The cost was:

  1. $4,000.
  2. $44,200.
  3. $27,000.

  4. $20,300.

    1. Funds allocated are from Divisions 692-2-11, 690-2-07 and 690-2-02.
    2. No advertising agencies or consultants were used.
    3. Not applicable.
    4. Not applicable.
    5. Estimated expenditure for 1977-78 against the cost of advertising in part ( 1 ) is $127,000 and the estimated expenditure for 1977-78 of advertising by way of internal publications for promotion of Government programs is $52,000.

Interpreters and Translators (Question No. 72)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) On what dates was a working party established in each Territory to examine means of co-ordinating language services, as recommended in the report of the interdepartmental working parry on interpreters and translators which he tabled on 22 February 1977 (Hansard, 2 June 1977, page 2529).
  2. Which departments have, in accordance with the recommendations of the working party, located and identified positions where at least 10 per cent of the working time of the occupant is spent dealing with clients in a language other than English.
  3. Which other recommendations of the working party (a) have been accepted, (b) have been rejected and (c) are still under consideration by the Government.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. Australian Capital Territory- 25 January 1978; Northern Territory of Australia- 7 February 1 978.
  2. As at 28 February 1978, the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Health and the Department of Education have identified positions where at least 10 per cent of the occupants’ working time is spent in dealing with clients in a language other than English. The process of identification and reporting is continuing.
  3. (a), (b) and (c). None of the recommendations of the interdepartmental working party has been rejected. Specifically, recommendations Nos 3 to 18 are being implemented. Recommendation 1 which proposed the establishment of a community interpreter service has not been approved by the Government, but may be re-considered in an improved budgetary situation and in the light of whatever recommendations are made by the review of post-arrival programs and services for migrants which Mr Galbally is at present conducting. Recommendation 2 has been implemented in pan with the opening of the telephone interpreter service in Wollongong on 6 March 1978. The balance of Recommendation 2 will be implemented progressively.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation: Conventions (Question No. 119)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Which international conventions have been adopted by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
  2. When was each convention signed and when did it enter into force.
  3. To which conventions has Australia acceded and when.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is provided in the following table:

Migration and Settlement Agreements (Question No. 127)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

With which countries does Australia have migration and settlement agreements ( a ) in force and ( b ) under negotiation (Hansard, 8 November 1977, pages 31 13-14).

Mr Peacock:
LP

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

Migration and settlement agreements are currently in force between Australia and the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Turkey and Yugoslavia.

I am advised that there are no migration and settlement agreements under negotiation.

International Year of the Child (Question No. 131)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Has a meeting yet been arranged between Federal and State Ministers to co-ordinate planning for the International Year of the Child, 1979, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly on 21 December 1976 (Question No. 1799, Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3 134).
  2. Has the interdepartmental committee yet been established to co-ordinate the Federal Government’s participation (Question No. 1800, Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3 1 34).
  3. Which departments and authorities are represented on it.
  4. What are its terms of reference.
  5. 5 ) When is it expected or required to report.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

-The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answers to the honourable member’s questions:

  1. 1 ) A meeting is to take place on 1 7 March 1 978.
  2. Yes.
  3. The Departments of Foreign Affairs, Health, Education, Aboriginal Affairs, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Home Affairs and Finance are currently represented on the interdepartmental committee.
  4. The interdepartmental committee will enable coordination of planning across relevant Commonwealth Departments in respect to the International Year of the Child and support the committee of Commonwealth Ministers.
  5. It is not expected nor required to make one formal report. It will, however, report as required to the Committee of Commonwealth Ministers.

Peanuts (Question No. 180)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Is there any evidence that Queensland’s current crop of peanuts or the crop harvested in the second half of 1 977 is subject to mould.
  2. Have CSIRO biologists investigated this mould to ascertain whether it has any similarity to the variety which afflicted crops in Africa and which was attributed with causing widespread liver disease.
  3. With what frequency are Queensland’s peanut crops subjected to examination to safeguard the health of consumers and what are the results of the most recent studies.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) Having regard to seasonal conditions to date, the 1 978 Queensland peanut crop is not expected to be affected by mould. Part of the 1977 crop was affected by a fungus or mould known as Aspergillus flavus which is associated with the production of anatoxin, a toxic fungus metabolite.
  2. The CSIRO has not conducted any research or investigation on the incidence of Aspergillus flavus in the 1977 crop as relevant information was already available. CSIRO acted in an advisory capacity on the matter to the Queensland Peanut Marketing Board.
  3. The Board, in awareness of problems likely to be caused by the marketing of peanuts affected by this mould, took immediate steps to ensure that 1 977 crop peanuts which may have been exposed to the fungus did not reach the consumer in a form likely to cause problems. The Board in liaison with processors ensured that strict control measures were adopted in sorting, shelling, blanching and roasting operations.

I am advised that the measures which were implemented in 1977 will be continued by the Board to ensure that consumers are not exposed to any health risk from peanuts.

Importation of Duty-free Vehicles to Indonesia by Australian Diplomats (Question No. 193)

Dr Klugman:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Is it a common practice for Australian diplomats, other Australian Government officials and aid personnel in Indonesia to import cars for personal use duty-free.
  2. ) Is it a fact that because of the administrative problems in expediting these imported vehicles through Indonesian ports, Australian officials often arrange for private Indonesian companies to handle all of the administrative details involved.
  3. Can he say whether one of the main functions that these private Indonesian companies perform is the paying of bribes to Indonesian Customs officials and other Indonesian officials involved in the process.
  4. Are payments made by Australian officials posted in Indonesia to private Indonesian companies which handle the importing of cars for personal use, (a) tax deductible, or, (b) reimbursed or subsidised by the Australian Government in anyway.
  5. What is the attitude of the Australian Government on the matter of illicit payments by Australian Government officials on overseas postings.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. 1 ) The Indonesian Government permits the importation into Indonesia of motor vehicles for personal use, duty free, in respect only of officers having diplomatic status for the period of their assignment in Indonesia. Other Australian Government officials and aid personnel, not having diplomatic status, are permitted to purchase a locally assembled motor vehicle for their personal use at ‘diplomatic’ or tax free prices. Acquisition of one vehicle only per family is permitted in each two year period for all categories of staff other than the Head of Mission, his Deputy and officers of Minister rank who have a limit of two vehicles.
  2. It is common practice for Australian officials to arrange clearance of their personal motor vehicle through clearing agents who are registered to carry out this work by the Indonesian Government. I am advised that it is not possible for these arrangements to be made through any firm or individual who is not operating under Government licence.
  3. I am advised that it is not known how the clearing charges are disbursed by the Indonesian clearing agents.
  4. Clearing charges paid by Australian officials in Indonesia in respect of importation of privately owned goods, including motor vehicles, are neither tax deductible nor reimbursed or subsidised by the Australian Government.
  5. The Australian Government expects Australian officers serving overseas to comply with the laws and regulations of the host country in respect of their personal transactions.

Raids on Church Organisations in South Africa (Question No. 211)

Mr Hurford:
ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1 978:

  1. 1 ) With reference to his answer of 19 April 1977 (Hansard, page 988) to question No. 389 which I placed on notice on 16 March 1977, when was the Australian Embassy in Pretoria instructed to take an appropriate opportunity to inform the South African authorities of the concern being expressed in Australia about the action taken against the offices and members of the South African Council of Churches and Christian Institute.
  2. Were there any appropriate opportunities to carry out this instruction before the Ambassador wrote to the South African authorities on 26 July 1977 (Hansard, 8 November 1977, page 3 133).
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 14 December 1976.
  2. See my answer to question No. 1716 of 8 November 1977.

Chloroform: Use in Pharmaceuticals (Question No. 220)

Mr Barry Jones:
LALOR, VICTORIA · ALP

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 28 February 1978:

  1. Can he say whether the use of chloroform as an ingredient in pharmaceuticals has been under investigation in the United States of America as a possible cause of cancer: if so, what have been the results of the investigation.

    1. What brands of toothpaste currently on sale in Australia contain chloroform as an ingredient, and what is the percentage in each case.
    2. What action does he propose to take to draw attention to the United States findings on the potential dangers of chloroform.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Investigations in the United States suggested that chloroform fed in very high doses to rodents produced increased kidney and liver tumors. As a result, from 29 July 1976, chloroform was banned in cosmetics, including toothpaste. I would point out that while obliged by law to take this action, the Food and Drug Administration noted that there was no evidence to suggest that chloroform caused cancer in humans. Accordingly no order was made to ban existing stocks containing chloroform.
  2. A survey carried out for my Department by the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories, and reported in the Melbourne Herald of 29 September 1977, showed that 10 out of 4 1 brands tested and on sale in Australia contained chloroform. Percentages given were as follows: Ipana White (Bristol Myers) 0.2; Appeal Green (Colgate Palmolive) 0.7; Appeal Red (Colgate Palmolive) 0.7; Macleans Fluoride Mildmint (Beechams) 0.8; Macleans Fluoride Freshmint (Beechams) 0.9; Ultra Brim (Colgate Palmolive) 0.6; Fluoride Aquafresh (Beechams) 0.7; Macleans Spearmint (Beechams) 0.9; Macleans Fluoride Spearmint (Beechams) 0.9; Smokers Toothpaste (Scott and Browne) 0.5.
  3. I released a Press statement on 27 October 1977 which drew attention to the action taken in the United States. I also pointed out that the Poisons Schedule Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council, and the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee had reviewed all the available information at that time and had considered that action similar to that taken in the United States was unnecessary. Since then, both Committees have kept this subject continually under review and have indicated no change of opinion. Indeed, recent evidence gathered from tests carried out in Britain over seven years on beagle dogs, which have a metabolism closely related to humans (rather than rodents which operate by a different pathway), showed no adverse effect on survival, no major toxicological effects and no evidence of cancer formation.

The beagle dog study was conducted by a team at the Huntingdon Research Centre in the United Kingdom and was reported to the 1st International Congress on Toxicology, Toronto, in March 1977.

My Department has a copy of the report and I would be happy to make it available to the honourable member if he so desires.

Family Law Act (Question No. 240)

Mr Jacobi:
HAWKER, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the Attorney-General state in a Press statement 5 months ago that he proposed that possibly this year a party committee should review the Family Law Act to determine whether any changes to the broad principles of the Act should be made.
  2. Did the Governor-General’s Opening Speech outlining the Government’s program for the new Parliament mention amendments to the Family Law Act or the appointment of any committee to review the Act.
  3. If not, has the Attorney-General abandoned his proposals.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

  1. Yes- in a Press release dated 23 September 1977 I proposed that a parliamentary committee should review the Family Law Act in 1978 to determine whether any changes to the broad principles of the Act should be made.
  2. No.
  3. No-in a Press release dated 20 February 1978, I repeated my hope that a parliamentary committee would be established later this year to review the Family Law Act. 1 am currently considering details of a recommendation that I propose to put to the Government concerning the matter, he establishment of the committee is ultimately for Parliament itself to determine.

Department of Transport: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 252)

Mr Morris:
SHORTLAND, NEW SOUTH WALES

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department ‘s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977 as question No. 1642 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Nixon:
Minister for Transport · GIPPSLAND, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. I ) and (2) The total expenditure of $6. 162m incurred in 1976-77 on travel and subsistence was attributable to $317,000 on overseas travel (5.1 per cent) and $5,845,000 on domestic travel commitments (94.9 per cent).

Included in the domestic travel component is $2. 504m for Public Service Board Regulation 90 (use of private vehicle) allowance payments and $0.300m for travel and subsistence payments associated with crewing the department’s navigational aid vessels.

  1. This question did appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977 and remained unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.

Department of Education: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 254)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of travel and subsistence expenditure of the Department of Education were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. ) Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977 as question No. 1643 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following reply to the honourable member’s question:

  1. and (2) The information requested in respect of the Department of Education is set out below. The information does not include expenditure by statutory authorities within the Education portfolio.
  2. Yes.

Department of Foreign Affairs: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 255)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department ‘s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77?
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent?
  3. 3 ) Did this Question first appear on the Notice Paper of 5 October 1977, as Question No. 1644 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament?
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1) (a) $3,583,500-of this total $2,120,700 was spent on overseas staff transfers, excess baggage, travelling allowance, accommodation costs, family reunions, compassionate travel and Head of Mission leave and consultations. This amount also includes expenditure by the Australian Development Assistance Agency. Expenditure of $939,000 was made for overseas post travel activities, leave fare entitlements, locally engaged staff travel, taxi and car hire charges and meal allowances. Expenditure of $523,800 was made in respect of Internal Audit inspections and other such administrative travel.

    1. $347,000-This figure includes fares, travelling allowance, accommodation costs, taxi and car hire costs and meal allowances as well as an amount of $102,000 for domestic travel in respect of the Australian Development Assistance Agency.
  2. ) 9 1 . 1 7 per cent and 8.83 per cent.
  3. Yes.

Australian Passports (Question No. 256)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. With reference to his answer to question No. 1208 (.Hansard, 20 October 1977, page 2299) how many (a) official, (b) diplomatic and (c) ordinary passports were on issue as at (i) 1 1 November 1975, (ii) 30 June 1976 and (iii) 30 June 1977.
  2. Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper of 26 October 1977 as question No. 1902 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. In reply to the honourable member’s previous question No. 1208 (Hansard, 20 October 1977, page 2299), I indicated that it would not be a practical exercise to determine how many persons travelled on these documents in a given period of time.

Similarly, it is impractical to determine the exact numbers of these documents on issue at any given time. However, it is possible to determine the total number of passports which have been distributed to issuing offices in toe preceding live years.

The following table provides those details for the given dates:

  1. Yes. The question appeared on the Notice Paper of 26 October 1977 as question No. 1902 but lapsed on the dissolution of Parliament.

Department of the Special Trade Representative: Expenditure on Travel and Subsistence (Question No. 275)

Mr Morris:

asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What amounts of his Department’s travel and subsistence expenditure were spent on (a) overseas and (b) domestic travel during 1976-77.
  2. What percentage of total expenditure on travel and subsistence did each of these amounts represent.
  3. ) Did this question first appear on the Notice Paper on 5 October 1977 as question No. 1647 and remain unanswered at the dissolution of the last Parliament.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) The Department of the Special Trade Representative (formerly the Department of the Special Trade Negotiator) was established on 1 7 July 1977.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Yes.

Australian Embassy, Paris (Question No. 279)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What is the present staff structure of the Australian Embassy in Paris, including staff of other Departments and locally engaged staff.
  2. ) What is the classification of each employee.
  3. What was the staff structure as at (a) November 1975 and (b) November 1976 and were all positions filled at those dates.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Answers to questions ( 1 ), (3) and (4) are incorporated in the following table:

page 974

STRUCTURE

(Positions occupied shown in brackets)

Attachment ‘A’

Foreign Affairs

Ambassador

Assistant Secretary Level 1

Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4

Foreign Affairs Officer Class 3

Foreign Affairs Officer Class 1

Clerk Class 1 1

Clerk Class 7

Clerk Class 5

Clerk Class 4

Building Services Officer Gr. 3

Clerical Assistant Gr. 6

Steno. Secretary Gr. 2

Clerical Assistant Gr. 4

Steno. Secretary Gr.1

Machine Operator

Typist

Defence (Air)

Wing Commander

Squadron Leader

Flight Lieutenant

Warrant Officer

Flight Sergeant

Trade and Resources

Senior Trade Commissioner Gr. B

Trade Commissioner Gr. C

Assistant Trade Commissioner Gr. 2

Australian Information Service

Journalist Gr. A 1

page 974

UNESCO

Ambassador

Foreign Affairs Officer Class 4

Personal Secretary

Immigration and Ethnic Affairs

Senior Migration Officer Gr. 2

Migration Officer Gr. 2

Liaison Officer Gr. 2

page 974

OECD

Ambassador

Assistant Secretary Level 1

Foreign Affairs Officer Class 1

Steno. Secretary Gr. 2

Steno. Secretary Gr. 1

Clerk Class 1 1 (from Trade)

Clerk Class 9 (from Trade)

Assistant Secretary Level 2 (from Treasury)

Clerk Class 1 1 (from Treasury)

Clerk Class 1 1 (from Science)

Clerk Class 1 1 (from Education)

page 974

OECD

Translator/Interpreter LS2- 2

Clerk LS2-3

Secretary LS2 -4

Receptionist LS3-2

Messenger LS3- 5

page 974

UNESCO

Assistant (UNESCO) LS1-2

Clerk (Research) LS2-3

Foreign Affairs, AIS, Immigration and Air

Clerk LS2-1

Accountant LS2-2

Consular Clerk LS2-2

Clerk LS2-2

Clerk-Interpreter LS2-2

Clerk Protocol LS2-2

Librarian LS2-2

Clerk (Research) LS2-3

Accounts Clerk LS2- 5

Caretaker LS3-5

Cleaner LS3-5

Messenger LS3- 5

Electrician LS2-5

Mechanical Fitter LS2-5

Clerk LS2-5

Property Clerk LS2 -5

Secretary LS2 -5

Typist LS3-1

Receptionist LS3-2

Telephonist LS3-2

Head Driver LS3-3

Driver LS3-4

Clerical Assistant LS3- 4

Tradesman’s Assistant LS3- 4

Clerk-Translator LS2-2

Clerk (Visas) LS2-3

Stenographer LS2-3

Clerk (Registry) LS2-5

Trade and Resources

Marketing Officer LS 1 - 1

Marketing Officer LS 1 -3

Research Officer LS 1 - 1

Publicity Assistant LS 1 - 1

Senior Clerk LS2 -2

Secretary to Minister LS2- 2

Secretary /Stenographer LS2- 5

Secretary /Typist LS2-5

Clerk/Stenographer LS2-5

Clerk/Typist LS3-1

Clerical Assistant LS3-4

Australian Embassy, Belgrade (Question No. 280)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has bis attention been drawn to reports that the Ambassador and staff of the Australian Embassy in Belgrade were subject to harassment by officers of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation.
  2. If so, were reports on personal activities of members of the mission submitted to the Department of Foreign Affairs without the authorisation or knowledge of the Ambassador.
  3. Were members of the Embassy staff withdrawn because of the information contained in these reports.
  4. Were the claims contained in the reports verified by his Department before action was taken.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. , (3) and (4) I have nothing to add to the general comments I made on 28 February 1978 in response to the question without nonce put to me by the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith.

Australian Embassy, Belgrade (Question No. 281)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Did the use of illegal surveillance at the Australian Embassy in Belgrade constitute the removal of authority from the Ambassador and his effective replacement by an officer of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation.
  2. ) What action was taken to protect the Ambassador and his staff from domination by security officers.
  3. Does this case indicate that the Department of Foreign Affairs is subservient to ASIO.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( I ), (2) and (3) See my response to parts (2), (3) and (4) of question No. 280.

Employees of Qantas Airways Ltd: Membership of Unions (Question No. 292)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of Qantas belong.
  2. How many employees belong to each union.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Qantas Airways Limited does not hold records of the unions to which its employees may belong. The table below shows the unions/associations which cover employment categories in Qantas Airways Limited and the number of employees who could be eligible to join each. There is one State association involved.

Employees of Australian National Railways: Membership of Unions (Question No. 295)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) To which unions, Federal and State, do employees of the Australian National Railways belong.
  2. How many employees belong to each union.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. I ) and (2 ) The Australian National Railways does not hold records of the unions to which its employees may belong. The table below shows the unions/associations which cover employment categories in the Australian National Railways and the number of employees who could be eligible to join each. There are no State unions/associations involved.

Bluetongue Vaccination (Question No. 310)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) What progress is being made with the development of a vaccine for bluetongue disease.
  2. Are separate vaccines being developed for each of the strains.
  3. Where and how will the vaccines be tested.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Vaccine virus seeds which could be used for the development of vaccines against bluetongue strains 1 to 14 have been imported from South Africa and are currently held in the repository at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories, Melbourne. These vaccine strains have been imported in case vaccines need to be prepared at some time in the future to control an outbreak of exotic bluetongue disease.

Two Australian scientists went to Onderstepoort to supervise the preparation and purification of these seeds to ensure that no contaminant viruses were introduced into Australia with them. Draft protocols for further testing of the seeds under secure conditions at the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories have been completed and will shortly be considered by a committee of experts from relevant Commonwealth and State organisations convened by my Department for the purpose.

Arrangements are in hand to import vaccine seeds of Strain 16 from the Kimron Institute, Israel, as the virus isolate held by that Institute is the most suitable one available.

A draft protocol for the attenuation of the virus known as CSIRO 1 9, which was isolated from a collection of culicoides in the Northern Territory, has also been completed and will shortly be considered by the above committee.

  1. There are some 20 known strains of bluetongue disease, each of which requires the development of a separate vaccine seed. Sources of appropriately purified and tested virus seeds of the remaining four strains have not yet been found.
  2. Any bluetongue vaccine developed in Australia would be tested initially in Australian animals under secure laboratory conditions in Australia and also overseas before it is released for use in Australian flocks.

Any strains of virus imported into Australia will undergo additional testing for purification at the Animal Virus Research Institute at Pirbright, England, or the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in the United States of America.

Decentralisation (Question No. 312)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for National Development, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

How and where will most of the remaining $6.2m provided in the Budget for decentralisation assistance and intended for general decentralisation be spent.

Mr Newman:
Minister for National Development · BASS, TASMANIA · LP

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

The 1977-78 Budget provided $6.07m for the Commonwealth’s new program of support for general decentralisation initiatives. This will be applied Australia-wide and will benefit all States.

The funds are available to non-metropolitan centres with sound growth prospects, for projects of a capital nature which generate additional long term employment.

I have already approved recommendations by the Decentralisation Advisory Board for the provision of loans to three projects in New South Wales and Victoria. The next meeting of the Decentralisation Advisory Board is expected to make further recommendations in relation to projects in all States.

Unemployment: Resumption of Schooling (Question No. 317)

Mr Young:
PORT ADELAIDE, SOUTH AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 1 March 1978:

Can an accurate figure be given for the number of young persons returning to school in 1 978 because of their inability to find employment.

Mr Staley:
LP

-The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question:

Information on the number of young persons returning to school in 1978 because of their inability to find employment has not to my knowledge been collected on a co-ordinated basis. Some details may be held by the principals of individual schools, but it seems unlikely that all students even in a single school would have been systematically canvassed.

Perth Airport Passenger Terminal (Question No. 364)

Mr Shack:
TANGNEY, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 2 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his Department ever considered a proposal to air condition the Perth Airport passenger terminal.
  2. If so, (a) did the proposal ever reach the planning stage, (b) when did it reach that stage, (c) what was the estimated cost and (d) why was the project not proceeded with.
  3. Are there any current plans to air condition the passenger terminal.
  4. If so, (a) what is the estimated cost and (b) when will the project be commenced.
Mr Nixon:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) Air conditioning of the passenger terminal was considered in July 1973.
  2. (a) and (b) Due to the Government reduction in expenditure this proposal did not reach the planning stages, (c) No estimate of cost was calculated, but it was considered the cost would have been high and in the rough order of $1.5m. (d) The project was not proceeded with because in the light of restricted Government expenditures at that time and since, and its high cost, it could not be given sufficient priority in comparison with other demands on the domestic funds.
  3. There are no plans at the firm proposal stage to air condition the passenger terminal. However, the airlines and the Department of Transport are currently discussing improvements to the terminal to cater for the growing traffic and the possible introduction of larger aircraft. Out of these discussions some improvements, which could include air conditioning, are likely to be agreed upon.
  4. As no project has yet been agreed (a) no estimate of cost is available and (b) no program of work has been established.

Farm Purchase (Question No. 380)

Mr Lloyd:

asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. Has his attention been drawn to the recently introduced New Zealand ‘Vendor Mortgage Scheme’, whereby encouragement is given to vendors to retain a financial interest in their property after sale and so assist young farmers to purchase their first farm.
  2. ) If so, will he consider the inclusion of this provision in the proposed farm mortgage insurance scheme.
Mr Sinclair:
NCP/NP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) Yes. The New Zealand scheme appears to be a useful innovation in the field of helping young farmers purchase their first farms. I shall be pleased to ensure its practical operations are assessed in the course of further consideration of possible farm mortgage insurance arrangements.

Manila Treaty (Question No. 383)

Mr Kevin Cairns:
LILLEY, QUEENSLAND

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. Is he able to say whether the Prime Minister of Thailand, General Kriangsak, made a courageous statement on 1 March 1978 that he valued and supported a defence pact with Australia and New Zealand among other nations, and that the mutual defence understanding of the SEATO Treaty remained fully operative.
  2. If so, what is the Australian Government attitude towards these statements.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are:

  1. 1 ) and (2) I understand that at a Singapore Press conference on 28 February General Kriangsak was asked about the effect of the Manila Treaty of 1 954 on Thailand ‘s relations with Indo-China. He is reported to have said that the Treaty presented no obstacle to relations with Indo-China and that although the clauses of the Treaty remained operative, SEATO itself had been disbanded. I understand he added that in his opinion, SEATO had in the past been a valuable organisation in which there had been close cooperation among the members. My understanding is that General Kriangsak made no specific reference to Australia or New Zealand in this connection.

Australia remains a party to the Manila Treaty and values greatly its relations with the other parties to it.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 386)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. (a) 3; (b) None
  2. Fares $160.
  3. Travelling and other allowances $ 1 ,056.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 399)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Construction, upon notice, on 7 March 1 978:

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. ) What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr McLeay:
BOOTHBY, SOUTH AUSTRALIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) Eight officers travelled from their home base to another location:

Five officers travelled from Sydney/Bowral, and return. one officer had two return air trips Sydney /Canberra. one officer one return air trip Sydney /Canberra. one officer two return road trips Sydney/Canberra. (b)Nil.

  1. $273.00.
  2. $38.00.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 402)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Productivity, upon notice, on 7 March 1978.

  1. In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location?
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements?
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers?
Mr Macphee:
Minister for Productivity · BALACLAVA, VICTORIA · LP

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

  1. 1 ) Nil.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 403)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Special Trade Representations, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. (a) None. (b) None.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting (Question No. 404)

Mr Les McMahon:
SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Veterans ‘ Affairs, upon notice, on 7 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) In order to provide services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting held in Sydney, how many officers (a) from his Department and (b) from instrumentalities associated with his portfolio, travelled from their home base to another location.
  2. What was the cost of travel involved in these movements.
  3. What was the total cost of travelling and other allowances paid to these officers.
Mr Garland:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) No officer of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs or from instrumentalities associated with the portfolio of Veterans ‘ Affairs provided services in connection with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Regional Meeting in Sydney.
  2. Not applicable.
  3. Not applicable.

Payments to Domestic Airlines (Question No. 439)

Mr Bungey:
CANNING, WESTERN AUSTRALIA

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

What sum was paid by his Department, or by Departments formerly encompassing the functions now performed by his Department, to each airline for air travel within Australia during 1976-77.

Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

Payments in 1976-77 as shown in the accounting records of my Department were:

Purchase of Newspapers and Periodicals (Question No. 468)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many copies of (a ) each daily newspaper and ( b ) each weekly publication are purchased by (i) the Head Office and (ii ) other offices of his Department.
  2. ) What was the cost of these purchases during 1 976-77.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

– The following information is provided in answer to the honourable member ‘s question:

  1. ) and (2) Information in the form sought in the honourable member’s question is not readily available. To obtain this information would require considerable effort and manhours which I am not prepared to authorise.

My Government had earlier arranged for a review of Departments ‘ purchases of newspapers and periodicals of a general nature. The results of this review, which has been undertaken by the Department of Administrative Services and the Department of Finance, will be available very shortly. I have asked my colleague, the Minister for Administrative Services, to let the honourable member have details, as soon as practicable, of the numbers of particular newspapers and periodicals, from a group of major publications, purchased by each Department in November 1977, as recorded in the review, and of assessed costs over a year.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 497)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) pan-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Depanment.
Mr Malcolm Fraser:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) (a) (i) Nil. (ii) Nil. (b) (i) 9. (ii) Nil.
  2. (i) $44,734. (ii) $734.56.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 506)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) pan-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Depanment.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Depanment.
Mr Peacock:
LP

– The answers to the honourable member’s questions are as follows:

  1. The Department of Foreign Affairs has (a) 11 fulltime employees and ( b) one part-time employee making and distributing tea in its Head Office. In its State Offices there are no employees engaged for tea making.
  2. The cost in 1976-77 for (i) salaries was $80,660 and (ii) other oncosts are fully met by patrons of the service as required by financial regulations covering such services.

Government Offices: Tea Making and Distribution (Question No. 524)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for the Capital Territory, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. How many (a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed on tea-making and distribution in (i) the Head Office and (ii) other offices of his Department.
  2. What was the cost in 1976-77 of (i) salaries and (ii) other charges in the provision of tea services in his Department.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) There are 12 full-time tea attendants employed in the Department of the Capital Territory.
  2. The cost of salaries of the tea attendants in 1976-77 was $83,598 and there were no other costs involved in the provision of services.

Animal Quarantine (Question No. 539)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister for Health, upon notice on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to pages 1 1 1 and 1 12 of the publication Review qf Australian Quarantine Arrangements 1977 by the Depanment of Prime Minister and Cabinet which contained the statement that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works had ‘supposed ‘ that an offshore quarantine station, with animals grazing in the open, would need to be at least 100 miles offshore.
  2. Did the submission by his Department in 1973 to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works make thai statement, which was subsequently accepted by the Committee.
  3. Did his Department give the review committee of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet information or views which differed from the departmental evidence to the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works in 1973: if so, in what way was it different and what is the reason for the difference.
Mr Hunt:
NCP/NP

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

  1. Yes.
  2. The Department’s submission stated that the offshore station ‘should be sited at least 100 miles from Australia ‘.
  3. I am informed that the answer is No.

Attorney-General’s Department: Libraries (Question No. 549)

Mr Bungey:

asked the Minister representing the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 8 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) How many libraries are in the Attorney-General ‘s Department, where is each located and what is the main purpose of each.
  2. How many (a) books, (b) publications and (c) periodicals (i) have been acquired in (A) 1974-75, (B) 1975-76 and (C) 1976-77, (ii) are currently in the library and (iii) will be acquired under budget provisions for 1977-78.
  3. ) What is the annual cost of running each library.
  4. What staff are employed in each library and what major staffing changes have occurred in the last 3 years, or are contemplated.
  5. When were the provision, number and purpose of libraries in the Depanment last reviewed by the Department and/or the Public Service Board, and what recommendations were made at that time.
  6. Which libraries are open to the public, and what is the extent of public usage.
Mr Viner:
LP

-The Attorney-General has provided the answer to the honourable member’s question:

I refer the honourable member to the answer given by the Attorney-General to question No. 1359 (Hansard. 8 November 1977, page 3 146).

Diplomatic Immunity (Question No. 550)

Mr Scholes:

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 March 1 978:

  1. 1 ) Which persons in (a) the Australian Capital Territory, (b) the Northern Territory and (c) each Australian State are entitled to diplomatic immunity.
  2. What was the nationality and rank of each of these persons as at 7 March 1 978.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. 1 ) and (2) The diplomatic and consular communities in Australia, including family members, total more than 2,000 persons. However preparation of a reply giving the details sought would involve an excessive amount of work, which I do not believe is warranted at this stage.

Diplomatic immunity, which does not mean immunity from the law of the receiving State, but from the jurisdiction of its courts, relates to the diplomatic staff of diplomatic missions in Canberra and their families and, in respect of criminal jurisdiction only, to those members of their Administrative and Technical staff and their families, who are not Australian nationals or permanently resident in Australia. The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, annexed to the Diplomatic Privileges and Immunities Act 1967-72, sets out the position (Articles 1, 29-32 and 37-38 especially apply). Diplomatic staff are listed in the ‘Diplomatic List’ published by my Department and available to each Member through the Table Office.

There are no diplomatic missions outside Canberra. The more limited immunities of consular officers, both career and honorary, and consular employees, are set out in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, annexed to the Consular Privileges and Immunities Act 1972, (especially Articles 40-43, 38, 63 and 71). The extent of Consular representation in Australia may be gathered from the booklet ‘Consular and Trade Representatives in Australia’ published by my Department.

Persons entitled to diplomatic and consular privileges and immunities, are required under Articles 41(1) and 55 ( 1 ) of the respective Conventions, to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State.

Manpower Planning (Question No. 615)

Mr Willis:

asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 9 March 1978:

  1. 1 ) Will the report on manpower planning submitted by a working party of Commonwealth and State officers which was presented to the meeting of Commonwealth and State Labour Ministers on 24 February 1 978 be published.
  2. What provision for manpower planning exists within his Department at the present time.
Mr Street:
LP

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

  1. The Report of the Working Party and Manpower Planning is being made available on request to interested parties.
  2. In a number of areas of my Department work related to manpower planning is regularly undertaken.

South Africa: Mr Secheba Montsitsi (Question No. 18)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) Has his attention been drawn to reports of the continuing detention of Mr Secheba Montsitsi, the former president of the Soweto Students Representative Council.
  2. Can he say how long Mr Montsitsi has been in detention without charge.
  3. Is he able to confirm reports that Mr Montsitsi has been tortured and assaulted to such an extent during his detention that he has required hospitalisation.
  4. Will the Government register a strong protest to the South African Government over the detention of Mr Montsitsi.
  5. Will he take some substantive action in this case to support his statement to the United Nations General Assembly of September 1977 that Australia takes human rights seriously and without action talking of human rights is wasted.
Mr Peacock:
LP

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

  1. and (2) The Government has ascertained that Mr Montsitsi has been held in detention without charge since 1 3 June 1977, under the Terrorism Act.
  2. It is aware of reports that he has been assaulted while in custody, but is not in a position to confirm these.
  3. and (5) As I have stated previously, the South African Government can be in no doubt that the matter of detention and treatment of its political opponents will continue to attract strong criticism throughout Australia. The Government will continue to make known to the South African authorities its strong views and those of the Australian people with regard to cases such as that of Mr Montsitsi and others.

Advertising (Question No. 25)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Trade and Resources, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. 1 ) What sum was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a) 1 1 November 1975 to 13 December 1975, (b) 14 December 1975 to 30 June 1976, (c) 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 and (d ) 1 July 1 977 to date.
  2. ) What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1977-78.
Mr Anthony:
NCP/NP

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

The information provided relates to advertising by the Department in Australia.

1 ) The figures provided for periods prior to 20 December 1977 refer to expenditure incurred by the former Department of Overseas Trade.

$2,356

$5,032

$15,185

$7,820.

) The nature and cost of advertising was:

Inviting applications for vacant positions- $7,030

Advising closing dates for applications under the Export Market Development Grants Act-$ 1 1 , 808

Advising amendments to the New Zealand/Australia Free Trade Agreement- $3,555

Trade Promotional Activities-$8,000.

470.2.04- Department of Trade and Resources, Trade Promotion 470.2.06- Department of Trade and Resources, Incidental and other expenditure 474.2.03- Department of Trade and Resources, Export Development Grants Board, Incidental and other expenditure.

to (6) All advertising was arranged through the Australian Government Advertising Service.

The estimated cost of advertising for 1977-78 is $19,500, including $9,800 for advertising by the Export Development Grants Board.

Advertising (Question No. 39)

Mr Les Johnson:
HUGHES, NEW SOUTH WALES · ALP

asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice:

  1. 1 ) How much was spent by his Department on advertising and services during the period (a)11 November 1975 to 13 December 1975,

    1. 14December 1975 to 30 June 1976,
    2. 1 July 1 976 to 30 June 1 977 and
    3. 1 July 1977 to date.
  2. What was the cost of each campaign undertaken.
  3. Under which item of expenditure were funds allocated.
  4. Which advertising agencies or consultants were used for each campaign.
  5. What was the total sum paid to each agency or consultant for each campaign.
  6. 6 ) How was each agency or consultant selected.
  7. What is the estimated cost of advertising and promotion of Government programs and services for 1 977-78.
Mr MacKellar:
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs · WARRINGAH, NEW SOUTH WALES · LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 1. (a) and (b) Advertising on behalf of the Department in these periods was undertaken and funded by the Department of Administrative Services.

  1. In Australia $ 124.44; overseas $ 1 09,65 1 .

  2. Accounts paid in Australia up to 9 March 1978 were $65,658.63 and paid overseas up to 28 February 1978 were $15,594.

    1. Expenditure in Australia in 1 (c) was an outstanding item from a campaign funded previously by the then Department of the Media to advertise the Telephone Interpreter Service.

Expenditure in Britain was on promotional advertising for suitable qualified migrant workers and their families.

  1. Expenditure in Australia under 1 (d) above was from an allocation under the Ethnic Community Assistance Vote (863-0-01 ). All other expenditure was from funds under the Migrant Publicity Vote (340-2- 1 0 ).
  2. The arrangements in Australia are made through the Australian Government Advertising Service and do not directly involve this Department. In Britain the expenditure referred to in1 (c) included $1,079 paid to the advertising agency as production charges.
  3. In Australia by the Australian Government Advertising Service.

In Britain advertising arrangements are reviewed every three years and an agency is selected by the Chief Migration Officer with the assistance of officers of the Purchasing Branch, Australia House. The agency is selected from among leading agencies who express interest and is retained on a three-year contract.

  1. In Australia: $154,500 ($100,000 from Ethnic Community Assistance Vote). Overseas: $145,000.

Public Libraries (Question No. 88)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Home Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

  1. Which recommendations has the Government accepted in the report of the Committee ofInquiry into Public Libraries presented on 27 February 1976.
  2. Which recommendations has the Government rejected.
  3. Which recommendations is the Government still considering.
Mr Ellicott:
LP

– The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: ( 1 ), (2) and (3) The Government has not yet made any decisions on the wide range of recommendations of the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Public Libraries. The matter, however, remains under consideration and an appropriate statement will be made as soon as this is possible.

Commonwealth Employment Service: Staffing of Offices in New South Wales (Question No. 97)

Mr E G Whitlam:

am asked the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, upon notice, on 22 February 1978:

What was the staffing establishment of each office of the Commonwealth Employment Service in New South Wales as at 1 October 1 977. (Hansard, 24 May 1 977, page 1 784. )

Mr Street:
LP

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

The staffing establishment of each office of the Commonwealth Employment Service in New South Wales as at1 October 1 977 is set out in the accompanying attachment.

Additional staffing establishment is also made available as required to provide for workload increases, and seasonal workload peaks occuring in individual offices, but records of these temporary allocations of staff are not available.

Cite as: Australia, House of Representatives, Debates, 4 April 1978, viewed 22 October 2017, <http://historichansard.net/hofreps/1978/19780404_reps_31_hor108/>.

View PDF View XML View in Voyant