Senator Teague asked the Minister representing the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 2 December 1980:

(1) Are medical benefits payable where a medical practitioner prescribes a course in transcendental meditation (TM) as a relaxation technique to relieve a patient's psychological problems; if so: (a) what are the indications for such treatment; (b) how many episodes of such medical treatment have received a Government approved medical benefit subsidy during the year 1979-80; and (c) what was the cost of such treatment.

(2) Does one of the techniques of transcendental meditation consist of chanting mantras and the names of gods, and that TM proponents claim that transcendental meditation confers such supernatural powers as levitation.

(3) What is the relevance of such techniques to the medical conditions for which they may be prescribed and is there any scientifically acceptable proof of the efficacy of the treatment.

(4) Is the Minister satisfied that the payment of medical benefits for such controversial treatments is properly a matter for Government approvals; if so, will the Minister continue to give this approval.

(5) Will the Minister consider in relation to the payment of benefits for such treatments the conscientious objections which members of registered medical benefit funds may hold to the use of their contributions to subsidise controversial treatments.

Senator Peter Baume —The Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question:

(1) Transcendental meditation (TM) is not listed as a medical service in the Medical Benefits Schedule. However, if TM were prescribed as a relaxation technique by a medical practitioner during the course of a professional attendance, benefits would be payable for that attendance under the appropriate consultation item. In this situation, the benefits are payable on the grounds that there is a physical attendance by a legally qualified medical practitioner upon the patient. Because the reasons for a professional attendance by a general practitioner are normally not given, it is not possible to provide figures for the incidence or cost of such treatment.

(2) I do not consider it appropriate for me to comment on the general techniques of TM or on claims made by its proponents.

(3), (4) and (5) See (1). Medical benefits are attracted for consultations by legally qualified medical practitioners. It would be neither practical nor desirable to attempt in any form to restrict the way in which doctors choose to conduct their consultations. Medical benefits are not payable for TM treatment as such. Therefore, the question does not arise as to whether contributions by members of registered health insurance organisations are being used to subsidise this treatment.