(Wednesday. 6 May 1981J156

Wednesday, 6 May 1981

The SPEAKER (Mr Thompson) tookChair at 2.15 p.m.. and read prayers.

the

TRAFFIC

Reduction of Road Carnage: Petition

DR DADOUR (Subiaco) 12.17 p.m~j: I have apetition with 22 signatures of people in WesternAustralia. The petition is similar to the oneswhich have been introduced on a number of otheroccasions in relation to support for the RoadTraffic Authority in its present attempts to cutdown the carnage on the roads, and also to reducethe blood alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05.

The SPEAKER: I direct that the petition bebrought to the Table of the House.

(See petition No. 38.)BILLS (2): INTRODUCTION AND

FIRST READING1. Rural and Industries Bank Amendment

Bill.Bill introduced, on motion by Sir Charles

Court (Premier), and read a first time.2. Medical Amendment Bill.

Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Young(Minister for Health), and read a firsttime.

COM PA NIES (ACQU ISITION OFSHARES) (APPLICATION OF LAWS)

BILL

Second Reading

MR O'CONNOR (Mt. Lawley-DeputyPremier) 12.22 p.m.j: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.This Bill is the first of three Bills to be introducedpursuant to the obligations of this State under aformal agreement entered into between theCommonwealth and the States on 22 December,1978. That agreement sets out the obligations ofthe parties in respect of a scheme for theCommonwealth and the States to enact co-operative legislation establishing a uniformsystem of law and administration regulatingcompanies and securities in the six States and theACT.

There have been various public statementsrelating to the proposed scheme including the

debates on the National Companies andSecurities Commission (State Provisions) Bill on20 August last year. The implications of theproposed scheme have also been widely reportedby the media and financial publications.

Most members of this House will be aware ofthe undesirable practices in the securities marketwhich became apparent during the mining boomin the late 1960s and early 1970s. Many of thepractices were documented in the report of theSenate Select Committee on Securities andExchange entitled "Australian Securities Marketsand Their Regulation".

In 1976, negotiations between theCommonwealth and the States were commencedwith a view to establishing a co-operative schemefor the uniform regulatton of companies and thesecurities market. The concept underlying theproposed scheme was that the Commonwealthand the States would co-operate in theestablishment of a comprehensive Australia-widescheme. On 22 December 1978, the formalagreement was concluded by the Commonwealthand the States of New South Wales, Victoria,Queensland, South Australia, Western Australiaand Tasmania. A copy of that agreement appearsin the schedule to the National Companies andSecurities Commission (State Provisions) Act1980.

One of the main features of the agreement wasthe establishment of a Ministerial Councilcomprising Ministers of each of the six States andthe Commonwealth. The functions of theMinisterial Council, outlined by subelause 2 1(l)of the agreement. are to consider and keep underreview the formulation and operation of thesubstantive companies and securities legislationprovided for under the agreement. and to exercisegeneral oversight and control over theimplementation and operation of the scheme. TheMinisterial Council is responsible for approvingall the legislation that is required to give effect tothe co-operative scheme before that legislation isintroduced into the various AustralianParliaments.

Another feature of the agreement was to makeprovision for the formation of an executive bodycalled the National Companies and SecuritiesCommission or, More commonly the NCSC.which, subject to directions from the MinisterialCouncil, is to have responsibility in all States andparticipating Territories for the administration ofthe substantive companies and securities lawswhich will apply under the scheme.

Pursuant to the agreement, the Commonwealthin 1979 passed an Act in terms approved by the

1567

1568 (ASSEMBLY]

Ministerial Council which established the NCSCand gave it powers in relation to the AustralianCapital Territory.

Under the agreement, each State is to passcomplementary legislation to give the NCSCsimilar powers in relation to State companies andsecurities laws. The National Companies andSecurities Commission (State Provisions) Actpassed by the Western Australian Parliament inNovember last year achieved that purpose forWestern Australia. That Act will be proclaimedto come into effect as soon as the first substantivecompanies and securities laws required by the co-operative scheme become operational.

Although the NCSC will be responsible for theoverall administration of the scheme legislation,the agreement provides for a continuation of theexisting roles of State administrations. This role isto be maintained through delegation on the partof the NCSC. In exercising its powers the NCSCis required to have regard to developing, to themaximum extent possible, a decentralisedcapacity and therefore most of the functions ofthe NCSC under Western Australian companiesand securities laws will be delegated to theWestern Australian Commissioner for CorporateA ffa irs.

In recognition of the need for uniformcompanies and securities laws to apply throughoutAustralia, the agreement requires each party topass legislation applying uniform companies andsecurities laws in its jurisdiction and in a formwhich will provide that, to the maximum extentpossible, uniformity between the companies andsecurities laws of each jurisdiction will bemaintained.

Subelause 8(B) of the agreement requires theuniform companies and securities laws which willbe applied in each jurisdiction to be substantiallyin accordance with the companies and securitieslaws currently applying in New South Wales,Victoria, Queensland. and Western Australia.The agreement requires all the initial legislationto be approved by a unanimous decision of theMinisterial Council prior to introduction into thevarious Parliaments.

As a First step towards the introduction ofuniform companies and securities laws, theCommonwealth has passed substantive liws.regulating the acquisition of company shares andthe securities industry in the Australian CapitalTerritory. Those laws are in a form which haspreviously beci approved by a unanimous decisionof the Ministerial Council.

Under the agreement. each State is nowrequired to introduce legislation into its

Parliament applying the substantive provisons ofthose Commonwealth laws as laws of the State,

- making such changes only to the CommonwealthAct as are required to reflect local legal andadministrative requirements. The Companies(Acquisition of Shares) (Application of Laws)Bill 1981 will achieve this purpose in respect oflaws regulating the acquisition of company shares.

The State Bills which apply as laws of theState, the Australian Cipital Territory lawsregulating companies and the securities industryare known as "application of laws" Bills. Forconvenience, and so as to distinguish between theACT laws as applied in each State and the ACTlaws themselves, the ACT laws as applied in eachState will be known as "codes".

In addition to providing for uniform companiesand securities laws, the application of laws Bills ofeach State will ensure that the substantivecompanies and securities laws of eachparticipating jurisdiction remain uniform byautomatically applying in each State anyamendments to the substantive companies andsecurities laws enacted by the Commonwealth inrespect of the Australian Capital Territory. It isnoted, however, that under the terms of theagreement, the Commonwealth is not free toamend its ACT legislation which forms part ofthe scheme, without the approval of a majoritydecision of the Ministerial Council.

The substantive companies and securities lawsarc being introduced in two packages with most ofthe scheme legislation incluiding the Bill currentlybefore the House, and two further Bills to bereceived from another place, forming part of thefirst package. This first package comprises lawsregulating the securities industry, controllingcompany take-overs and dealing with mattersrelating to the general interpretation of thescheme legislation and other technical matters.The Companies Bill will come in the secondpackage.

The reason for the introduction of two separatepackages is that there has been widespreaddemand for early introduction of legislation toregulate company take-overs.

In response to this demand the Commonwealthhas secured the passage through theCommonwealth Parliament of Bills regulatingcompany take-overs and the securities industry inthe Australian Capita' Territory, and a number ofother Bills which are necessary and desirable forthe effective operation of those laws.

These Bills are-(1) the Companies (Acquisition of Shares)

Act 1980;

1568

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]156

(2) the Companies (Acquisition of Shares)(Fees) Adt 1980:

(3) the Companies (Acquisition of Shares)Amendment Act 1981;

(4) the Securities Industry Act 1980;(5) the Securities Industry (Fees) Act 1980;(6) The Securities Industry Amendment

Act 198 1;(7) the Companies and Securities

(interpretation and MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1980; and

(8) the Companies and Securities(I nterpretation and MiscellaneousProvisions) Amendment Act 1981.

The principal purpose of this Bill now before theH-ouse is to apply the substantive provisions of theCommonwealth Companies (Acquisition ofShares) Act 1980, as amended from time to time,as laws of Western Australia regulating companytake-overs.

Copies of the Commonwealth Act and the 1981amending Act, also limited copies of clause notesexplaining the provisions of the Bill, are availableto members who may require them.

As mentioned previously, the substantiveprovisions of the Commonwealth Act, altered tocomply with local. legal, and administrativerequirements and applied as laws of the State willbe known as a "code"'. Thus, the laws regulatingLake-over activity and applying in WesternAustralia by virtue of the Companies (Acquisitionof Shares) (Application of Laws) Bill will beknown as the Companies (Acquisition of Shares)(Western Australia) Code. Clause I I of the Billpermits the printing of the provisions applying inWestern Australia and known as the Companies(Acquisition of Shares) (Western Australia) Codeand copies of the code have been distributed tonmembhers.

Apart from some technical alterations to takeinto account legal and administrative differencespeculiar to Western Australia, the provisions ofthe code mirror the provisions of theCommonwealth Companies (Acquisition ofShares) Act 1980 as amended.

The code reflects a number of policy decisionswhich were taken by a meeting of the relevantMinisters at Maroochydore in Queensland in May1978. Account has also been taken of submissionswhich have been made by the public in relation tothe legislation.

Drafts of the legislation have been releasedtwice for public exposure and each time theprovisions have been revised.

The code will supersede the Western AustralianCompany Take-overs Act 1979 which will4so)

continue to apply only in relation to take-overspending under the Act and not completed as atthe date the code comes into operation.

The Company Take-overs Act was introducedas an "interim" measure pending the introductionof the co-operative scheme legislation and theprovisions of the code are substantially the sameas those of the Western Australian CompanyTake-overs Act 1979, that Act being based uponan early draft of the Commonwealth Companies(Acquisition of Shares) Bill.

Members are referred to the H-ansard debatesfor 1979. pages 5987 to 5990 for a detailedexplanation of the objects of the Company Take-overs Act 1979 and, as the code is substantiallythe same as that Act, it is not proposed to coverthat ground in detail again.

In brief, the policy behind the Companies(Acquisition of Shares) Code can be reduced tolive basic principles-

(1) An acquisition of shares which has thepractical or potential effect of changingthe control of a company must betreated as distinct from an everydayacquisition of shares;

(2) where a person wishes to gain control ofa company, he should be obliged todisclose his identity to the shareholdersand directors of the target company;

(3) where a take-over offer is made, theshareholders and directors of the targetcompany should have a reasonable timein which to consider the take-over offer;

(4) the shareholders of a target companyshould have information before themwhich is sufficient to enable theshareholders to make a reasonablyinformed decision on the merits of theoffer; and

(5) as far as practicable, each shareholder ina target company should have an equalopportunity to participate in anybenefits offered by a person desiring totake over the company.

The Companies (Aquisition of Shares) (WesternAustralia) Code is not concerned with smallproprietary companies with less than 15 members,or target companies whose members unanimouslyagree that the provisions of the code do not apply.It takes effect where a person or persons acquiremore than 20 per cent of the shares in other typesof companies.

Although the 20 per cent figure was chosen asone which represents the approximate point wherea change in control occurs or is likely to occur in apublic company, the code does permit a

1569

1570 [ASSEMBLY]

percentage lcss than 20 per cent to be prescribedby regulation if experience shows a lesserpercentage to be desirable. In this respect, thecode differs from the Company Take-overs Act.

The basic prohibition on the acquisition ofmore than 20 per cent of the shares in a companyis set out in clause I 1 of the code and appliesunless that acquisition is conducted in one ofthree ways.

Firstly, the prohibition does not apply if theacquisition is by means of what is known as a"creeping" take-over; that is, if the personacquiring the shares acquires no mnore than 3 percent of the shares5 in the company-or 3 per centof the shares in a relevant class of shares in thecompany-in any six-month period.

Secondly, the prohibition does not apply if theacquisition proceeds by way of a take-over schemeconstituted by formal take-over offers toshareholders.

Thirdly, the prohibition does not apply if theacquisition proceeds by way of a take-overannouncement made on the floor of a StockExchange.

There are a nuniber of other exemptions set outin clauses 12 and 13 of the code in respect ofsituations where it is not considered appropriateto apply the code. In addition, clause 57 grants tothe NCSC a general power to exempt personsfrom the provisions oft the code.

The formal take-over scheme procedurerequires an offeror to make written offers to alleligible shareholders. The shareholders are to beprovided with information which is material tothe offer, both by the offeror and by the directorsof the target company. The take-over schemeprocedure must be used if shareholders are to beoffered any consideration other than cash.

The offeror must firstly dispatch offers in theprescribed form to all holders of shares in thecompany or in any relevant class. This writtenoffer must be accompanied by a "part 'A'statement" which contains detailed jWormationabout the terms of the offer. the offeror and othermaterial.

Following receipt of a take-over offer the targetcompany must prepare a "part 'B' statement".This contains the recommendations-if any-ofthe directors of the target company. Where theofferor is related to the target company, thedirectors of the target company are obliged toobtain an independent expert's report on the offerand this must be circulated to the shareholders.

The take-over announcement procedure isavailable only if an offerer wishes to acquire 100

per cent of the shares in a listed company or arelevant class of shares in a listed company for a1cash consideration. Subelause 17(3) of the codeprovides that an offeror will not be able to use thisprocedure unless his stake in the target companyis less than 30 per cent at the time the bid isinitiated,

An offeror using this procedure will cause anannouncement to be made on the floor of thehome Stock Exchange of the target company tothe effect that for a period of one month theofferer's broker will be prepared to acquire onbehalf of the offeror any shares in the targetcompany-or in the prescribed class ofshares-for a specified cash price.

Acquisitions pursuant to a take-overannouncement may be effected only at officialmeetings of a Stock Exchange and must becarried out through the agency of a stockbrokerwho is a member of the Stock Exchange.

The offerer must prepare a "part 'C'statement" providing detailed material about theterms of the offer and the offrerr. The offerormust dispatch that statement to all shareholdersin the target company or the target class.

After the "part 'C' statement" has beendispatched, the target company must prepare a"part 'D' statement" which will containinformation about the target company and thedirectors,' recommendations, if any.

The Companies (Acquisition of Shares)(Western Australia) Code containes a number ofgeneral safeguards, applying to both types oftake-over offer, which are designed to curtailsome abuses which have occurred in recent years.

In addition, the commission is given a newpower not previously appearing in the CompanyTake-overs Act. Clause 60 of the code empowersthe comnmission to declare an acquisition of sharesmade whilst a take-over bid is pending or 'anyconduct that occurs in the course of a take-overbid, to be "'unacceptable conduct".

The commission eannot make such adeclaration unless it is satisfied that as a result ofthe acquisition of shares or the conduct-

(a) the shareholders and directors of thecompany did not know the identity of aperson who proposed to acquire asubstantial interest in the company:

(b) the shareholders and directors of acompany did not have a reasonable timein which to consider a proposal underwhich a person would acquire asubstantial interest in the company;

1570

jWcdnesday, 6 May 1981]157

(c) the shareholders and directors of acompany were not supplied withsufficient information to enable them toassess the merits of a proposal underwhich a person would acquire asubstantial interest in a company: or

(d) the shareholders of a company did nothave equal opportunities to participatein any benefit accruing to shareholdersunder a proposal under which a personwould acquire a substantial interest in acompany.

Where such a declaration is made, any resultingacquisition of shares is deemed to have been acontravention of the code.

The code makes specific provision for a personwhose acquisition or conduct has'been declared tobe unacceptable to apply to the Supreme Courtfor a review of the commission's decision. Thepower of the commission to declare conductunacceptable was provided as a response tonumerous submissions by members of the businesscommunity calling for the commission to be givendiscretion and a degree of flexibility appropriateto a take-over situation.

The Bill makes provision for the application ofthe provisions of the Commonwealth Companies(Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980, as they may beamended from time to time, as laws of the Stateregulating company take-overs. As such, it is thekey provision of the Bill.

It will be noted that the provision does notapply to sections' I to 5 of the CommonwealthAct. This is because those sections are relevantonly to the application of the Commonwealth Actin the Australian Capital Territory. In their placethe Bill permits the printed code to contain theprovisions set out in schedule 4 to the Bill. Thoseprovisions are introductory in nature andI adaptthe applied provisions of the CommonwealIth Actfor use in Western Australia.

The Bill also adapts the applied provisions, inthe manner specified in the first schedule to thisBill, to comply with local requirements. Forexample, references in the Commonwealth Act tothe "ACT Companies Ordinance 1961" arereplaced with a reference to the "WesternAustralian Companies Act 1961 ".

The Bill applies regulations made under theCommonwealth Compa nies (Acquisition ofShares) Act as regulations made under the code.It also applies fees regulations made under theCommonwealth Companies (Acquisition ofShares) (Fees) Act 1980 as regulations madeunder the Bill. Those regulations are applied as

laws of the State in the same manner as theprovisions of Lhe Commonwealth Act are applied.

Provision is made to overcome any localproblems which might arise as a result of theamendment of the Commonwealth Companies(Acquisition of Shares) Act 1980, Asamendments to that Act will apply automaticallyas laws of the State, amendments to the firstschedule may need to be made in order to adaptthe amendments to the Commonwealth Act tomeet local requirements. The Bill meets thisrequirement by providing for regulations to bemade amending schedule 1.

Power to amend the provisions of schedule I byregulation will be necessary to allow amendmentsto the Commonwealth Act to be implementedquickly in the State, and to maintain uniformitywith the laws of other participating jurisdictions.It also makes similar provision in relation toamendments of the Commonwealth regulations.

Transition from the provisions of the WesternAustralian Company Take-avers Act 1979 Lo theprovisions of the code is dealt with by clause 16.Take-overs commenced under the provisions ofthe Company Take-overs Act, and not completedat the commencement of the code provisions,continue to be regulated by the provisions of theCompany Take-avers Act 1979.

The Bill empowers the Supreme Court toresolve any difficulty in relation to the applicationof the provisions of the Companies (Acquisition ofShares) (Western Australia) Code to anyparticular situation which may arise by virtue ofthe operation of the Bill.

This provision 'will act as a safety valve inrelation to any difficulties that may arise byvirtue Of the application of the CommonwealthAct and the various regulations.

The introduction of the first package ofcompanies and securities legislation, of which theDill forms a part, is significant for a number ofreasons.

Firstly, it represents the most ambitious co-operative scheme ever undertaken as a jointenterprise between the Commonwealth and theStates.

Secondly, it is the increasing maturity andsophistication of the Australian economy as awhole and the securities market in particularwhich has given rise to the demand for the schemelegislation.

Henceforth, a national approach to theregulation of company take-overs and thesecurities market will be evident.

157 1

1572 ASSEM BLY]

The scheme legislation is designed to promote amore equitable business environment and topromote investor confidence.

The Bill has been approved by the MinisterialCouncil for introduction into the WesternAustralian Parliament.

Similar legislation has been approved forintroduction into eaeh of the other five StateParliaments.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Grill.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY(APPLICATION OF LAWS) BILL

Second ReadingMR O'CONNOR (Mt. Lawley-Deputy

Premier) J2.47 pm]): I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Securities Industry (Application of Laws)Bill is the second Bill being introdueed to meetthe obligations of this State under the agreemententered into between each of the States and theCommonwealth on 22 December 1978.

A detailed explanation of the agreement andthe operation of the operative scheme was givenwhen introducing the Companies (Acquisition ofShares) (Application of Laws) Bill and it is notproposed to cover these matters in detail again.

The Securities Industry (Application of Laws)Bill will apply the substantive provisions of theCommonwealth Securities Industry Act 1980, asamended, as laws of Western Australia. The Billoperates in essentially the same manner as theCompanies (Acquisition of Shares) (Applicationof Laws) Bill.

The applied provisions will be known as theSecurities Industry (Western Australia) Code.Copies of the Commonwealth Act and the codeand clause notes on the Bill and the code areavailable to members who may require them.

The substantive provisions of theCommonwealth Act provide the content of theSecurities Industry (Western Australia) Code andthat code will supersede the Western AustralianSecurities Industry Act 1976, and the SecuritiesIndustry (Release of Sureties) Act 197 1.

The purpose of this new securities industry codeis the protection of the investor in the securitiesmarket through a licensing system and variousrequirements calling for the disclosure of materialinformation.

It penalises the manipulation of the securitiesmarket through improper conduct. The legislationprovides for the licensing or Stock Exchanges and

provides a mechanism for regulating the internalworkings of those exchanges. It licenses peopleinvolved in the securities industry, includingdealers in securities, investment advisers and theirrepresentatives, and also provides for theestablishment of fidelity funds by StockExchanges.

It creates a number of criminal offences, mostlyassociated with "market rigging" and insidertrading.

The code is firmly based on the foundationprovided by the existing securities industrylegislation of New South Wales, Victoria,Queensland, and Western Australia. A detailedexplanation of the provisions of the code iscontained in the clause notes. There are, however,some general matters which should be drawn tothe attention of members.

The present special investigations provisionshave been re-drafted in accordance with theagreement. The code provides thaL specialinvestigations may be instigated by LheMinisterial Council or an individual Minister, orthe National Companies and SecuritiesCommission-N CSC-may request theMinisterial Council to direct that an investigationbe held.

New provisions have been added to allowevidence gathered in an examination to beadmissible in both civil and criminal proceedingsagainst the person examined and against otherpersons. There are certain safeguards whenadmitting evidence against other persons incriminal trials.

The code provides for the registration of StockExchanges and requires that the NCSC must benotified of any amendments to the business orlisting rules of the exchange. The MinisterialCouncil may subsequently disallow theseamendments. The NCSC has been vested with anew power to prohibit the trading of securities ona Stock Exchange.

The licensing provisions of the code require thatlicenees be held by a dealer, a dealer'srepresentative, an investment adviser and aninvestment representative. The NCSC is requiredto maintain a register of licence holders and isempowered to revoke or suspend a licence. Theconditions which may be imposed on the grantingof a dealer's licence have been extended. Inparticular, there are new conditions relating to thefinancial position of the holder of a licence.

The Bill regulates conduct in the securitiesindustry. Certain representations are prohibitedand persons who recommend securities mustdisclose their interests in those securities.

1572

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981J157

A dealer is prohibited from dealing withanother person as principal without firstinforming the other person of that fact. The Billprohibits short selling and sets out detailedrequirements to regulate the use of clients'moneys by a dealer.

There are provisions in the Bill relating to theaccounts which must be kept by dealers.

A register of the interests of licence holders andfinancial journalists is required to be kept underthe code. This register may now be kept at anyplace in Australia which is covered by the scheme.

The NCSC is authorised to require theproduction of books and the disclosure ofspecified information by a wide range of persons.This power will assist the commission to moreeffectively administer the take-overs andsecurities industry codes.

Provisions for Stock Exchange fidelity fundshas been continued in the new code.

Provisions equivalent to the Western AustralianSecurities Industry (Release of Sureties) Act1976 have been included to permit the release incertain circumstances of bonds and suretiesprovided by the holders of licences under thecode.

Provisions which deal with the trading ofsecurities have been expanded to include aprovision on the dissemination of informationabout illegal transactions. The stock marketnianipulation provisions have been redrafted,

New provisions have been included in relationto court orders. The NCSC is given certainpowers to intervene in proceedings to apply to thecourt for orders prohibiting persons subject toinvestigations from taking property out ofAustralia.

In addition to applying the substantiveprovisions of the Commonwealth SecuritiesIndustry Act 1980, as amended, as laws of theState the code also operates to apply, asregulations under the code, the regulations madeunder the Commonwealth Act and feesregulations made under the CommonwealthSecurities Industry (Fees) Act 1980.

Those regulations will be applied in the samemanner as the provisions of the CommonwealthSecurities Industry Act 1980 are applied.Amendments to the Commonwealth SecuritiesIndustry Act 1980 are applied automnatically inthe same way as amendments to theCommonwealth Companies (Acquisition ofShares) Act 1980 are applied.

Part Ill of the Bill excludes the operation of theSecurities Industry Act 1975 and sets out anynecessary transitional provisions.

I commend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Grill.

COM PANI ES AND SECU RITI ES(INTERPRETATION AND

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)(APPLICATION OF LAWS) DILL

Second Reading

MR O'CONNOR (Mt. Lawley-DeputyPremier) [2.57 p.m~lj: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.This Bill is the last of the three Bills required tomeet the obligations of the State in respect of theco-operative companies and securities scheme.

To ensure that the legislation is uniformlyinterpreted by the courts in each jurisdiction, aspecial inei-pretation code has been enacted. TheBill applies this special interpretation code byapplying the provisions of the CommonwealthCompanies and Securities (interpretation andMiscellaneous Provisions) Act 1980 as amended,as laws of Western Australia regulating theinterpretation of scheme legislation.

The applied interpretation laws will be knownas the Companies and Securities (interpretationand Miscellaneous Provisions) (WesternAustralia) Code.

Members have received copies of the code andthe Commonwealth Act and a copy of clausenotes is available to each party. The clause noteson the code and the Bill explain in detail therespective provisions of the code and the Bill andit is not proposed to deal with their provisions indetail. However, some general comments aremade.

The interpretation code will govern theinterpretation of the Companies (Acquisition ofShares) (Western Australia) Code and theSecurities Industry (Western Australia) Code. Inaddition, any other code, including the companiescode still to be introduced, may specifically adoptthe interpretation provisions of the interpretationcode.

The Interpretation Code also governs theInterpretation of the Western Australia NationalCompanies and Securities Commission (StateProvisions) Act 1980, save for sections 1, 2, 3, 4,20. 21 and 22 of that Act. These sections areexcluded as they arc the operative provisions ofthat Act and remain subject to the WesternAustralian Interpretation Act 1918.

1573

1 574 ASSEM BLY]

The provisions of State application of lawsBills, as distinct from the provisions which thoseBills apply, will not be interpreted according tothe interpretation code, and will remain subject tothe Western Australian Interpretation Act 1918.

The Bill has been approved by the MinisterialCouncil for Companies and Securities forintroduction into the Western AustralianParliament. Similar legislation has been approvedfor introduction into each of the other Five StateParliaments.

When legislation relating to the interpretationcode has passed through each State Parliamentone uniform set of interpretation laws will applygenerally throughout each participating State artdTerritory to the substantive legislation formingpart of the co-operative scheme.

1 commend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Grill.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION DILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 16 April.MR B. T. BURKE (Balcatta) [3.00 p.m.]: The

Opposition opposes this legislation, and couchesits opposition in the strongest possible terms. TheOpposition despises the mean and miserablephilosophy that provokes this monumental attackon that group of workers who are least able todefend themselves, who are most vulnerable toattack, and who are most in need of sympatheticand compassionate consideration.

According to the Minister's second readingspeech, this legislation finds its base, to a largeextent, in perhaps the most savage attack whichwas ever made on the workers' compensation lawscovering this State when a former judge of theVictorian Supreme Court, B. J. Dunn, ODE,conducted a hurried and hastily-concluded inquiryand brought down the most vicious set ofrecommendations ever witnessed in this State. Atribute to the horror of those recommendations isthe fact that this Government has not seen fit toendorse the majority-at least not to endorsethem fully in their worst aspects. What theGovernment has done with the legislation nowbefore the House is to marry to that horrible setof recommendations brought down by Mr JusticeDunn the practical reality of what it thought it, asa Government, could get away with; a marriage ofpolitical convenience, as a result of whichsvorkers, in this State, in a particularly distressedposition will do nothing but suffer.

As far as the Opposition is concerned thechanges that have been made, or that will be

made, as a result of the Passage Of this legislationwill do nothing towards the settlement ofindustrial disputes, will do nothing to assureinjured workers they will be treated humanelyand properly during the period of their recovery,and will do nothing-in fact will do theopposite-towards treating fairly the dependentfamilies of workers unfortunately killed duringthe course of their employment. The point thatcomes through very vividly in this legislation isthe continuing conviction of the conservativeparties in this State and throughout countries inother parts of the world that workers who areinjured can be forced to go back to work if theyare deprived of any sort of income. This comesthrough in this legislation as it does repeatedly inthe attitudes of the Ministers and of the Premier,and it is an attitude that the Opposition rejectsout of hand.

The Minister, when he introduced this Bill,spoke of the year 1902 when similar legislationwas First introduced in this State and while wehave made some progress from then, we have notmade any progress in overcoming this idle, thiscruel, this miserable concept of deprivationcausing people to return to work. Carried to itsillogical extreme, one could imagine that ifsomeone were killed at work, and if workers'compensation benefits were refused, somehow orother that worker remarkably would return to life.

That is as sensibte as saying that someone whohas a serious and genuine injury-if deprived ofworkers' compensation payments, if deprived ofthe opportunity to continue living in a reasonablefashion, in the fashion to which the worker hadbecome accustomed as a result Of the income heearned-then that worker will naturally recover

from the injury which he or she has suffered.It is interesting to note that, continually, this

Government advances that barbaric, inhumanesort of reasoning. It has inched away at thebenefits made available under previous changes tothe Workers' Compensation Act until it is nowwell-founded in the mind of the Government thatto make workers who are injured go back to workone simply has to deprive them of any reasonablesort of income, one has to make it so unpalatablefor them to stay on compensation thatmiraculously their broken legs and injured backswill somehow be righted.

Mr O'Connor: That is just so crazy!Mr B. T. BURKE: I make it clear on the part

of the Opposition that we reject that sort ofreasoning out of hand. We say it is notappropriate to 1981; it is even less appropriaethan it was previously, if ever it was appropriate.

1574

IWednesday, 6 May 1981]157

and in its practical application and form it is crueland heartless.

During the Minister's second reading speech weheard him say that the legislation he was bringingto the House was the result of long and exhaustivedecision-making procedures.

Thai is a lo1 of nonsense and ihe Parliamentshould be well aware that it is the result ofnothing of the sort.

Mr O'Connor: You people claimed we had thisbefore the last election and used it as an electionploy unfairly.

M r B. T. BU R KE: That is a lot of nonsense. AsI was saying-

Mr H. D. Evans: It may have turned out thatwe were correct ifr whatI you say is so.

Several members interjected.Mr B. T. BURKE: -any delay that has

accompanied the introduction of this legislation issimply and purely window dressing. is simply andpurely an attempt to excuse what is being done bysupplying it with a facade of reasonableness-afacade which crumbles very quickly when detailsof the Bill are looked at.

I say again the Minister's claim that thislegislation is the result of long and exhaustivedecision-making procedures is quite wrong. Notonly is it not the result of that sort of occurrencebut also it has been demonstrated to those of uson this side of the House and to others who have avital interest in this legislation that theGovernment was never interested in consideringainy worth-while changes to what it proposedoriginally.

While the Minister for Labour and Industryhas made great play about the Government'swillingness to accept 14 amendments put forwardby differenit people. it will be shown conclusivelythat those 14 amendments are nothing butcosmetic changes to what is a horrible piece oflegislation, and to claim that the acceptance of 14cosmetic alterations to a Bill of this sort andcomplexity comprises long and exhaustivedecision-making procedures is pure humbug. Whyhas not the Government the courage to stand upto fell the House what it is doing and why it isdoing it: to tell the House that it is mounting aserious attack upon the standards of workers inthis State, and that it is doing it simply because itbelieves those people should be made to bear theburden of faltering economic policies?

Mr O'Connor: Because that is not true.Mr B. T. BURKE: 1 have always been taught

to believe what a person does and not to lay such

great emphasis on what he says, and theMinister-

Mr O'Connor: I can understand that. livingwith yourselIP

Mr B. T. BURKE: --can say what he likes, butwe will judge the Minister by his actions. It is tohis eternal discredit that he is the architect, anignorant one though he is, of what is horrible,brutal, cruel, and unnecessary legislation. Theamendments to this Act will not move towardssaving costs to any marked degree. They arecompletely unnecessary, and they appear to havebeen included simply to spite or to be cruel to theworkers.

Mr O'Connor: Your mind is warped.Mr B. T. BURKE: The amendments appear

simply to ignore the circumstances.We will demonstrate that point to members.it is well known to members in this House that

the Minister for Labour and Industry is served upwith whatever his department likes to give him,and he repeats it faithfully with not one whit ofunderstanding. That is the case again because heis not aware of changes-

Mr O'Connor: You tell more untruths than therest of the House put together.

Mr B. T. BURKE: -that will move towardscost saving, that will move towards the moreefficient operation of industry, but which will inindividual cases have disastrous effects uponinjured workers.

Mr O'Connor: Would you like to commentabout the actions of the TLC and unions inconnection with workers' compensationpayments?

Mr B. T. BURKE:, I am glad the Minister forLabour and Industry mentioned that, because hehas set the level of debate now, and we will bepleased to accommodate him.

Mr O'Connor: You set it.Mr B. T. BURKE: We have no urgency

attached to our contribution and everything theMinister wants to raise we will accommodate indue course. But we will still take the Minister, forhis illumination, through all the steps and thepoints that we want to make and, after that,answer any questions he has.

Mr O'Connor: Thank you very much.Mr B. T. BURKE: Let me First refer back to

the emotion that I have been saying attaches tothis Government's attitude to workers'compensation. As I said before, the Government'sattitude is founded very squarely in the mistakenand cruel belief that to Fix an injured back or to

1575

1576 [ASSEMBLY]

mend a broken leg one has only to stop makingworkers' compensation payments and suddenly,like Lazarus arising from the dead, the injuredworker will return to work.

That is not true and it is rejected out of handby the Opposition. As far as the Opposition iseoneerned-despite the Government's reference inthe Minister's second reading speech to the SelectCommittee in 1973 and its report whichrecommended the rewriting of the Acd, anddespite the Minister's reference to the sear tissuestatement of the judge in the Geraldton BuildingCompany Pty. Ltd. case when it was indicatedthere was a need to change the Act-we say thatit is mere window dressing for the Minister torefer to those sorts of things to cover what hasbeen and is developing into a massive attack onthe standards of a particularly disadvantagedsection of the working community in this State.

Before I deal with the Bill in detail 1 want tomake one or two preliminary points because theyare necessary and interesting when one considersthat they accompany the introduction of this Bill.Firstly, the Government has had this legislation inthe preparatory stages for several years and thleMinister, 1 am sure, will be the first to appreciatethat workers' compensation is a complex matterand one which if not given due care and attentioncould easily have mistakes made in respect of it.

I want to tell the House that about a monthago-or perhaps a week or so longer-theMinister for Labour and Industry provided theOpposition with a copy of the Bill. We wereappreciative of that, because it is in keeping withthe Minister's generally good-natured attitudeand his apparent willingness to get on witheverybody in the light of the approaching ballotFor the top job in his party.

Mr O'Connor: You are not doing the same, areyou?

Mr B. T. BURKE: However, at the same timewe do not appreciate being given a draft copywhich we found, when we saw the Bill that wasintroduced, to he full of mistakes, full of changes,and misleading in the extreme. We on this side ofthe House would prefer not to have advancecopies of legislation if it is proved that thelegislation in its advance' copy form bears littlerelationship to that which is to be debated. it isnot only useless, but also it is damaging; and it iscertainly not conducive to the proper running ofbusiness in this place.

Mr O'Connor: You know it was given to theOpposition on the understanding that alterationswould be made and it was accepted on that basis.

Mr B. T. BURKE: If the Minister for Labourand Industry persists, let me say the advance copywas given to us on the understanding that minorchanges might be made. What we found to be thecase were massive alterations to the draft Billwhich was presented to us. and the alterations areof such importance chat they make nonsense ofthe draft Bill.

Mr O'Connor: Which are the massivealterations?

Mr B. T. BURKE: We will cover every singleone of them.

Mr O'Connor: You will miss this one.Mr B. T. BURKE: We have a list as long as

the Minister's arm, and we will read the changesout to him. But let me say once again that thealterations are extensive and of such importanceas to minimise any benefit at all-apart fromobtaining the general thrust of themeasure-from the Opposition being presentedWith an advance copy.

Mr O'Connor: Which is a major change? Justgive us one major change.

Mr B. T. BURKE: I am simply saying to theMinister and to the House-

M r O'Connor: One major change.Mr B. T. BURKE: -that in future the

Minister can keep his draft copies to himselfunless they reflect in same way the detail of whathis Government has set about to do.

Mr O'Connor: What are t he major changes?Mr B. T. BURKE: Mr Acting Speaker (Mr

Watt) the Workers' Compensation Bill, if it is tobe considered in its true context-

Mr Young: He is unbelievable.Mr B. T. BURKE: -has to be read in parallel

with those other regressive changes which thisGovernment has wrought in industrial relations inthis State. I intend, with your forebearanee, toplace this legislation squarely in its correctcontext so that members can see that this is notonly a matter of changing workers' compensationlaws in this State, but also it is a continuation ofthe savage attacks the Government has mountedon the trade union movement and the workingpopulation of Western Australia. It is acontinuation of the sorts of legislation and lawsthat have been introduced by successive LiberalGovernments headed by the Premier (Sir CharlesCourt).

Firstly, and briefly. I would refer membersback to 1972 and the Fuel, Energy and PowerResources Act, which was a thinly veiled andthinly disguised attack on the rights of the

1576

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981] 17

working men and women and was so thoroughlyopposed by the community, generally, that it wasfound to be a sort of Eskimo piece oflegislation-untouchable in its practice andapplication. Nevertheless, it was conceived by thisGovernment very early in its period in office as acornerstone of its anti-union legislativeprogramme.

In 1975 we had the Industrial Arbitration ActAmendment Sill. There we saw that theGovernment was set upon making sure that theWestern Australian Industrial Commission didnot deviate from the indexation decisions andguidelines that had been laid down by theCommonwealth Conciliation and ArbitrationCommission. That amending Bill made itunlawful for the registration of an agreement,regardless of whether it was reached in good faithand satisfactorily between an employer and aunion, if that agreement contravened theindexation guidelines.

Accompanying that change to the Act we hadpublic statements by the Premier and hisMinisters. The Premier initially said the unionsshould adhere to the principles of indexation; thenhe talked about part indexation and said theunions should accept part indexation. Then thePremier and his Ministers spoke about plateauindexation; and the unions were then told theyshould accept plateau indexation. The people werethen told that the brunt of the difficulties intowhich this country had been plunged as a result ofthe economic policies of the Fraser Governmentshould be borne by working men and women whoshould not expect in the future even to have theirwages indexed at all; they should not expectwages to be increased by partial or plateauindexation, let alone full indexation.

In 1976 the Industrial Arbitration ActAmendment Bill (No. 2) introduced secret postalballots in the election of union officers. In thethird amending Bill in the same year we saw theremoval of the requirement that objection tounion membership should be founded in some sortof conscientious belief opposed to suchmembership. Again we saw the Governmentcontinuing its denigration of the union movementin this State, and we saw its desperate attempts tomake the union movement powerless, to turn itinto nothing but a sham of what it was previously-

Of course that did not work in respect ofconscientious objection, and its deletion from therequirement for people wishing to avoid unionmembership. Much worse was to come, and whatwas worse to come did not work either; I willexamine that matter in a moment.

In 1977, we saw the flourmillers' strike whichoccasioned legislation.

Mr O'Connor: You arc battling to get onto theWorkers' Compensation Bill.

Mr B. T. BURKE: I will get onto the Workers'Compensation Bill in a moment, and we will seewhere the Minister stands then.

In 1979, the Essential Foodstuffs andCommodities Act was aimed directly at theTransport Workers' Union strike. The legislationturned into a farce. It passed through theParliament after an all-night silting, and thestrike at which it was aimed concluded before thelegislation was passed.

Mr O'Connor: You had better bring back theprevious member for Fremantle; at least he knowssomething about the situation.

Mr B. T. BURKE: In 1979, the industrialArbitration Act Amendment Bill removedacademic staff from the auspices of the WesternAustralian Industrial Commission. Thatemphasises an aim this Government hascontinually evidenced. Not only is it attacking theunion movement by the laws it is making but alsoit is reducing at an alarming rate in effect andpower the role of the Industrial Commission. ThisGovernment has been responsible for the mostmassive attack on the powers of the industrialCommission ever seen in the history of WesternAustralia. The number of classes of workers whohave been removed from the control of theIndustrial Commission is frightening when weconsider that to remove those workers from theauspices of the Industrial Commission is toremove from the Industrial Commission power toresolve disputes.

Later in the same year we saw the piece deresistance of this Government's attack upon theunion movement and upon the working men andwomen of this State when we saw the IndustrialArbitration Act 1979. Among its primaryprovisions was the elimination of the preference tounionists clause.

The Government told us this would allowpeople to choose whether they should be membersof unions and that this would promote industrialpeace. We were told it was a sensible and logicalmove towards stable and harmonious industrialrelations. However, there has not been any changewhatever in industrial peace in Western Australiaas a result of that provision.

Mr O'Connor: Cheek the figures prior to thatlegislation, and compare them with the Figureswhich apply since the legislation and you will seethat you are wrong.

1577

1578 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr B. T. BURKE: The flex' provision of thatlegislation, which illustrates this Government'sincompetence, was the use of secret ballots tostart and stop strikes. We had the absurdsituation of this Minister suggesting we could runthese ballots through the TAB. With a handful of"lucky number" tickets, I suppose we could startand stop strikes in this State! The Minister wasludicrous when he made that suggestion: when weput that suggestion into the context of thislegislation, the Workers' Compensation Bill, hisabsurdity becomes menacing.

No-one needs any persuasion as to the completeincompetence of that provision other than to beinformed of what has actually happened sincethat time. Somec time ago, a question was askedon this matter and the House was told there hadbeen more than 150 industrial stoppages since thelegislation, and that there had not been one secretballot. That is the sort of competence we haveconic to expect from this Government. and thisMinister in particular, in industrial matters. TheMinister is strangely silent now in compari .sonwith the words he found so easy to lay about histongue when he persuaded this House that secretballots were the sort of cure-all which would bringindustrial harmony and peace to this State.

Mr O'Connor: You say that about all Ministersfrom time to time. We are used to that sort ofjargon comning from you.

M r B. T. BU R KE: I t was a load of nonsense. I tdid not work in that Act, and the Workers'Compensation Bill which we are considering nowwill provoke even more industrial disharnionyamong people who are injured and are served verypoorly by the provisions of the legislation.

Another provision of that legislation supposedlydesigned to bring industrial peace to this State towhich the Opposition took exception at the timeand which since has proved to be nothing buthumbug was the provision which allowed ordersto be made under the threat of fine for strikingworkers to be required to return to work.

Mr O'Connor: It has been effective, too.Mr B. T. BURKE: It has been completely

ineffective. Perhaps the Minister can enumeratetheir for me. but the only example of an orderbeing made which was accompanied by anythingeven approaching a faintly related return to workwhich springs to my rind was in the case of theprison officers' dispute.

Mr O'Connor: Over a dozen orders have beenmade and in each case, the wvorkers have goneback immediately, except in the case you aretalking about. They were fined, and the fines wereobviously paid by them.

Mr B. T. BURKE: From his own mouth theMinister has condemned the changes he thoughtwere so miraculous at that time. lie said therehave been a doz.en orders: I would doubt that verymuch. However, even if it is true, there have beennearly 200 strikes since then; the orders have notsolved them and there has not been a fine imposedas a result of a refusal to comply with an order.

Mr O'Connor: You are wrong again; there hasbeen. What about the prision officers' dispute'? Afine of $250 was imposed.

Mr Tonkin: The one you paid?Mr Young: We know your lot paid it.Mr B. T. BURKE: The Minister quite rightly

corrects me; with the exception of the prisonofficers' dispute there has not been a fineimposed. In the ease of the prison officers'dispute, I would guess the Minister is $250 pooreras a result of the fine being paid.

Mr O'Connor: I am still smiling.Mr B. T. BURKE: In any case, the miraculous

cures promised by the Industrial Arbitration Act1979 have not materialised.

Mr O'Connor: I am glad you are concentratingfairly strongly on the Workers' CompensationBill.

Mr B. T. BURKE: The Minister is as bereft ofanswers in respect of these matters-

Mr Sodeman: As you are of arguments.Mr B. T. BURKE: -as he will be when we

deal with the Workers' Compensation Bill.M r O'Connor: When we deal with it.Mr B. T. BURKE: I remind the Minister that

it is very early in the day. I believe he was the onewho was talking about Parliament rising on I5May. I feel the urge to speak on into June.

Mr O'Connor: You have unlimited time, and Iassure you you will not use it all.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Watt): Order!If the honourable member intends to speak oninto June, may I urge him to address his remarksmore specifically to the matter before the Chair.

Mr B. T. BURKE: Mr Acting Speaker, foryour edification what I propose to do is tocomplete dealing with the changes in theindustrial laws of this State which are reflected inthe attitude of the Government with respcct toworkers' compensation; then to deal with theDunn report; then to deal at length with theworkers' compensation legislation.

As I was saying, the secret ballots did not work,despite the fact they were proposed to beconducted from TAB premises.

1578

jWednesday, 6 May 19811 17

Mr O'Connor: That was not so. Again, you aretelling untruths.

Mr B. T. BURKE: The Minister is veryembarrassed about that, as I would be had Isuggested it.

Mr O'Connor: It is another untruth from you.Mr B. T. BURKE: Not all of us are as used as

some to wagering on the TAB. I am sure we couldmake mistakes when we decided, according to thelatest odds, whether to start or stop a strike.

Mr Tonkin: It sprang naturally to theMinister's mind.

Mr B. T. BURKE: I was not going to say that,but I do not believe the Minister would have anytrouble getting the numbers.

Provision was also incorporated in theIndustrial Arbitration Act to suspend or cancelawards or particular sections of awards whichapplied to unionists who were misbehaving. I donot know whether that provision has been used;, Icannot recall it has been used on one occasion, letalone that it has been an effective and a curi ngweapon in the task of combatting industrialunrest.

The Act also provided for automaticderegistration if fines were left unpaid. TheGovernment knew that provision would never beused because it would arrange for fines to be paidif unions did not do so.

In 1980, we saw a further attack on the powersof the Industrial Commission in this State whencertain classes of Government workers wereremoved from the auspices of the IndustrialArbitration Act, making it absolutely impossiblefor the commission to institute any sort ofdispute-settling procedures in respect of thoseworkers.

In I1981, in legislation that has just beendespatched from this place, we saw the PrisonOfficers' Union and its membership come underparticular attention; and we saw the removal ofchief officers from the auspices of the IndustrialCommission. That move cost the State money at atime of financial stringency, because it requiredthat the chief officers be given greater leaveprovisions and other things which were expensi veto the Government. In that way, the Governmentattempted to tackle industrial unrest.

We have heard a lot-and by interjection amoment or two ago, we heard it from the DeputyPremier-about malpractices carried out byworkers or by union people who are engaged inactivities in the compensation Field. In theMinister's second reading speech we saw thateven he referred to malingerers or suspected

malingering-not in a deprecating fashion,because that is not his way when he is seeking theco-operation of the House. Certainly heacknowledged the existence of that sort of thing inpeople who have workers' compensation weeklypayments.

I wish to make the Opposition's position veryclear, in the face of the Minister's passing smartremarks about the involvement of people in illegalpractices. The Opposition does not support thebreaking of laws in respect of other people'sproperty. It has never said publicly, and it hasnever said privately, that it agrees with that sortof thing. If the Minister wants to say that becausesomeone has been charged with something andhas not yet been convicted-not yet convicted,although from the inference in the Minister'sinterjection-

Mr O'Connor: I did not refer specifically to oneindividual.

Mr B.' T. BURKE: Well, to whom was theMinister referring?

Mr O'Connor: You will find out in due course.Mr B. T. BURKE: The Minister is as weak as

water. I know he was referring to Mr Summers.Everybody in this place knows he was referring toMr Summers. Let me say, firstly, that he has notbeen convicted of anything; and, secondly, if hehas broken the law, or if anybody else has brokenthe law in that manner, he will find no supportfrom any statement that the Opposition has evermade.

Mr O'Connor: There are other issues, apartfrom that one, as well you would know.

Mr B. T. BURKE: As far as we are concerned,it is completely unworthy for the Minister toattempt to convict a man when he has not beenconvicted; and, by association, to attempt to proveus guilty.

Paint ofOrder

Mr O'CONNOR: On a point of order, I takeexception to those remarks. I have not attemptedto convict a man; nor have I referred to anyindividual. I wish to make that point.

Mr H. D. Evans: There is no point of order.You just did it by innuendo.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Watt): There isno point of order.

Debate Resumed

Mr B. T. BURKE: I am happy for the DeputyPremier to say what he likes, because the more hespeaks, the less he is seen to know.

1579

1580 [ASSEMBLY]

Let me say again that the Opposition has neversaid publicly or privately that people should beable to break the law in the area of workers'compensation. We have already heard theMinister, by implication and direct statement,talking about employee irresponsibility in mattersof workers' compensation. I have heard theMinister, on other occasions, saying that some ofthe practices indulged in by workers are immoral,to say the least, and illegal, to say the most.

Mr O'Connor: And possibly the same foremployers, too,

Mr B. T. BURKE: That is the point I wasgoing to deal with next. I am pleased the DeputyPremier has given me the lead into that because Ihave never heard this Government or itsMinisters, or this Minister in particular, take timeout to look at some of the irresponsible actionsadopted by employers in compensation matters.We have heard about the immoral or illegalactions of the workers; we have 'heard aboutmalingerers, we have heard about bludgers; wehave heard about people who will not work; wehave heard about the "European back" we haveheard about the way in which, if people weregiven a living wage for compensation, one wouldnever get them back to work. However, we havenot heard very much said about some of thepractices indulged in by employers. Today I willhave the opportunity to talk about some of those.

I refer the House specifically to the ease ofworkers receiving weekly payments under thepresent Act, which requires that those paymentsbe continued until the worker resumes work, oruntil medical evidence is obtained which indicatesthat the worker should be able to resume workand he fails to resume work, as he is required todo under the present procedures that areimplemented. That situation is accepted by theunions and the union memnbers. in this State whowork under the provisions of the Workers'Compensation Act; but it is abused roundly bymany employers. The Government's silence onthat aspect eonvicts it of a "care-less" attitudetowards the welfare of workers in particular cases.

What happens very often is that an employerobtains a certificate of fitness in respect of anemployee, indicating usually that the employee isfit for light duties. That usually follows a referralby the insurer to one of the insurance industry's"tame eat" doctors.

I note that Dr Cromack has been replaced byDr or Mr Manessis. who deigns to call himself aspecialist. He seecms to be the darling of theinsurers; but in my experience he is completelyunsympathetic to the plight of the workers.

Nevertheless, it may be Dr Manessis who willprovide a certificate that will enable the employerto say to the employee that he should resumework. What happens then is that, when theemployee reports for work, the workers'compensation payments cease;, but he is told atthe gate that there are no light duties, and he issacked. Before there is any resumption ofpayments, a period of up to six months can elapse.

That is the sort of ploy that is being usedrepeatedly by employers and insurers in thisState-an entirely contrived situation that isaimed at one thing only: the deprivation, for aperiod of four, five, or six months, of a worker ofhis weekly payments.

Let us consider a case in which this happened.A 63-year-old Italian timber worker lost twofingers when a piece of wood jammed in the saw.After a period during which he convalesced, themedical evidence was that he was lit to return towork on light maintenance duties only. Hereported for light maintenance duties, he was toldthere were none, and he was sacked. That is thecase of a 63-year-old timber worker, deprived notonly of two of his fingers, but also of any workers'compensation as the result of that sort of ploy.

Mr O'Connor: Does not this Bill cry toovercome some of that?

Mr B. T. BURKE: As far as I am able todiscern from the Bill, it does very little at all topenalise irresponsible employers. It certainly doesdo a great deal, in fact, to deprive working peoplewho might be eligible for compensation of theopportunity to claim that compensationlegitimately, in respect of a whole lot of matters. Iwill deal with every one of those in turn.

Mr O'Connor: Can we have the fellow's namelater'?

Mr B. T. BURKE: Yes, I will arrange for theMinister to have the name of the chap concerned.

Another ploy used by employers and insurersamounts to an even More blatant disregard for themorality of the situation as imposed upon theworking population by the Act. An employerconfronted with a worker on workers'compensation payments will often make up a listof fictitious light duties and send that list to theinsurer, who will then obtain medical opinion thatthe injured worker is able to perform the duties aslisted, and require the worker to return to work.When he returns to work, the worker is sacked,The duties never existed. They were a fictitiouslist only; and they were drawn up, in the absenceof such duties, by an employer and an insurerintent on removing someone from weeklycompensation payments.

1580

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981) 18

Mr O'Connor: I certainly would not condonethat type of operation.

Mr B. T. BURKE: I accept the Minister'sassurances. but let me tell him that it was done bythe Forests Department in co-operation with theSGIO. I accept that the Minister does notcondone this, but at least one Governmentdepartment is doing it without the Minister'sknowledge or concurrence.

Mr T. H. Jones: What has the Minister doneabout section 1 2B? He indicated he would dosomething when I raised it during a grievancedebate.

Mr B. T. BURKE: The Minister has donesomething about section I 2B-hc has made iteven more difficult because he has chopped aweek off. We will deal with each of those sectionsas we come to them and I an, sure the memberfor Collie will point out to the Minister the follyof giving assurances to the member for Colliewithout keeping them.

Mr O'Connor: The arrangement of 21 days hasbeen accepted.

Mr B. T. BURKE: As I said, that fictitious listdevised for making sure people lose their weeklycompensation payments has been used on at leastone occasion by the Forests Department. aided inthe matter by the SGlO.

There are even worse cases of more blatanttrickery and deception employed by employers toassure themselves that workers will be removedfrom the right to have weekly compensati onpayments. One of the worst cases I have heardinvolves a worker who in March 1980 hurt hisback and began to receive weekly compensationonce liability was accepted.

The worker's normal practice was to report tothe Newcastle Street headquarters of theemployer and obtain his fortnightly pay there.This continued on until December 1980 when theworker was told on a particular day when he wentto the Newcastle Street headquarters that heshould go to the Welshpool branch of the firm. Atthe Welshpool branch, he was told, he would begiven his pay.

The worker arrived at the Welshpool branch at9.00 am, on 2 January 198 1 and found, with theexception of one gate. that the branch was lockedup. Inside the gate was parked a private utilityand inside that vehicle was a man the workerrecognised as a supervisor. When the workerapproached the supervisor he was handed a paypacket that was more bulky than normal. Whenhe opened the packet he found he had beensacked.

The SGOOwas asked about what had happenedand it said that the man had been told to report towork and had been sacked for being drunk.

Mr Tonkin: Absolutely disgraceful.Mr B. T. BURKE: I point out that 2 ianuary

was a public holiday. So this unfortunate wvorkerhad been told to report to work on a publicholiday when the depot to which he was reportingwas shut and he had been sacked in this mannerfor being drunk.

Mr Tonkin: This is your Government. MrMinister.

Mr B. T. BURKE: It is also the Public WorksDepartment. The Minister wants to regale theOpposition with stories about malingerers,bludgers, and employee irresponsibility. Let theMinister cast the sty from his own eye.

Mr O'Connor: You have not given me thecases,' and I would be happy to look at them. Ifthe department has been remiss I will see whataction ought to be taken.

Mr Davies: It should never happen.Mr Tonkin: We can give you some cases but

what about all the others?Mr B. T. BURKE: By interjection the member

for Morley has hit the nail squarely on the head.Individual cases will be referred to the Ministerand I have no doubt they will be righted, becausethe Opposition is not saying the Minister has acallous disregard for what is fair and proper insituations like this. What members of theOpposition are saying is what the member forMorley said; that is. of the cases that occur.perhaps one in 100 will come to the notice of amember of Parliament. It is not a satisfactorysituation to rest confidently that the one in 100 isattended to while the other 99 are ignored. Whatwe want to see from a Government concernedwith workers' compensation and its properoperation are the sorts of systems that might beimplemented to prevent this sort of thinghappening. Especially is it bad if it happens at thebehest of a Government department.

We all know that private employers, perhaps indifficult financial situations, will sometimes cutcorners not only in respect of workers'compensation but also other matters; but we donot expect that a Government departmentresponsible to a Minister who sits in this placewill carry on in the manner we are informed wascarried on.

Mr Acting Speaker (Mr Watt), other thingsthat occur-and I will be brief because I knowthat although you realise I am dealing with thesubject matter of the Bill you would probably

1581

1582 [ASSEMBLY]

want me to be more specific about the individualprovisions proposed-included the failure ofemployers to initiate action before the Workers'Compensation Board as they arec obliged to doand as their failure to do results in their beingpresumed to be liable to pay compensation. Theresult is that interlocutory proceedings taken onbehalf of workers brings the results which are theright and proper ones two or three months afterthe worker was first entitled to weekly payments.simply because the employer refused to takeaction and refused to accept that the Actpresumes he is liable to pay compensation in theface of his failure to take action.

In other cases of which we have knowledge,employers have simply refused to paycompensation. They have not denied liability, andtheir refusal has involved workers not only inapplications before the board but also insubsequent legal processes which enforce thoseapplications and which, once enforced, result inpayment six or eight weeks late and delays thatare often promptly repeated by the employer whothen refuses to pay workers' compensation untilconfronted by the same process.

So let us not in future hear so much denigrationof working men and women. Let us pay moreattention to the problems of both sides of thepicture. Everyone knows that not all of the actorsin the scene at all of the time will carry on in theway they should, but this does not apply only toemployees, it does not apply only to peoplereceiving workers' compensation; it applies also toemployers and to those who would pay theworkers' compensation.

In his second reading speech the Ministerreferred on one or two occasions to the inquirycarried out by Mr Justice Dunn, ORE, a formerjudge of the Victorian Supreme Court, whobrought down a series of recommendationstouching on workers' compensation at the requestof this Government. Let the Opposition Firstlystate that its information is that Judge Dunnformerly occupied, prior to his appointment to theBench, an esteemed position within the minds andregard of employers and anti-worker circles in hisown State. Let me also state that when we toldsome of our colleagues in other States that theinquiry was being carried out by Judge Dunn, wewere warned before it was started-crtainlybefore it was completed-that we would be facedwith the most regressive set of recommendationsit was possible to imagine. We were warnedcorrectly because that is exactly what came topass. It is important to look at therecommendations made by Judge Dunn as thecontext in which this Government founds the

Workers' Compensation Bill we are consideringtoday.

Firstly, let us see what Judge Dunn wanted todo about the prescribed amount in the firstschedule. He wanted an immediate reduction of$9 866 when the amount at the time was 344 866.He did not beat about the bush.

Mr Davies: What was his reason?Mr B. T. BURKE: Amongst other things his

reason was that we were in front of other States,that we did not want to be in front of otherStates, that in general terms the maximum wastoo high, and by inferenc, if we were to makeavailable lump sums of that size we would neverget people back to work; they would stay thereforever. That is what he said about the reductionof that amount in the first schedule.

Mr Parker: He also failed to take into accountthe fact that in New South Wales there is nomaximum and the amounts awarded are verymuch higher.

Mr B. T. BURKE: As the member forFremantle rightly says, not only did Judge Dunnignore the situation in New South Wales, but healso referred constantly in his report to thesituation in Victoria-a reference From which thisMinister apparently finds strength, despite thefact that it is one not many of us would like to useas a guide for what we will do in this State.

It is interesting to point out that, when theGovernment in Victoria tried to change theprovisions of the Workers' Compensation Act-inthe same manner as is proposed on this occasionby this Government-to eliminate in all practicalterms the right to compensation following a heartattack or stroke, there were such widespreadstrikes and industrial stoppages that theGovernment in that State could not proceed. Thatsort of way of thinking in Victoria has beenadopted here, despite the experience in that State.

Moving quickly on from such a massiveslashing of the first schedule lump-sumentitlement, Judge Dunn said the maximumshould vary in accordance with the averageminimum wage.

We will not at this time comment in detail uponthe manner in which this Government. in itslegislation, has followed Judge Dunn's report. Iask members to keep in mind the sorts ofrecommendations Judge Dunn made and thelegislation we are being called upon to considernow. I ask members also to consider whether,when they see the more excessiverecommendations made by Judge Dunn, weshould follow the tenor apparent in that report.

1582

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981] 18

Another of the changes recommended by JudgeDunn was weekly payments should be 85 per centof weekly earnings. Implicit in thatrecommendation is the primitive reasoning aboutdepriving people of adequate compensation inorder to fix their broken legs and get them backto work. Members should remember also that.whilst that provision is not contained in thelegislation we are considering today. thisGovernment attempted to introduce a similarprovision in 1978. It was stopped from doing soonly as a result of a massive and concertedpublicity campaign on behalf of the people whowould have been badly affected by the provision.

As I said at the outset, the legislation is amixture aL marriage -of the barbarity of Dunnwith what this Government thinks it can get awaywith. The Opposition sounds a warning that, ifthe Government gets away with the changes itproposes now, it will not be very long before somecof the niore regressive Dunn recommendations.such as the reduction of workers' compensationpayments to 85 per cent of weekly earnings, areintroduced by this Government,

Members opposite would love to be able to cutback on weekly workers' compensation paymentsin that way but, of course, they cannot, becausethey know from previous experience that such asituation will not be accepted by the public of thisState.

Another of Judge Dunn's enlightenedrecommendat ions was that maximum weeklycotmpensation payments should be $200: that is.regardless of the payment received by the workereach week that he worked, there would be amaximum of $200 that he could receive by way ofweekly workers' compensation payments wheninjured.

WVhat is the rationale behind thatrecommendation? What is the reasoning behindthat sort of logic?

Dependent children were also disadvantagedunder the recommendations of Judge Dunn.

In another progressive, mind-bendcing. machine-breaking recommendation, Judge: Dunn said that,when a worker receiving workers" compensationdied of an unrelated cause, benefits should not bepaid to his dependants! That provision had been inour Act since 1944,

No reason was advanced for its exception fromwhat was proposed and yet Judge Dunn salliedforth, hastily concluding his inquiry, and makingrecommendations like that,

When wec turn to the detail of the Workers'Compensation Bill, we will see that, whilst theGovernment has not done that, it has attempted

to do almost that in certain areas%. We will seereflected in the WVorkers' Compensation Bill nowbefore the House the same emotional tenor JudgeDunn brought down in his recommendations andreport.

Killer diseases such as pneumoconiosis andmesothelioma would be less likely to occasionworkers' cornpensation payments. according tothe recommendations of the Dunn report. Weshall see similarities there also when we talkabout the present Bill in detail. Cardiovascularand cerebrovascular diseases were excludedcompletely by Judge Dunn, and this Government.in its presenL legislative changes. proposes tofollow that pattern.

Sonic people would be prepared to concedethat, in the existing situation, there is a fairdegree of luck attached to whether a person whosuffered a heart attack or stroke will receiveworkers' compensation. If the affliction occurredat his work place, he would receive workers'compensation. However, if he was unfortunateenough to be afflicted at home or off the job, hewould not receive workers' compensation. A casecan be made out to support the proposition thatthat sort of luck should not play a part in thismatter.

The suggestion of Judge Dunn and the actionon the part of this Government totally removesluck, reasonableness, and rationality from thescene. Decspite Lhe fact that a worker might beemployed on a very strenuous job, for all practicalpurposes no workers' compensation payments willbe made when a person suffers a hearL attaek or astroke.

According to Judge Dunn. journeyingprovisions should be curtailed. Therecommendations made by Judge Dunn weremuch more restrictive in their treatment ofworkers' compensation in regard to journeyingprovisions or activities by workers. Savagechanges were recommended by Judge Dunn-andaccepted subsequently by this Government Imight add-in the culpability aspects of theWorkers' Compensation Act.

Dependlants would have been left with reducedor non-existent benefits and long-establishedpractices attached to the administration of theWorkers' Compensation Act were dispensed withunder the recommendations in Lhe Dunn report. Adetrimental or disadvantageous redefinition Of theword "worker" was recommended by JudgeDunn.

The report also introduced the concept thatcompensation was an entitlement which shouldcease according to age. Here is an interesting

1583

1584 [ASSEMBLY]

sideline which will become apparent when we dealwith the Bill in greater detail later. While it wasrecommended that workers' compensation shouldcease according to age, Judge Dunn did not go tothe lengths this Government has gone to in thechanges it proposes to make to the legislation. Atleast Judge Dunn scaled down the diminishingentitlement of workers once they passed the age of65. This Government attempts not to scale onewhit and, with one very minor exception in theprovision of payments for the 12-month periodfollowing an injury suffered by a worker of aparticular age, there is absolutely no allowance toscale down the deletion of workers compensationpayments.

Another of Judge Dunn's recommendationsinvolved the suspension of compensation duringterms of imprisonment and also referred to veryharsh provisions for suspension of compensationpayments if a person refused to undertake arehabilitation programme.

A further recommendation touched upon thetime allowances for the submission of a 12Bnotice. Judge Dunn proposed the time should bereduced from 21 to 14 days. Initially that wasaccepted by the Government and now, by way ofinterjection, the Minister has informed the Househe has agreed that the 21-day period should beretained. As far as we are concerned, the 21-dayperiod is the barest minimum in which one canexpect an injured worker, in many instanceswithout qualifications or training , to know exactlywhat to do. let alone to carry out what he knowsshould be done to ensure he and his family areprotected properly.

Mr Parker: It is virtually impossible to get ahearing within 21 days.

Mr B. T. BURKE: In that situation where theworker needs to know what to do and whatrequirements have to be met, we see the workerpossessed of that knowledge unable, by virtue ofthe system, to implement action which will lead tohis own protection. Judge Dunn wanted reducedthe time allowed to implement that protection.This Government agreed with him and now as asop, I suppose, has included the reversion to the21-day period amongst the cosmetic changes it ispreparcd to accept to the proposal before us.

Another of Judge Dunn's recommendations,Mr Acting Speaker (Mr Crane), involved a verymassive attack on second schedule payments. Forthe first time we saw proposed by JudgeDunn-no doubt finding favour in the flint-likeheart of the Government-the separation ofsecond seheduje maximums for prescribedamounts from first schedule prescribed amounts,

The House will recall that the first scheduleprescribed amounts according to Judge Dunnshould be reduced by $9 000 from the figure thenapplying of $44 000. According to Judge Dunn,second schedule payments should be reduced to$30 000 rather than to $32 000 which would bethe maximum of the first schedule prescribedamounts.

Mr Parker: He also wanted to take out amountsfor loss of genitals and for disfigurement.

Mr B. T. BURKE: That is right. I have yet tofind any sort of rationale in support of theseparation of the prescribed amounts.Presumably, if a person is unable to workindefinitely or forever as a result of a secondschedule injury-for example, the loss of botheyes or both legs-then he is less entitled to anamount of money by way of compensation than ifhe were injured permanently or indefinitely as aresult of a bad back.

As the member for Fremantle pointed out,Judge Dunn in one of his flights of fancy-theyare not so silly when one compares them withwhat the Minister said in his second readingspeech-decided there should be no compensationfor the loss of genitals or severe bodily scarring.That is indicative of the notion the Minister putforward when he introduced the Bill and said thatworkers' compensation is not payment for pain orloss of enjoyment, it is payment for the loss ofability to work.

Mr O'Connor: Private legal action can betaken.

Mr Parker: Workers' compensation is tocompensate for things which happen to workerswhen they are at work.

Mr B. T. BURKE: I am glad the Ministerinterjected. He has been on this plane before, andI would have thought from the reaction itoccasioned previously he would desist from tryingto mislead people-I think he believes ithimself-into thinking that anyone who, forexample, loses his genitals at work, has a privatelegal action to pursue. That is just not true. I wishthe Minister would ask someone or readsomething so that he can assure himself of thefact that is just not true. It is not true thatsomeone whose body is severely scarred at work,and, who, if Judge Dunn's recommendation wereimplemented, would not have receivedcompensation, suddenly and magically has a rightto pursue private legal action to compensate himfor the injury he has suffered.

Mr O'Connor: In many cases, depending on thecircumstances, they can take private legal action.

1584

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 18

Mr Parker: Only if they can prove thenegligence.

Mr B. T. BURKE: That is right. The Ministerstarted saying that these people could take privatelegal action, but when confronted with the truthof the matter he interjected and said that 'inmany eases" private legal action can be pursued.

Mr O'Connor: I am not at all reverting.

Mr B. T. BURKE: What 1 say to the Ministeris this: In far less than 50 per cent or the eases Ihave had anything to do with has there been anaction for compensation on the basis ofnegligence.

Mr Parker: It takes years.

Mr B. T. BURKE: Having to prove negligencecertainly is not the thought and principle behindworkers' compensation. A worker should not haveto prove negligence; that is the spirit which liesbeneath. However, the Minister consistentlywants to advance his phoney theory that workersinjured can follow a negligence claim, which, inany event, is unlikely to succeed.

Mr Tonkin: In many cases they can't afford 'totake the action,

Mr O'Connor: There was one ease whereobviously private action came into being.

Mr Parker: He had to prove negligence on thepart of the other driver.

Mr B. T. BURKE: It may be on the part of thepassenger, but the point I am trying to make isthat J udge Dunn by making thoserecommendations reflected or had reflected athought which is not that far removed from thespirit of this legislation, and the obvious coursealong which this Government will take workers inthis State in respect of workers' compensation. Ifa worker, for example, loses his genitals and doesnot lose the ability to earn money, he does notreceive compensation. If his body is severelyscarred and the scarring does not prevent himnfrom, except in special eases, earning hislivelihood, then he will not receive compensation.That thought was reflected by the Minister in hissecond reading speech when he said-I1 willparaphrase him-that workers' compensation wasnot a compensation or payment for loss ofenjoyment or pain. So, I again sound the warningon behalf of the Opposition that once we get overthis hurdle-once we digest this tasty little morselnow before us which is an indication of what is inthe pipeline-we will see the recommendations byJudge Dunn. as regressive as they have proved tobe, implemented as surely as night follows day.

The change before US is noL the first or lastchange we will see to workers" compensation lawsin this State.

Mr O'Connor: Regarding compensation forpain, scarring and those types of things, do theproposed changes vary very much from what is inthe present Act?

Mr B. T. BURKE: ] wil] answer the DeputyPremier by saying "No", but perhaps thesophistication of the argument has eluded somepeople. What I am saying is that the Minister byhis own admission has had the Bill based in largepart on the work carried out by Judge Dunn, withsome qualifications. The Minister pointed out tothe Hlouse when he introduced the Bill that JudgeDunn's work had played a very important part inthe drafting of the legislation which finally wasbrought to the House.

What I say now is that part of Judge Dunn'sreport, some of' his recommendations which theGovernment saw Fit to overlook on this occasion,have been foreshadowed by the language Used bythe Minister in his second reading speech. What Isay on behalf of the Opposition is that in thefuture we are likely to see the more regressiverecommendations of Judge Dunn implemented;and it is likely as evidenced by the language theMinister used that we will see in the future morefirmly established the notion that pain, loss ofenjoyment and other things apart from the loss ofthe ability to work are not compensable. If theMinister thinks workers' compensation is simplycompensation or payment for the loss of ability towork, let him say so.

Mr O'Connor: I will come back to that in duecourse.

Mr B, T. BURKE: If he wants honestly tomaintain the present position then I ask him toexplain to the House why compensation is notprovided in this new law for the loss of someone'sgenitals or severe bodily scarring. He cannot haveit both ways. In the future we will see thislegislation develop in the way I have suggested.So, we see that Judge Dunn, in total, was notsympathetic to the workmen and workwornen inthis State.

Mr Parker: To put it very mildly!Mr B. T. BURKE: Yet, harsh as he was in the

recommendations he made and as unwise as hewas in many points that he made and reported, hewas able to provide this Government with afoundation, a basis on which it could bring inchanges which walked alongside therecommendat[ions he made.

Mr Parker: Have you said that he was senile?

1585

I 586[ASSEMBLY]

Mr B. T. BURKE: No. he just got old. Thetruth is that the selection of Judge Dunn was atput-up job and everyone knew that because it isthe oldest political trick in the world. It wasproved by the perfornmce of the Government inpreviously bringing in legislation for 85 per cenitof the weekly w'age to be paid in compensation. Itwas the oldest political ploy in the book. The manemployed for the job was rude 10 half the peoplewho tried to put in submissions: hec did not wantto listen to the other half and appeared to havemade up his mind already. It is the oldest politicalploy in the world to find at horse for the course.appoint him to a Royal Comnission or acommittee of inquf'ry and then be presentlysurprised by the report. It is just like appointingthe member for Gascoyne to carry out acomnmission to inquire into the State's electorallaws.

One purpose the Dunn report did serve was topermit the Government to see more clearly whatit could get away with in the nature of changes tothe Workers' Compensation Act. The outcrywhich was occasioned by the Dunn reportcertainly woke the Government to some of thedangers involved in embarking upon a massive,unrelenting and unobjeetive commitment toeverything which Judge D~unn had to say.

Nevertheless, implicit in the changes to whichwe object, there are many alterations that foundthemselves in the first place in the breast of JudgelDunn. First of all, we on this side of the Housetake exception to the proposition that theprescribed amnount should be reduced fromt$51I 646 to $41 000. We object in the strongestpossible terms to the proposal that the prescribedamount should be reduced in that fashion.

There has been no justification for thereduction. The Minister did not explain at lengthin his second reading speech why the amount wastoo high and did not list the reasons for thereduction. We on this side of the IHouse wonderwhen nothing else stands still that wec should havea reduction of this sort in the prescribed amountthat is payable-

Mr IDavies: Going backwards!Mr B. T. BURKE: -to at worker who loses the

ability to earn his income.Mr O'Connor: You also know it won't go below

$51 000.Mr B. T. BURKE: I will come to that fact. As

I said previously, those affected will be the peopleleast able to defend themselves: they will be themost in need. Lump-sumt payments do notcomprise, by any manner of means, the largestpart of workers' compensation costs but they do

comprise a large part paid to workers "'ho lose theability to work or the amount paid to the familyof a worker whose lire is lost.

The Minister has an obligation to explain to theHouse the reason for the reduction and why itshould be supported by members.

I shall refer now to the commntns made by theMinister by way of interjection. I le pointed outthat the maximum amount would not fall below$51 646. What the Government proposes to do isto keep the minimum at $51 646 until the newprescribed amount is adjusted according to thenew procedure for adjustment and reduces thatfigure. The Minister says that the prescribedamount will not fall below $51 646: of course itwill. Every day, inflation is making that amountworth less. Every day the dollar loses its value tosome extent and it will take four or five years forthe prescribed amount under the new formula toreach the level of $51 646.

What does the Minister say shall happenduring those five years if the amount does not fallbelow $51 646? If he is saying that then he isindulging himself in a semantic nicety becauseone does not need to reduce the amount inabsolute terms to cause its value to be less. Thevalue of $51 000 as it is now, will be far mnorethan the value of the same number of dollars infive years' time.

I notice the Minister has not rushed tocontradict that proposition. The truth is that theMinister thought and Government menmbersbelieved that they could get away with reducingthe maximum, not in the way Judge Dunnrecommended, but by way of subterfuge: that is,by leaving it at its present level until the reducedamount is adjusted by a less efficient orappropriate formula reaches, in absolute terms.the amount that the prescribed amount now is. Itis unworthy, it is inappropriate, it is miserable.and it is cruel.

Not only is the prescribed amount to bereduced, but it is true too that the variations tothe prescribed amount "'ill be made according toa much less satisfactory formula under theprovisions of the new Act.

You will recall, Mr Acting Speaker (MrCrane) ats w'ill other members, that in previousyears the average weekly wage has been used todetermine fluctuations, and increases in workers'compensation prescribed amounts. What theGovernment has done is to accept Judge Dunn'proposition that in future the prescribed amountshould be adjusted according to the averageminimum wage.

1586

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981] 18

We have not had advanced to us the soundbasis for making this change: what has beenimplied, and what is inferred is that theprescribed amount is escalating too rapidly for theGovernment and its supporters and that theinjured worker is likely to receive more than he

shudfor losing the right to work, That has beenthe implication but we have not been told thereason that the minimum, rather than the averagewage, should be used as the yardstick governingthe fluctuations in the prescribed amount.

Let us have some solid reasons from theGovernment if it wishes to do barbarous thingsand wishes to inflict itself upon a large part of thecommunity in this way. Let it justify thatinfliction because it is certainly not the case thatwe have had explained to us: The logicalreasoning behind the Minister's decision to havechanged the formula for determining howworkers' compensation payments will fluctuate.

The key to the reason, unstated as I have said itis, for this particular change, is seen in thecomparison of what would have happened to theprescribed amount under the old formula andwhat will happen under the new formula in themost recent period. Here we will see just why theMinister and the Government are so keen to havethe workers' compensation prescribed amountfixed according to the minimum wage. Under theaverage weekly wage formula, the increase in theprescribed amount would have been 14.3 per centin July; that is an amount of $7 000-plus. So thefigure of $51 000 would have been increased to$59 000 roughly.

Under the minimum wage formula nowproposed by this Government, the increase in theprescribed amount will be 8.1 per cent, or justover $4 000. The minimum wage procedure orformula will not even keep pace with the increasein the cost of living. That is the procedure towhich the Government wants to anchor theprescribed amount payable to workers who havelost the ability to work. As far as the Oppositionis concerned, that is unacceptable. We say therewill always be an average wage, there will alwaysbe an appropriate formula by which theprescribed amount can be adjusted. We say thereis no excuse to incorporate in the Bill a formulathat will not even keep the prescribed amountapace with inflation or the CPI figures. Whycannot the Minister explain his reason forthinking the prescribed amount should rise by lessthan the cost oF living?

WVe say also that members should cast theirminds back to the basic wage concept. andremember that it is now non-existent, and whilewe are casting our minds back, the Minister

should explain what he intends to do if theminimum wage ceases to exist.

There will always be an average weekly wage,but there is no guarantee there will always be aminimum wage. On that basis there is noguarantee there will always be a formula bywhich the prescribed amount can be adjusted. Asfar as we are concerned, not one soundreason-apart from the inference that theprescribed amount is too high-has beenadvanced for the reduction proposed or. secondly.[or the change proposed in the formula by whichthe prescribed amount is arrived at.

Amongst the other very regressive changesproposed-and we will go through each of themfor the Minister's benefit-in this legislation. arechanges touching upon the journeying provisionsof the Workers' Compensation Act. Currently,with a few exceptions, an employee is coveredwhilst travelling to and from work. Under theproposals incorporated in the Bill before theHouse, only one journey will be covered, and theworker will be liable to receive compensation onlyif he is injured on the way to work or on the wayhome. Certainly he would not be covered whengoing home for lunch; one journey only isprovided for.

I draw to the Minister's attention, and to theattention of the House, the situation ofMetropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trustdrivers who work split shifts. These drivers mayhave three hours off in the middle of the day, andthey will not be covered now if they follow theirnormal procedure of going home for the periodbetween shifts. Is that fair? Is it intended? Shouldit not be seen that a split shift and the travelling itrequires is an imposition of the person'semployment? Should it not be seen differentlyfrom the case of a worker who returns home forlunch?

The Minister gives no indication that he is evenaware of the difference. Certainly the Ministerhas not advanced any argument to support theproposition that workers' compensation should berefused to people who work split shifts and whotravel to and from their home more than once in asingle day.

What about the position of other workers whodo not go home for lunch, but who have occasionin the course of their employment, and as a resultof the conditions of their employment, to travel toand from their homes more than once in a day;for example, barmaids, cooks, and cleaners? Willthese people have to nominate Which trip will betheir workers' compensation trip? Or will we dothe right and fair thing and say that they should

1587

1588 [ASSEMBLY]

be covered under the provisions of the Act as itex ists'?

if the changes to the journeying provisions arcnot bad enough, there is still more to conc.Certainly, in keeping with the tenor of Nit JusticeDunn's erratic and regressive approach is thechange which this legislation makes in the onus ofproof. It is now quite clear that the onus of proofin the ease of' a 'worker who is injured whilejourneying to or [ronm home or work in the courseof his employment is placed fairly and squarely onthe worker. Under the new legislation it will be(he worker's job to prove that there was nosubstantial deviation. interruption. or default, onhis part if hie is involved in an accident travellingto or from work. What will be the situation of aworker who is travelling by himself and who isinjured while going to or from work'? Just howwill such a worker prove that there was nosubstantial deviation, interruption, or default tinhis part'? It is an impossible proposition, and onewhich conflicts absolutely with ;he spirit ofworkers' compensation as it has been envisagedsince 1902.

In the ease of at worker who is killed-and wewill say more about that later-were hie otherwiseeligible for workers' compensation, in a situationwhere he was travelling alone, how will his famlilyprove that there was no substantial deviation,interrtuption, or default on his part?

Mr Bryce: They arc not supposed to under this.

Mr B. T. BURKE: The member for Ascot sumsit up concisely when he says that under this Bill aworker's family is not supposed to prove it.

Mr Parker: This Government has a completecontempt for the people anyway.

Mr B. T. BURKE: As far as the Opposition isconcerned, it is quite clear that this particularonus of proof change is designed to excise fromthe provisions of the Act people who now receiveworkers' compensation, and to excise them in away that will most unfairly place upon them theburden of attempting to prove their eligibility orthe employer's liability, It will just not be possibleunder the provisions of this legislation for mianypeople in particular situations to receive workers'compensation. it is heartless, miserable, and cruelof the Government to put this onus of proof onto aworker in situations where he can only beincapable of providing that proof.

As I said in passing, and as I will reiterate,perhaps the worst aspect of this change is thatwhen a worker is killed and it is proved that hewas at fault in the way I have outlined accordingto the ehanges in the Bill, his dependants will be

denied any workers' comipensation whatever. Thisis a complete reversal of the current Act.

So if we are not able to serve badly the workerwho is killed, let us do a disservice to his familywhich reniains! Let us make it impossible to provehe was not at fault and thien, when it has not beenpossible to prove he was blamecless, we will say hewas at fault-the reverse-and denycompensation to his family. It is an absolutelyreprehensible situatioin, and I am surprised at theMinister's willingness to bring this sort ofproposition before the House.

Leave ro ContIin ue Speech

Mr B. T. BURKE: I move-

That I be given leave to continue myspehat a later stage of the sitting.

Motion put and passed.

Debate thus adjourned.

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Establishment of Heritage Trust Fond: Motion

MR BRYCE (Ascot) 14.31 p.m.]: I move-

That in the opinion of this House:

Current generations of WesternAustralians have a responsibility toensure that in the exploitation anddevelopment of nonI-renewableresources, adequate provision is madefor the security and well-being of futuregenerations.

and because-

(i) the resourcein1d ustry hasposition ofimportance ineconomy.

developmentassumed a

such majorthe State's

(ii) the annual value of mineralsproduced in W.A. i Sapproaching$ $1.5 billion,

(iii) all $382 million of the royaltieson the $8.4 billion worth or'minerals produced in W.A. inthe last 10 years has been usedas Consolidated Revenue,

(iv) the level of royalties paid tothe Western AustralianGovernment is less than 5 percenit of the value of mineralsproduced,

the Government of this State has anobligation to-

1588

fWcdlnesday. 6 May 1981158

establish a Western AustralianDevelopment Trust Fund frommineral royalties to-

(a) provide a guaranteedfuture source ofGovernment Revenue anddevelopment capital.

(b) finance capital projectswhich will help diversifythe State's economy.

(c) sta bilise anonualfluctuations in theresource revenues used tofinance governmentprogrammes.

(d) invest in assets which willprovide the base for futureeconomic vitality andstability.

By way of introduction. I should like to say thatcurrent generations of Western Australians havea responsibility not only to ensure that in theexploitation of non-renewable resources, adequateprovision is made for the security and well-beingof future generations but also to avoid themistakes of the past. I have no doubt in my mindthat future generations of Western Australianswill quite justifiably accuse this generation ofWestern Australians or' mishandling the post-World War 11 resources boom. Futuregenerations of Western Australians will be able todo this in a number of regards and in respect of anumber of areas, and I wish to touch briefly onfour of those areas.

Future generations of Western Australians willbe able to point to the fact that the royaltieswhich were received by this Western AustralianGovernment were, by international comparison.very low indeed. This has been no accident; it hasbeen the result of a very deliberate policy of theState Government. I do not intend to takeadvantage of the former Minister for ResourcesDevelopment (Mr Mensaros) in his absence;however, the member for Floreat who has beenMinister for Resources Development in this Statefor at least six years of the life of this Governmenthas very proudly advocated a low royalty policyon behalf of this Government. HeI is on record ashaving said he was proud the Western AustralianGovernment was a low royalty Government. Wewill all be required to answer for that position inthe years to come.

Sir Charles Court: In what context did he saythose words?

Mr BRYCE: The Minister made that specificremark in reply to me during the course of a

debate on the matter of royalties. I do not intendto pursue a man who is not here to defendhimself: I should be very happy to do so on asubsequent occasion when he is present.

Sir Charles Court: He was only followingGovernment policy. When you look at ourperformance by world standards, having regardfor the infrastructure that has been contributed.in addition to royalties, you will see we have doneextremely well.

Mr BRYCE: That is where I differ from thePremier and that is what I refer to specifically asone leading mistake of the past which I sincerelyhope will not be repeated as we go into the 1980sand the 1990s. It is timec we had at comprehensivereview of all agreements between the resourcedevelopers in this State and the State Governmentof Western Australia. I emphasise that I am notsuggesting for a minute we embark upon a witchhunt of companies which are scarcely surviving. Iam suggesting a complete review of the companieswhich are enjoying profitability should beconducted for the precise purpose of asking thosecompanies to accept their fair share of thefinancial responsibilities and burdens which thisState must carry.

I summarise my argument in this respect bysaying that agreements written in the I 960s mustnot remain untouched for the next 30. 40, or 50years.

We have a situation at the moment where theGovernment can scarcely make ends meet.Thanks to the efforts of the "razor gang" andFraser's new federalism, we see StateGovernments in all parts of the country on theirknees. Yet we see in this resource-rich State aGovernment which is not prepared to go to theresource companies and say "In some respects.you people have had it fairly easy over the last 10or 15 years. It is our social responsibility to revtewthe position in Western Australia, vis-a-v'is theposition of your companies, so far as the future isconcerned."

Sir Charles Court: I am very interested in whatyou are saying. and in the content of your motion.I hope that in the course of your remarks you aregoing to explain to the House the level of royaltiesyou think would be fair, because that wouldindicate the Labor Party's attitude on the matter.Perhaps you could also suggest where we couldobtain the replacement income for currentactivities, as distinct from the far-distant future,

Mr BRYCE: I intend to handle that specificaspect in some detail.

In another respect, future generations w.ill bejustified in pointing to the fact that in Western

1589

1590 ASSEMBLYJ

Australia in the past, no provision had been made10 convert non-renewable resources into long-termassets for the future. In fact, we as a communityhave been living on our assets. It is somethingthat no legitimate business, farm or family wouldcontinue to do. One of the basic purposes in mymoving this motion today is to draw to theattention of the Legislative Assembly that weshould not expect the State to continue to live onand consume its assets in the way we have beendoing.

In a third respect, future generations will beable to point to the fact that mineral resources inWestern Australia which belong to thecommunity as a whole have not been developedfor the benefit of all citizens-certainly, not in anequitable sense.

Finally, I suggest to the House that futuregenerations will most certainly be able to point tothis generation and allege that the level of localequity in resource development projects wasinexcusably low. If we are to anticipate anothermajor wave of resource development in WesternAustralia, whether it be associated with reservesof oil and gas, diamonds, or additional deposits ofiron ore or coal, it is essential we do not approachthe 1980s and 1990s with the same methods andphilosophies with which we approached the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s.

I emphasise that, as a community, we are no

longer naive beginners in the field of resourcedevelopment, able to blame inexperiencei orenthusiasm for our failure to derive maximumbenefits from the development of non-renewableresources.

At this stage of my remarks I should like tomake the point that the level of loeal equity inresource projects, the distribution of the benefitsderived from developing our resources, and thelevel of royalties received for non-renewableresources, are matters worthy of special, separate,and detailed consideration for this Assembly at afuture date. What I should like to do today inmoving this motion is to focus attention on animportant matter in a constructive endeavour tosee that some provision is made so far as futuregenerations of Western Australians arc concernedwhen it comes to spending the benefits of resourcedevelopment, more particularly as it relates to theexploitation of non-renewable resources.

Before 1 develop my argument in that totalcontext I should like the members of the House toreflect very briefly and consider at a glance justprecisely how significant the mineral wealth ofWestern Australia really is. In 1976-77, mineralsworth $1.1 billion were produced in this State and

from that, $52 million was paid to the Treasury inroyalties. In 1977-78, the figure reflecting thevalue of minerals produced was $1.32 billion, and$54 million went to the Treasury in royalties. In1978-79, which is the last official figure I am ableto obtain. $1.36 billion-worth of minerals wereproduced in Western Australia, and $58 million-worth of royalties was paid to the Treasury. Thesituation this year is that the value of mineralsproduced in Western Australia, as will probablybe achieved, will be $1,5 billion, and the Treasuryexpects to receive a total in excess of $65 millionin royalties.

If 1 could arrange this argument in respeet of a10-year period from 1968-69 to 1978-79, we couldconsider it in this way: The value of the mineralsproduced in our State approximated $8.4billion-this is actual dollars: these values havenot been adjusted for rates of inflation or changesin the value of currency-and during that sameperiod total royalties received amounted to $382million. That is a figure which is less than 5 percent of the value of the minerals produced andreturned to the State in the form of royalties.

Mr P. V. Jones: That is not disputable, but youare making it sound as though they are the onlythings that occurred. Is that what you are tryingto promote?

Mr BRYGE: No, I am trying to promote thissignpost for Western Australians to assess whathas happened in the past as a way to look towardsthe future, because I sincerely believe that someerrors of judgment have been made so far as thepast is concerned and I am sincere in attemptingto ensure those errors are not repeated in the1980s and the 1990s.

If we make a few world comparisons we findthat Western Australia produces 25 per cent ofthe world's alumina, 20 per cent of all the iron orethat is traded around the globe, 20 per cent of theworld's niekel, and 75 per eent of the world'silmenite and zircon. We are well aware that in themid- 1980's gas will come on stream in associationwith the North-West Shelf project. We allanticipate significant developments with regard todiamonds and probably additional deposits ofcoal, bauxite, iron ore, and oil irf water somewhatdeeper than where the gas lies off the North-WestShelf at present.

In association with the development of ourresources there has been an enormous amount ofpropaganda over the last 10 or 20 years. WesternAustralian citizens have been reminded at everyturn, at every conceivable moment, that they arepart and parcel of a massive resouree developmentboom. When we look for tangible evidence of the

1590

[Wednesday. 6 May 19811 59

resource boom. I sincerely believe we can come 10only one of two conclusions: Either the boom hasnever been as grandiose in its proportions as thepropaganda has suggesred, or the boom itself hasbeen mismanaged. After 20 years of daily diet inrespect of the propaganda the public havereceived regarding the resource boom mentality,we should be taking a long, hard look at where weare heading.

Mr Grewar: Have you gone around with youreyes closed? It is everywhere.

Mr BRYCE: I suggest to the member for Roethat if the resource boom has been as grandiose ashis leader in particular has suggested, why is itt hat we are staring a State income tax in the faceright now?

Mr P. V. Jones: That is not so.Mr BRYCE: Yes, we are. Why is it the Prime

Minister is telling the States that they should beimposing at State income tax if they wish topreserve their standards of living'? Why is oureducation system and our health system being putunder the screws to the extent they are if in factthe resource boom has been to WesternAustralian citizens all that it has been presentedto be by the Premier's own propaganda machine?

Mr Grewar: We have spent huge sums onteachers and so forth.

Mr l-erzfeld: We are getting to what you aredriving at-you want t0 nationalise them.

Mr BRYCE: I used to worry when at pcabrainlike the member for Mundaring put forwvard thosearguments, but I do not any more.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Blaikie): Order!The member will address the Chair.

Mr BRYCE: I ani in the middle of addressing aserious argument to the Chamber and I have nointention of being sidetracked by the menmber forMundaring.

Mr Herzfeld: That is all you want to do.Mr BRYCE: This poor old refugee fromt the

Labor Party did not even read the policies of theLabor Party when he was a member.

If I can come back to the basis of myargument. I would like to put to members thatthere is at correct approach to the use of non-renewable resources and the essence of that is tomake somec provision for the dlay when those non-renewable resources will be gone. I sincerelysuggest to the Minister that it is time hisGovernment gave Some Very serious thought tothis particular angle of my proposition. I intend todraw to his attention at number of internationalcomparisons which leave us for dead. There is oneunquestionable feature about non-renewable

resources which is that with every tonne thai ismined, with every barrel used, it is gone forever.

I question the wisdom of the current generationof Western Australians living for today byconsuming our assets. Every member of thisHouse is fully, aware of the poignant reminder toall Western Australians of what happens when amine is exhausted-one has only to look throughat string of goidmining ghost towns in differentparts of Western Australia. One has only to visitthe iron ore mining town of Goldsworthy to seewhat life is like in a town living on the brink ofcollapse.

I urge the House to consider whether wve canany longer afford like Sir John Forrest to live fortoday and forget the future. I believe we have atresponsibility to ask ourselves what sort ofheritage we are passing on to future generationsof Western Australians.

It is not a novel or new idea that Governmentsshould seek to diversify development and theinvestments of their communities so that theyhave a secure future. There are plenty ofexamples in the rest of the world, and I would liketo make reference to a few of them.

Perhaps the Arabs have set the most dramaticprecedent throughout the world. It is nowv notquite a decade ago that the leaders of the Oil richcountries around the Arabian Peninsula realisedthat one day .the oil would be gone and theirstandard of living collectively would take one heckof a plummet unless something w'as done. Theytook some very stringent action in respect of theownership of their resources, the price of theirresources, and provision for their future.

Everybody knows that the price wvhich theArabs demanded for their oil escalatedsignificantly. They were determined to look aftertheir communities so far as their future wasconcerned. They recognised they had aresponsibility, and the effects of that echoedaround the world and, in fact. are stillreverberating from one industrial nation to theother.

They do not any longer tolerate the situationwhereby the companies exploiting their non-renewable resources arc owned exclusively byoverseas shareholders. The Arabs have miade ittheir business to take a local equity. whether it isprivate or public, in these companies. They havemade it their business to see that local people inthat part of the world have a direct equity in thedevelopment of their resources. More particularlyfor the sake of my argument I would like to drawthe attention of the House to what the Arabs havedone in cities like London. Paris. New York, and

1591

1592 [ASSEMBLY]

various others in other parts of the world. TheArabs have invested huge sums of money derivedfrom the development of non-renewable resourcesbecause they realise that one day the oil will begone and they will need something significant tounderpin the standards of living they will haveachieved at the time the oil runs out.

We are all aware huge sums of money arebeing invested by the Governments of thosecountries to develop secondary industries feasiblein that part of the world; they are desperatelyworking to diversify their economic systems.

In Mexico and Norway-other countries whichhave been involved with this exploitation of thewell-known non-renewable resources of oil andgas-provision has been made for'significant localequity in resource development projects. In boththose countries there is a heritage developmentfund into which money is put to one side now sothat in the future there will be a form ofinvestment-a nest egg. if one likes to call it thatin colloquial terms. There will be a form ofcapital development to provide for the security offuture generations.

Brazil is an interesting example. From time totime we hear a great deal from the Premier aboutour great competitor, Brazil. How long ago was itthat the Minister for Resources Development orthe Premier pointed out to this House thatslightly more than 70 per cent of the Brazilianiron ore industry is owned by Ihe State inBrazil-by the Brazilian community-and thatthe private sector in that country has only a minorinterest in the mining industry.

Mr P. V. Jones: What does that have to do withit'?

Mr BRYCE: I will demonstrate the point. Theequity that country's citizens have in thosecompanies involved in the development of Brazil'sresources is very significant indeed. The Brazilianpeople do not scream "Socialism, trauma,drama-it can't be done!"

Mr P. V. Jones: Will you also tell us that theBrazilian inflation rate is nearly 100 per cent, andthat Brazil is unable to raise the funding todevelop the Sweet River project? Will you tell usthose things?

Mr BRYCE: What has the rate of inflation gotto do with the fundamental principle of Brazilianequity in a mining industry?

Mr P. V. Jones: I will tell you exactly: TheBrazilians are now unable to raise the moneyfrom the public sector and are asking the privatesector to comec back in order to obtain thenecessary funding.

Mr BRYCE: Well may they do so; I think it isa remarkably sensible thing 10 do.

Mr P. V. Jones: That is not what you said aminute ago.

Mr BRYCE: It is precisely what I said aminute ago. The Brazilians can be proud of thefact that they have a local equity. Nobody willstand over the Brazilian people with a rod of ironand say "This is the golden formula. This is theonly equity that should apply". If the Brazilianpeople decide to vary the proportion of privateand public equity in future projects in Brazil no-one can quibble with that. However, something Imight add and something the Premier never tellsus is that the Sweet River mining company inBrazil when it goes to Japan to negotiate iron oreprojects speaks with one voice. There are not fouror five local iron ore producing miners in Brazilknocking on the door of the Japanese, knockingeach other down on prices and competing againstone another in contractual agreements to sell ironore to the Japanese.

Sir Charles Court: Would you exchange ourWestern Australian standard of living for theBrazilian standard of living? Most of their peoplelive in very substandard conditions. The onlyBrazilian State that has a roughly similarstandard or higher standard is the free enterpriseState of Sao Paulo.

Mr BRYCE: The Premier would surely be thelast person on earth to argue publicly that thestandard of living which all Australians todayenjoy is due to his efforts and his efforts alonewith regard to the Pilbara iron ore, because thatis the implication of what he said.

Sir Charles Court: No-one is saying that at all.I am talking about the policies of successiveGovernments throughout Australia which havebeen responsible for the present standards wehave. Would you exchange them for what Brazilhas? How well do you know Brazil?

Mr BRYCE: I have never been to Brazil; it isone of the countries I have yet to visit. However, Ihave received correspondence from people there.

Sir Charles Court: Do you know that SaoPaulo-from the Figures given to me when lastthere-has only 16 per cent of the population,earns 50 per cent of the export income and paysabout 60 per cent of the income tax because ithappens to be a private enterprise State and notbasically a mining State.

Mr BRYCE: The point the Premier makes isquite irrelevant. Nobody wants to exchange ourstandard of living for the standard of living of thepeople of Brazil or of any other South Americancountry.

1592

[Wednesday. 6 May i981j 59

Sir Charles Court: It is a red herring then.Mr BRYCE: I am suggesting that many of the

people in the third world countries, as well aspeople in Canada. Scandinavia, and othercountries, in 1981, just happen to be reviewingtheir approach to the whole question of how, theyhandle the exploitation of their non-renewableresources. They have all been taught a few lessonsby the third world countries. I know the PremierFinds it most unpalatable-

Sir Charles Court: Not at all.Mr BRYCE: -to compare Western Australia

with any of the third world countries. That is whyI intend to take some time to make a comparisonbetween Western Australia and certain Canadianprovinces before I finish developing my argument.

Sir Charles Court: Have you studied theCanadian situation at the moment?

Mr BRYCE: I have studied it very carefully. Ispent six weeks there at a study conference whichalmost exclusively addressed itself to the impactof resources development.

Sir Charles Court: Are you aware of theproblems they are experiencing?

Mr BRYCE: I do read, and I have maintaineda fairly high level of correspondence with peoplein Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Ontario. I intendto demonstrate to the Premier that it is time forhim to take stock of some of his value-judgments.Sonic of the people in government in the parts ofthe world to which I have referred have indicatedthat we have made errors of judgment.

Let me compare Western Australia withJamaica. I know the Premier does not likecomparing our Anglo-Saxon sophisticated westernsociety with that of Jamaica! One valid basis forcomparison relates to the dominance of thebauxite industry in the Jamaican economy.

In 1972 Jamaica was the world's second-largestbauxite producer: it produced 20 per cenit of theworld's bauxite. The companies producing thebauxite were owned by six large United Statesand Canadian corporations. In that year theroyalties paid to the Jamaican Governmentamounted to $40 million, and the industryprovided directly 9 000 jobs for Jamaican citizens.At that time nobody in the Jamaican Governmentknew enough about the bauxite industry to beable to assess the fairness of the operation of theindustry and the effect of the depletion of thiscritically important non-renewable resource toJamaica. So in 1972 a national Jamaican bauxitecommission was established.

By 1974 the people in Government figured thatthey knew enough about the bauxite industry to

decide to restructure it. A production levy wasimposed on the tonnages produced. I am suremembers will be fascinated by the fact that by theend of 1974. the royalty figure had grown to $193million as a result of the production levy imposed.That drastic action was taken by a socialistGovernment in Jamaica way back in the early1970s. Since then the Government has changed.and once again Jamaica is governed byConservatives. However, it is most interesting toobserve that there has been no suggestion on thepart of the Conservatives to try to unscramble theegg; they have not sought to revert to the pre-1974 situation.

The Conservative Government has not said tothe companies which contributed such vast sumsof money to its economy that the Government willpay the money back. That is another example ofhow a third world country has demonstrated tothe western world that if only the resolve exists, itis possible to do better for the local community inregard to the exploitation of resources.

Sir Charles Court: Do you know the currentstate of the Jamaican economy?

Mr BRYCE: Probably it is not much betterthan the current state of the economy inAustralia, New Zealand, or Great Britain.

Sir Charles Court: Don't talk rot.Mr BRYCE: Probably it is not much better

than the economy of France. Germany. wholesections of southern Europe. and even the rest ofthe world. Is the Premier suggesting seriously thatthe arguments I have just put forward about therestructuring of the bauxite industry in Jamaicahave produced the current parlous state of theJamaican economy? If that is so. I can only say tothe Premier that he is endorsing the concept ofcapital strike.

Sir Charles Court: It is nothing of the sort. Thefact is because of the actions taken, they haveprejudiced the real economic impact of theindustry on their economy. This is one of thethings I suggest, with respect, you do notunderstand, because you do not measure theimpact of such things purely by royalties.

Mr BRYCE: I am prepared to accommodatethe Premier with some details-

Sir Charles Court: Good.Mr BRYCE: -on this matter. Having sat

opposite him for 10 years. and having examinedhis philosophy on this subject in some detail, Ifigured I would have a responsibility today todraw to the attention of the House the fact thatwe ought to consider what is happening in at leasta country which is the most comparable country

1593

1594 ASSEMBLY1

to ours in the world today: that is, of course,Canada.

At this stage 1 would like to make the pointthat just 12 months ago I spent six weeks inCanada as an Australian representative at theDuke of Edinburgh Study Conference. Threeparticularly important industrial themes werestudied-the impact or technological change, thenature and impact of resources development onthe Canadian economy, and thie impact of theenergy crisis in Canada.

Mr P. V, Jones: You said that you studied thislast year. That is fair enough; I do not question it.But are you aware of what is happening currentfly,at the end of a northern winter, in provinces suchas Alberta'? I was there just a few weeks ago. Areyou aware of what is happening currently inAlberta'?

Mr BRYCE: The Minister can tell mc.Mr P. V. Jones: I am just asking because I

would like you to be right up to the minute.Mr BRYCE: The last communications I

received from Saskatchewan and Alberta arrivedabout three weeks ago.

Mr P. V. Jones: All right.Mr BRYCE: I was determined to be able to dot

all the "i's" and cross all the "t's in regard tothis concept. I would like to draw to the attentionof the House the fact that the idea enshrined inmy motion-

Mr Stephens. It came out of a speech in thisHouse last year.

Mr IBRYCE: -was brought back by me toWestern Australia. I did not move this motionlightly, because I do not believe that we canreadily transfer ideas from one culture to another.However, I moved the motion very positivelybecause I believe the culture, the society, and thieeconomy of resource-rich parts of Canada are socomparable with those of Western Australia thatwe can learn something from that country. Infact, we could benefit greatly by imitating it.

Specifically I would like to tell the Ministerabout the existence of the Alberta andSaskatchewan heritage funds. Probably the mostextreme right-wing Government of NorthAmerica is to be found in Alberta, and probablythe most left-wing Government of NorthAmrica-a Social Democrat Government-is tobe found in the province of Saskatchewan, whichis geographically alongside Alberta. One mostremarkable fact emerges when we compare ourState with provinces of Canada. both theseGovernments have accepted the principle, thephilosophy, and the basic argument, that today's

generation of people has a fundamentalresponsibility to future generations when it comecsto developing and exploiting non-renewableresources, and the spending of benefits froni thatexploitation.

It is ironical that during the 1970's the twoCanadian provinces which were governed byparties the furthest apart politically came to thesame socially responsible conclusion. TheMinister cannot say for one minute that theGovernment of which he is a part, or any otherGovernment in Australia, has seriously embodiedthat principle yet.

That is the basis of my proposition to theHouse today, and I would like the Minister tocome with me on a study of those parts of Canadawhere the funds were established.

Mr P. V. Jones: I will be all cars.Mr BRYCE: These funds were set up to

diversify development in those provinces in theyears to come. One day the oil, gas, potash,uranium, and coal will all be gone. and theGovernments recognise that. I emphasise againthat these two Governments-of differentpolitical persuasions-have committed themselvesto this concept as a matter of priority.

I am sorry the Premier is not here at themoment because members will recall he keptinterjeetWing to Say that we cannot compareourselves with the citizens of Brazil, Jamaica,Mexico, and Scandinavia. For the record. I wouldlike to iphasise that I believe it is perfectly validto compare ourselves with the citizens of Albertaand Saskatehewan. Both Australia and Canadaare vast continental countries, heavily endowedwith a great variety of mineral resources, Theyhave to contend with the problem of transportinggoods over great distances. Both countries have asmall population in world terms.

In Canada, 80 per cent of the population isconcentrated within a few hundred miles of theUnited States border. In Australia, 80 per cent ofthe population is concentrated in about 10 urbancentres sprinkled around the edge of thecontinent, Both countries were former Britishcolonies which are today struggling to establish asense of cultural identity because they have beenrather overwhelmed by the impact of the UnitedStates,.

I want to stress for the benefit of the Premierand of the Minister, in both Countries sovereignrights over the control of resources and mineralsrest with provincial Governments. However, whilethe provinces of Canada and the States ofAustralia have sovereignty in respect of minerals,companies which are required to pay royalties,

1594

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981] 59

and in some cases production levies to provincialGovernments, are expected also to pay income taxto the Federal Governments. It is no longerpossible in Canada for a mining company to claimroyalties it pays to a provincial Government as atax deduction when it conics to calculating itsincome for the purpose of Federal income tax.

That is the very essence Of Comparability withibis country. I Find the comparisons of the vividjurisdictional arguments between the provincesand the national Government to be remarkable. Iwas in Ontario for only two days when I feltcompletely at home: I could pick up newspapersand read that provincial Premiers werecondemning, denigrating and attacking theirPrime Minister over jurisdictional questions.

Both countries are experiencing a seriousindustrial and economic shakedown with highlevels, of unemployment. The level ofunemployment in Canada is marginally higherthan our own, and both countries have a standardof living which is the envy of the world. Bothcountries are experiencing industrial relationsproblems. Canada has an industrial relationsstructure which is very different from Australia's,but that country is experiencing problemscomparable with our own.

Basically, and finally in this respect, I wouldlike to emphasise that both countries haveresource development industries based to a largeextent on export markets. The Premier cannot sayour position is different From the Canadianposition;, he cannot say there is not a logical,thorough, and obvious relationship between theresource industries of Canada and those of ourown country.

Mr P. V. Jones: That is in geographic terms.

Mr BRYCE: In geographic, cultural, economic,governmental, and political terms.

Mr P. V. Jones: Not policy terms.

Mr BRYCE: The policies in Canada vary fromSaskatchewan to Alberta to British Columbia.We cannot say that resource industry policy is thesame throughout Canada, just as we cannot say itis identical throughout Australia.

Mr P. V. Jones: The point I am trying to makeis in respect of energy policy-both productionpolicy and more particularly pricing policy. Youarc not trying to suggest that the policies ofAlberta and Saskatchewan are the same as thepolicies of Australia?

Mr BRYCE: There are many respects wherewe could make them the same if we wanted to.

Mr P. V. Jones: That is not the question Iasked. Are you trying to suggest that the pricingpolicies are the same? They are not.

Mr BRYCE: They are dealing with differentminerals.

Mr P. V. Jones: I said in respect of energy.Mr BRYCE: We arc not dealing with gas yet

because we do not have any, and we are certainlynot dealing with oil.

Mr P. V. Jones: We have gas in Australia. Yousaid those provinces compare with Australia. Iasked whether you are trying to suggest that oureconomic pricing policies are the same, because Iamn suggesting they are not.

Mr BRYCE: Take oil for example. PierreTrudeau is desperately trying to achieve -a pricebelow world parity, whereas Fraser has hitchedhis star to world parity, If that is what theMinister is getting at, sure, there are differences-,but I am not talking about particular, nil-pickingdifferences.

Mr P. V. Jones: I don't think it is nit-picking; Ithink it is basic.

Mr BRYCE: There are significant differencesbetween the two countries; of course they are notsimilar in all respects. All I am trying to establishin respect of this argument is that there are agreat many similarities. Canada is the nearestthing in the world to a country comparable toAustralia.

Mr P. V. Jones: In geographic terms, I agree.Mr BRYCE: Geographically, culturally,

economically, and politically.

May I be afforded the luxury, Mr ActingSpeaker (Mr Blaikie), of one small tangent whichwill take only a few seconds. I wish todemonstrate that one of the most remarkabledifferences that struck mc between Canada andAustralia is the incredible degree of politicalstability and respectability of the provincialGovernments, which involve Labor Party, LiberalParty, and Progressive Conservative PartyGovernments, across the I I provinces of Canada;and niot one province has an upper House ofParliament. I Find that fact staggering, and I mustemphasise. since Hainsard is unable to record thisform of subtlety, that I find it impossible toimagine how such stability and respectability hasbeen achieved by all those different complexionsof Government without having the brake of anupper House in each of the provinces. Perhaps Icould emphasise as well that even in Ottawa theupper House is a pathetic substitute for a HouseOf Parliament.

1595

1596 ASSEMBILY}

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Blaikie): Isuggest the memnber has made his point and thathe should not abuse the licence he has been given.

Mr BRYCE: Thank you very much, Sir, Iappreciate your generosity.

I am sorry the Minister has briefly left theChamber because I would like to go through withhim the concept or (he heritage fund which isestablished in Canada. The heritage fund as itwas established in both Alberta andSaskatchewan was set up initially as adevelopment fund. It was established as abookkeeping arrangement by those provincialGovernments in the early 1970s. Subsequently, in1976 in Alberta and 1978 in Saskatchewan, theconcept or the heritage development fund wasenshrined in the Statutes of those provinces.

If the Minister has just returned from Canadahe is probably aware that today the Albertaheritage fund has in it approxiniately $09 billion.Across the border in Saskatchewan, a provincewhich is very much more comparable withWestern Australia than is Alberta, the heritagefund contains an amount of $CI billion. Iemphasise that Saskatchewan is much morecomparable with Western Australia becaus ' it isa province with les than one million people whichproduces about $Cl.5 billion-worth of minerals ayear, and it has much less of the glamorous, non-renewable resources in the form of oil and gasthan has its wealthy neighbour, Alberta.However, both provinces have massive reserves ofnon-renewable resources-oil, gas, coa l,uranimum, potash, and a number of otherresources of lesser importance.

The Governments of those provinces haveconcluded that a significant slice or the moneyderived in royalties. or resource revenue as it iscalled in North America. should be put aside in a

seilheritage development fund to safeguardfor the future.

l suggest to the Minister that he might considerthe four parts of moy motion which set out theexpress purpose of the funds which have beenestablished in North America. It is a concept wecan borrow and well and truly benefit from. Wecould implement in Western Australia such afund based on money which is syphoned off fromresourc revenues earned in this State.

Mr P. V. Jones: You referred to an amount of$C01.5 billion. Are you going to describe in somecdetail the origin of the resource funds?

Mr BRYCE: Yes.Mr P. V. Jon 'es: Will you describe. them

resource by resource, showing how much eachcontributes and how ihe fund is made up?

Mr BRYCE: Sure. In the Minister's briefabsence I emphasised that I did not intend todraw a comparison between the sizes of the funds.

Mr P. V. Jones: I am talking about theprinciple and the origin of the funds, not thequantity.

Mr BRYCE: The great bulk of the moneyswhich are paid into the heritage funds in NorthAmerica comes from resource revenue orproduction levies associated with gas and oil,potash, coal, and uranium. As I recall thesituation, about 60 per cent of the resourcerevenues which provide the money for the fundscomes from oil.

Mr P. V. Jones: It is 72 per cent.Mr BRYCE: Is the Minister talking about

Alberta or Saskatchewan?Mr P. V Jones: Alberta.Mr BRYCE: I am not talking about that: I amn

talking about the Social Democrat Government ofSaskatchewan: and while I was there I had a littlelook next door as well. Therefore I am in aposition to be able to compare the provinces withone another. Whilst it is true to say that the greatbulk of the revenue comes from oil-and I do notseek to argue the size of the funds-] do notsuggest for a minute (hat we should think in termsof a heritage development fund involving $9billion. I am talking about a principle, and I amarguing that the principle is tranisferrable. Weshould begin from very humble origins. and if theMinister wants me to put a figure oni it. I suggestthat if action were taken to implement a heritagedevelopment fund in Western Australia based onresource revenue in this State, we could have twoor three hundred million dollars in that fund bythe end of the decade if we wanted to. 1t becomesa question of resolve-whether we want to do it.

My motion points out how the funds could andshould be used. ln Saskatchewan all revenuesfrom resource development are paid into theheritage fund. Then under a Statute theGovernment is permitted to allocate up to 80 percent of the funds into Consolidated Revenue. Inrecent years the Government of Saskatchewanhas been diverting 60 per cent of the heritagefund into Consolidated Revenue, which meansthat so far as Saskatchewan is concerned 40 percent of all resource revenues have been put into afund and invested in a special manner tosafeguard for the future.

Alongside Saskatchewan, in Alberta, theStatute which established the heritagedevelopment fund prescribes that of all therevenue that is paid into the provincialGovernment from resource development. 30 per

1596

[Wednesday. 6 May 19811 19

cent must be placed into the heritage fund. As Ihave pointed out to the Minister, in only four orfive years in Alberta and Saskatchewan sums of$C9 billion and SC I billion respectively have beenput aside to provide for the day when non-renewable resources have all gone.

Let me denionstrate one small element of detailto the Minister. In both Alberta andSaskatchewan money which is put aside into thefund can be invested in various areas according tostrict guidelines laid down in legislation. I drawthe Minister's attention to Alberta, which isapparently Lhe province he visited not so longago-

Mr P. V. Jones: I have been to others.Mr BRYCE: -where up to 65 per cent of the

heritage fund must he invested in interest-bearingloans within the province. The money is lent tolocal governing authorities, housing mortgagecompanies, and to those sorts of semni-publicauthorities: and long-term interest is earned. Thesecurity is gilt-edged. Up to I5 per cent of theheritage fund can be invested on interest- bearingloans in other provinces in Canada. It is quiteremarkable but true that the Alberta pro~vineialGovernment has lent money to other StateGovernments to get them out of financialdiFiculties. That is not the Federal Governmentof Canada, but the Alberta Governnient that haslent money to other provinces. The AlbertaGovernment is entitled to do so. according to theinvestment guidelines of its fund. Once again, thatinvestment is gilt-edged.- and it guarantees theGovernment a future source of income.

Up to 20 per cent of the funid-thebalance-can be used in capital projects to helpdiversify the economy. As the Minister wouldprobably know, even the most right-wing,conservative Government of Alberta has investedhundreds of millions of dollars in the enormousSyncrude company and energy projects in thatprovince. I understand they have bought a fairlysizable slice of the western Canadian airlinescompany based in Alberta. In that case, we see anextreme right-wing Government with so muchmoney in its fund that it is embarrassed as to howit will spend it. In fact. it is socialising. itseconomy. in a sense.

The remarkable thing about the constituentmnembers of that provincial assembly is that in aParliament in which there are 97 members, thereare 90 progressive conservatives, one labourmember, and four or five-

Mr P. V. Jones: There are only 79 members ofthe Legislature: but the proportion is right.

Mr BRYCE: The rest are social creditmembers, who are to the right of the progressiveconservatives.

That is one of the main reasons I am bringingthis proposition to the Chamber today. It is anissue on which there is a broad consensus inresource-rich parts of North America, and notjust Canada, because the concept is spreading.The present generation of Canadians have wokenup as a result of what has reverberated around theworld during the 1970s, starting with the Arabs.The Canadians have accepted they have aresponsibility to handle the exploitation of theirresources in the I 980s and I1990s differently fromthe manner in which they handled thedevelopment during the 1 960s.

Members might well ask how we would deploysuch a fund in Western Australia. I Suggest to theMinister if we had a Western Australiandevelopment heritage fund at our disposal-I amnot talking about tomorrow, but ultimately;, and Ihope the Minister accepts and appreciates thatpont-

Mr P. V. Jones: You said $200 million by theend of the decade.

Mr BRYCE: We could have $200 million insuch a fund by the end of the decade. If I canbelieve what the Premier says about themagnitude of the resource development in thisState in the next decade-and presumably we aretalking about more gas and, conceivably, oil-

Sir Charles Court: Hopefully oil, because thatis the easiest of all of them to handle in terms ofan economic return. I hope you are going toexplain to us how you would get this great rake-off you are talking about from minerals such asiron ore.

Mr BRYCE: The Premier was absent-Sir Charles Court: I have been here for most of

your comments.Mr BRYCE: Whilst the Premier was out of the

Chamber I emphasised to other members that wecould not anticipate figures of the magnitude ofthose which have been achieved in Alberta andSaskatchewan. I am talking about the possibleamount involved in the fund:. and if we began in1981 with humble origins, by the end of thisdecade, and certainly by the end of the century.there would be a significant development heritagefund set aside for the benefit of futuregenerations.

Sir Charles Court: As long as you understandthat there is a great difference between some ofthe minerals as such, compared with energyresources such as oil, particularly.

1597

1598 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr BRYCE: That is the very point I have justmade. Iron ore, nicel, and bauxite bear littlerelationship to the glamour of oil and gas.

Sir Charles Court: I want to make the pointthat the whole oil scene in the last few years haschanged completely. The Middle East, forinstance, has only had this top hamper of moneyto invest because of the extraordinary situation inthe energy field throughout the world. As long asyou understand that there is an unreal situation atthe moment which looks like becomingestablished to some degree, but not completely-

Mr BRYCE: I would be prepared to stand bymy assertion in 1981 that the day of cheap energyresources has gone, and that the day of dirt cheapnon-renewable resources in other fields has gonealso. Their values will be increasing, and thereforewe have a responsibility to think in terms ofestablishing a fund of this sort,

Before the Premier's question, I was seeking tooutline a number of areas in which I believe wecould make use of this fund in Western Australia.I suggested that we could give serious thought toassisting with the capital that will be necessaryfor the processing of our minerals to a secondary

stg.We are all concerned about that, with adegree of consensus-

Mr P, V. Jones: You could not be serious, justlooking at the quantities of the funding. Let usassume-

Mr BRYCE: I am talking about degrees. I amnot talking about undertaking the entire projects.

Mr P. V. Jones: Assuming we had $200 milliontoday, at 03 per cent the figure would be $26million, and that is a spit in the bucket for aS1 000 million enterprise.

Mr BRYCE: That is precisely the point I make.I am not suggesting for a minute that we can findthe capital to develop our own State from thisfund. I wish the Minister would accept that 1 amsuggesting that we have a fund such as that inSaskatchewan. if a future Government did notwant to adopt a socialist Government'sapproach-the Saskatchewan Government hasbought a 30 per cent equity in the uraniummining industry, and a 40 per cent equity in thepotash industry-it could at least make themoney available to the investor.

I am talking about sources of investment, toensure that the money is locked up so that it issecure and earning a long term, secure income forthe benefit of the ci~izens of this State.

Mr P. V. Jones: I am not disputing the theory.Thle point I was making was that the funding-

Mr BRYCEB: The Minister's understanding-

Mr P. V. Jones: The amount of money wouldnot be enough for thec Worslcy water scheme.

Mr BRYCE: If the Minister accepts mysuggestion for such a fund, we could not attemptto finance the economic development Of WesternAustralia. I am not suggesting for a minute-

Mr P. V. Jones: You said "contribute to thecapital cost of our processing facilities".

Mr BRYCE: As an avenue of investment ofthis fund.

Mr P. V. Jones: Taking equity positions?Mr BRYCE: Yes, but not 50 per cent. Only a

small percentage of it need be from this fund.M~r P. V. Jones: Like I per cent?Mr BRYCE: If it was 1 per cent or 2 per cent,

it would not Matter. It would be very secure. I amtalking about this fund, not the entireGovernment programme.

In another regard, if we wanted to, we couldmake the money available, as the Canadians have,for local government borrowings. We could makeit available for housing-mortgage companies, orState housing loans schemes. There is a range ofareas.

As far as future development projects areconcerned, if we wanted an equity we could utiliseSome Of this money. It would be up to theGovernment of the day to decide how it would beused.

The point is that such a source of money doesnot exist in 1981 because no Governent in thepast has decided that it was sufficientlyresponsible to take steps to safeguard theeconomic well-being of future generations ofWestern Australians in this way. 1 am suggestingto the Minister that the Government give somecthought to this.

I am sorry that, once again, the Premier is nothere, because he has made some very pertinentinterjections. No doubt he wants to know, since 1have explained to the Minister, that by virtue ofnecessity, the fund in Western Australia would besignificantly smaller than the Canadian funds.

The Premier would want to know how wewould avoid a dislocation of the State's accounts.Presumably the Minister is concerned about thatas well. Let me suggest, by way of a constructiveinitiative, that if we decided to implement such afund in Western Australia, we need only declaresome year in the future as a bench mark. Forexample, if legislation passed in 1981, we coulddecide to establish the fund from the beginning ofLhe financial year in 1984. It could be taken backto 1984, or forward to 1982. However, we woulddeclare a bench mark, and from that time on a

1598

[Wednesday. 6 May 19811 19

speccified proportion of the resource revenuescoming to the State Government would be put toone side in the form of a development heritagetrust fund. That answers the criticism that thePremier has mooted already. Hie suggested thatthe idea would throw the State's bookkeepingsystem into chaos. That would happen if the fundwere introduced suddenly, and it scooped up allthie royalties.

I do not suggest for a minute that we divert theState's royalties holus-bolus in any, pertmanentfashion. I am aware of the financial difficultiesthat the State is experiencing- I read thenewspapers every day: I listen to the Premier inthis place.

Such a problem does not defy the logic of theneed for us to take a constructive step in thisdirection. The Premier is on record as having saidat the last election that in Western Australia wecan anticipate in excess of $8 000 milion-worth ofresource development projects during this decade.

Mr P. V. Jones: How much?Mr BRYCE: He said $8 000 million. Will the

Minister tell me it is $20 000 million?Mr P. V. Jones: I think you ought to cheek the

figure.Mr BRYCE: I am referring to the Premier's

policy undertaking.Mr P. V. Jones:. It would be achieved in the

first year. at that rate.Mr BRYCE: Now the Minister is seeking to

put tabs on himself.Mr P. V. Jones: No. I ani saying there is nearly

double that much going now.Mr BRYCE: I hope the Minister is not

assuming that every cent of the $8 000 millionwill be spent or invested within the next sixmonths. It could take many years into thisdecade-

Mr P. V. Jones. That much will be spent withinthe next three or four years.

Mr BRYCE: I will not quibble with thatargument. If the Minister wants to emphasise thepoint I am about to make, I am happy for him toassist me. If the Minister is saying that perhapsthere will be $20 000 million-worth of resourcedevelopment projects underway throughdiamonds, oil, gas, additional coal, bauxite, aitdother things during the decade, surely the amountof resource revenues to the Western AustralianGovernment must increase substantially also, evenif this Government does not review its existingagreements with resource developers. Does theMinister accept the logic of the point I ammtak ing?

Mr P. V. Jones: Not disputed.M-r BRYCE: If the Minister does not dispute

that there will be significant increases-Mr P. V. Jones: The proportion you suggested

that the revenue will increase-Mr BRYCE: Mining royalties and resource

revenues will increase significantlly in the nextdecade in Western Australia. If that is a fact. Isuggest to the Minister that therein is a source offunds which will not dislocate the State's accountsfor money to be used in the way which I havesuggested in the years to come. That is why I havesuggested a bench mark should be set somewherethrough the I 980s for the purpose of establishingthe fund.

I sincerely hope that the Minister, the Premier.and anyone who cares to contribute to the debatedo not depreciate it eompletely by suggesting Ihave launched an irrational or unreasonableattack on foreign capital. This State needs foreigncapital and it will need foreign capital for a longtimec to come. What I am suggesting and what isimplied in my motion is that what we should haveas far as the 1980s and 1990s are concerned, is amature relationship between this communitywhich owns the resources and the people who wishto invest their capital in this State, based on selfrespect and a fair return For the money which isinvested here.

I ant suggesting that, throughout the thirdworl -d and many of the resourc-rich parts of theworld during the 1960s and 1970s, and for manydecades before that, in Fact a fair return to thehost country was never achieved.

In conclusion, I should like to emphasise onceagain that even the most conservativeGovernment of North America has endorsed theconcept which is implicit in this motion. I acceptcompletely that there are valid differencesbetween the provinces to which I have referred inNorth America and our own fair State. However.the principle is fundamental. The details mayvary considerably, but the principle of ourcommitment to future generations is fundamentaland it should be immovable.

The day of cheap resources has gone forever.Anybody who studies the question of world tradein non-renewable resqourCcs has no doubt that thevaluie of those resources is continuing and willcontinue to rise.

We on this side of the House insist thatGovernment policies should ensure that the peopleof Western Australia receive a fair share of theincreased value of the non-renewable resourceswhich are to be found in this State. The birthrightof Western Australians is the envy oF people all

1599

600 ~(ASS EMBHLYj

over the world. We must consider carefully whatkind of heritage we will hand on to futuregenerations.

We have no right to be selfish to the extent ofliving on this community's assets and squanderingthose assets while we enjoy our time on this earth.

I should like to conclude ultimately by quotingbriefly from a statement made by the Premier ofSaskatchewan when he introduced the Bill intothe Saskatchewan Provincial Assembly toestablish a fund in that province, bearing in mindthat the Progressive Conservatives in Alberta hadestablished already such a fund. The Premiersaid-

Only those members of this H-ouse whoowe allegiance to the multi-national resourcecompanies of the world will find reason tooppose such a fund.

Mr Parker: There are 28 of those in thisChamber.

Mr BRYCE: The main purpose of this fund isto convert once-only revenues from non-renewableresources into income- producing assets which willtake care of the future.

Mr PARKER: I formally second the motion.

Debate adjourned until a later stage of thesitting, on motion by Mr P. V. Jones (Minister forResources Development).

Points of Order

Mr B, T. BURKE: I do not know whether thearrangement was made officially, but we weretold questions would be taken at 7.30 p~m. Iinquired of the Minister whether he would bereplying and I understood him to say he would be.

Mr P. V. Jones: Yes, but I shall do so afterquestions.

Sir Charles Court: I understood we would havequestions at the normal time and we would takegrievances at 7.30 p.m.. straight after questions.

Mr BATEMAN: On a point of order, theLeader of the Opposition might like to clarify thematter, but the information I received was thatquestions would be taken at 7.30 p.m., followedby grievances and this debate would continueuntil exhausted.

The SPEAKER: There is really no point oforder.

Sir Charles Court: We were going to takequestions now-and grievances at 7.30 p.m.

Mr DAVIES: I understood both questions andgrievances were to be taken at 7.30 p.m. I do notknow why there has been a change in that regard.

Mr B. T. Burke: If the Minister is prepared toreply now, why not continue with the debate?

Mr BRYCE: May I ask what is the questionbefore the Chair?

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no questionbefore the Chair; indeed there is no formality forthe commencement of questions.

Sir CHARLES COURT: 1 can resolve thesituation. We have no intention to break anyarrangement and this is a storm in a teacup. Imove-

That debate be resumned on notice ofmotion No. 3.

Question put and passed.Debate (on miot ion) Resumed

MR P. V. JONES (Narrogin- Minister forResources Development) [5.53 p.m.j: We havejust heard the member for Ascot move a motionwhich contains a very noble theory. It is a theorywhich is tremendous so far as a certain set ofcircumstances and principles is concerned, and Isuggest to him, with respect, that it is a theorywhich has been applied satisfactorily and suitsvery well the examples he gave. Indeed, if asimilar set of circumstances prevailed in thisState, they could produce a very similar result.

The member for Ascot talked about the variouspractices which exist in other parts of the worldand dwelt for a considerable time on the practicewhich prevails in Canada. He prefaced hisremarks by referring to certain factors whichrelate to the situation in Western Australia.

I do not intend to speak at length, but, as aforerunner to some of the remarks I shall make, Ishould like to set the record straight in regard tothe situation in this State so far as royalties andincomes derived from resources development areconcerned. This sort of development has occurredin the past and it will occur in the future.

The implication made was that royalties-thatis, the percentage the State receives. from theexploitation of a particular resource-make upthe only income Western Australians derivedirectly from resource development.

Further on in his speech, the member for Ascotreferred to the fact that income is derived in otherways For example, it is a straightout economicfact that income is derived through the normaltaxation procedures. 'here is a suggestion and agreat deal of publicity in Australia at the presenttime that two States in particular. Queenslandand Western Australia, are resource rich.

Mr Bryce: You have created that imageyourself.

1600

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 10

Mr P. V. JONES: I do not question that.However, because it is believed that these twoStates are resource rich, it is implied that theyderive enormous incomes from the exploitation ofthose resources. Thai is absolutely fallacious.

Mr Bryce: They should be.Mr P. V. JONES: It is ridiculous for the

Commonwealth Government to subscribe to sucha hypothesis, because in fact it is the nation as a"hole, through the Commonwealth Governmentby means of the present taxation methods, whichis the greatest beneficiary.

The States certainly enjoy a royalty income,but by far the largest proportion of incomederived from resources development comesthrough the taxing system by way of personalincome tax paid by employees wvho work for thecompanies associated with such ventures.company tax, and sales tax on the goodspurchased by people who work for the companiesand are associated with them.

It is quite wrong to suggest the States are thesole or even the largest beneficiaries ofdevelopments such as those which occur primarilyin Western Australia and Queensland at thepresent time. The member suggested also thatroyalties are not reviewed. Indeed, if I may usethe member's words, he suggested there was noreason for royalties to remain at the levelestablished under the initial agreements whichmight have been in force for 15 years or longer.

The simple fact is this: The various agreementsprovide different royalty structures. I do notintend to take up the time of the Houseelaborating in detail the royalty structures whichapply under these agreements: but it is a fact thatsome royalties have moved. A relationship hasbeen established which has brought aboutincreased income from royalties as they apply todifferent minerals. Bauxite has been referred to,but the member did not say that no royalties arelevied on bauxite in Western Australia. There is aroyalty on alumina: but the member did notsuggest that the royalty on alumina is three timesgreater today than it was in 1979. Nor did themember indicate the relative quality of bauxitemined in Western Australia compared with thatin Jamaica, which was one of the examples towhich he alluded. He did not say we are lookingat figures in the area of approximately 3.3 tonnesof bauxite to one tonne of alumina in WesternAustralia.

Mr H-. D. Evans: In terms of getting a tonne ofalumina to the refinery plant, how does WesternAustralia compare with other countries'?

(51)

Mr P. V. JONES: I would mislead the DeputyLeader of the Opposition if I tried to indicate thatfigure, because I am not able to do so off the topof my head.

Mr H. D. Evans: This is where the profitmargin of the company is found and it is quiterevealing.

Mr P. V. JONES. I can give such a figure tothe Deputy Leader of the Opposition in terms ofone or two of the companies which are shippingbauxite and it is not particularly great.

The point I am making is, the errors ofomission in making an overall, sweepingstatement comparing a situation which prevailedsome years ago with that which pertains today-

Mr H. D. Evans: He is not far wrong, becausein terms of economies Western Australia is not abad proposition at all on world standards.

Mr P. V. JONES: I am not talking about that.The member suggested royalties have not moved.

Mr Bryce: I did not say that. I said it was timeto review agreements.

Mr P. V. JONES: The point I am making isthat, not only have they moved, but they have alsobeen reviewed and increases have been effected.

Mr Bryce: May I demonstrate where we differ?In my opinion, on world standards they have notmoved enough and a comprehensive review of allof them should be conducted right now.

Sir Charles Court: That is a matter of opinion.Mr P. V. JONES: I should like to make the

point-I am sure the member is aware ofthis-that as far as some royalty agreements areconcerned, the level of royalties is structured inrelation to the provisions of the Mining Act.Members should be aware that in the regulationsproposed there is an increase of four times whatwas previously provided for in the originalsituation. What I am attempting to suggest is thatit is wrong to create the impression that things arestatic or that they have not been reviewed orreconsidered in the past or at present.

I refer to the suggestion which was made in themember's comment that royalties in WesternAustralia-I am not talking about the taxsituation-are the only way in which income canbe directly derived within Western Australia. It isprobably a little-known fact, although it has beenreferred to in terms of policy, that the companiesprovide infrastructure that otherwise would havehad to be provided from the public purse.

In fact, in the Il -year period between 1964-65and 1975-76, 17 companies in Western Australiaprovided no less than $1 .3 billion in infrastructure

1601

1602[A SS EM BLY]

that otherwise would have had to be providedfromt the public purse.

Mr Bryce: When I asked the Premier thatquestion he told me he was not prepared to divertthe resources of the Treasury to calculate it.

Mr P. V. JONES: I have no' been able toprovide the figures for the years since then butwhat I am trying to explain is that during thatexpansion period $1.3 billion was provided by thecompanies. Ports involved $279 million and wehave already spoken about the 1975-76 year inthe values that prevailed then.

Mr Bryce: Will the Government just accept twopoints: firstly, the companies have stopped doingit now to a large degree and secondly, companieshave done the same as this in Ca nada. You arenot on your Pat Malone.

Mr P. V. JONES: There is no suggestion thatroyalties are the only source of direct income tothis Government. If anyone should have gainedthat impression then it is wrong. The income forthe period included $279 million for ports: $145million for power; $213 million for housing-

Mr B. T. Burke: And $500 million for profits.

Sir Charles Court: Those companies pay tax ontheir profits.

Mr P. V. JON ES: -$38 million for civil andsocial amenities: $64 million for water and $507million for railways and railway fixtures. In thatone period alone that is how much thiscommunity benefited directly from the input ofthose who came to assist us in the development ofthis State.

The member made it quite clear in hiscomments that foreign capital-that was the termhe used-was not only accepted by him as anecessary component during our developmentperiod but would also have to be so for a longtime. The member for Ascot quantified how muchthe State received in royalties over the last 20years. However, I remind members of the figuresI have quoted for the IlI-year period.

The member for Ascot referred also to theposition of equity. I take this opportunity torestate the situation. It was suggested by themember for Balcatta that companies have stoppedputting in funding for infrastructure: that is notso. The major development phase that occurred inthe period to which I referred is certainly notcontinuing. There are not the same massiveinvestments in railways because of the differentsituation that prevails, but a considerable amountof capital funding is being placed into facilities;

for example, the Shire of Roebourne is beingprovided with assistance for water facilities.

Mr Bryce: Do you feel proud as a WesternAustralian when you see what has happened inCanada, especially when you came home andmade a comparison?

Sir Charles Court: You should be proud of theState and what it has done.

Mr P. V. JONES: The Government's policy onequity is very clear. We seek the greatest possiblelocal participation in our development, consistentwith getting the projects off the ground. In ourview we should be actively pursuing such projectsand none should be lost simply because anarbitrary figure of 50 per cent Australian equityis not available.

The member for Ascot suggested that thefunding which Governments derive-and he listedthe Governments concerned-from resourcesdevelopment could be used to plan for the future.That is exactly what is occurring in this State: thefunding derived directly and indirectly from theresources development operations which areoccurring in this State is being used to provide abroader base for those who come after us inWestern Australia.

The member mentioned processing, and thatitsexactly what we are doing-moving towardsprocessing. Another point referred to was thebuilding up of a wider industrial base. We areexpecting to do that also, but we must have afundamental industry upon which to build. Weare developing a service industry base. We aremoving into fabricating, manufacturing, andprocessing. However, the fundamental basis ofthis State is our resources. The member suggeststhat this Government and that Government hadtaken responsible action, and that we should notjust be sitting on our assets.

Mr Bryce: I suggested that we should bepreserving our assets, and not sitting on them.

Mr P. V. JONES: It would not be responsiblefor this Government to sit on its assets. Themember for Ascot chose to put it another way andsaid that we should not consume them.

Mr Bryce: We should not live on them. Wehave a responsibility to set to one side somec of ourincome-producing assets.

Mr P. V. JONES: I have just said that ourassets are being used in order to develop a basefor the future. We are not in the samecircumstances as countries overseas. Given ourpopulation figure and the natural advantages ofthe resources available to us, we should be doing

1602

[Wednesday,

everything we can to build for the future based onwhat we have today. That is what we are doing.

Mr Bryce: Does it not worry you that both theSocial Democratic Government of Saskatchewanand the Progressive Conservative Government ofAlberta accepted that the policy they had beenpursuing for the last 20 years had been a blue.

Mvr P. V, JONES: That does not worry me inthe slightest.

Sir Charles Court: They are dealing with adifferent situation.

Mr P. V. JONES: Yes, and a different set ofprinciples. If we had the same situation here, wemight consider it. However, we do not have thesame situation.

The member referred also to the situation inJamaica. I do not want to dwell on that, exceptagain to say his statements were notable becauseof what he left out. For instance, he did not referto the policies of the Manley Government which,in the early 1970s, brought the bauxite industryon that island to its knees.

Mr Bryce: Oh, come on!Mr P. V. JONES: Earlier this year I had sonic

discussion in America with one or two of thecompanies which are being asked to return toJamaica and to take up where they left off.

Mr B. T. Burke: Do you know what thecompanies were doing there with their red mud?For example, they were running it straight into atrack with no provision for lakes, and without anyother safeguards. That was the sort of provisionthe companies were being asked to comply with.That is why the companics left. They thoughtthey were dealing with a hick outfit.

Mr P. V. JONES: The member for Ascot wastelling us what a wonderful Government this was,and now the member for Baleatta is saying it wasa hick outfit.

Mr B. T. Burke: No. I am saying what theGovernment required. The companies thoughtthey were dealing with a hick outfit and now theydesperately want to return.

Mr P. V. JONES: The member for Ascot isasking us to follow a situation that prevailselsewhere. As I have intimated already, if thegeographic and economic situations in thecountries he referred to were comparable, andmore particularly, if the production situation wassimilar to that prevailing here, it could be viewedin a different light. If we look at the situationwhere the major component of contributingcapital to the fund in Alberta is, as the membersuggests, oil and gas-something like 70 per centin the last Fiscal year-

Mr Bryce: Less in Saskatchewan.

Mr P. V. JONES: I have mentioned theprovince 1 know; I do not know the situation inSaskatchewan. We are not in the same position ofusing such vast amounts of energy at a time whenthe cost of energy is going through the roof.However, we are not being as irresponsible as isthe Federal Government in Canada in regard toenergy pricing. Oil produced in Alberta isbeing sold into the United States at some SC18 abarrel and it is being purchased back at some$C32 a barrel. That is hardly a recipe foreconomic success.

So, very simply, we say that although theprinciple embodied in the motion might be verygood in wvhat it seeks to try to do, the reality isthat we have already achieved that result in thisState through an entirely different approach. It isworking for us at the present time.

Mr B. T. Burke: You are not doing as well asBrisbane.

Mr P. V. JONES: Given the presentcircumstances, as I said, it is a noble theory-likemotherhood-but something we cannot afford theluxury of entertaining at the present time. I rejectthe motion.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr B. T.Burke.

Sitting suspended from 6.14 to 7.30 p.m.

QUESTIONSQuestions were taken at this stage.

TRAFFICRoad Traffic Code: Grievance

MR SHALDERS (Murray) [7.45 p.m.]: I wantto direct my grievance against regulation 501 ofthe Road Traffic Code. Currently, regulation 501provides that a driver should keep his vehicle asclose as practicable to the left boundary of acarriageway, except where two or more lanesmarked on the carriageway are availableexclusively for vehicles travelling in the samedirection.

Iam fully aware that this regulation complieswith the national Road Traffic Code, butnotwithstanding thai I think it is patentlyridiculous.

Recently I was fortunate enough to visit GreatBritain and I want to outline the situation there.There, a driver must keep to the left-hand laneunless he is going to overtake, turn right, or passparked vehicles. On a three-lane carriageway heMay Stay in the middle lane when slower vehiclesare using the left lane, but must return to the leftlane after passing other vehicles. The right lane isfor overtaking or for right-turning traffic, and ifused for overtaking, the passing vehicle must

6 May 19811 1603

1604 [ASSEMBLY]

return to the left lane as soon as possible withoutcutting in.

From my observations after driving over 1 200miles in Great Britain. that system worksmagnificently. If a person wants to pass a vehiclehe puts on his indicator and moves out to theright-hand lane. After he has passed the vehicleand sees that the road on his left is clear, he againputs on his indicator and then returns to the left-hand side of the road.

I would be amazed if there is any member ofthe House who has not been faced with thesituation of driving in the left-hand lane,travelling within the speed limit and then findinghe was approaching a slower-moving vehiclewhich was in the right-hand lane of a two-lanehighway where both lanes were travelling in thesame direction, 1 am sure most members are likeme and that with a great deal of apprehensionthey approach that vehicle very slowly and hopethat while we are passing it on the left it does notsuddenly cut in on us and cause an accident.

I have spoken to officers of the Road TrafficAuthority and they have been unable to tell meclearly who would be deemed to be responsible forthat accident. I am quite certain that all membersof the House would freely acknowledge that

u nless a driver has an external mirror on the left-hand side of his vehicle, there is a blind spot atthe rear. That spot is such that if a car hasapproached close enough to the left-hand rear ofthe vehicle it is impossible to see it in the internalrear vision mirror. The possibility of an accidentis thus greatly increased. As we travel out fromthe metropolitan area we find areas of dualcarriageway where the speed limit ranges from 70kilometres an hour up to 110 kilometres an hour.I have certainly found myself almost involved inaccidents whilst travelling at 110 kilometres anhour in the left-hand lane and while attempting topass a vehicle travelling slower than myself in theright-hand lane, without any warning orindication by the use of flickers, that vehicle hasmoved to the left with near-tragic consequences.

At this time when we are endeavouring to takeevery measure to redue road fatalities in thisState-and I applaud the Minister for the actionhe is taking in other areas-I think this is amatter which could be given consideration in anattempt to reduce further the risk of accidents. Ido not think there is any need for me to pursuethe matter at great length, for this type ofsituation is known to us all.

There is one further point I would like to makein regard to road design. In England, minorintersections which obviously do not warrant the

provision of traffic lights, I found were comprisedin the main of roundabouts, which meant thatdrivers were not faced with a possible four-waycollision situation. There is only one rule therewhich is that one gives way to one's right, andtraffic moves clockwise around the roundabout.

The traffic moves very smoothly and there is noconfusion whatsoever as can occur when we havea situation of two or three vehicles arriving at anintersection at the one time. There is one of thesesorts of roundabouts in the member forRockingham's district. I am sure he would agreeit is an ideal method of handling traffic.

Mr Jamieson: If you go to Belmont you getgiddy with all of them.

Mr SHALDERS: Perhaps the member forWelshpool agrees with mec. J am not suggestingthat every intersection in Western Australia oughtto be changed-that is impracticable. However,whenever new roads are being constructed andthere is a possibility of a dangerous intersectionexisting, thought should be given to providing thistype of roundabout where drivers are faced withthe one rule-that is, to give way to the right.This would reduce aecidents at bad intersectionsin my opinion.

MR HASSELL (Cott esloc-M inister for Policeand Traffic) [7.50 p.m.]: I thank the member forMurray for his comments in relation to thissubject. It is coincidental that he should haveraised thie issue now because it has beet) thesubject of recent consideration by theGovernment, of which perhaps the member wasnot aware. I can report to him and to the Housethat the issue of lane driving upon roads has beenconsidered most carefully in consultation with theRoad Traffic Authority and the Main RoadsDepartment. The very points which the memberraised in support of his proposition that driversshould be required to keep to the left have beenput to those authorities, their reactions obtained,and their advice taken. The conclusion reached bythe Government was that a change should not bemade to the regulations as they -stand.

As the member for Murray correctly said,currently regulation 501 of the Road Traffic Code1975 provides that a driver should keep his vehicleas close as practicable to the left boundary of acarriageway, except where two or more lanesmarked on the carriageway are availableexclusively for vehicles travelling in the samedirection. I indicate I am reading from noteswhich I was able to obtain quickly tonight toassist me to respond to the member for Murray'sgrievance.

1604

(Wednesday, 6 May 1981]160

It is important to appreciate that the regulationcomplies with the national Road Traffic Code. Isay to the H-ouse quite frankly that if we have asituation in ibis State which indicates to us that atraffic regulation should perhaps vary from thenational code for the good of our people in thisState, I believe we should vary it. It is not asthough we are a State which is geographicallycheek by jowl with heavily populated States suchas those along the eastern seaboard. Nevertheless.we do subscribe to the Road Traffic Code and wehave been attempting to maintain uniformity forthe sake of Australians who travel across thenation.

We take part in the conferences, committees,and studies which formulate those rules. I amquite often called on to approve travelarrangements for the engineers and other researchofficers of the RTA to enable them to travel tothese meetings and conferences in the EasternStates. I can advise the House that it is the viewboth of the RTA and the Main RoadsDcpartment that the present rules should bemaintained and that we should not vary thoserules by introducing a regulation to keep driversto the left of the road.

As I said, the very arguments put by themember (or Murray have been put to thosebodies, such as the argument that in the UnitedKingdom there is a basic understanding when oneis on one of their great motorways that the personin the left lane is likely to be a slow-movingvehicle-most often a truck, or a lorry as theBritish call them, a bus, or a coach-those in thecentre lane are passing those in the left lane, andthose in the third lane which is the most right ofthe lanes are the people travelling at themaxtmum permissible speed, and sometimes Isuspect above that speed.

We would have to acknowledge that thestandard of driving in the United Kingdom ishigher than the standard of driving here,' andundoubtedly far more courtesy is shown on theirroads.

Mr Shalders: Absolutely.Mr HASSELL: They have a system of

signalling to one another.Mr Jamieson: Get into the wrong lane and you

will find out about courtesy.Mr HASSELL: If a driver does get in the

wrong lane he would notice a signal of flashinglights, with the use of high beams and flickers.They have a system which I cannot remember indetail. One flash means to go past and anothermeans to continue on. That has been developed asa matter of necessity as their roads are so narrow.

In many places in the country, the onlyopportunity people have to pass other vehiclesafter many miles of extremely frustrating drivingis when they reach a section of road where thereare three lanes. The people travelling in theopposite direction have common use of the centrelane as a passing lane-which we would regard asan invitation to disaster. They manage to live withit because of the level of courtesy on the roadsand the signal system which they have developed.It does work and I have driven on their roadsextensively.

To go back to the point made by the memberfor Murray. t he essence of the points made by theRTA and the Main Roads Department can besummarised as saying there are three basicreasons for their view that we should maintain thepresent system of multiple use of laned roadswithout a requirement to keep to the left. TheFlrst reason is one of uniformity with our nationalcode

The second reason is safety. Although it isrecognised by the RTA that there is a degree ofdiscourtesy on our roads when people persist indriving in the centre of the road, especially at thesame speed as someone in the left-hand lane, itbelieves there should be no change. This situationalso leads to the circumstance where we have carsspread out. A lot of weaving goes on. If we forcepeople to travel on the left side of the road theyare put in the position of moving out all the timeto pass. Then we have the question of those whoare preparing to turn right. Members may saythat is not a very serious matter. If people arcdriving down the road and want to turn right.within 100 yards of the corner they can get outinto the right-hand lane in preparation for theirturn. But that is not the situation when we cometo a busy four-lane road such as StirlingHighway, which carries a tremendous amount oftraffic. It is not the case when we have thefreeway situation where we expect people willmove in good time to put themselves in a positionto use the exits from the freeways and be ready togo without making sudden manoeuvres acrosslanes. The essence of our freeway system is one ofweaving traffic. There is a great deal of weavingwhen cars arc moving through traffic.

The third reason is the matter of the usage ofthe roads. The Main Roads Department isinterested in this because it says that manymillions of dollars have been poured into theprovision of superhighways and the good roads wehave. It is a fact that we enjoy a very highstandard of roads in Western Australia and thatwe must make full use of them by allowing the

1605

1606 [ASSEMBLY]

traffic free movement right across the wholewidih of the roads.

I did say that the Government had consideredthe mailer most carefully and that theGovernment's conclusion was that we should leavethe rule as it is.

Mr Carr: What about the suggestion?Mr HASSELL: The member for Geraldton can

take another view if he so desires. We haveconsidered the matter carefully and have takenthe advice of people who have considered thesafety and usage issues.

Mr Carr: It is much safer the way the memberfor Murray suggested.

Mr H-ASSELL: The member for Geraldton cantake up the position that he knows more aboutsafety than the authorities concerned. I point outthat the matter will be kept under review.

We have asked the National Safety Coucil andthe Road Traffic Authority to step up theireducational programmes in terms of increasingcourtesy.

LAND

Ord River District; Grievance

MR BRIDGE (Kimberley) [8,01 p.m.): I wishto place before the House tonight a grievancerelating to the situation of certain farmers in myelectorate who operate in the Ord River area. Thematter comes directly uinder the Minister forLands, so I respectfully ask that the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Lands join with mein a debate of the matter I propose to raise.

A situation developing in Kununurra appears tobe unsatisfactory, and it concerns several farmersin the Ord River area. Two of the farmersrecently have been given notice by theDepartment of Lands and Surveys that forfeitureof their blocks will take place in the very nearfuture unless they are able to comply with theterms of the conditional purchase agreementunder which they received their blocks in 1965.

The farmers have raised the matter with meand expressed great concern because the twofarmers concerned happen to be amongst the firstfarmers to establish themselves at the Ord.Although the history of their activities on thefarms up there does not show a successfulsituation, my submission to the Government isbased on the fact that they have been there allthis time, some 15-odd years. Quite clearly that initself should place the Government in a position ofconsidering the merits of its decision and, in thiscase, the wisdom of the department in proceedingwith the notices of forfeiture on these farmers.

It is particularly good that the farmers therehave been prepared to battle for 15 years. Whilstthey may not have complied fully with therequirements laid down for the purchase of theseblocks, a number of factors, as you, Mr ActingSpeaker (Mr Watt) may well know, have led tothe present situation. An enormous number ofproblems have been faced over the years by thesefarmers, and it is to their credit that they havebattled on and come out of the situationreasonably successfully. I refer in particular to thetwo farmers mentioned.

I hope the Government will consider thesituation in its correct light and take immediatesteps to ensure that the directives issued andforwarded to these farmers are not carried out infull.

A couple of matters result from the situation;one is that the blocks released last year were notthe subject of conditions relating to certain crops.However, the farmers who obtained their blocksin 1965 have to meet these cropping conditions,and find it rather hard to be in a positionsuddenly some 15 years after the conditionalpurchase to meet conditions not laid down forfarmers who recently acquired blocks. Thefarmers subjected to the directive by theDepartment of Lands and Surveys have askedwhy it is necessary to enforce the requirement oftheir having 80 hectares of crop when thatrequirement is niot applied to the farmers whoacquired their blocks 15 years after the initialrelease.

Mr H. D. Evans: Is there any crap which youcan grow on 80 hectares that is economical?

Mr BRIDGE: No.Mr H. D. Evans: That is the point.Mr BRIDGE: The farmers hold the view that it

is questionable as to whether any crop on aspecified area can be grown economically. TheDepartment of Agriculture has not recommendedthat a certain crop be grown to meet the CPconditions, and this has created a great puzzle inthe minds of the original farmers. Of course, theyare quite angry about the recent decision, andhave indicated to me that peanuts grown by afarmer at the Ord require about $100000-worthof processing support and that rice growersrequire something like $750 000-worth of support.

Mr H. D. Evans: Is that in the total outlay forplant and support of all kinds?

Mr BRIDGE: Yes. One of the results of theforfeiture notices is that the CommonwealthDevelopment Bank will take action in regard tofuture advances from that bank to the farmersconcerned. I understand the bank has considered

1606

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]160

this course because it was told the Governmentwas about to take the action indicated by way ofthe directive to the farmers. To protect the bank'sinterests it w'ill get in first, and is about towithdraw Financial support to those farmers. Onefarmer has been informed that he should considerselling in three months, and the other has nofurther finance available to him. One farmer byjoining with two others it seems will be able tomeet the conditions. He will grow oil seeds., Theother is faced with a loss of something like $8 000to plant an 80 hectares crop to meet theconditions. It appears the new growers to the areaat this stage are at somewhat of a loss to knowwhat will be required of them; they appear to lackthe degree of expertise necessary.

I think an explanation of the reason for thedecision needs to be given. It appears that doublestandards have been brought in. although theMinister representing the Minister for Landsrejected that proposition yesterday. However.double standards are being enforced. Even if thecropping conditions are' legal, in the light of thecircumstances outlined it is necessary for theGovernment to take urgent action and considerthe problem that confronts the farmers.' Then itshould withdraw the forfeiture notices. A verygood reason exists for this. It should not benecessary to refer to the track records of thesefarmers and determine whether they have beensuccessful, unsuccessful or will never make it. Thefundamental point the Government mustrecognise is that any farmer prepared to battle itout in an area such as the Ord or anywhere in thetropics for a period of 15 years needs a go. It is afairly tragic situation when a Governmentdepartment says suddenly to a man on the landwho has battled for 15 years "You have notcomplied with certain conditions of your leasetaken out 15 years ago. We have now releasedland which does not contain those conditions, butyou have not complied with or met yourconditions so you had better look at getting offthe land.' That is really what is going on.

Despite all the money these farmers haveinvested and the great losses they would incur as aresult of their leaving the land, the Governmenthas contemplated the action outlined. I urge theMinister for Lands to reconsider immediately andwithdraw the notices promptly because they arecreating a great problem, especially in view of thefact that the Commonwvealth DevelopmentI Bankalready has indicated its intention to withdrawfunding to these farmers. Of course, theconsequences of that would be very serious.

MR OLD (Katanning-Minister forAgriculture) [8.11 p.m.]: I feel this matter is

more within my province than that of theMinister representing the Minister for Lands. Iwill endeavour to answer the member's queriesabout the withdrawal of financial support and theforfeiture of the leases of the three people towhom he referred.

The member for Kimberley is well enoughversed at what is going on in the Ord to know thatabout 1977 decisions were taken in Kununurrawhen the situation seemed fairly grim. TheGovernment was pouring a lot of money into theOrd and the decision was taken to follow anothertack and endeavour to commence a sugar industryup there: and support that had existed was to bewithdrawn. Support was to be given to viablecrops.

The growers left in the valley at the timeenthusiastically received this concept andundertook to participate with the Department ofAgriculture and the Department of Lands andSurveys to get the Ord going again. No-one candeny the Ord is going again-the project is goingvery well.

In answer to a question from the DeputyLeader of the Opposition tonight I gave somefigures which indicated that nine farmers aregrowing sunflower for oil: four growing sunflowerfor hybrid seed; four growing rice; Five growingsoya beans: two growing peanuts; one growingbananas-he is not supported by the Governmentso we take no credit for that-hree growingsorghum; six growing hay; and three growingmelons and vegetables.

Mr H. D. Evans: That hybrid seed which youclaim is grown by four farmers is in fact grown byone operation.

Mr OLD: It may well be the one operation, butthat number of people are involved in it.

Mr H. D. Evans: One fellow has been forced tojoin with another two.

Mr OLD: We have succeeded at the Ord, butwhat is going on is criticised regularly in thisHouse, and that is a sad situation. The area is avery important pant of our agricultural industry. Iwill refer to the three people concerned with theforfeiture of land. To my knowledge one has notbeen there at all. In fact, he is an absentee ownerwho went to the area when land was availableoriginally, but has never done a thing for it.

Mr H. D. Evans: I do not think he was servedwith a notice. One has been away for 10 years andthe other is there.

Mr OLD: Three notices have been issued.

1607

1608 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr H, D. Evans: The information I receivedfrom the Minister was that two notices wereissued,

Mr OLD: If two have been issued, thegentleman to whom I just referred is one of them.He has never been there.

Mr H. D. Evans: Your information is incorrect.It is two notices.

Mr OLD: The information I have is that thereare three.

Mr H. D. Evans: I have it here.Mr OLD: That is fine, but what I am talking

about is what is happening at the Ord. People arenot going broke despite what the member forKimnberley might tell us.

It may be that the banks are withdrawingsupport for those particular persons, but there isplenty of support for people who are prepared tofarm the land they have in that valuable irrigatedcountry. More and more people have returned tofarming their land. That is what the Governmenthas been trying to foster, and we have fostered itto such an extent that more land is underagriculture in the Ord Valley today than at thepeak of the cotton farming. If that is not success,I do not know what is.

On top of that, the value of the land in the OrdValley is at an unprecedented high level. Anyonewho is not satisfied with what he is doing and whowants to get out of his farming operation has theopportunity to negotiate a sale. In fact, theMinister for Lands has been more than tolerantwith people in this situation. As I have been to thearea with him on two occasions, I know for a factthat he has given people every opportunity to sellup and get out if they do not wish to put a crop onthe land.

The Government lays down that 80 acres ofcrop must be put in, but in the past, many peoplehave not planted such an area. The Government isprepared to accept smaller crops when a personhas shown himself willing to become involved inagricultural pursuits. The area is small enoughwithout there being land lie idle because peopledo not want to sow crops.

It would be very sad if such people had no wayout, but the value of the land today-and I say"today" because I obtained these figurestoday-is astronomical. No-one will be severelydisadvantaged.

This Government has given great support to thefarmers in the Ord Valley. The great majority ofthem would be willing to concede that point.Provided the House rises, I will visit the area intwo weeks' time, and I will be very happy to talk

with anyone who has complaints about conditionsand the assistance given to them.

Mr Bridge: I am telling the Minister whatfarmers in the area have told me. This is not mycomplaint. The farmers we have referred to in thisdebate say that what the Government effectivelyis asking them to do is to plant crops which theyknow and which the Government knows cannot beviable. It is the farmers' argument that they arebeing asked to meet these conditions.

Mr OLD: It is quite strange that the majorityof farmers do not agree with that complaint. I amsure the farmers who have planted crops over thelast four years are not just going broke quietly. SoI am afraid I cannot accept that as a validargument.

I consider that the Government has more thancarried out its obligation to the farmers, and I seea very bright future for the area.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Bunhury Resin Plant: Grievance

MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) 18.18 p.m.]: During arecent radio broadcast in the south-west, theLeader of the Opposition said in part-

The magnitude of development is so greatthat comparisons with what happened in thePilbara during the 1960s arc notunreasonable-

He went on to say-But the South-West is poised to do even

better than the Pitbara did because thedevelopment that's taking place or planned ismore diversifed than it was in the Pilbara.

In addition, the region already has a welldeveloped social and economic infrastructure.

This is one of those rare moments in this Housewhen I must say that I agree wholeheartedly withthe Leader of the Opposition. The Bunbury regionis headed for a great future and this is because ofthe actions of successive Governments in ensuringthat Bunbury is a regional centre and that it willbe one of the great regional growth centres ofWestern Australia.

However, in the same edition of the newspaperis a matter that gave me concern. In the SouthWestern Times of Thursday, 30 April thisheadline appeared "Rejection for ResinIndustry". This referred to a rejection by theBunbury City Council of the proposal put forwardby Borden Chemical Co. (Aust) Pty. Ltd. toestablish a resin plant within the inner harbourarea at Bunbury. That decision leads me on to thevery point that is of great concern to me, andwhich I believe would be of concern to all

1608

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811)60

members of tbis House, both Government andOpposition.

Mr Harman: Don't you agree with thatdecision?

Mr BLAIKTE: I do not agree with thatdecision, All past Governments have looked atBunbury as a regional development centre, andwhichever party has been in Government, it hascontinued the same policy. At one time or anotherthe opposition-of whatever politicalcolour-may have castigated the Governmentabout the way it was going about thedevelopment, but all have agreed on the point thatBunbury is to be a major growth centre ofWestern Australia. and rightly so.

Mr Bryce: Very fine members of this Househave come from Bunbury.

Mr BLAIKIE: The proposal put forward byBorden Chemical Co. (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. was loston a 6:5 decision, and I believe it is a matter ofgreat concern. I hope that the eompany resubmitsits proposal to the City of Bunbury so that thecity councillors have an opportunity to reconsidertheir decision.

Mr Barnett: After the Government has putpressure on them.

Mr BLAIKIE: We saw the boom of the 1960s,and many of us in the south-west felt we werebeing overlooked while the development of theiron ore fields had the attention of theGovernment. Certainly I was a member of thecommunity who wanted to know what theGovernment was doing in the south-west. I believethe member for Collie would probably agree withMe.

Mr T. H. Jones: I was more concerned in 1961because we had 350 empty homes and many outof work.

Mr Old: Look at what the Goverment has donenow.

Mr T. H. Jones7 Yes, the problem in 1961 wascaused by your former leader; you know who wasto blame.

Mr BLAIKIE: The present Premier was theMinister for the North-West at the time and Ican well recall attending farmers' meetings,political meetings, and many other meetings, andhearing the question. "Isn't it time we had aMinister for the south-west? What is theGovernment doing for the south-west? It is abouttime for our turn.'

I was horrified to see that Councillor Mantenopposed the proposal. This gentleman was theChairman of the Bunbury Regional DevelopmentCouncil, and a member of the South West

Regional Development. Council. In the 1 960s hewas a champion of the cause of the south-west.

Mr Barnett: They did not vote against BordenChemical Co.; they voted against the siting of theplant.

Mr BLAIKIE: We are now into the 1980s, andas the Leader of the Opposition said, this will be aboom period for the Bunbury region. Let us lookat what is happening there. for the First time.some of the results of the boom from the north-west-that is, from the North-West Shelfproject-will ultimately flow on to the south-west.

Mr Bryce: Are you so worried about the changein the electoral boundaries that you arcestablishing yourself for the seat of Bunbury?

Mr BLAIKIE: We have the bauxite projects atWagerup and Worblcy, the wood chippingindustry, and the development of the BunburyHarbour. Originally it was developed to a depthof, I think, 36 feet. In order for Bunbury tobecome the great regional centre it ought tobecome, the Government spent millions of dollarsto take that harbour to a greater depth so it couldbecome a port for larger shipping. 1 support theGovernment's move in this direction.

Mr Bryce: Do you want the Borden plant onthe wharf at Bunbury?

Mr BLAIKIE: We are now looking at thepossibility of the manufacture and processing oftantalum, ilmenite. and alumina. Of course therewill be conjecture as to the siting of these plants.but at last the south-west area is coming alive.

As the member for Collie said, in 1961 therewere problems in regard to housing in Collie. Theproblem is now the opposite-the boom is on andthere is not sufficient accommodation available.This is much better than there being empty homesand shops. All this development is based onBunbury as a regional centre and it will meanmore jobs in the south-west.

Mr T, H. Jones: Not enough accommodation.Mr BLAIKIE: Successive Governments have

treated Bunbury very fairly, virtually like apampered child. Bunbury has been givenassistance by Government which has made it theenvy of all surrounding local government bodies.One need have regard only for the endowmentlands that were handed over to the town becauseit was a major growth centre. From the point ofview of my own electorate, I was rather greenwith envy about that matter. However, if it wouldhelp the establishment of a regional centre, I wasprepared to go along with it. No doubt themember For Collie would have preferred to seethis development in Collie.

1609

1610 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr T. H. Jones: I am not happy about thepower station siting.

Mr BLAIKIE: Bunbury has a technical collegewhich could have been establishcd elsewhcrc. TheForests Department office which has beenestablished in Bunbury could have been situatedin Manjimup. The central headquarters outsidethe metropolitan area for the Department ofAgriculture could have been established inHarvey. We have State Housing Commissionoffices and regional offices of such departments asthe Education Department.

Again I must mention the fact that very largegrants of endowment lands were made-landworth tens of millions of dollars was handed overon a plate. I have no argument about that.However, it is a cause for concern when the Cityof Bunbury, which was granted this land, makes adecision such as the one to which I have referred.The decision did not relate only to the City ofBunbury-it related to development in the south-wvest. Irrespective of the political persuasion of aGovernment, I believe any Government wouldhave a further look at the situation-

Mr Barnett: Walk over the councils, that isright.

Mr BLAIKIE: If the member for Rockinghamwill let me finish, he will have an opportunity total1k.

Mr H. D. Evans: What about letting themember for Bunbury have a go. Where is themember for Rntinbtiry?

Mr BLAIKIE: It is important for the councilto realise that the decision it makes must be madewithin the concept of the planning decisions for aregional centre.

Mr H. D. Evans: Why did not the memnber forBunbury raise this'?

Mr BLAIKIE: There will be repercussions tothis decision. What other projects may beknocked back by the City of Bunbury? All I ask isthat the city fathers re-approach this issue in a

staesanlkeway.That is my grievance and I appreciate the

opportunity to bring this forward as I believe it isof great concern to all people of the souih-west.

MR P. V. JONES (Narrogin-Minister forResources Development) 18.28 p~m.17 Themlember for Rockingham interjected andsuggested that if the decision had gone the otherway. we would have been treading all over thecouncil.

Mr Barnett: No. that is not so. I said I did notwant the Government to interfere with a decisionof a democrat icalIly-elected council.

Mr P. V. JONES: In support of the memberfor Vasse I would like to make the point that alocal government authority in a region such as hasbeen clearly identified by the member for Vasseas a regional centre-

Mr Bryce. And has a town plan!Mr P. V. JONES: The couneillors have the

same responsibility as the councillors of any, localgovernment authority.

Mr Barnett Which is why they said to put it ina noxious industry zone.

Mr P. V. JONES: As the member for Vassesaid, a local government authority which isadministering also a regional centre, has theresponsibility to think on a regional basis. It hasthe additional responsibilities of having regard forthe hinterland and all industries which may becentred elsewhere eventually and vice versa.

I do not wish to recapitulate the points made bythe member for Vasse, except to confirm that, asthe Government has announced, we are a littledisappointed that perhaps in the light of a lessemotive argument some consideration could havebeen given to this particular industry so that anarrangement could be arrived at. I understand

t hat perhaps further thought might be given tothis matter in due course.

Mr Barnett: Can you give a guarantee that youpeople will not put pressure on the council tomake it change its mind'?

M r P. V. JONES: Who has put pressure on it?Mr Barnett: Your colleague, the H-onorary

Minister for Industrial Development andCommerce, for example.

Mr P. V. JONES: Hle would not have done hisjob had he not gone to the council-

Mr Barnett: Then why say, "Who put pressureon it?"

Mr P. V. JONES: -and tried to ensure thatthe council, as the decision-making body in thatinstance, was very well aware of its regionalresponsibilities and of all factors associated withthe industry. I am sure Mr Acting Speaker (MrWatt), that you would expect the HonoraryMinister for Industrial Development andCommerce to make certain in any situation thatprevailed in Albany, that the Albany TownCouncil was aware of all factors relevant to thatsituation.

Mr Davies: And leave them to make up theirown minds without pressure.

Mr P. V. JONES: In the next two days atlBunhury several hundred people will beconsidering the future of the development of the

1610

lWednesday, 6 May 1981]161

south-west for the next decade, and even to theturn of the century.

The seminar will have a considerable impactnot just on Bunbury alone but also on a muchwider area- As the member for Collie is very wellaware, one of the new factors which will have abig part to play in the development of the south-west over the future years is the very muchincreased coal reserves identified at Collie in thepast year or so, and the increased use that can bemade of coal for electricity generation which inturn will present the opportunity for expansion ofdevelopment in respect of a whole range ofindustries in the south-west.

Mr T. H. Jones: Your previous leader saidCollie would be finished in 30 years. He said thatin 1965.

Mr P. V. JONES: I am not interested in whatsomebody else said, I am interested in what isthere now. This will present opportunities forgrowth in industry in the next 10 or 20 years. andin the course of all this planning quite clearlyBunbury will need to pay due regard to what itdecides is its role as a regional centre, and not justas one city.

PERTH AIRPORT

New Runway: Grievance

MR JAMIESON (Welshpool) I8.33 p.m.]: Mygrievance deals with the Perth Airport and itsproposed upgrading, and I regret the responsibleMinister is not in the Chamber at the moment.The problem at the Perth Airport is one we haveall known about for a long while;, and in thesurrounding area a great amount of developmentis taking place, particularly in respect of housing.However, that is not my main concern at thistime; my main concern is the Government'sapparent disinterest in endeavouring to get thebest possible deal for Perth at the earliest possibleopportunity.

It is not a matter of expenditure which theCommonwealth is not prepared to foot-and thisis putting aside the latest idea of letting airportsout to private enterprise; I do not know whethereven Holmes a Court would be interested inthat-but rather it is a matter of the expenditureof $40 million-odd to upgrade the terminal andthe airport generally by building new structures, anew control tower, etc. All the land between thepresent main north-south runway and the railwaymarshalling yards to the east was secured someyears ago by the Commonwealth; and except for afew areas which people use for greyhoundbreeding and training and horse training andriding, the whole place is completely dead because

no-one will use the land for anything while theCommonwealth owns it.

The idea is to install a runway parallel to thepresent north-south runway and aboui onekilometre to the east of it. As patterns of noisehave shown in diagrams developed for the inquiryconducted into the Perth Airport byCommonwealth, State, and local governmentauthorities, the critical noise in the surrounds ofthe area would be reduced by at least 50 per cent,mainly because aircraft using the new runwaywould take off over the industrial areas ofKewdale and the marshalling yards, etc. and behigh enough not to affect residential areas as theypass over them.

With the exception of the rather smallishsuburb of Hazelmere the matter of noise is not socritical in the area to the north of the airportbecause we have the Helena River flats there.Whichever runway the planes are using does notmatter much; it will not matter whether they usethe present runway or the proposed parallelrunway. If anything, the proposed new runwaywould be a bit of an improvement for the peopleof Hazelmere.

When one looks at the situation at the momentone could be excused for thinking that someonehad planned a whole line of schools in the flighttunnel of the aircraft. Directly under the flighttunnel as aircraft take off from the main runwayis the Belmay Primary School, the WhitesideStreet Primary School, the IKewdale PrimarySchool, the Kewdale High School, the QueensPark Primary School, the St. Norbert's school,and the St. Joseph's school, all in my area. If Iwished to roam a few yards over my boundaryand to get into the territory of the member forAscot I could take in more schools. I refer to theconvent school at Cloverdale, the CloverdalePrimary School, and the Carlisle Primary School.Indeed, if I varied to the other side of myelectorate I could take in other schools such as theCannington Primary School, the CanniogionHigh School, and the Gibb Street PrimarySchool. The present main runway could not havebeen situated in a worse position in respect ofupsetting the education system.

In recent times I have attended assemblies atboth the Kewdale Primary School and the QueensPark Primary School. Those schools were there along time before the present main runway wasinstalled. They have developed in the quadranglefashion, and each has an assembly area in thecentre of the school. I attended assemblies ondifferent occasions about two or three weeks ago,and between about 10.30 and H.30 am, aircraftwere constantly flying over the schools either

1611

1612 [ASSEMBLY]

coming in or going out, and the noise drowned outall the activity taking place in the assembly.

If there was no way out of the situation maybeI would say "'Stiff bickieM! We have the airportand it is going to stay there and there is nothingwe can do about it." However we can dosomething about it: the Government can insistthat as part of the programme of expenditure forthe $40 million the new parallel runway should beinstalled. The Commonwealth will say, of course,that the new runway will not be needed untilabout the turn of the century: I think the presentestimate is that it will not be needed until the1990s. However, an amount of $40 million hasbeen provided to build a new terminal buildinig, toupgrade the aprons, and to build a new controltower. Included in that sum is the construction ofabout 1 .5 kilonmetres of road to service the newterminal building.

I think the Governnient should examine thepossibility of getting the best possible deal for thecitizens in the general locality of the airport. TheBelmont Shire Council is complaining bitterly andthe Canning Shire Council, which has buil ta newlibrary between St. Norbert's and St. Joseph'sschools, is seeking a grant of $30 000 to insulatethe building from noise.

All these problems can be easily resolved byshifting the runway. It is only a bulldozer job: Iam aware it would cost millions of dollars. but theCommonwealth Government has alreadyindicated its preparedness to spend the money.

I am constantly being prevailed upon by peoplewho live in the area to make representation ontheir behalf about the noise. Here we have a wayof doing something about it. We should be doingsomething to see that the Commonwealth obeysthe determination of the committee of inquiry andto ensure that we get the best possible deal inrespect of the positioning of the new runway. Itshould be positioned to the best advantage of asmany people as possible. When the public workscommittee sits later in the year, if theGovernment is dinkumn it will put up a ease tohave the runway shifted so that we achieve abetter noise pattern and will not have theproblems we have faced up to date.

Mr Davies: What about a curfew?Mr JAM IESON: Perhaps a curfew would be a

bit difficult; and if the runway was shifted weMight not need a curfew.

To add to the problems experienced by peoplein the area, periodically American survey aircraftare brought to Perth. Anybody who has lived inthe eastern suburbs and heard those aircrafttaking off will know what sort of Christmas we

experienced last year. We were awakened about7.00 a.m, on Boxing Day with our ears reallycracking. When we complained to the authoritieswe were told the aircraft were not allowed to flyout on Christmas Day. These aircraft havecracking motors:, their take-off is water-assisted,which is evidenced by the muck which is pouredout all over the suburbs as they take off. Themotors really crack one's ears, as they are notsilenced like the modern engines. Unfortunatelythese American survey aircraft must use PerthAirport because no other strip can take the weightinvolved.

If such aircraft are to use Perth Airport fromtime to time there is every justification for theCommonwealth to ensure that the parallelrunway is constructed ats soon as possible.

MR RUSH1'ON (Dale-Minister forTransport) [8.43 p.m.]: In reply to the grievanceraised by the member for Welshpool I would saythe present situation at Perth Airport is wellknown. Over a period of time the Commonwealthhas been pressed to proceed with a programme ofdevelopment. The member for Welshpool wellknows that the Commonwealth, the States, andlocal authorities over a long period haveconsidered various aspects of development of thePerth Airport and of other sites that are availableto provide such facilities in the metropolitan area.

I am very much aware of recent developments.and I will not traverse them because everyone willknow what has taken place. Members will beaware that consideration Is being given to variousaspects of the development. The councils ofCanning and Belmont have been involved, andthey have determined that they should participatein interaction with the Commonwealth,particularly during the development of the PerthAirport. Those councils want to receive answers tosome of the pertinent questions which have beenraised by the member for Welshpool.

When I was in Brisbane last week. I spoke tothe Federal Minister for Transport, and he agreedre-adily that the councils should have. access to thedevelopment officers, to present their case atsoften as they thought desirable. The councils willbe invited by the regional director (Mr Ellis K~iel)to participate in that development programme.

The member for Welshpool mentioned that theConimonweal th Govern ment's public workscommittee will be here in August-

Mr Jamieson: September.Mr RUSHTON: -and there will be

opportunity for public interaction with thatcommittee. The councils in the vicinity of theairport will put a case to the committee.

1612

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]161

Full consideration is being given to the peopleadjacent to thc airport, Their representatives willmake the greatest impact they can, relating towhatever advantages or disadvantages could occurbecause of this development. A ease has been putto me.

The situation is changing in relation to the typeof aircraft visiting Perth now. The siting of thenew international airport is designed to minimisethe impact of noise, amongst other things.

Certainly this sort of information should beavailable to the councils, who are representingtheir people very well, 1 am pleased to be able toreport to the member and to the House that therehas been at ready response from theCommonwealth in regard to the participation ofthe councils and their officers, and our officers forthat mate, to ensure that all that can be donewill be done.

The member has mentioned the immediatebuilding of the second runway. I will raise thismatter with my own people, to see what can bedone. Once again, the main thrust of anyapproach to the Commonwealth developmentIpeople needs to be made by the local councils. Iam aware that this avenue is available to us.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Watt):Grievances noted.

ELECTORAL LAWS

Inquiry by Royal Commission: Motion

MR DAVIES (Victoria Park-Leader of theOpposition) 18.47 p.m.!: I move-

That a Royal Commission of fivecomprising the Chief Justice as Chairmanand two members of Parliament nominatedby each the Premier and Leader of theOpposition be established to inquire into theState's electoral laws and to recommend suchamendments t hereto as they considerappropriate to a modern representativedemocracy.

I do not think there is a better time for me to bemoving such at motion.

The issues which could be considered by aRoyal Commission include the following-

(I) the proposition of one-vote-one-value:(2) an appropriate level of permissible

fluctuations above and below theelectorate quota:,

(3) whether extra seats are necessary ordesirable as a means of altering thebou nda ries; and

(4) what specific assistance can be given tocountry areas in ternms of their specialproblems of representation.

They are four only of the major matters whichcould be considered. There are many others: and Iwill list some of them later in my address.However, first of all we should think about theRoyal CommissioY considering those four veryvital and very major points.

We have reached a highly unsatisfactory andmost undemocratic situation in regard toparliamentary representation in this State.

Mr B. T. Burke: Hear, hear!Mr DAVIES: It is a situation which hats

obtained for Fa r too long. Certainly theGovernment has done nothing to alter thesituation. However, over the years the Oppositionhas brought in a number of Bills on this issue.When we were in government, we tried tointroduce some measures which would go someway towards easing the position, as we weredissatisfied with the elecioral laws at that time. Ido not have to remind members of the fate ofthose Bills, because they were all dealt with verypromptly in another place; and while the initiativefor the Bills introduced began here in Opposition.most of thenm did not go past this place. asmembers will remember.

The electorate is becoming increasinglyconcerned. Indeed, it has been concerned for fartoo long about the totally unacceptable aLndundemocratic situation which exists. There havebeen protests. There was a protest in theelectorate of the Minister for Transport on oneoccasion; and that was a very appropriate place. Iwill give the reason for that later. There havebeen meetings in the city. People have addressedmeetings; and there have been ALP meetings withother interested groups regarding the situation.There have been protests; there have beenmareches.

Members will recall that on at least twooccasions people gathered on the lawns outsideParliament House at the opening of Parliament toexpress their dissatisfaction. They were notconsidered very kindly by the Government; butthey behaved in an exemplary manner.

At the opening of the Parliament last year,both I and the Leader of the Opposition inanother place took the unusual step of notadjourning the debate on the Address-in- Replyimmediately, but taking the opportunity to try toencourage the Government to do something fairand democratic about electoral representation andelectoral boundaries, to no avail. Before I took theaction. I had asked the Premier whether he

1613

1614 [ASSEM BLY]

intended to effect any redistribution ofboundaries. He said that he did not think so.

Some months later the Premier indicated byway of interjection during a debate that theGovernment was considering the question. Wewould have expected that the Government wouldhave had a realistic look at it, because it is hightime something was done about some of theinadequate laws relating to electoral distributionwhich exist in this State. They should be reviewedand overhauled thoroughly.

Every move that this Government has made toamend the electoral laws has been on its ownbehalf. Generally, the Government has made itniore difficult for the elector. It has now made itmore difficult for an elector to be placed on theroll in the first instance; or, if he should [or somereason, whether it is incompetence or otherwise.be deleted from a roll, it is harder for him to bere-enrolled in this State. It is all right once he ison the roll. Then the procedure that applies withthe Federal rolls can be used. Somehow or other.for sonic reason which is well known to us-theGovernment did not fool us-it has never given anadequate reason for saying that an electoralofficer, a justice of the peace, or a police officerhas to witness a card in regard to the firstenrolment.

What has staggered us in that regard ha s beenthe admission that the qualifications of thewitnesses arc never checked. Indeed, I have beentold of instances in which, although police officersare required to indicate their place of residence onthe card, they have not done so. They have saidthey are not allowed to give out theiraddresses-and very properly so. for obviousreasons. People may want to know where apoliceman lives, for reasons of harassment orotherwise. When they have omited to indicatetheir places of residence, the card has not beenrejected. Perhaps the policeman has put "PoliceStation, Victoria Park" as his place of residence.

Such a restriction on witnesses is totallyunacceptable. It is keeping people off the roll. Inparticular, it is designed to keep Aboriginalpeople off the roll. The Government should hangits head in shamne, particularly after the lastelection in the Kimberley. It should have hung itshead in shame long before the last election; butthat applies particularly after the last one.

We have never had an explanation in regard towhy or how the boundary defining themetropolitan area is drawn. Members will recallthat the last time the Act was amended, in 1974or 1975, a map hung in the corner of theChamber for a week or more so that members

would know where the boundaries were.Repeatedly we asked the Minister who haddefined the boundary of the metropolitan area,and he failed to tell us. He did not want to admitthat Jeremy Buxton and Noel Crichton-Brownehad influenced the boundary for the LiberalParty.

There is the absurd situation where theboundary of the metropolitan area runs down themiddle of one of our main outer suburbs,Armadale. On one side of the road the vote of thepeople is worth twvice the vote of those on theother side of the road, because one lot of peopleare in the country and one lot are in the city. Thatis a scandalous situaton which has never beenexplained, because the Government was ashamedto tell us the truth.

The Government was ashamed to tell us thatthe boundaries were drawn on representations byofficers in their own party; and that theGovernment went along with the boundaries capin hand because the bou ndaries. made certain thatthe Liberal Party would stay in office. It is adisgusting state of affairs when there is anarbitrary line down the middle of Armadale, withresidents one side having their vote worth halfthat of residents on the other side.

The notion of urban and rural representation,which was claimed to be required on thatoccasion, is utter nonsense. It has never beenjustified at any time. Under the presentlegislation, places like Lesmurdic, GooseberryHill, and Kalamunda arc ott exactly the samebasis as Ravensthorpe, Norseman, Esperance,Mullewa, and other distant places. They all havethe same standing in terms of agricultural,pastoral, and mining seats-Lesmurdie.Gooseberry Hill, Kalamunda, Esperanc,Ravcnsthorpe, Mullewa. Norseman, to name justa few of the places. I do not think there would bevery much agricultural, mining, and pastoralwork going on at Lesmurdie and Armadale.Surely to goodness they should be considered aspart of the metropolitan area; yet they have notbeen. We have this arbitrary line, which hasconcerned and confused everybody who has triedto find out the reason for it.

The disabilities of Esperance, Mullewa, andRavensthorpe are certainly not the same asLesmurdie, Gooseberry Hill, and Kalamunda.They are in a different situation altogether. Theremight be some argument for having a differentialbetween those places; but certainly they shouldnot be put in the same pot. There are conditionsapplying which are quite illogical and quiteunfair.

1614

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]161

The electoral commissioners were presentedwith a fait accompli with a defined area in whichto do certain work. If the Government is so intenton being fair with the electoral distribution, whatis wrong with making the electoral commissionersdecide on what might be the metropolitan area asthey see it?

Mr Hassell: I have to leave the Chamber for ashort while, I am sorry to leave while you arespeaking. I will check what you arc saying verycarefully in Hansard.

Mr DAVIES: Thank you.It is quite wrong that the commissioners should

be placed in the situation in which an area hasbeen defined for them,. and they have been told tofit so many seats into that area. It is certainlyundemocratic, and it places them in a mostunenviable position.

If I were allowed to define the metropolitanarea I could define it so that there could be adivision of that area in a certain way.

Of course, the Government is not without wit.It has certainly been having a close look at thematter and by choosing to add further seats to thenumber within the metropolitan area boundary, itis making the position all the more difficult forthe commissioners. It certainly narrowed downthe options open to them.

I believe a Royal Commission would put an endto all this sordid manipulating. It has gone on forfar too long. It is of growing concern and it needsto be attended to forthwith. It is obvious that, inthe situation we are experiencing at the presenttime, we need an independent chairman andrepresentation from both sides of the Parliamentwith the powers of a Royal Commission to callevidence and ascertain what needs to be done tobring our antiquated electoral laws up to date.

No doubt there would he input fromn all parties.Certainly there would be input from privatecitizens, because if members follow closely thecolumns which appear in the daily newspapers,they will frequently see letters from members ofthe public expressing concern at the undemocraticway in which our electoral boundaries are drawn.

If there are to be extra seats, the options opento the commissioners for dividing up themetropolitan area will be litnited severely.

We come to the question as to whether we needany extra members of Parliament. Should therebe any extra seats'? I an sure all members wouldbe aware that, when the first LegislativeAssembly was formed, there were 33 seats. In1899 that number was increased to 50 and itstayed at that level until 1965 when the number

of seats was increased by one, to 5]. The excuseoffered for the increase was that the extra scatwas needed so that there would never be a tiedVote. I recall the argument which was raised onthat occasion.

Ten years later we opted for a further fourmembers SO that the number was increased to 55,and now we are Opting for a further two memberswhich will increase the number of seats to 57.

You, Sir, must wonder whether such anincrease is justified on any basis whatsoever. Itwould mean there would be an increase fromn 50to 57 Seats in approximately 80 years. As at 31March 1909. when there were 50 members ofParliament, the population of the State was184 124. By 30 June 1966, the population hadincreased to 848 100. According to the statistics.the population of Western Australia in the Junequarter of 1980 was 1 265 100. Over 65 years thepopulation had increased by 660 000 and oneextra member was appointed. When the numberof seals was increased by four, there had been apopulation increase of approximately 320 000.Since 1975, when the last increase occurred, therehas been a population increase, in round figures.of 100 000. However, the Government says weneed an extra two members. There is no rhymenor reason for that.

We knew the representation in country areaswas weighted in a disgusting manner-it stillis-but we accepted that, because of theconditions which applied over the years. We knewthere were somei difficulties, but the situation haschanged dramatically Over the last decade or soand I do not believe there is any need for extramembers of Parliament.

One might say that, when one looks at thepopulation figures, members today have to servicea greater number of electors. However, I repeatthat in 65 years when the population increased by660 000. it was necessary to increase the numberof seats in the Legislative Assembly by only one;but since 1965 to the present time-that is. 15years-with a population increase of 420 000. theGovernment is attempting to appoint an extra twomembers which, when added to the extra fourmembers appointed in 1975. brings the totalnumber of new members for that 1 5-year periodto six.

I do not believe there is any argument aboutthe fact that these extra members will cost theState a considerable amount of money. It is not aonce-up situation like the 150th Anniversarycelebrations. It will continue year after year.When one considers the cuts which have beenmade in the area of health and the major rebuff

1615

1616 [ASSEMBLY]

this State has just experienced at the hands of thebureaucrats in Canberra, one wonders where theGovernment can so blithely find the money to payfor these extra members.

I should like to refer to a few of the costsinvolved. The salary of a metropolitan member is$27 005 per annum and an extra $7 860 perannum is paid by way of an allowance to ametropolitan member. There is a postageallowance of $850 per member per year and thecost of an electorate secretary is at least $11 134per annum. Those costs do not include the 171/per cent loading on annual leave.

Of course, accommodation costs have to be metwhether the member has an office in hiselectorate or shares an office in ParliamentHouse. If a new member is elected, twotelephones must be installed; one in the electorateoffice and one in his home, and part payment ofeach is borne by the Government. Averagetelephone fees for metropolitan members areapproximately $600 per annum.

There is also the cost of establishing anelectorate office, including furniture, and thesame situation would apply if a member had asecretary stationed in Parliament House.

Stationery costs recently have been set at alimit of $400 per annum for photocopying andother requirements. It is necessary for the officeto be cleaned and maintained and no doubtelectricity accounts have to be paid and there areother associated charges wvhether the leases are ona rent, plus payment of rates basis or astraightout rent.

There is the cost of a typewriter and membersare increasingly demanding better qualitytypewriters than the $200 jobs they get at thepresent time. They are looking for electrictypewriters and they are entitled to have them sothat they can send out quality work to theelectorate. Electric typewriters cost approximately$ 1 000 each.

There is also the travelling imprest systemwhich is available to all members of Parliamentand there is the cost of servicing contributions tothe Parliamentary Superannuation Fund and partof the cost of servicing Parliament itself. The veryfact that the member is around the placegenerates extra costs in terms or lighting.provision of services, staff, telephones,refreshments, etc.

It has been assessed that the cost of anadditional four mrmnbers would be in the vicinityof $300 000 to $400 000 a year. As I saidpreviously, that figure is not a once-only one. It

will be there on a continuing basis year after yearand it will only increase; it will not diminish.

I draw to the attention of the House the factthat that amount would employ a considerablenumber of nurses and this Government needs toget its priorities established properly before it soblindly appoints an extra two members ofParliament in this place and two in another place.

At the present time, we are witnessing adisgusting and undignified squabble amongstGovernment parties to further tamper with theState's electoral laws. I believe they are getting tothe stage where they can iron out theirdifferences; but I want to remind members that, aweek ago yesterday, the Premier said what wasgoing to happen, but when the Bill eventually getsto the House-[ understand it could well occurlater tonight-we will discover the situation willnot be quite as he announced it. We know therehas been a revolt in the party room and that sincethe postponement of the Bill last night, there hasbeen intense manoeuvring amongst Governmentmembers to make certain their positions areprotected.

Mr Jamieson: There was a further reprint ofthe Bill this afternoon.

Mr DAVIES: Members opposite are notworried about the democratic division of theelectorate. They are looking after themselves.

Mr O'Connor: That might have been done toconfuse you.

Mr DAVIES: Then we had the strange positionof a midnight Cabinet meeting. I do not knowwhen members opposite last had such a meeting.

Mr Old: Every week! It is a ritual.Mr Jamieson: They are always undertaking

shady actions-but at midnight!Mr DAVIES: That will be the day! After all

this manoevring and after being told what wasgoing to happen, there appears to have been acomplete about face. In due course, it will beinteresting to find out what is in the Bill, becausewe have been told it will contain a great deal toplease us. Such a position has been hinted at byinnuendoes and interjections on the part of thePremier and Deputy Premier on a number ofoccasions.

I understand that, not only was there a Cabinetmeeting, but there was also a meeting in theoffice of the member for Murchison-Eyre,because he was in the gun and could see himselfgoing, so he wanted to protect his position.

As a result of reading the newspapers andlistening to what is going on around the place, itseems the original plan was that the Government

1616

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 61

intended to change the boundary between theKimberley and Pilbara electorates. That upset onemember of Parliament who was considering hisfuture as member for Kimberley some time hence.After that the alternative proposition was to add alittle bit of the Pilbara to Gascoyne andMurchison-Eyrc. Members can imagine thefeelings of the members for Gascoyne andMurchison-Eyre when they heard that. They feltthey were going to be sacrificed whilst theKimberley electorate was being left untouchedand preserved, hopefully, for an aspirant fromanother place.

The whole situation had to be reconsidered and,by way of interjection, the member for Welshpooltells me that the Bill had to be reprinted thisafternoon. I was not aware of that. It certainlywas not presented to the House last night as weexpected. A crisis has arisen and there has been agreat deal of talk on the issue. I hope themembers for Gascoyne. Murchison-Eyre, and theaspiring member for Kimberley are satisfied.

What makes all this rather strange is that thePremier-I will quote some of the answers hegave to questions a little later on-said that "Wedo not decide what the electorates are going to be.We do not draw lines on maps." Of coursemembers opposite draw lines on maps. What, Sir,do you think they were doing last night? Theywere not completing the crossword or playingscrabble. They were seeing where they couldadjust the boundary of the Pilbara so they couldentrench themselves in that area. The Premier hasthe hide to say "it is out of our hands. We do notdo anything like that."

Mr O'Connor: It is obvious he was referring tointernal boundaries. We do not have anything todo with internal boundaries.

Mr Jamieson: If you tie their hands, they can'tdo anything.

Mr DAVIES: The Deputy Premier is thepicture of innocence. He said "We do notinterfere." Even though it is undemocratic, that isexactly what they were doing last night, theythought they could draw lines to make theirposition safe.

We have the ludicrous situation where the seatof Pilbara has 15 000 to 16 000 electors which ismore than I have in my own electorate in VictoriaPark. It is also more electors than the Premier hasin his electorate, even after a new quota has beenestablished in the metropolitan area.

The Pilbara area will still equal a metropolitanseat. The Government will have a problem on itshands. I would be prepared to amend thelegislation to put another member there. We knew

that we could not get any other amendment inthis place but it might have to be done eventually.However, we have the situation where theGovernment is drawing lines on maps in order tohive off certain areas to make sure the internalboundaries will protect its position. It is adisgusting state of affairs and it was done lastnight by people who have said that they do notinterfere.

Mrs Craig: You make it sound like cloak anddagger stuff.

Mr DAVIES: The Government was in troublelast night. The Cabinet was in trouble last nightbecause it had a revolt.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Blaikie):. Isuggest that the Leader of the Opposition shouldcontinue with his motion.

Several members interjected.The ACTING SPEAKER: Order! If the

member for Fremantle and the member forGeraldton wish to attract the attention of theChair they should sit in their places and rise intheir places. If not they will be ignored and willnot be able to give their leader the co-operationwhich I am quite certain he does not need.

Mr DAVIES: This is very pertinent to the Bill1because I am highlighting the fact that theGovernment does fiddle with the electoral lawsand its members were doing exactly that lastnight. They had to look at the options available tothem following the back-bench bids. I understandit was not only the back bench which revolted butit was also some of the front-bench members whowere not happy with what was occurring. If thiswere not the ease then why would the Cabinetmeet after this House had sat until 11.30 p.m.?Of course it was necessary because they were introuble. The member for Murchison-Eyre and themember for Gascoyne, as well as a member forthe North Province in another place, were playingup. Those members were looking after themselves;they were not concerned with the democraticdivision of this State.

Apparently, some members thought theGovernment was not going far enough so it had tolook at another one of the options available andthat is why they met last night.

The Premier and the Deputy Premier haveindicated, by way of interjection, that we will bepleased and surprised with the contents of theBill. We certainly would not be surprised becausethis Government's track record speaks for itself,especially the way it fiddles with electoral laws. Itis a record about which the Government membersshould hang their heads in shame. I am certain

1617

1618 ASSEM BLY]

ainy Bills brought forward will continue in thesamne way as before.

On Wednesday, 29 April the Premier, inanswer to a question on the Electoral DistrictsAct at page 1352 of H-ansard, replied to aquestion from the member for Balcatta asfollows-

..I strongly advise the honourablemiember-who has not had much experiencein dealing with electoral redistributions inthis State-

That indicates the sa rcasin of (he-Premier, whoimagines he knows more about the Act than themember for Balcat ta. I am sure the member forBalcatia knows much more about the Act. ThePremier strongly advised the honourable memberats follows-

-10 wvait until he sees the legislation.because he might change his tune.

That would indicate that although the memberwas unhappy ait the time hie wvould be happy whenhe saw the legislation. The Premier and theCabinet have had to back dowvn on what wasproposed so no credence can be placed on thatanswer, because the Premier will not see hisGovernment introduce a Bill hie thought it wouldintroduce as pressure has been applied byback-bench members. Several members wish to goas far ats possible to entrench themselves,, withoutthe slightest desire 10 make certain thatrepresentalion in this I[louse is as democratic as itshould be.

That is what makes this action so disgusting.The State's electoral laws will be interfered withto ensure that the present Government willcontinue in the future.

If this Bill is brought in before we leave theHouse this evening, there is no way it will beadequately scrutinised if this Government wishesto adjourn next week. There is a tremendousamiount of work wvhich must be done: statisticshave to be taken out and have to be related towhat the Government decides for themetropolitan area. A line may very well be drawnthrough my own electorate in Victoria Park.

Mr O'Connor: You have been looking aitl temlap.

Mr DAVIES: The legislation will be rushedthrough. We would expect that we would have theproper time to debate it; we do not wvisht thelegislation to be rushed through. ats has been thecase in the past. Would it not be better for atRoyal Commission to be set up to find outwhether the laws arc undemocratic?

I mentioned four points earlier in my speechwhich should be considered by a Royal

Commission. Chief Justice Burt (Sir FrancisBurt) is of course a member of the electoraldistricts commission and he would knowsomething about the matter and if we have Iwomembers from each side of the House then ofcourse we have a fair representation. It wvould befar better than tampering with our electoral laws.We should be above self-interest and we should beabove the interests of political parties. As I said,we would have the guidance of the Chief Justiceand that would be something to be grateful for,

I believe we could look ait the electoral lawvs inthis State in at much better atmosphere and rathermore dispassionately than we can do in debate.What is obviously brewing is that there is to be analteration to the boundaries of the meiropolitanarea and that there are to be two major seatsadded, seats wvhich we cannot afford and which.we certainly do not need.

The member for Welshpool recently asked thePremier what had been done to review thenorthern seats, the agriculiural seats, and thepastoral and mining seats. I am sure the memberfor Welshpool knows more about electoralmatters than anyone else in this House. Iunderstand that the boundaries wvere Tixed in thedays of the McLarty-Watts Government in the195Os and have remained in that situation eversince. Obviously something needs to be done toreview them and to bring them up to date.

I spoke about the mialters a Royal Commissioncould investigate and raised four points. One wasthat there is a need to examine the one-vote-one-value principle which is enshrined in thedeclaration of ihe United Nations and which hasbeen upheld time and time again in the SupremeCourt of America. However, it does not applyhere. The conditions in this State are not unlikethose that apply in the United States with sonme ofits sparsely populated areas. If that country canmake a special assessment of its situation thenobviously we could do the same.

I spoke earlier about the appropriate level offluctuation of electors in electorates. Two ofinterest are Gosnells and Murdoch. These arefairly new seats which one would assume wouldbe stable because they are within Tmost recentlydrawn boundaries. The Gosnells electorateshowed in March this year that it was 33.95 percent over quota. At the same time the Murdocheleciorate was 35.66 per cent over quota. TheWhitford electorate is 79.96 per cent over quotaaccording to the March figures of this year. It isapparent that the situation can change and wemust look at it in regard to the relationship ofmetropolitan boundaries to country boundaries.

1618

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]161

A Royal Commission might also considerelectorate allowances in order to ascertainwhether they are commensurate with theconditions involved. It could also establishwhether country members have needs which aregreater overall. A Royal Commission couldexamine whether additional staff isnecessary to help with the visits and any contactsthat country members must make in theirelectorates. The position of their telephones couldalso be looked at as well as the right of electors toreverse charges when contacting their member.Another question could be whether there need beprovision of more than one electorate office for acountry member and also whether there needs tobe any subsidised accommodation for memberscoming to Perth.

The matter needs to be investigated to ascertainwhether there should be a lower quota in thecountry areas so that a member can moreadequately represent his electors. We should belooking at all of these things to ensure that thebest possible representation is provided.

A Royal Commission could look at whetheroptional preference is a better method of votingthan the present preferential voting system. Itcould also look at the application of such voting tothe Local Government Act and consider whetherballot papers should show the Party affiliation ofcandidates.

Quite clearly the question of the same provisionexisting for Federal and State elections should beconsidered. There is no reason that we should nothave a joint roll, and that is another matter whichcould be considered because then it wouldalleviate any confusion which may arise and wewish to encourage people to register an intelligentvote. We do not wish to make it difficult for them.There is some confusion and the matter needsinvestigation.

In the past five years consistently more peoplehave been enrolled for Federal elections than forState elections. That is because the Federalofficers carry out door-to-door canvasses to putpeople on the roll. It is no good the Premiersaying it is the responsibility of individuals to getthemselves on the roll. It is the responsibility ofindividuals to do many things, but occasionallythey need a little encouragement, help, andservice from the Government.

The only time I ever see the ElectoralDepartment doing anything in that regard is atthe Royal Show. I am always staggered at thenumber of people who are queueing up to checktheir enrolments, or to get themselves on the roll.Obviously, a need exists in that area. When I had

less to do than I have now, I used to enrol peoplein Albany Highway, and I could alwvays get astack of cards.

Mr H-assell: Very few people enrol at the RoyalShow. The cost is disproportionate to thenumbers.

Mr DAVIES: What is an enrolment worth?Mr Hassell: I cannot tell you what it is worth in

terms of money. That is a subjective judgment, asyou know,

Mr DAVIES: The Minister is cavilling nowabout putting a stand at the Royal Show. Apartfrom placing a few advertisements in the localPress, the only thing the Electoral Departmentever does to encourage people to get on the roll isto set up a stand at the Royal Show and "'e arenow told it is too costly.

This is the attitude I have been complainingabout; the Government simply will not encouragepeople to register so that they may vote. I do notknow what it is worth to have a name on the roll,but I do know that if we had a combined Stateand Federal roll as other States have, there wouldbe considerable savings to both the State and theCommonwealth with much less confusion in theelectorate.

M r Jamieson: We would save at least $250 000in this State.

Mr DAVIES: That is worth saving, these days.Mr Hassell: Some of the other States are not

happy with the arrangement. Having entered intoit, their experience is that it does not workparticularly satisfactorily.

Mr DAVIES: Perhaps a Royal Commissioncould look at that matter and decide whether itshould recommend joint rolls. I am not advocatingjoint rolls because I do not know enough aboutthe subject. However, it is interesting that on 31March 1981 there were 754 288 people fromWestern Australia enrolled on theCommonwealth roll, but only 712 171 peopleenrolled on the State roll, a difference of 42 117electors.

Mr Hassell: You must appreciate that one ofthe reasons for that discrepancy relates to thetiming of State and Federal elections. After everyelection there is a cleansing of the roll. afterwhich people who have not voted receive notices,and so on. The State had completed that process,but the Federal department had not.

Mr DAVIES: It was four months after aFederal election.

Mr Hassell: It takes more than four months todo it.

1619

120(ASSEMBLY]

Mr DAVIES: This is a matter a RoyalCommission could examine.

I turn now to the matter of closing the rolls. Inthe last two elections. the Premier has given 24hours' notice of the closure of the rolls. Before thelast State election there was a cyclonc in thePibara and I suggested he might extend theclosure of the rolls by a week. The Premier said itwas at gimmick, and that he was appalled I wouldtry to obtain some political advantage out of thedistress people were suffering in the north, I wasappalled the Premier was not concerned with theelectors. Vie did not want them to get on the rollbecause he thought they might he Labor voters.I-I disenfranchised people because no aircraftwere able to go in and bring down the cards whichundoubtedly were there.

Somec years ago, the closing of the rolls used tobe at the courthouse or some other specific placewithin the various electorates: this was especiallyso in the country areas. Now, however, the closingtime is at midnight at the Electoral Departmentin H-ay Street, Perth. How can people fromiCarnarvon. Esperanee. Kalgoorlie. or, indeed,Kalamunda get in there with only 24 hours' noticein order to check their enrolmnents?

Mr Hassell: You know that is not accuratebecause the Electoral Department advertises forenrolments months before elections. You knowthat was the ease in both 1977 and 1980.

Mr DAVIES: I admitted earlier that all theElectoral Department did was to go down to theRoyal Show and to place advertisements in thelocal Press. I niight add that they are about themost uninteresting advertisements one could see.They do not grab one's attention, and it is timnethe department looked at a new style ofadvertising.

The fact remains. that despite the minimalopportunity for people to get on the roll in timefor elections, there is always a huge crush on thelaist day, when the Premier announces the peoplehave 24 hours to get on the roll. In the 1977election, the situation was absolutely appalling.They turned off the air-conditioning in the LawCourts Building and it was stifling. Children werebeing literally trampled under foot. The crush wasjust as bad in 1980. but at least they left the air-conditioning on. The Premier says he does notcare and that it is not his responsibility, but theresponsibility of the people, to ensure they areenrolled. When there was a cyclone in the Pilbaraand I asked for an extension to the enrolmentclosing time he said I was callous by trying toobtain political advantage out of people's distress.

However, it is interesting that there wasanother cyclone in the Pilbara at the tinienominations closed. The Premier promptly said"Aren't I a wonderful fellow'?" and extended theclosing date for nomination by one week. He didnot worry about people having the right to vote,but he was concerned about nominations. 1 do notknow whether he was able to cheek to ascertainwhether his candidate had nominated.

Mr Sodeman: Just to put your mind at rest, hedid, in good time.

Mr Jamieson: They are supposed to draw forpositions on the ballot paper at the close ofnominations; however, that was postponed despitethe provisions in the Act requiring them to do so.

Mr DAVIES: Other things also need theattention of a Royal Commission. We need toencourage people to exercise their vote and to geton the rolls and the Government has someresponsibility in that regard. This is something aRoyal Commission could well be investigating.

A Royal Commission could also examine therunning of the State Electoral Department. I donot intend at this stage to rehash the disgustingevents which occurred during the last Kimiberleyby-election and the involvement of the ElectoralDepartment on that occasion. Fortunately, theadministration has changed since then and I mustsay I have not had one complaint sinee thatchange.

The fact remains there was a very nastyinvolvement which did the Government and thePublic Service no credit whatever. To see thoseeases eventually tossed out of court filled me witha great deal of delight because it was a disgustingblot on this Government's attitude towards votingand trying to frighten people from voting.

Another man who should hang his head inshame for his involvement in the situation and forhis pandering to the Government is the formerCommissioner of Police (Mr Owen Leitch). 1 willsay nothing more about that.

Mr Jamieson: His tip-of-the-iceberg statement.

Mr DAVIES: He was going to throw them allin gao: he said it was only the tip of the iceberg.That statement was a reflection on everyreturning officer and every person involved in thatelection.

Mr Hassell: Your attack on a formerCommissioner of Police and the former ChiefElectoral Officer does you no credit.

Mr DAVIES: I have never previously attackedthe former commissioner until this minute. I defythe Minister for Police and Traffic to show meany journal, printed publication, or broadcast in

1620

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]162

which I have been derogatory about Mr OwenLeitch. I am saying it now because it needs to besaid. because this Government failed to takepositive action. Members opposite were rubbingtheir hands with joy. but fortunately, justiceeventually was done and the whole thing wasthrown out of court. In fact, I believe the formercommlissioner even wanted to take the matter toappeal-, that is the nature of the man, and thisGovernment did not have the backbone to standup to him.

Mr Hassell: Kis nature was always to enforcethe law.

Mr I)AV IES: They tried to intimidate voters,This is another matter which needs investigationby some dispassionate organisation. not by thisI-louse.

The State Electoral Department could dothings like educating the population by visitingschools, by attending migrant classes, by furtherwork in the Aboriginal community. and byassisting people to understand our voting system.These are all matters a Royal Commission couldinvestigate. It could well examine the provisionfor mobile polling booths and whether or not weshould have the right to distribute how-to-votecards to people in hospitals,

A Royal Commission could look at how peoplein institutions are treated. We have all hadexperience of being asked to go along and take apostal vote. We have gone along and been toldtime and time again by the staff at the hospitalsthat the votes were not there. We eventuallydiscover the forms have been filled in by thosesame hospital staff, and returned to the ElectorallDepartment. This is the kind of thing which goeson, and it should not be tolerated.

A Royal Commission could also investigatewhether or not political parties should disclose thesource of their funds. This is a matter which hasbeen worrying the community for a long time. Itcould examine whether campaign spending shouldbe limited and whether companies should becompelled to disclose political contributions.

Mr H-assell: What about compulsory politicallevies on trade unions?

Mr DAVIES: That has never occurred, to myknowledge.

Mr H-assell: Not much it hasn't.Mr Sodeinan: That is not what the Hon. Grace

Vaughan said in the other place.Mr DAVIES: She may have had knowledge of

which I was not aware. I know of no compulsorylevy on any unions for that purpose. I have triedto explain this before to members opposite. Less

than one-third of the trade unions in this Stateare affiliated with the Labor Party. which meansthat the remaining two-thirds have nothing to dowith us. They do not come out in support of theLabor Party. despite the fact they may beaffiliated with the TLC. I have tried to explainthis to members before, but they do not seem towant to appreciate or understand the situation,obviously because they like to repeat the liecontained in the kind of statement the Ministerjust made, and repeat it time and time again inthe hope people will believe it.

Mr Hassell: What about your vicious attack onthe former Chief Electoral Officer and theCommissioner of Police'? You have repeated itand trotted it out again and again tonight.

Mr DAVIES: I said the actions of the ChiefEclecoral Officer on that occasion were less than Iwould have expected from a senior public servant.

Mr Hassell: That is not what you said.Mr DAVIES: The Minister can cheek Hansard

for himself. I made those remarks because it wasa disgusting situation. The Minister sat thereinert, he showed no backbone. He is not interestedin fair play or in encouraging people to vote;rather, he actively discourages people to vote. Heputs the fear of God into them and encourages thepolice action in picking them up in paddy wagonsfor questioning, just to ensure that, at the nextelection, they will be too frightened to vote. Thatis what happened in the Kimberley and theMinister knows it well. However, justiceeventually was done and the cases were thrownout of court. It was one of the best decisions Ihave ever heard.

Mr Hassell: Because you agreed with it.Mr DAVIES: No, because it recognised the

situation. Anyone with any decency would haveapplauded the position and would have decided inthe future to do everything possible to encourageevery citizen of Western Australia to vote.

The Government should not make some peoplesecond-class citiz~ens and others first-classcitizens. If people want to exercise their right tovole, let them do so.

Mr Hassell: Why don't they?Mr DAVIES: They are afraid.Mr Hassell: Who has frightened them?Mr DAVIES: They are seared of being picked

up by the police and questioned. That is whathappened in the Kimberley. and the Minister wellknows it. It was a disgusting state of affairs whichthe Minister, without any backbone, refused to doanything about.

1621

1622 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr H-assell: You wanted the Government todirect the police not to investigate complaints ofmalipract ice.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Blaikie): Order!Mr DAVIES: The Minister knew what was

going on, The Ministcr has told us that he doesnot interfere with the police. I have asked himwho is running this State. 1 have asked whetherhe is giving directions or whether the Police Forceis running the Govcrnrnent. The people who camecto me tell me what interference the Minister isinvolved in with the Police Force. It is all comingtogether very nicely and very appropriately foruse at the proper time.

Mr H-assell: Oh yes.Mr DAVIES: There arc some people who are

disgusted with the way the Police Force has beentreated by this Government. They are starting tounderstand on which side their bread is butteredand they are prepared to tell us things now. It isno good the Minister sitting there smugly saying"Oh yes". The Minister likes to pretend he is notdirecting the Commissioner of Police. TheMinister does not have the backbone to stand upand defend himself. That is just another one ofthe matters the Royal Commission could consider.

The commission should also have a look at thesituation with regard to legislation which passesthis House but does not pass the other House.Perhaps it could recommend that we adoptsomething like the procedure in the House ofCommons where after three attempts a Rillbecomes law anyway, whether or not the House ofLords likes it.

Another matter the Royal Commission couldconsider is whether the Legislative Council shouldhave the right to initiate money Bills, Bills whichwould impose a cost on the Government.

Because of the interjections I have gone onlonger than I had expected, but I must say I didenjoy them.

The people of Western Australia are becomingabsolutely sick of the crookedness that thisGovernment indulges in to ensure it remains inoffice. If the commission investigates only thefour major points I have raised it would do asplendid job. In the time available I would notexpect the commission to be able to tackle all theother matters I have listed. There are some pointsamongst those I have listed that it could well andtruly look at, and I believe it would be the rightth ing to do.

Every time this Government looks like losing antelection, feels it is getting pushed to the wall, orfeels it is losing support, it fiddles with the

electoral laws. Last night the member 'for Mt.Hawthorn indicated the number of occasions thishas been done. If the Government rejects thismotion for a Royal Commission it will prove it isa Government without scruples, because acomplete unbiased and honest investigation intoelectoral matters in this State is something that isneeded, and the Chief Justice is the only mnan whoshould be charged with handling this.

MR ,JAMIESON (Welshpool) [9.49 p.m.): Isecond the motion and in doing so I would like toadd a few comments to what my leader has said.The motion calls for an inquiry into the Stateelectoral laws. When we mention these we thinkof the principal laws that affect the elections heldin this State, and I refer to the Constitution ActsAmendment Act, the Electoral Act, and theElectoral Districts Act. The Electoral DistrictsAct is the one that has provoked the introductionof this motion which justly calls for a RoyalCommission, because since the time of responsiblegovernment in this State there has never been anindependent inquiry to ascertain what the peoplewant in regard to electoral boundaries. The peoplehave never been given the right of an input intoan inquir except in things such as liquor andgaming lws. There have been various plebiscitesand commissions which have allowed the peopleto have some say and some input, but there hasbeen nothing at all which has allowed them tohave an input in respect of what they consider tobe a fair deal when electing representatives to thisParliament.

Surely it is time we got around to doingsomething about this, because our laws go back to1890. Around 1913 legislation was introduced torefer the whole matter of electoral districts anddistributions to a commission such as the onerequested now. However, that legislation did notpass through the House and the result wassomething like the Electoral Districts Act that wenow have, but a little bit varied in that it had fourspecific designations of areas whereas at thepresent time we have only three. The four areasvaried at different times, but for most of the timethey were the metropolitan area, the agriculturalarea, the goldfields central area, and the miningarea. There were specific designations as to whereeach area would be.

The Electoral Districts Act was proclaimed in1947 and it included provisions with respect to therights of the commissioners to alter the variousareas so that they might he more equitably dealtwith. In other words, the present position we haveseen with all the scurrying around in regard to thestatutory Seats was the right of the commission todetermine as evenly as possible within a particular

1622

[Wednesday. 6 May 19811 12

area and, if necessary. to have one portion of anarea placed into at dilferent area. The commissionhad certain defined rights, and when it consideredthe matter the first thing it did was to define aboundary of the metropolitan area and then workout the quotas whilst having due reg ard [or theboundaries it had established as an independentbody.

But for most of the time since 1890 it hasalways been a matter of the Parliament of thisState making a determination, and as theParliament has always been dominated by theconservative forces. which have always had a holdon the Legislative Council even when at LaborGovernment has., been in office, so making thatI-louse ai rubber Stamp for the administration, itcan be easily seen that the manipu lat ions havebeen entirely up to the administration of theconservative Governments. which have followedone another. At no time has the power for anydistribution of electoral boundaries been in thehands of the forces of Labor. Because of that factalone it should be seen that it is high timesomething other than the conservative point ofviewv was taken to have at look at the electoraldistricts in order to bring them into line in themnanner referred to in the motion so that we havewhat is considered to be appropriate for a modernrepresentative democracy.

That is what it is all about. We want to seesomething much more modern with a betterapproach and with a more equitable base than hasbeen the ease with the actions of the commissionin the past. The Premnier has often said that wehave never criticised the commission as such. Butthe point is that the coimission's hands are tiedbefore it conducts an inquiry.

The commission merely draws lines within aprescribed area, and by having a prescribed areain the first place we geographically commit thecommission to a certain line of action. While thecommission might be able to Vary that line ofaction a little, it is basically committed to thepattern dictated by the conservative Government'sdesire. it is only by accident that it has onoceastons been able to get away from the fact thatit keeps Liberal Governotents in office all thetime.

I am of the opinion that the presentGovernment has panicked because of the thoughtthat it might not have a constitutional majorityafter the next election. It does not want to havebefall it what befell the Playford Government inSouth Australia which thought it would haveanother term in office with a constitutionalmajority and would thus have control of futurelegislation, but unfortunately for it. it missed out.

But even in that State the Liberals havebecome somewhat liberal minded in theirapproach to electoral matters. They havedistinctly said that anyone who gets 50 per centplus one of the vote, under given circumstances,should be entitled to win an election. In evidencebefore a Royal Commission, the President of theSouth Australian Liberal Party said just that. Tosome degree he was reflecting the views of MrSteele-Flall who was the Premier for a time andwho had also developed a pattern in his mind thatelectoral justice is possible in a moderndemocracy.

For some reason or other, we in WesternAustralia seem to be terribly old fashioned. Weseem to want to keep this Situation which wascreated at the beginning of responsiblegovernment, but how responsible was that? Thefirst electoral boundaries were drawn to ensurethat Alexander Forrest was given a seat inKimberley with just 70 people. As time went byand ports and meatworks developed, many, seatsbecame Labor seats, which upset the powers thatwere. Other seats in mining areas came undercontrol Of Various Labor members for many years.The situation swung the other way and theybeeame Liberal strongholds. but the pendulum isswinging back again.

This position is unsavoury to the conservativeGovernment of the day. The present Governmentsees the situation as being dangerous and it hasset out in an endeavour to overcome this problem.If this proposition is put to a Royal Coni1missionconsisting of the personnel listed, we would havetwo representatives recommended by the Premierand two by the Leader of the Opposition. It wouldbe preferable if one of each of those memberscame from the Legislative Assembly and theLegislative Council respectively. They can givedue consideration to what is necessary in theproper realigning and re-establishing of areasonable electoral system in Western Australia.Until that is done we will only continue to get thisshilly-shallying around with the boundary issue.

In the years I have been in this place I haveseen many boundary issues approached. but neverhave I seen the introduction of a Bill With theburlesque that hats occurred on this Occasion.People have been running around with bits Ofpaper. looking at maps. raeing to an Office andhaving midnight meetings. The Cabinet has hadmidnight mneetings and there have been meetingsof pairty reprecsentarives.The Government Printerwas prevailed upon this afternoon to reprint theBill, and the Government Printer himselfdelivered it by hand because I saw him in thepark beside the Parliament hand over copies and

1623

1624 ASSEM BLY]

speak to someone for a while. All this sort ofstupidity has never manifested itself before, andthe reason for it is the foolishness of theGovernment in trying to please everybody on itsside. It will fail to do that.

I round when we were in Government andredistributions came up that everybody could notbe pleased. Someone will gel the chop or thesqueeze in a redistribution. We are not here forthe purpose of protecting ourselves.

Mr Coyne: I don't want Mt. Newman.Mr JAMIESON: That would have been all

right.Mr Parker: It is very nice. You would enjoy

visiting it.Mr JAMIESON: We can go through an

exercise of examining what boundaries can bechanged, and it might be of interest to people toknow that Mt. Newman is only about a kilometreoutside the Murehison-Eyre boundary.

Mr Coyne: It is 0.8542 of a kilometre!Mr JAMIESON: I do not know the exact

distance. As members know or should know, dueto the oscillation of the globe, the boundary inthat area changes periodically, and that situationhas been explained clearly. The commissionersnever should use the Tropic of Capricorn as aboundary because it moves. It never goes rightthrough the town: it goes just outside to the roadhouse down the road or somewhere like that.

Mr Coyne: I want the lot!Mr JAM IESON: If the member can get Mt.

Newman we might give him a prize.Mr Parker: Early retirement.Mr JAMIESON: I realise we will have an

opportunity to debate specific matters later on:, inparticular, the area that should be allocated to t heMurchison-Eyre electorate, whether the sizeshould be cut substantially and parts of itattached to the Kalgoorlie electorate. It isridiculous that an area because it is statutorilydefined should be maintained;, it is absolute arrantstupidity in any person's eyes.

Mr Coyne: Can we get together afterwards onthis'?

Mr JAM IESON: If the member votes for themotion we could together prevail upon the ChiefJustice to make certain changes. We could putbefore him a joint statement that might convincehim what should be the boundaries and on whatbasis other electorate boundaries should beformulated.

The days when all these matters wereconsidered on the principle of not having onc-

vole-one-value have gone. In those days thecountry areas required a loading. I perused thetranscripts of speeches of chat time. Sir CharlesLathani said city people should not have anyrepresentation at all. He was most outspoken, andit was very clear in his mind that city peopleshould exist in some sort of political void. In thisday and age that attitude is quite absurd.

At one time it would at best take a person twoweeks to travel from Perth to Wyndham. It wouldtake at least a week or two by State ship, andthere was no other real way of getting there. Itwas very difficult to represent such places. Nowon nearly most days of the week aircraft fly toKununurra which is fairly close to our border. Itis only about a three-hour flight from Perth tothere, and members have access to thosetravelling conditions. Everything has changeddramatically, and that is why the commissionshould consider whether changes should be madeand, if so, what they should be. I am sure if thechief commissioner were given the opportunity tohave a look around these places he would want tomake a few changes.

I ask members to consider the situation Imentioned earlier in regard to the four divisionswhich were changed to encompass three divisions;the metropolitan, the north-west and theagricultural, mining, and pastoral. To make onedivision difficult to say, it was called in the lastamendment to the Electoral Districts Act, the"North-West Murchison-Eyre area", which ofcourse we know encompasses a considerable partof the State.

We must decide what needs to be done. Do weintend to go on for ever with this stupidity? In theeyes of the people of this State this place must bea burlesque show when they see People runningaround trying to prop up their boundaries when aredistribution is imminent. It is time such matterswere taken complely out of our hands and theGovernment's hands. In days gone by submissionswere put before the Parliament a ftercommissioners of the day had consideredboundaries. Those submissions needed the stampof approval of the Government. There were alltypes of deals and attempts to change boundariesat the last minute, which were not justified,

We should allow electoral boundaries to bedecided by an independent body consisting ofpeople free of political influences. i suppose thatwould be a bit hard to do because I have known ofmanipulations taking place when a Federalredistribution is taking place. The manipulationshave concerned the personnel representing variousStates; the powers-that-be try to have certain

1624

lWednesday, 6 May 1981]162

people appointed and others not. I know suchthings happen.

In the Federal sphere there is almost a one-vote-one-value situation, and we in this Stateshould have equality near that. Of course," in theFederal sphere we have had that since federation.and if we had that situation in this State theOpposition would not now be calling for aninquiry.

The Federal electoral commissioners are boundby certain conditions in regard to their dividingthe country as reasonably and evenly as possible.The decisions are subject to variations in sizes,terrain and percentages. One could say that it isnear enough as one can get to a one-vote-one-value situation in a country such as this. However,when one considers State boundaries it is adifferent matter. The Slate commissioners areallowed to apply a loading of virtually two to onebetween metropolitan and country areas. Ofcourse, there is an additional loading. There canbe a variation in their determination of 10 percent for metropolitan areas, and of 15 per cent forcountry areas.

Anyone who talks about the commissioners asoperating above influence and independently areas naive as the Premier. Either he does not knowwvhat he is talking about-often he does not-orhe is naive. He has been in polities for a long timebut he probably has filled in only half a dozenelectoral enrolment forms in his life. He has led asheltered life.

Mr Hassell: His simple honesty is what is sowinning, obviously.

Mr Parker: I am glad you said that with a grinon your face.

Mr JAMIESON: The simplicity of theMinister even exceeds the honesty to which hereferred.

Mr Parker: It is exceeded by a long way.Mr B. T. Burke: He is more simple than honest.

is that what you mean? If it is, I would second it.

M r J AM I ESON: Hec doesn't even know how torun his departments. He thinks he does. We haveall sorts of people elected to this House. We havepeople who used to play with electric circuits;people who used to have agencies for petrol:people with pie shops: journalists-

M r B. T. Burke: Steady on.Mr JAMIESON: -and lawyers. Occasionally

we have people such as the Minister for Policeand Traffic. The hardest road he ever trod wasthe one from the university to St. George'sTerrace. He then tells us how worldly he is.

It is a great problem in life to deal with peoplelike that. Nevertheless, we must deal with them,and that is why we need someone like the ChiefJustice who can say "There must be a place forthem in the sphere of things. in the ElectoralDistricts Act, but it should be a nice, secluded.soft spot where they can't get into any trouble andno-one can worry them." Once they get intotrouble and are worried by others We See themgoing through rough times which they did nothave to go through in coming to the job here.

I think I have said all I wanted to say in respectof this matter. For the betterment of the people ofWestern Australia we should submit the proposalfor some independent inquiry as outlined. Nobetter inquiry could be had, although the ChiefJustice might not think so when he has tworepresentatives from each political persuasionbefore him. HeI may have to be provided with anumpire's whistle to carry out his work, but I thinkhe has all that he needs with his capability andcharisma to carry through a commission like thisand get some sense out of the personnel proposedfor this inquiry. After all, he is the chiefcommissioner under the Electoral Districts Act,and to that extent he has the required experience.

From time to time the commissioners makerecommendations when they realise the Act iswanting, and from time to time the Governmentof the day takes some notice of them-in fact, nonotice of them when one Chief Justice woke up tothe impact of the boundary changes that weremade. He suggested that under no circumstancesthe Government should have anything but fixedboundaries; in other words, fixed points, stationboundaries, or what-have-you. Local authorityboundaries usually follow station boundaries, nota set line which is most difficult to follow.

There are only about three indeterminate lines.One is the line on the eastern side of theGascoyne electorate: one is the eastern boundaryof the Pilbara electorate; and another is the one towhich 1 referred, a more pure line, but,nevertheless, a variable line, the Tropic ofCapricorn.

While people may laugh about these things asbeing a little quaint, certainly sometimes we arenot prepared to accept the advice of others whereit is quite justified, where they have undertakenstudies. I know how long we studied to see we gotthe maximum number of names other thanthrough electoral commissioner means into theelectorate of Murchison-E-yre. We finallyobtained some information from no other nationthan Brazil. whose university undertook aconsiderable study into the oscillation of theglobe. The university was able to send us

1625

1626 [ASSEMBLY]

diagrams and maps to show us how close it mightgo and then hair way it would turn over. Everytime Mt. Newman got close to being in the seat ofMurchison-Eyre, it turned around and went theother way! One might say that the globe wasacting as a fourth commissioner under thesecircumstances. However, those arc sonic of thefacts of life.

Today we need to do something about this ever-recurring problem. it is not necessary to carry onlike the stupid people we have been in the past. Ifwe continue to group ourselves into one section orthe other to try to find an advantage, we willnever solve the problem. The only way to dosomething properly is to refer the matter to anindependent arbitr-ator. This person can seek theadvice of people in the game, he can seek equalityof advice, and then make a final determination.Then and only then will all the Statutes thataffect the electoral districts of the States andthose others which the Leader of the Oppositionreferred to and which may not need amending bebrought into line. It is high time they wereexamined to see whether somec modernisation mayhelp the State to get along better than it has donein the past.

About the only change that has been madesince I camie to this IHouse is the installation of atiming device which tells us how much time wehave left to speak in the Chamber. We still havethe old hourglass for divisions. I have beenadvocating punch voting from one's own seat foryears. as members know. In this day and age itmust look very quaint to people in the gallery whowatch us following the trying and ancienttraditions of turning over our papers and crossingto the other side of the House to vote. We cangive attention to matters such as this, but in theease of controversial issues which affect thegeneral public, the public has a right toparticipate in the activities of a commission.

If we allowed such a commission to make arecommendation to this Parliament of what

shudbe done, we would have a plan for thefuture Legislature of this State, a plan of whichwe could be proud. We should not be proud of theactivities we engage in every time there is aredistribution of seats for this Parliament ofWestern Australia. It is high time we grew up andwere prepared to let an independent commissionlook at the matter and make therecommendations referred to in the motion.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Hassell(Chief Secretary).

MINING AND PETROLEUMRESEARCH BILL

Returned

Bill returned from the Council withoutamendment.

ACTS AMENDMENT (ELECTORALPROVINCES AND DISTRICTS) BILL

Second ReadingMR H-ASSELL (Cottesloc-Chief Secretary)

[10. 20 p.m.]: 1 move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

In accordance with an undertaking given in thisHouse sonic months ago, the Government hasconsidered whether the electoral boundaries ofthis State should be subject to re-examination andredistribution in the light of population growthand population movements.

The matter has been considered by a committeeof the Cabinet, and information obtained from theElectoral Department.

The Government has reached the conclusionthat it is both appropriate and proper for electoralboundaries to be re-examined and subject toredistribution prior to the next State election. Ithas resolved to recommend to Parliamentaccordingly, and this Bill represents therecommendations of the Government in respect ofthese matters.

It has been necessary to consider a number ofpolicy issues, and that consideration of issues hasbeen undertaken having regard to the growthexpected in the population of the State, especiallyin the north-west and the developments which willsupport and promote the growth.

Mr Barnett: And complaints of back-benchers.Mr HASSELL: By tradition aver many years

the State has been divided into three areas, eachof which is provided with a differently-based scaleof representation. Within the close population ofthe metropolitan area it has been accepted, and itis now still accepted, that a parliamentaryrepresentative has the capacity to deal with andeffectively represent far more constituents thancan a member who represents an outlying orcountry area.

In the agricultural, pastoral, and mining areasof the State, as defined in the legislation, ourlegislation has always given recognition to thefactors of distance and communications as well asto population numbers.

In the north-west and Murchison-Eyre, aseparate set of considerations related in the pastto sparsity of population, distances, difficulties of

1626

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981] 12

communications, and diversity of interests hasdictated the practice under which this Parliamenthas defined the individual electorates within thatportion of the State. Within the metropolitanarea, and within the agricultural, pastoral, andmining area, the electoral districts and provincesare defined without reference to Parliament bythe electoral commissioners nominated in thelegislation. The basic structure is not to change.

Mr B. T. Burke: Still crooked.Mr Barnett: Just enough to make it safe for

some Government members.Mr HASSELL: It is nevertheless recognised

that changes have occurred in the distribution ofpopulation in Western Australia, in the methodsby which we are able to traverse the distancesinvolved, and in the communications systemsavailable.

Mr Barnett: Is this last night's speech Ortonight's?

Mr Hodge: What a scandal!Mr HASSELL: The legislation now presented

to the House moves cautiously in the direction ofrecognition of the relative growth in thepopulation of the metropolitan area-

Mr Barnett: "Cautiously" is right.Several members interjected.Mr HASSELL: -without abandoning our

acknowledgment that distance, transportation,and communication remain a significant disablingfactor for many people in the State.

Mr Hodge: Well, why don't you do somethingabout it?

Mr HASSELL: The Government is of the viewthat an increase in the membership of thisParliament is both necessary and desirable forthree reasons.

Mr Barnett: Rub~bish!

An Opposition member: We need moremembers like we need you.

Mr HASSELL: Firstly, it increases the relativelevel of representation for the metropolitan areaas against that provided in other areas of theState. in recognition of both the absolute andrelative growth of the metropolitan population. Iassume this step will be welcomed by theOpposition as it accords with its often expressedviews on the subject.

Mr Carr: What a farce.Mr B. T. Burke: The original blunt instrument!Mr HASSELL: Secondly, this step is taken

without diminishing the actual representation of

country and remote areas of the State, other thanby the transfer of one near metropolitan seat.

Mr Tonkin: No wonder he is embarrassedabout the speech.

Mr HASSELL: The Government is firmly ofthe view that in light of the continuing basiceconomic importance of the country areas theirrepresentation should not be diminished,especially when, as I have said, the problems ofdistance, transportation, isolation, andcommunication, whilst diminished, have not beenovercome.

Mr Hodge: Give the votes for wealth-notpeople but wealth.

Mr HASSELL: It is correct also to say thatwith the developments occurring in the country,north-west, and remote areas of the State, itwould be unfair and unwise in all our interests toreduce the actual representation of those areas atthis time.

Mr Barnett: Well there's no intention by thisparty to do that, and you know it. You know thatis untrue.

The SPEAKER: Order!Mr HASSELL: Thirdly, the increased number

of members of this Parliament provides a basisupon which future appropriate redistributions canbe made. The Government believes that the timehas not arrived for equal electorates, although itrecognises that with the growth and developmentof the State, especially at the pace now beingtaken up, the situation will change in the yearsahead.

Mr Barnett: Heaven knows what it will take tomake you people realise that.

Mr HASSELL: The legislation now presentedto Parliament provides specifically for thefollowing-

Mr B. T. Burke: Boundary rigging!Mr HASSELL: It provides for-

An increase in the defined metropolitana rea, involving a n extension o f theboundaries to include within the metropolitanarea-

Wanneroo and the northern corridorarea most immediately subject todevelopment growth.Ballajura. currently under development,Armadale, to cover the coastal plainsdevelopments, andRockingham, to take in the existingdefined country seat area,

An increase of two in the number of seatstn the Legislative Assembly.

1627

1628 [ASSEMBLY]

An increase of one in the number ofprovinces in the Legislative Council-

Mr Barnett: I nsensiive Governmentexpenditure for no good reason.

Mr HASSELL: To continue-A move to the west in the boundary

between the Pilbara and the Kimberley-. andAn immediate redistribution to be carried

out by the electoral commissioners toredefine the boundaries of districts andprovinces in the metropolitan area and in theagricultural. mining, and pastoral area.

Mr Barnett: And what are the parameters youset for them'?

Mr HASSELL: Several results will flow fromthcse changes.

There will be 30 metropolitan seats as againstthe existing 27. An increase of one will arise fromthe transfer of the seat of Rockingham from thecountry to the metropolitan area and the othertwo will arise from the creation of two newdistricts.

The number of provinces in [he LegislativeCouncil covering the whole State is presently 16.This will be increased to 17. Without reducing thenumber of provinces representative of country,north-west, and remnote areas, the changerepresents an increase of representation for thelarger metropolitan population centre.

Because members of the Legislative Councilare elected for a six-year term with half themembership retiring each three years, specialprovisions have been provided to meet thesituation. Similar circumstances occurredpreviously and this was dealt with by amendmcntof the Constitution Acts Amendment Act. Theseprovisions are to be aniended to meet the changeswhich will follow the passage of this Bill.

On the occasion of the next general election.members for seven provinces will be elected torepresent the increased metropolitan area in theLegislative Council.

A special election will be held concurrently toelect one member for a term of three years so thatthe seventh province will be fully represented.

After the redistribution, pending the nextgeneral election, sitting members will be able toapply to the Governor for allocation to one of thenewly-designated provinces provided that 50 percent of the electoral population of their presentelectorate is contained within the newly-definedprovince.

The amending legislation will operate so as toapply to future elections of thie Legislative

Council and will apply to its membership after 21May 1983.

It will apply to elections for the LegislativeAssembly when the Legislative Assembly is nextdissolved, or on expiry of the House by effluxionof time first occurring after 31 December 1982.

On the passage of this legislation and thegranting of Royal assent, the electoralcommissioners will be formally appointed and willcommence their work.

The Act requires that they furnish their finalreport to the Governor by 31 December this year.

The north-west and Murehison-Eyre area ofthe State has provided the greatest difficulty inour endeavours to adjust the electoral System in amanner which provides for the properrepresentation of all areas of the State and hasregard for factors of distance, remoteness,communication, community of interest andtransport, as well as population.

Mr Barnett: With gerrymandered boundaries,continued power for the Liberal Party.

Mr HASSELL: it is acknowledged that thenumber of electors in the Murchison-Eyre area isrelatively very small.

Mr Barnett Two and a half thousand!Mr HASSELL. The only way in which that

number could be increased would be to enlargethe area of that already very large constituency.

If ihis action were taken, it would reduce theeffectiveness Of representation in this vast area.clearly an undesirable move.

Mr Barnett: Rubbish! It would mean the LaborParty would win the seat. Don't talk rubbish!

Mr HASSELL: The Gascoyne is anotherconstituency of which it might be said that thepopulation is relatively small, and considerationhas been given to movements of its boundaries tothe north and to the south.

Mr Tonkin: Just a mob of-crooks.Mr HASSELL: In the end those proposals have

been rejected bccause to make adjust ments in thatway would achieve nothing but an arbitraryincrease in constituency numbers of people.without regard for other factors.

Having reached those conclusions, we remainedfaced with the situation in the Pilbara where asubstantial and growing population spread over alarge area makes it extremely difficult for amember of this House to give the area the serviceand the representation to which it is entitled.

In adjusting the boundary between theKimberley and the Pilbara we have had toacknowledge that there is no basis upon which it

1628

[Wednesday. 6 May 1981J162

can be said that there is a community of interestbetween that part of the Pilbara which is to betransferred io the Kiniberley. and the existingKimberley scat.

M r Tonkin: You have to be joking!Mr Davies: This is an absolute outrage.Mr B. T. Burke: The Kimbericy is bigger.

further removed, and has more people.The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come

to order!Mr H. T. Burke: This is shameless.Mr lDavies: It is an outrage.Mr HASSELL: However, it is correct that-

The most immediate developments in theregion are to take place in the Pilbara. Totake one place alone, it is expected that by1984-85 the permanent population ofKarratha will have increased by between3 000 and 4000 people. with a substantialadditional floating population.

Developments in the Kimuberley will niot beas immediate.

The two parts of the Kimberley electoratecreated by the redistribution are distinctareas, but servicing them will not requiredifferent transport facilities-that is, airtransport-than is the case with the presentKimberley electorate.

The change in boundary will result in a Pilbaraconstituency of approximately 9 000 persons anda Kimberley constituency of a pproximilately12 000 persons-

Mr Davies: Outrageous!Mr B. T. Burke: Absolutely ridiculous.Mr HASSELL: -but it is expected the

balance will change rapidly.Mr B. T. Burke: And less than 2000 in

Murchison-Eyre.Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! The House will comec

to order'Mr Tonkin: How can anyone with any decency

stay in the Liberal Party after this! They arecompletely without honour.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! I call on memlbers to

desist from interjecting. Several members havebeen interj .eeting fairly consistently, and I think itis inappropriate.

Mr HASSELL: Meanwhile, it is recognised bythe Government that further thought andconsideration will be needed over the years

immediately ahead as to the appropriate meansby which these rapidly developing north-westareas can be represented in this Parliament.

Mr .Jamieson; Now, this is the good part.

Mr Tonkin: Completely without honour.Mr HASSELL: In conclusion. I want to make

one point very clear. The electoral system inWestern Australia is one of the most fair which isknown to exist.

Mr Tonkin: You have made it clear you arecompletely without honour.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! The House will conmc

to order!Mr Barnett: Fancy saying that and laughing at

it, you disgusting person.The SPEAKER: Order! I call upon the

members for Rockingham and Morley to desistfrom interjecting,

Mr HASSELL: I repeat: The electoral systemin Western Australia is one of the most fair whichis known to exist. Subject to the legislativestructure, boundaries are drawn by electoralcommissioners whose independence is withoutquestion.

Point of Order

Mr BARNETT: Mr Speaker, you have calledupon1 the member for Morley and myself to ceaseinterjecting and I accept that as being a fairruling. However. I want to point out-and I askfor your ruling on this-that when speeches areprovocative to the extent that this Minister'sspeech is, it is extfrmely difficult to abide by yourruling.

The SPEAKER: Order! There is no point oforder. I call on the Minister.

Debate Resumed

Mr Tonkin: Why don't you try to tell the truth?Mr Davies: He doesn't know what the truth is.

Mr HASSELL: The Chief Justice of the State,the Chief Electoral Officer, and the SurveyorGeneral are the electoral commissioners whosefinal report-after a period for public commenton draft proposals-becomes law without theintervention of any governmental orparliamentary approval.

Several members interjected.Mr B. T. Burke: Is that true for Kimberley?

Mr HASSELL: It is apparent the member forBaleatta was interjecting so much that he did not

1629

1630 (ASSEMBLY]

hear my previous references to the situation in theKimberley.

Mr B. T. Burke- I have heard enough to knowthat you have a great deal of trouble with thetruth. You and the truth are comparativestrangers.

Mr HASSELL: Any Government of any partywhich embarks on a course leading to aredistribution cannot guarantee for itself aconclusion which embodies any electoraladvantage.

Several members interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I again call the Houseto order!

Mr HASSELL: Even in the north-west andMurchison-Eyre area, where ihe boundaries ofthe individual districts are drawn by theendorsemnent of this Parliament, the rapidlychanging nature of the population, and thechanges in its distribution make any assessment ofadvantage very temporary and subjective.

Mr B. T. Burke: Why did you have all thoseGovernment party meetings?

Mr HASSELL: In the view of the Governmentthe proposals now put to the Parliament improvethe system of representation of people in theParliament of a State the growth of which, thedevelopm-ent of which, and the success of which isunequalled in this nation.

I commend the Bill to the House. I havearrangcd with the Clerk of the House for themaps showing the areas which will be affected bythe passage of the legislation to be displayed now.

Mr B. T. Burke: What a load of rubbish.

Mr Carr: You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr Parker interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member [orFremantle will desist from interjecting,particularly when I am on my feet.

Adjounrnment of Debate

MR SHALDERS (Murray) [10.35 p.m.1: Imove-

That the debate be adjourned.

MIR DAVIES (Victoria Park-Leader of theOpposition) [106.36 p~m.J: I move-

That the debate be adjourned for oneweek.

The SPEAKER: In a situation such as this Iwould normally expeet the Leader of theOpposition to rise to take the adjournment. Hemay have been temporarily distracted at the timethe opportunity presented itself, so it is myintention, if I have the concurrence of the House,to put before the Chamber the motion moved bythe Leader of the Opposition. The question is'That the debate be adjourned for one week".Those in favour say "Aye", those against say"No". The "Ayes" have it,

Mr O'Connor: Divide!

Bells rung and the House divided.

Remarks during Division

Mr B. T. Burke: You called the division; youare forced to vote with us. Come on, over youco me.

Mr Barnett: If you called the division you areforced to vote with us.

Result of' DivisionDivision resulted as follows-

Mr BarnettMr B. T. BurkeMr CarrMr CowanMr DaviesMr GrillMr HarmanMr HodgeMr .Jamieson

Mr BlaikieMr ClarkoM r CoyneMrs CraigMr CraneMr GrewarMr HassellMr HerzfeldMr P. V. JonesMr Laurance

AyesMr MelverMr PearceMr SkidmoreMr H. D. EvansMr BertramMr BryceMr T. J, BurkeMr Bridge

Ayes)?7Mr T. H . JonesMr MuPharlinMr ParkerMr StephensMr TaylorMr TonkinMr WilsonMr Bateman

Noes 20Mr NanuvichM r O'ConnorMr OldMr RushtonMr SodemanM r SpriggsM r Trec howanM r TubbyMr WilliamsMr Shalders

PairsNoes

MacKinnonM r G raydenMr MensarosMr SibsonSir Charles CourtMr WattDr DadourMr Young

(Teller)

(Teller)

Motion thus negatived.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Shalders.

House adjourned at1 10.41 p.m.

1630

[Wednesday. 6 May 1981] 63

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

BANKSIA TREES

DeatIhs

1037, Mr BATEMAN, to the Minister

representing the Minister for Forests

(I) In view of the apparent concern beingshown by many people at the amount ofbanksia trees which are dying in themetropolitan area, can his departmentexplain the reason for this loss?

(2) As many homes have different varietiesof banksias for ornamental and shadevalue, can he also advise what measurespeople should t-ake to protect them fromwhatever is causing the bush banksias todie'?

Mrs CRAIG replied:

(1) There are three main reasons for deathof banksia trees in the metropolitanarea-

(a) over-watering and excess fertiliser;

(b) old age;

(c) diebackcinna morni.

disease-Phytophihora

(2) (a) Avoid heavy watering, water notmore than once a week and do notuse lawn fertilisers near banksiat rees:

(b) accept the fact that naturallyoccurring specimens will die onreaching maturity.

ELECTORAL DISTRICTS AND

PROVINCES

Red isiribuiion: Press Report

1038. Mr BERTRAM, to the Premier:

(I) Has he read the report on page I of TheWest Australian newspaper of 29 April1981 which purports to quote him and isheaded "Extra seats for W.A.Parliament"?

(2) If "Yes". is it not a fact that thereport is inaccurate and misleading inthat it sa ys "The Electoral Comn-missioners-Chief Justice, ChiefElectoral Officer and the SurveyorGeneral-would operate completelyindependently of the Government insetting new electorates"?

(3) Is it a fact that the electoralcommissioners fix only some electoralboundaries?

(4) If "Yes" to (3), has he taken steps tohave the report corrected'?

(5) If so, what steps did he take, when didhe take thenm, and with what result?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:(1) Yes.(2) and (3) No it is not a fact. The electoral

comimissioners will operate completelyindependently of the Government indrawing the boundaries of electoraldistricts and provinces in themetropolitan area and in theagricultural, mining and pastoral areas.By long tradition for special reasons, therepresentation of the north-west andMurchison-Eyre is dealt with separately.

(4) and (5) Not applicable.

ORD RIVER DISTRICT

Crops

1039. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

(1) What crops will be grown by Ord Riverfarmers in the forthcoming season?

(2) What area of each crop is expected to begrown?

(3) How many individual farmers will groweach particular crop?

Mr OLD replied:I1)1to (3) Anticipated plantings for the I1981

dry season on the Ord River irrigationarea are-

Crop

SunflowerSorghumnR icePeanutsFodderRockmelonsPumpkinVegetablesCornmillci

Area(hectares)

2 728I 038

377I8

389S31965

110o10

NumberFarmers

123

5

1631

1632 (ASSEMBLY]

WATER RESOURCES

Damn: Channyben rep

1040. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forWorks:

(1) Is work being carried out on a dam sitein the Channybearup area at the presenttime'?

(2) What is the nature ind purpose of thiswork?

(3) Is it proposed to construct a dam atChannybearup, and if so-

(a) for what purposes;(b) when will actual construction

commence;,(c) when is it expected to be in service;(d) what will be the size of any such

dam;(e) has any provision for the water

requirements of farmers below theproposed darn been made and if so,what are the details of thetreatment farmers will receive;

(f) was an environnmental impactstatement regarding the siting ofsuch a darn made, and if so, will hetable a copy of the report on itssiting;

(g) were alternative darn sitesexamined, and if so, which ones,and what was the reason for thisrejection in favour ofCha nnybearup;,

(h) was the resumption of privateproperty below the Channybearupdam site considered for a dam sitepurpose, and if so, which area andwith what result'?

Mr MENSAROS replied:

(1)(2)

Y es.Foundation drilling and surveying toinvestigate the feasibility of constructinga dam which will be required in thefuture to augment the Manjimup townwater supply.

(3) No decision has yet been made.

(a) Answered by (2) above;(b) to (e) not yet decided;(f) no enyironmental impact statement

has yet been prepared but theproposal has been referred to theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment;

(g) yes; several sites on Lefroy Brookand its tributaries, Smith Brook,Wilgarup River, and the DonnellyRiver;all sites at present appear to be lesssatisfactory than Channybearup inrespect of either foundations, waterquality or economics;

(h) no.

DROUGHT

Areas Declared

1041. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

How many shires in Western Australiaa re-(a) wholly;(b) partly;

drought declared at the present time?Mr OLD replied:

Within the agricultural areas there are-(a) 17 shires wholly drought declared;(b) 25 shires partly drought declared.

TIMBER

Karri

1042. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Forests:,

(1) What area of karri on the Shannonbasin has been regenerated by the clear-fall method'?

(2) What volume of karri saw logs is itexpected these areas will yield per acreat 100 years of age?

(3) What volume of saw logs per acre is itexpected will be yielded by areas whichhave been cut selectively or trade cutafter 100 years?

(4) What is the greatest volume of karri sawlogs taken per acre from virgin karriforest which has been recorded orestimiated?

M rs C RA IG replied:(1) 607 heetares.(2) Clear falling yield at age 100 after one

thinning at age 45-320 m3/ha sawlog.(3) Sawlog volume after 100 years from

areas that have been selectively cut ortrade cut are not expected toexceed-270 m3/ha.

1632

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981! 63

(4) The largest assessed volume of karrisawlog taken from virgin karri forestwas equivalent to - 588m9/ha.

TIMBER

Hardwood; Product ion

1043. Mr H. D. EVANS. to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Forests:

(1) What was the total value and quantityof saw and hardwood timber producedin Western Australia in 1980?

(2) Of this how much was-(a) karri:(b) jarrah?!

(3) What quantity of hardwood timber wasexported-(a) overseas;(b) interstate in 1980?

(4) What was the total value of hardwoodtimber exported from Western Australiain 1980?

Mrs CRAIG replied:(1) Total quantity of sawn timber

produced-352 811 in3. Quantity of

sawn hardwood timberproduccd-331 411 Mn3. Their totalvalue cannot be determined withaccuracy.

(2) (a) 115 123 m3-;

(b) 204 5 10 in3.

(3) and (4) This information is prepared bythe Australian Bureau of Statistics andis not yet available.

TIMBER AND WOOD CHIPPING

Shannon River Basin

1044. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Forests:(1) What area within the Shannon River

basin is available for sawlog and wood-chipping operations?

(2) What quantity of-(a) saw logs:(b) wood-chip logs is it planned to take

from the Shannon basin in each ofthe next five years?

(3) What quantity of-(a) saw logs;,(b) wood-chip. logs-,

(52)

were taken from the Shannon basin ineach of the years 1979 and 1980?

(4) What sawmills received saw logs fromthe Shannon basin area in 1979 and

980, and what quantity in each of theseyears?

(5) What number of men is it estimatedthat the sawlogs from Shannon basinwould have found employment for infelling and logging operations,transportation of logs, and timber andmilling in 1980?

Mrs CRAIG replied:

(1) to (5) Most of this information isobtainable from the Forests Departmentcomputer system and will be availableon Tuesday, 12 May.

STATE FORESTS

Shannon River Basin

1045. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Forests:

(1) What is the total area of the ShannonRiver basin?

(2) Of this area how much is-

(a) karri forest;(b) jarrah forest;(c) non-forest?

(3) What areas of the Shannon basin arcnot available for cutting and what is thereason in the case of each area?

(4) (a) What area of the Shannon basin isavailable for cutting;

(b) what area of the Shannon basin isstill virgin-

(i) karri forest;(ii) jarrab forest?

(5) (a) What area of Shannon basin wascut over prior to 1975;

(b) what area has been cut over since1975 in the categories of

(i) virgin forest;(ii) previously cut over forest?

(6) (a) Has the Environmental ProtectionAuthority monitored all forestoperations in the Shannon basin;,and

(b) if so. has it expressed approval or ifthere has been any criticisms, whatare they?

1633

1634 [ASSEMBLY]

Mrs CRAIG replied:(1) to (6) Most of this information is

obtainable from the Forests Departmentcomputer system and will be availableon Tuesday, 12 May.

PORT

Wyndhami

1046. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forTransport:

(I)

(2)

Is it intended to extend wharf facilitiesat Wyndham'?If "Yes" what extensions and upgradingis proposed in 1981, 1982 and 1983?

(3) (a) Have the recently announced cutsin Statc finance curtailed wharffacilities for Wyndham,

(b) if so, in what ways and to whatextent?

Mr RUSHTON replied:(1) There are no firm proposals to extend

the wharf facility at this stage. Anyextension of the facility will dependupon further development of agricultureand industry in the region and theirlikely effect on trade through the port.

(2) and (3) Answered by (1).

ORD RIVER DISTRICT

Development Funds

1047. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Premier:

(1) What amount of funds has beenexpended on the Ord River agriculturaland pastoral development in each of thepast five years by-(a) the Federal Government;(b) the Commonwealth Govecrnment?

(2) (a) Is it expected that the funds forOrd development from theCommonwealth will be curtailed orterminated;

(b) if so, when and by what amount?(3) Is the Ord River research station

affected by cuts in funding, and if so-(a) to what extent will cuts in funding

be;(b) from when will these cuts be made

effective-,(c) by how many is it expected that

staff will be reduced?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:(1) (a) and (b) Assuming (a) is meant to

be State Government-Common- Camt non-

Stat woalth Cal5ILoan Gram

S S $1976177 1 753 656 6419 118501977/73 1 783 631 1l00tS 114271978/79 2 289055 7403 188213

1979180 2616724 18483 15 51l93O/SI1-est. 2706531 475 000 41 900

It is estimated that Coinmoncaith fundsof approximately $1.0 million per yearare expended through the CSIRODivision of Tropical Crops andPastures- Bri sba ne-on operations ofKimberley Research Station which arepartly relevant to the Ord Riverirrigation area.

(2) and (3) The Government is seekingclarification of the Prime Minister'srecent statement concerningCommonealib support For the Ordscheme, and the future ofCommonwealth funding for agriculturalresearch and extension formerlyprovided under the Commoncalthextension services grant whichcontributed approximately $42 000 toresearch on the Ord.

TRANSPORT: GRAIN

Tenders

1048. Mr DAVIES, to the Minister forTransport:

Further to question 531 of 1981concerning the reports andrecommendations of the review into thecalling of tenders for grain haulage, willhe table that report when he receives it?

Mr RUSHTON replied:The report from the Commissioner ofTransport is an internal matter which issubject to my consideration.

CONSUMER AFFAIRS: FOOD

Model Bll) and Date Stamping

1049. Mr DAVIES, to the Premier:

(I) Further to question 532 of 1981 can headvise whether the Government hassought submissions on proposedlegislation relating to foods?

(2) If so, from whom?

1634

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 13

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:(I) Yes.

(2) (a) The model food Bill was submittedto industry through theConfederation of WA Industry, theFood Technology Association ofWA and local health authoritiesanalytical committee additionally,copies were supplied to anyinterested bodies;

(b) the date marking legislation wassubmitted to thc above bodies, plusa wide range of individualbusinesses.

Amendments resulting from submissionshave been incorporated into the latestlegislation which is due for gazettal inmid-May.

FUEL AND ENERGY: GAS

North- West Shelf: Effect on Pilbara

1050. Mr DAVIES, to the MinisterResources Development:

for

Further to question 523 of 1981concerning a report on all aspects of theNorth-West Shelf gas project, will hetable the draft report and an addendumof revised population figures?

Mr P. V. JONES replied:

No, I am not prepared to table it as it isnot the Government's report, but thereport of a local committee in Karratha,under the chairmanship of the regionaladministrator.

I am advised that the chairman is tomake available shortly the report forconsideration and reference by thoseGovernment departments, agencies, andcommunity groups which may wish toassess the contents, and have regard forthe contents when undertaking anyplanning or budgeting in relation totheir own activities.

COCKBURN SOUND

Heavy Metals

1051. Mr BARNETT. to the Premier:(1) Relative to the heavy metal discharges

into Cockburn Sound proved by theChittleborough report, is he aware that

the Chittleborough report says "Theresults of the study need to be assessedby appropriately qualified specialists todetermine the actual risk to humanbeings."?

(2) Is he further aware that in answer toquestion 909 of 1981 his Minister forHealth states monitoring and testingceased in mid-1979 some six monthsbefore the report was actuallypublished?

(3) Is he also aware that in answer toquesion 903 of 1981 his Minister forHealth says no appreciable work hasbeen done on assessing the risk?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:

(I) Yes.(2) The report took some six months to

compile after the cessation of thecompletion of testing. The HealthDepartment continued monitoring testsafter June 1979 using mussels as asuitable indicator and cadmium as aspecific heavy metal. These tests arecontinuing and 93 tests have alreadybeen done.

(3) Yes. The main technical reports werecompiled by tests conducted by theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment. Health Departmenttesting is continuing with the monitoringof mussels for cadmium and the resultsto date are satisfactory.

LFSCHENAULT INLET

Effluent

1052. Mr BARNETT, to the Premier:

(1) Is he aware that-

(a) the Leschenault Inlet ManagementAuthority says that severedegradation of the LesehenaultPeninsula is taking place as a resultof the dumping of Laporte effluentby the Public Works Department:

(b) his Minister for Works in answer tomy 1981 questions on the mattersays that this is not so and that thereport is not factual;

1635

1636 [ASSEMBLY]

(c) his Minister for Conservation andthe Environment says in answer tomy question 715 of 1981 thatenvironmental degradationobviously takes place?

(2) In view of the obvious conflict and thepossible effect this may have on thepeninsula itself, will he undertake tohave the matter investigated with a viewto ordering the Public WorksDepartment to alter the practice ofdumping On the peninsula?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:

(1) (a) No: However, I am aware that areport commissioned by theAuthority makes statements to thiseffect;

(b) yes:(c) yes: the question and the Minister's

response referred to the immediateenvirons of the disposal pondswhich constitute only a smallproportion of the peninsula.

(2) There is no conflict, but I can assure themember that the Public WorksDepartment has undertaken detailedinvestigations of disposal options. Areport is expected to be presented toGovernment shortly.

LESCH-ENAULT INLET

Fish Breeding Grounds and Birds

053. Mr BARNETT, to the Premier:

(I) Is he aware that the evaluation of theeffect of possible contaniinants on thefish/fauna of the Leschenault Inlet isbeyond the present resources of theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment, ats shown in answer toquestion 818 of 1981?

(2) What sort of priority does theLesehenault Inlet have in terms of itsenvironmental preservation?

(3) Has the Departnient of Conservationand Environment suffered cutbackswhich preclude it fromt doing its jobproperly?

(4) Does the Government think itreasonable that the Department ofConservation and Environment has notthe funds to implement a fundamentalinvestigation of one of the WesternAustralian coast's largest and mostimportant inlets?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:(1) I do not agree with the premise on which

this question is based. The reply toquestion 818 referred to the Departmentof Fisheries and Wildlife, not theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment.

(2) The Lesehenault Inlet, like all estuaries,lakes, and wvetlands, is accorded a highpriority in terms of environmentalprotection.

(3) No.(4) The State's financial resources are not

unlimited and several costly andimportant marine and estuarine studieshave been undertaken in recent years. Icite as examples the Blackwood Riverestuary study 1974-75, the CockburnSound study 1976-79, and the Peel-Harvey estuarine system study 1976-81.Priorities have to be set on the basis ofthe urgency of the problems. The fact isthat the Lesehenauli Inlet is not underthe same degree of stress ats theaforementioned systems, and I amadvised that there is no urgent need toundertake a major environmental studyof the inlet at the present time.

CYCLES

Cycleways; Funds

1054. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister for LocalGovernment:

(1) What funds are available to be spent inthe balance of this financial year oncycleways?

(2) Which shires have applied for funds inthis financial year, and how much wasgranted in each case?

(3) Do any restrictions apply to the grantingof funds in answer to part (1)?

(4) What approaches have-

Mrs

(1)

(a) been made to the Government bythe Rockingham Shire for funds:and

(b) been approved?CRAIG replied:Funds which were set aside for grants tocouncils for cycleways have been fullyallocated. However, it is possible [hat afurther SO0000 may be redirected tothis grants scheme front other bicycleorientated projects.

1636

tWcdnesday. 6 May 1981]163

(2) Grants allocated

Town of ArniadaleShire of Dayswa terCity of BunburyTown of ClaremontCity of FremantleShire of KalamundaShire of MandurahShire of MundaringShire of RockinghamCity of StirlingCity of Subiaco

120009 5005 0002 2009 0005 0006 8005 0006 250

20 000750

Councils which unsuccessfully appliedfor grants

Shire of BusseltonShire of Carnarvor'Town of CotcslocCity of GosnellsShire of H-larveyCity of Perth.

(3) IFr the $10000oo is available it is probablethat it would be allocated on the basis ofa reassessment of the applicationsalready made by those councils listed in(2) above.

(4) (a) The council requested a grant of$12 000:,

(b) a grant of S6 250 was approved.

ROAD

Fifhy Roaid

1055. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister forTransport:

(1) What signposting exists in Fifty Road,Baldivis to indicate that a school andchildren are present'?

(2)(3)

Is the sigriposting considered adequate?Will he agree to have the signpostingupgraded to a -satisfactory level?

Mr RUSH-TON replied:

(1) Two symbolic children warning signs.(2) No. The signs are Faded.(3) Yes. They will be replaced with new

signs. At the same time the existinglocation of the signs will be reviewed todetermine whether any alteration isnecessary to give greater warning toapproaching drivers.

COCKBURN SOUND

Groundwater: Pollution

1056. Mr BARNETT. to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

What steps have been taken by-

(a) Western Mining refinery:,(b) Kwinana Chemicals:(c) B.P. Refinery;(d) Australian Iron and Steel:(e) Alcoa:

over the past two years to preventcontaminants reaching the groundwaterunder their sites?

M r O'CON NOR replied:

(a) to (e) As this will take time to collatethe member will be advised by letter.

JERVOISE BAY

Pollution: Contingency Plans

1057. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Further to the Minister's answer to myquestion 831 of 1981 what are thegeneral objectives and principles that areencompassed in the oil spill contingencyplan for Jervoise Bay?

(2) What other pollutants are likely to causeproblems in Jervoise Bay which shouldhave a contingency plan for control?

(3) Is there a contingency plan for each ofthe pollutants mentioned in answer topart (2)?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:

(1) (a) The general objective is io clean upspilt oil as soon as practicable;

(b) general principles-

(i) the preferred method fortreatment of oil spills is bymechanical removal at Sea:. tothis end the EPA owns aTroilboom giant containmentand recovery system:

(ii) when mechanical containmentis not fully effective, chemicaldispersants approval for use bythe Department ofConservation and Environmentarc available for application;

1637

1638 ASSEMBLY]

(iii) in certain circumstances, ifspilt oil is not posing a threatto recreational resources, thereis also provision to adopt a"do-nothing" approach.

(2) As identified in the findings of theCockburn Sound environmental studyand MRPAs Jervoise Bay ERMP, thefollowing pollutants may cause problemsin Jervoise Bay-

soluble nitrogen and phosphorus,compounds, suspended solids,grease, su rracta nts, organic matter,bacertia, and heavy metals.

(3) No. However, as previously announced,there are plans to upgrade the waterquality in Cockburn Sound, includingJervoise Bay. The combating of thesepollutants, unlike oil resulting from anoil spill, is not amenable to theestablishment of contingency plans.

JERVOISE BAY

Wetlands

1058. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

Further to questions 722 and 830 of1981, relevant to Jervoise Bay adjacentwetlands, why has no management planfor the wetlands mentioned beenprepared?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:This is seen as the responsibility of thebody in which the land is to be vested.At the present time, the vestingarrangements are still being determined.

PEEL lNLET

Mlanagement Programme

1059. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) When can it be expected that the PeelInlet Management Authority's draftmanagement programme will reachcompletion and be presented to theMinister?

(2) How many public submissions weremade to the authority on the draftmanagement programme?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(I) Approximately six months.(2) 28.

LESCHENAULT INLET

Management Programme

1060. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) When can it be expected that theLeschenault Inlet ManagementAuthority's draft managementprogramme will reach completion andbe presented to the Minister?

(2) How many public submissions weremade to the authority on the draftmanagement programme?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) Approximately six months.(2) Nine.

CONSERVATION AND THEENVIRONMENT

System 6: Publicity

1061. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Is it a fact that the Minister and theGovernment are adopting a low-keyapproach to the system 6 report?

(2) Why is such a small amount being spenton publicity?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(I) Yes, for the excellent reason that thesystem 6 report referred to is a report ofa committee to the EPA on which theEPA is seeking public reaction. It wouldbe quite improper for the Government tobe taking a public stance on this reportas this might prejudice the freeexpression of the community's viewswhich the authority is seeking.

(2) Because the report is of such wide publicinterest, a great deal of publicity isalready beiiig given to it by almost allnews media throughout the study area.

1638

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 63

PEEL AND HARVEY INLETS

Birds

1062. Mr BARNETT, io the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Is the Minister aware that the Ministerfor Fisheries and Wildlife has said inanswer to question 817 of 1981 that heis not prepared to conduct long termstudies indicated in answer to question654 of 1981 to determine which birdsmay have stopped using Peel andHarvey Inlets as a breeding ground?

(2) Does the Minister's department proposeto keep records to assist the Fisheriesand Wildlife Department in this regard?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:(1) Even to the member for Rockingham

the answer must be obvious.(2) No.

PEEL AND HARVEY INLETS

Birds

1063. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister For Fisheries andWildlife:

Further to the Minister's answers toquestions 654 and 8 17 of 1981 why doesthe department not propose to conductlong-term studies of the birdlife usingPeel and Harvey Inlets?

Mr O"CON NOR replied:The studies undertaken have providedbase data on the birdliFe of Peel Inlet,including an understanding of the areasof greatest importance. Continuation ofthose studies is judged to be not ofhighest priority in terms of staff andresources available.

LESCHENAULT INLET

Wetlands

1064. Mr RARNETT. to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

Further to the Minister's answer toquestion 815 of 1981 which indicates amap of the wetlands surroundingLeschenault Inlet will be complete this

month, will the Minister pleaseundertake to provide me with a copy ofthis map?

Mr O'CONNOR replted:

Yes.

PEEL INLET

Foreshore Reserves: Size

[065. Mr BA RN ETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Further to the Minister's answers toquestions 644 and 789 of 1981 in respectof the area managed by the Peel InletManagement Authority, which are theareas with physical and biologicalcharacteristics necessitating largerreserves?

(2) [n each case what are those physical andbiological characteristics?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) and (2) No such list has been made.Proposals for reservation are assessedindividually as they arise.

PEEL INLET

Forts/tore Reserves: Joint Vesting

1066. M r BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) In respect of the Peel Inlet ManagementAuthority, what was its reason forrejecting the consultants'recommendation for joint vesting offoreshore reserves?

(2) What is the management authorityrecommending as an alternative?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) The authority considered that jointvesting arrangements could lead toconflict between the authorities in whichthe reserve is vested.

(2) Vesting in the local authority or the WAWildlife Authority with regard toconservation and flora and faunareserves.

1639

1640 [ASSEMBLY]

COCKBURN SOUND

Groundwater: Pollution

1067. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Further to the Minister's answer toquestion 783 of 1981 relevant tocontaminated groundwater, what actionhas been taken by Alcoa to recover thegroundwater under the Kwinanarefinery site which has beencontaminated by caustic substances?

(2) Is the action completely successful?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) Alcoa is pumping out contaminated

groundwater and using it as processwater in the refinery.

(2) The action is still continuing.

CONSERVATION AND THEENVIRONMENT

Department: Staff

1068. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Further to the Minister's answer to myquestion 782 of 1981 relating toprofessional officer positions within theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment, what were theclassifications of the six officers whohave left within the last six months, andwhen did they leave'?

(2) Is it unusual to experience a 20 per centturnover within a six-month period inprofessional appointments?

(3) Is there a common reason behind theresignations?

(4) (a) Have all the vacancies been filledand when;

(b) which ones have not been Filled andwhy?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) P2-1 1.11.80

P4/5-18.1 1.80P 2-9.1.81P 2-13.2.81P 1-6.3.81P 2-20.3.8 1.

(2) Yes.(3) No.

(4) (a) and (b) Two positions have beenfilled, two have been accepted. butnot yet taken up, and two are at theinterview stage.

FISHERIES

Abalone: Professional Divers

1069. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Fisheries andWildlife:

(1) Further to the Minister's answers to myquestion 781 of 1981 in respect ofabalone divers' licences, why is themeeting to be held between divers fromzones I and 2 and not from zone 3?

(2) Will the department inviterepresentatives from zone 3, so that theirpoint of view can at least be put to themeeting?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) and (2) It is suggested that the member

reread the answer to question 78 1.

FISHERIES

Abalone: Roe's

1070. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Fisheries andWildlife:

(1) Further to the Minister's answer toquestion 779 of 1981 relevant to Roe'sabalone, was the 19 kilograms of Roe'sabalone taken in zone I last yearprocessed by a licensed firm?

(2) What checks have been made by thedepartment to check the veracity of thereports?

(3) Was the 41 kilograms of Roe's abalonetaken in 1980 from zone 2 processed bya licensed firm?

(4) If "No" to (3), what checks have beenmade by the department to determinethe veracity of the reports?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:(I) A professional fisherman is permitted to

sell his catch to the public, a processingestablishment, or a business enterprise inwhich fish are sold by retail to the publicor in which meals are served to thepublic. It is therefore not known whichsale option the fishermen used on thisoccasion.

1640

[Wednesday, 6 May 1981]164

(12) The source of catch data is theproduction tables provided by theAustralian Bureau of Statistics compiledfrom fishermen's returns.

(3) Sec (1).(4) Due to the variety of sale opportunities

it is not possible to check the accuracyof returns.

LESGF-ENAULT INLET

Management Programme

1071. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister forWorks:

Further to his answer to my question827 of 1981 relating to the LesehenaultInlet Mdnagement Authorityprogramme, wherein he states that thePublic Works Department does notconsider the draft managementprogramme of the Leschenaulr InletManagement Authority to be factual ina number of areas, would he please pointout those areas of the report considerednot to be factual?

Mr MENSAROS replied:

Areas of the report which are notfactual are-

()Report: Recommends majorrevegetation programme to arresteroded dune and disposal lagoonareas badly affected by the presentdisposal areas.Fact: Bare dune areas existed longbefore effluent disposal started.Photogrametric studies byDepartment of Agriculture showthat the bare areas are now lessextensive than those existing beforethe land was acquired for effluentdisposal.

(2) Report: Refers to a 450 mmpipeline originally constructedacross the estuary and recommendsthat this be replaced with a strongerpipe.Fact: The pipe is 355 mm indiameter and a programme toreplace the orginal pipe with astronger pipe was in factsubstantially completed at the timethe report was published.

(3) Report: Says that when disposalwas originally put into the ocean,red-stained areas were avoided byfish,

Fact: Fishermen used to Fish in thestained area which some speciesused as protection. Dolphins wereregularly observed in the stainedarea adjacent to the outfall.

(4) Report:. Recommends that thePWD should be requested toimplement immediately a large-scale experimental programme ofrehabilitation of bare dunes withlocal indigenous plants.

Fact: The PWD had several yearsearlier in conjunction with theDepartment of Agriculture initiatedlarge-scale planting of maram grassand other indigenous species onboth abandoned disposal areas andon areas of active erosionunaffected by effluent disposal.These plantings have been largelysuccessful in stabilising some of theworst areas.

(5) Report: Refers to lagoons as havingextensive surface areas.

Fact: The average current lagoonhas a surface area of around 2 000m2 and the lagoons occupy in totalonly a very small percentage of thepeninsula. A minimum ofvegetation is damaged aroundlagoons. All early lagoons wereestablished in bare areas which haspossibly resulted in the eroneousconcept that the lagoons wereresponsible for the bare area.

(6) Report: Says seepage from lagoonscaused beach staining.

Fact: Chemical tests have shownthat this is not so. Beach stainingonly occurred when unneutralisedeffluent was mixed with sand in thesurf zone in the years of directocean disposal.

(7) Report: Says that there is no datato show the regularity of the level ofpesticide content entering theestuary.

Fact: The PWD had beenmonitoring the Preston, Ferguson.Collie, and Brunswick Rivers atmonthly intervals for seven yearsfor pesticide and herbicide content.

1641

1642 L[ASSEFM BLY]

CONSERVATION AND TI-EENVIRONMENT

Collie River

1072. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Further to the Minister's answer to myquestion 771 of 1981 on the proposalsfor both sides of the Collie River mouth,was this matter discussed at the 4 Maymeeting of the Lecsehenault InletManagement Authority?

(2) What was the result?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(I) Yes.(2) Clifton Park ty. Ltd. Development-a

list of appropriate conditions wereforwarded to the Town Planning Board.Pelican Point Development-a list ofappropriate comments wcrc forwardedto the Bunbury City Council and thedevelopers.

CONSERVATION AND THEENVIRONMENT

Marine and Estuarine Quality Criteria

1073. Mr BARNETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservalionand the Environment:

(1) Has the Environmental ProtectionAuthority developed a marine andestuarine quality criterion?

(2) What is it?(3) If "No'. when will it be developed?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) to (3) The EPA is in the process of

developing such criteria.

MINING

Lime Sands: Parmelia and Success Ranks

1074. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister forMines:

Further to his answer to my question808 of 1981 relative to the mining oflime sands from the Success andParmelia banks, what are the details ofthe conceptual areas delineated to coverthe companies' requiremenis from 1990to 2012?

Mr P. V. JONES replied:

The member is invited to view thedetails of these conceptual areas at theFremantle Port Authority which is thebody which is required to approve thecompany's mining operations.

COCKBURN SOUND

Mining

1075. Mr BA R NETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

(1) Is the department and theEnvironmental Protection Authorityaware of the conceptual areas to bemined by Cockburn Cement inCockburn Sound between 1990 and2012 when the two channels have beencompleted?

(2) Has a study been done to assess theimpact of mining these conceptualareas'?

(3) What is the result of that study'!(4) Can I have a copy of it please?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(I) Yes.(2) Not in detail. Detailed studies will be

done when firm proposals are submitted.(3) and (4) Not applicable.

SEWERAGE

Effluent: Enteric Bacteria

076. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister forHealth:

I)I Have any studies been done of the life ofenteric bacteria discharged at oceanoutfalls in Western Australia?

(2) What are those studies?(3) Can I have a copy of each please?

Mr YOUNG replied:

(1) to (3) No specific studies have beenmade of the survival behaviour ofentcric bacteria, but a general report onbacteria associated with ocean outfallsin Cockburn Sound was issued by theDepartment of Conservation andEnvironment in June 1979.

1642

[Wednesday, 6 May 19811 14

SEWERAGE

Treatment Plants: Effluent

1077. Mr BARNETT, to the Minister forWater Resources:

What amount of effluent is dailydischarged from-(a) Swanbourne treatment plant;(b) Subiaco, Beenyup, Westfield,

Canning Vale. Forrestfield,Kelmscott, IKalamunda Hospital,Yanchep, Two Rocks, Bandyupprison, and Kewdale combined;

(c) Kwinana and Point Peroncombined?

Mr MENSAROS replied:

(a) to (c) Previously answered byquestion 369 on Tuesday, April 71981.

COCKBURN SOUNDHeavy MetalIs

1078. Mr BARNETT. to the Minister forHealth:

What criteria were used to establish thelack of need to test for heavy metals inCockburn Sound, as indicated in hisanswers to my question 909 of 1981 ?

Mr YOUNG replied:Testing of mussels for cadmium wascontinued as a monitoring indicator ofheavy metal contamination. Ninetythree test results spanning a period of21/ years were tabled in answer toquestion 1026, and these tests willcontinue.To establish basic criteria large-scaletesting was initially undertaken. Oncecriteria is established, there is only alimited monitoring need required. Thissituation currently exists.

FlISH ER IES

Mussels

1079. Mr BA R NETT. to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

Since the publication of theChittleborough report in 1979, what

tests (or heavy metals in mussels havetaken place showing-(a) date;(b) place;(c) levels found?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(a) to (c) As this will take time to

collate the member will be advisedby letter.

FISHERIES

Mussels and Crabs

1080. Mr BA R NETT, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Conservationand the Environment:

Will the Minister please provide mewith details of the observed distributionpatterns of the elevated level ofcadmium in mussels and crabs inCockburn Sound during the preparationof the Chittleborough report?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:The member is referred to pages 104-148 of report No. 5 of the Departmentof Conservation and Environmententitled "Technical Report onDistribution of Contaminants" availableon loan from the Department ofConservation and Environment library.

GRAIN: WHEAT

Handling Charges

1081. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

What was the total charge made for thehandling of wheat in the last season bythe appropriate grain handlingauthorities in each of the followingStates-(a) New South Wales;(b) Victoria;(c) Queensland;(d) South Australia;(e) Western Australia?

Mr OLD replied:The total charges (or the bulk handlingof wheat for the 1980-81 season were-

Tonne(a) New South Wales S 12.00;(b) Victoria $8.00;

1643

1644 ASS EM BLY]

(c) Qucensland(d) South Australia(e) Western Australia

$16.0;,$10.00;$12.63.

GRAIN- WHEAT

Bread Manufacture

1082. Mr H- D EVANS. to the Minister forAgriculture:

(I) Is wheat which has been the subject of apenalty under wheat varietal controlavailable for purchase fo r breadmanufacture?

(2) (a) Of the 44 280 tonnes of wheatwhich was subject to penalty in the1980-81 season, how much waspurchased for bread manufacture;

(b) what price was paid by thepurchaser?!

Mr OLD replied:(1) Yes. Wheat varieties which have

incurred a nominal varietal discount of$1 or $3 are mixed with the standardASW receivals at the country receivalstations,All wheat docked more than $3 pertonne is put into the general purpose(WA) grade.

(2) (a)(b)

Unknown;the price for wheat for humanconsumption from 1 December1980 to 30 November 1981. f.o.r.natural port terminal is $156.12 perton ne.

The above replies were provided by theGeneral Manager in Western Australiaof the Australian Wheat Board.

TRANSPORT

Road. Coal

1083. Mr T. H-. JONES, to the Minister forTransport:

What permits are issued for thetransport of coal by road, and thetonnages involved?

Mr RUSHTON replied:Road transport permits have been issu edby the Transport Commission for thetransport of coal, between the perioid IJanuary 1981 and 30 April 1981, asfollows-

Muja to Middle Swan 811 tonnesMuja 10 Pinjarra 18 tonnesCollie to Kwinana 2 766 tonnesCollie to Geraldion 374 tonnesM uja to Armada le 2 793 tonnes**for period 13.12.80 to 12.3.81

only.

The above coal was carried by the majorfour transport operators who carry thebulk of coal transported by road.In addition it is possible that smallquantities were transported byindividual smaller operators underpermit and the task of searching thesefrom records is not consideredwarranted.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL

Mirra booka

1084. Mr WILSON, to the Minister forEducation:

(1) Will consultations be held with the staffand parents of the Mirrabooka SeniorHigh School about the implications forthat school of the conversion of TuartHill Senior High School to a seniorcollege?

(2) If "Yes", when will these consultationsbegin and what form will they take?

Mr GRAYDEN replied:

(1) Discussions have been held and willcontinue with the senior administrativestaff of Mirrabooka Senior High Schooland the president of the parents andcitizens' association. The principal isaware of departmental requirements for1982 and ensuing years and obviously hewill keep his parents and staff informed.

(2) Not applicable.

WATER RESOURCES

Excess Water: Charges

1085. Mr WILSON, to the Minister for WaterResources:

(1) Has consideration been given totransfcrring the current state of a waterallowance from that applying to the

1644

(Wednesday, 6 May 19811 14

existing properly occupied by a tenant.to a new properly in an attempt toovercome the apparent injustice involvedwhen an incoming tenant must payexcess water charges as a result ofexcessive usage by the previousoccupant?

(2) If 'Yes", what has been the outcome ofsuch consideration?

(3) If "No" to (lI), why not'?Mr MENSAROS replied:(1) Yes.(2) It is quite impracticable and is

precluded by legislation. Anyadjustment can be privately negotiat:edbetween the two parties involved in thetransaction.

(3) Not applicable.

(3) Between 1977 and 1981 larger numbersof parents have enrolled their five-year-olds in pre-primary centres so that therelative preference for pre-primary asagainst pre-schools has changedsubstantially in favour of pre-primarysince 1977. In 1981, of children fiveyears and over enrolled in pre-primaryand pre-school centres, 71.2 per cent arein the Government system. As there arecontinuing requests from pre-schoolcommittees to transfer their centres tothe Education Department. it isexpected that the number of children inthe five-year-old age group at pre-schools will continue to fall.

EDUCATION: PRE-PRIMARYSCHOOL

AND PRE-

Centres: Enrolnents

1086. Mr WILSON. to theEducation:

Minister for

(1) What are thc current total enrolmentsfor pre-primary centres in WesternAustralia'i

(2) What arc current total enrolments forcommunity based pre-school centres inWestern Australia?

(3) Is he concerned that the respective totalenrolment figures appear to indicatethat such at large proportion of parentscontinue to prefer their children toattend non-departmental centres?

Mr GRAYDEN replied:(1) and (2) The following information

indicates the enrolment trends betweenpre-primary centres attached toGovernment primary schools andcommunity based pre-schools at 1977and 1981-

Pec-Primary5 ycars alldoe4 years and you ngcr

Commlanhy Ba.cd PNe-Sdloois

5crand oe4>rsand .ouncr

1977 7

655

S825

1981 %of .. I

12W0

-M3.2% 14 274 = 62.7%

11 305 52414 585 323 3

is 890 = 69.8'S E474 - 37.3'S

HOUSING

Purchase: Boundary Fences

1087. Mr WILSON, to the Honorary MinisterAssisting the Minister for Housing:

(1) In the ease of State HousingCommission purchase homes wherehomes were purchased with boundaryfences erected, was the cost of suchfences included in the purchase price ofthe property?

(2) If not, what special provision was madeto cover the cost of such fences'?

(3) Has the commission included in anysubsequent agreements pertaining to theprivate sale of land adjoining StateHousing Commission purchase homesany clauses disallowing claims by suchhome owners for half sharecontributions towards the cost ofcommon dividing fences previouslyincluded in the purchase price of such aState Housing Commission purchasehome from owners of homes built onadjoining blocks privately purchased?

(4) Has the commission disallowed suchclaims by means of any policy orregulation?

Mr LAURANCE replied:

(1) Yes, the purchaser's proportion of thecost is included in the sale price wherethe fences have been erected by theState Housing Commission.

(2) Where the fences have been erected by aprivate owner the provisions of theDividing Fences Act prevail.

1645

1646 [ASSEMBLY)

(3) No, butcase indetails, I

if the member has a specificmind and lets me have thewill examine the case.

(4) No.

TRANSPORT: BUSES

MTT: Koondoola

1088. Mr WILSON, to the MinisterTransport:

for

(1) Has the Metropolitan Transport Trustyet made a decision in response to myrequest of 6 February 1981 regardingthe provision of alternative bus servicesfor aged pensioners in Koondoola?

(2) If "Yes", what is the nature of thisdecision?

(3) If "No", when may a decision be'expected?

Mr RUSHTON replied:

(I) Yes.(2) As from 25 May 1981 it is proposed to

extend two route No. 372 trips to caterfor pensioners concerned. There will bea trip to Mirrabooka at 0900 hoursreturning at 1400 hours. The serviceswill be implemented on a three monthtrial. Both trips will connect with Perthservices.

(3) Not applicable.

EDUCATION: PRE-SCHOOL

Four-ycar-olds

1089. Mr WILSON, to the Minister forEducation:

(1) Did the Director of Schools recentlyadvise a delegation to the Minister ofparents from the CommunityKindergarten Association, that the mainpurpose of the levy for four-year-oldsattending pre-school centres, was ltdiscourage the attendance of four-yearolds?

(2) Was this in fact the main purpose of thislevy?

(3) Has he agreed to review the matter ofthe levy on four-year-olds?

(4) If "No" to (3), what undertaking has hegiven in this respect?

MrGRAYDEN replied:(1) and (2) No firm statement was made by

an Education Department officer at thedeputation from the CommunityKindergarten Association that thepurpose of the levy on four-year-oldsattending pre-school centres is todiscourage attendance of these children.A statement along these lines iscontained in a letter I received from theCommunity Kindergarten Associationprior to the deputation and which wasused as an agenda item for our meeting.Both myself and the EducationDepartment officer confirmed with theCommunity Kindergarten Associationthat the purpose of the levy is to askfrom parents with four-year-oldsattending pre-school, a tangiblerecognition that their children areprivileged by having an educationalservice not generally available to othercommunities.

(3) and (4) 1 have agreed to considercomments made to me during thedeputation about levies as well asconsidering other matters concerningearly childhood education servicesavailable in this State for four-year-olds.

FISHERIES

Rock Lobster: Cervantes

1090. Mr WILSON, to the Minister for Labourand Industry:(1) Has he received written complaints from

a Mr ft. Cunningham regarding possibleirregularities in working conditions andwages of workers employed in crayfishoperations at Cervantes?

(2) If "Yes", what action has been taken inrespect of these complaints?

(3) What has been the outcome of any suchaction?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) No.(2) and (3) Answered by (1).

CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Used Car Dealer: Auto Acceptance

1091. Mr WILSON, to the Minister forConsumer Affairs:

In terms of the concern expressed aboutthe operations of a car dealer, AutoAcceptance of Bayswatcr, particularlyregarding the method for lending money

1646

[Wednesday. 6 May 19811 14

used by this firm, and his request to theCommissioner of Consumer Affairs tomonitor the activities of the firm asconveyed to me in his letter of 13 April.can he say what further action has beentaken with regard to this matter toprotect members of the public from anypossible adverse effctis of theseoperatlions'!

Mr O'CONNOR replied:This matter is still under investigation.

EDUCATION-: HIGH SCHOOLS

iEhrolrnents

1092. Mr WILSON. to the Minister forEducation:

(1) In specifying that the capacityenrolment for full use of Balga SeniorHigh School is I 200 in his answer tomy question without notice of 14 April1981, was he including accommodationcurrently provided by transportableclassrooms at this school?

(2) If "Yes", how does he justify theapparent acceptance of suchaccommodation as permanent?

(3) If "No". on what grounds does hecalculate that the present permanentclassroom accommodation at the schoolcan cater [or a population of 1 200students'!

Mr GRAYDEN replied:

(1)(2)(3)

No.Not applicable.Balga Senior H-igh School has theequivalent of 48 permanent effectiveteaching areas which will accommnodate1 200 students based on an averagegroup size of 25 pupils.

COAT OF ARMS

Pamnphil

1093. Mr WILSONI.to the Premier:

(1) In the pamphlet on the Coat of Arms ofWestern Australia issued by hisdepartment. is the reference to two redkangaroos supporting the shield correct?

(2) I f "Yes", what is the explanation for theapparent contradiction between thisinformation and that supplied in the1979 Western Ausrralian Year Book tothe effect that the animal emblem of theState Of Western Australia is thenumbat or banded anteater, particularlyin view of the fact that in the Coat ofArms above the entrance to ParliamentHouse the animals supporting the shieldappear to be numbats rather than redkangaroos?

Sir CHARLES COURT replied:(1) Ycs.(2) There is no contradiction as such, as the

Coat of Arms of Western Australia isentirely separate from the three Stateemblems. The following information issupplied-

The animal emblem of the State ofWestern Australia is the numbat.The bird emblem of the State ofWestern Australia is the blackswan.The floral emblem of the State ofWestern Australia is the Mangleskangaroo paw.

There is no doubt in my mind that theanimals supporting the Coat of Armsshield above the entrance to ParliamentHouse are kangaroos.

H OS PITA L

King Edward Memorial

1094. Mr CARR, to the MinisterCommunity Welfare:

for

(1) Is it a fact that his department has takenover or proposes to take control of theformer Kensington Annexe of KingEdward Memorial Hospital?

(2) What use is proposed for this facility'?(3) Has an approach been made to the

Subiaco City Council concerning theproposed use of the building?

(4) Has the Subiaco City Council expressedits opposition to the proposal'?

(5) If the Subiaco City Council has opposedthe proposal, what action does hisdepartment intend to take?

Mr H-ASSELL replied:(1) to (5) The matter is under consideration.

Appropriate consultations have takenplace.

1647

1648 [ASSEMBLY]

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICEPENSIONERS

SEC Charges

218. Mr TONKIN, to the Deputy Premier:

In the absence of the Premier, is it a factthe Government is to eradicate orseriously lessen the concession availableto pensioners in respect of State EnergyCommission charges in June?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:Not to my knowledge.

FEDERAL TREASURER

Resignation

219. M r B. T. BU R KE, to the Deputy Premier:

Mr

(1)

No doubt the Deputy Premier will beaware as we all are that the Premier hascalled for the resignation of the FederalTreasurer should it be proved theFederal Treasurer had in fact toldjournalists that had the Premiers beenmore effective, or better fighters theycould have received an increase of I percent in the allocation of funds to theState.(1) Is he aware whether the Prime

Minister and the Federal Treasurerhave admitted this information wasconveyed to journalists?

(2) If he is not aware of that, will hemake himself aware of the situationand undertake to take up thematter with the Premier so that hecan insist upon the resignation ofthe Treasurer?

O'CONNOR replied:

and (2) No, in listening to the radio onthe way to Parliament House thismorning, the information I had was thatthe Prime Minister had refuted thematter.

Mr Jamieson: He did not say that thisevening.

Mr O'CONNOR: The last information I hadwas this morning, and it was to thateffect. I think the member for Balcattawould know that when the Premier goesto Canberra he fights as hard for hisState as an~y other Premier in Australia.If there were possibly a chance ofreceiving more money, the Premier

would have done everything possible toobtain it. He wen( away well prepared,knowing things were going to bedifficult, in an effort to ensure WesternAustralia received the best deal. Iundertake to refer the question to thePremier.

PENSIONERS

SEC Charges

220. Mr TONKIN, to the Minister for Fuel andEnergy:

As the Deputy Premier does not seem tohave much knowledge of this mailer,could the Minister tell us whether it isintended that pensioner concessions inrespect of State Energy Commissioncharges are to be abolished or at leastsubstantially reduced in June?

Mr P. V. JONES replied:The move suggested by the member forMorley has not even been considered.

ORD RIVER DISTRICT

Crops

221. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

(1) What crops can be grown commerciallyand viably by Ord River farmers?

(2) What quantity of each of these cropswas grown commercially in the lastseason?

(3) How many farmers grow each of thesecrops?

(4) What, if any, was the net profit perhectare on each of these crops?

(5) Was any subsidy paid on any of thesecrops, and if so, how much in each case?

(6) (a) Has the Department of Agricultureadvised the Government of cropswhich it considers Ord Riverfarmers can grow commercially, inorder to meet conditional purchaserequirements;

(b) if so, what crops has it nominated;and

(c) does the Department of Agricultureconsider that any of these crops canbe grown commercially and viably.and if so, which ones?

1648

(Wednesday, 6 May 19811 14

Mr P. V. Jones (for Mr OLD) replied:(1) Sunflowers (oil and hybrid seed), rice,

soybean, peanuts. bananas, sorghum.hay, melons, vegetables.

(2) Sunflowers (oil) 2 380 tonnes,sunflowers (hybrid secd) 300 tonnes,rice ( 1980 dry season) 2 310 tonnes. rice(1981 wet season) I 060 tonnes, soybean300 tonnes (estimated), peanuts 250tonnes (estimated), bananas 1 20 tonnes(estimated), sorghum 3 000 tonnes(estimated), hay 2 500 lonnes(estimated), melons and vegetables(tonnage not available).

(3) Sunflower (oil) 9, sunflower (hybridseed), 4, rice 4, soybean 5, peanuts 2,bananas 1, sorghum 3. hay 6, melonsand vegetables 3.

(4) This information is confidential to theindividual farmers and is not known bymy department.

(5) No direct subsidy is paid on any crops.H-owever the cost of processing ried issubsidised by approximately $20 pertonne to reduce the farmers' cost to thatapplicable to a developed industry.

(6) (a) to (e) The Department of Agri-culture publishes a set of field cropbudgets which indicates a numberof commercial, viable croppingcombinations which can be carriedout under careful management. Thedepartment has also published areport on "The Potential forHorticulture in the Kimberleys"which identifies a number ofhorticultural crops which can becommercially and viably grown onthe Ord.

The reports were tabled (see papers Nos. 189and 190).

WATER RESOURCES

Green bushes

222. Mr H. D. EVANS, to the Minister forWager Resources:

(1) Have there been any complaints thisyear regarding the quality of theGreenbushes town water supply. andfrom what source have these come?

(2) Having regard for the fact thecatchment area includes the townsite,with all its fowl runs and horse stables,and the prevalence of water birds on theexisting stored water, what solution tothe Greenbushes town water supplyproblem is proposed in-

(a) the immediate future; and(b) the long term?

Mr O'Connor (for Mr MENSAROS)replied:

(1) No complaints regarding water qualityhave been received this year at thePublic Works Department offices atBridgetown and Collie.

(2) (a) In order to ensure supplies until thewinier rains, augmentation of thescheme from an abandoned mineupstream from the GreenbushesTown dam commenced on 3 May.

(b) Investigations into the alternativemethods of augmenting the supplyto Greenbushes are beingundertaken. The various options,including increasing the storagecapacity of the existing dam,utilising groundwater and usingwater from Milistream Dam, arebeing evaluated.

H EALT H

Viiamfin and Mineral Preparations223. Mr HODGE, to the Minister for Health:

(1) Is the Minister aware that claims havebeen made recently that the Governmentintends to introduce regulations torestrict or prohibit sale of vitamin andmineral preparations?

(2) Is it a fact that under the proposed newregulations the public will not be able topurchase vitamin and mineralpreparations without a doctor'sprescription?

(3) Will the proposed new regulationsensure that-

(a) there is detailed accurate labellingof all vitamin and mineralpreparations;

(b) there is basic quality controlexercised over the manufacture ofvitamin and mineral preparations;and

1649

65a[ASSEMBLY)

(c) recommended maximum dailydosages of vitamin and mineralpreparations is indicated on thelabel'?

Mr YOUNG replied:I thank the member for Melville' forsomne notice of his qucstion, and for hisinterest in the matter. The answer to hisquestion is as follows-(1) Yes.(2) No,

(3) (a) to (c) It is prcmature to talk aboutproposed new regulations. Thestandard for vitamin and mineralpreparations is in draft form onlyand has not yet receivedconsideration by the Goverment.

The aim of the working party set up toprepare the draft was simply to consultwith and obtain comment fromn industry.consumer organtsaiions and others witha direct interest. There was no intentionto limit the access of the public tovitanmin and/or mineral prepa rations,The document which included proposalson labelling and advertising representsonly the preliminary view of a grouplooking into the whole question ofdietary supplements.I am aware that there has been a greatdeal of concern expressed by manypeople and I am happy to set their fearsat rest, I have no doubt that there willbe considerable modification to the draftbefore it is ever approved for adoption inregulations, and interested personsshould be encouraged to makesubmissions.This joint working party consisted ofrepresentatives f romn the NationalHealth and Medical Research Counciland the National Therapeutic GoodsCommittee, It is unfortunate the intentOf the working party has been socompletely and-in my opinion-wantonly misrepresented in publiccomments. As an example, I should liketo quote an estract from a letter wvhichhas been circulated to all members. Theletter is headed -Lette r of Protest" andcommences with the followingstatement-

This letter is drafted in a spirit ofoutrage am proposed standards bythe Commonwealth Department ofHeIalth which, if implemented, -

In other words, the letter recognises thestandards may be implemented and itgoes on to castigate the authorities forthings which have not yet happened. Theletter ends with the followingStatement-

Let's get our priorities right. Pleaseact on my behalf to rescind theserepressive. undemocratic standardsand preserve our quality of life.

I am sure that every member, includingthe member for Melville who hasexpressed his concern to me about thissort of correspondence would agree it isbetter first to establish the facts. Thereis a long way to go before evaluation iscomplete. I guarantee to this House thatcommon sense will prevail in WesternAustralia when the matter is finalised.

HOUSING

Loans: Inierest Rates

224. Mr B. T, BURKE, to He HonoraryMinister Assisting the Minist&r for Housing:

(1) The Honorary Minister must be awareof further recent increases in home loaninterest rates. We are aware of hisefforts to keep interest rates down, but itdoes appear as though his efforts havebeen unsuccessful. Does the HonoraryMinister now consider it is likely interestrates on home loans will rise still furtherbefore Christmas?!

(2) What new initiatives can the HonoraryMinister inform the House he will taketo ensure as far as possible, rises if theydo occur will be kept to a minimumn?

Mr LAURANCE replied:

(1) and (2) To answer the first part of thequestion as to the announcement of aninterest rate increase, no doubt themember is referring to theannouncement by the Perth BuildingSociety that its rates would increase by0.5 per cent. In fact, the Perth BuildingSociety is the last of the majorpermnanent building societies to haveincreased its interest rates, by thatamount within the last three or fourmonths. It has taken a considerable time

1650

[Wednesday. 6 May 1981j 65

for that 0.5 per cent increase to work itsway through all the major societies.These moves were being considered atthe recent meeting between myself, theTreasurer, Treasury officials,representatives of all the permanentbuilding societies and the Registrar ofBuilding Societies. Quite frankly, Ibelieve the Perth Building Societyshould be commended for holding downthe interest rate increase for as long as ithas. In fact, it took the PBS some six oreight weeks after the other majorbuilding societies had increased theirrates to follow suit.

I have previously indicated to the Housethat the quarter leading up to the end ofJune is a quarter of very tight liquidity.Following this quarter, we would expectthe pressure on rising interest rates todecrease. I hope there are no furtherincreases in interest rates before the endof the year; however, that is looking along way ahead in the current economicclimate. The latest moves by the FederalGovernment to cut Commonwealthexpenditure will reduce the requirementfor capital funding in the Governmentsector and may ease the pressure on theprivate sector and itself reduce some ofthe pressure on increased interest rates.I certainly hope that will be the position.

BREAD

Marketing: Legislation

225. Mr WILSON, to the Minister forCommunity Affairs:

Could he indicate whether newlegislation regarding bread marketing is

likely to be introducedParliament goes into recess?

before

Mr O'CONNOR replied:This is an important question, becausemany people would like 10 know theposition. A great deal of work has beenput into the preparation of the Bill.However, in view of the lateness of thispart of the session, whilst the Bill maybe introduced before we risc-there issome doubt about that-it will not bedebated until the second part of thesession in August.

ACTS AMENDMENT(ELECTORAL PROVINCES

AND DISTRICTS) BILL

Government Problems

226. Mr B. T. BURKE, to the Deputy Premier:

(1) Can the Deputy Premier inform theHouse whether the Government hasresolved its problems in respect of theelectoral legislation which waspostponed last night?

(2) If he has resolved the problems, has itbeen necessary to rephrase the Bill andif so, will it be proceeded with tonight?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:(1) and (2) The Government has no

problems in this regard. If the memberfor Balcatta has seen the Bill which hesaid was in the building yesterday, hewill know what the position is. I havespoken to the Leader of the Oppositionon this matter and, with his agreement,it is the intention of the Government tomove the second reading of the Bill ataround 10 o'clock tonight, at theconclusion of private members' business.

1651