[Thursday. l8 June 19871 80

I regislatiut AssemublgThursday, 18 June 1987

THE SPEAKER (Mr Barnett) took the Chairat 10.45 am. and read prayers.

PERTH OBSERVATORYRetention: Petition

MR THOMPSON (Kalamunda) [ 10.50 am]:I present a petition in the following terms-

The Honourable the Speaker and mem-bers of the Legislative Assembly of theParliament of Western Australia in parlia-ment assembled, we the undersigned citi-zens of Western Australia: declare that theobservatory at Bickley. Western Australia.should be maintained at its present level ofoperation and that it is a worthwhile ex-penditure of our taxed monies until suchtime that alternative funding can be found.Your petitioners therefore humbly praythat you will give this matter earnest con-sideration and your petitioners as in dutybound will ever pray.

The SPEAKER: Order! It seems to be be-coming common practice for members to ig-nore ibis part of our proceedings. As soon as Ifinish prayers, members begin holding all sortsof meetings. I think they should hold thosemeetings before we begin the day's proceed-ings. Petitions are an extremely important partof this place and should be treated that way.

Mr THOMPSON: The petition bears 101signatures, and I certify that it conforms to theStanding Orders of the Legislative Assembly.

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

(See petition No 43.)

LAND RESERVE: EXCISIONBernies: Petition

MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) [10.52 am]: I have apetition which reads as follows-

To the Honourable theMembers of the Legislativethe Parliament of WesternParliament assembled.

Speaker andAssembly ofAustralia in

We the undersigned respectfully requestthat the proposed excision of any part of A1720-Kings Park and more particularly.that portion known as Town Lot 65 andpart Town Lot 64 known as BERNIES beprevented, and that you will reject any Bill

that would cause the aforementioned landto be excised from A I 720-Kings Park.We also pray that you will give this matterearnest consideration.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound,wilt ever pray.

The petition bears 4 899 signatures. I certifythat it conforms to the Standing Orders of theLegislative Assembly.

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

(See petition No 44)

MIDLAND ABATT7OIRS LAND SALE:CONSIDERATION OF SELECT

COMMIITTEE REPORTNotice of Motion: Order Discharged

MR LEWIS (East Melville) (10.54 am]: Iseek leave of the House to withdraw Notice ofMotion No 3 standing in my name on the No-tice Paper.

Leave granted.

LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILLIn Committee

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (MrsHenderson) in the Chair: Mrs Beggs (Ministerfor Racing and Gaming) in charge of the Hill.

Clause I put and passed.Clause 2: Commencement-Mrs BEGGS: I move an amendment-

Page 1, lines 7 and 8-To omit theclause and substitute the followingclause-

Commencement2. This Act shall-

(a) if it receives the Royal Assent onor before I July 1987, come intooperation on I July 1987; or

(b) if it receives the Royal Assentafter I July 1987, be deemed tohave come into operation on IJuly 1987.

Amendment put and passed.Clause, as amended, put and passed.Clauses 3 to 7 put and passed.Clause 8: Section 24 amended-Mr COWAN: This clause deals with the

proposed changes to the trading hours whichhave greatly concerned the licensed botelhersand licensees of other premises entitled to sell

2801

2802 [ASSEMBLY]

alcoholic beverages. There has been publicisedargument between the Government, the publicand the traders over these proposed hours,

The Committee understands the purpose be-hind these trading hours. It will give hotelstrading hours that vary from those which cur-rently apply. Most of the change to tradinghours will occur in the early hours of the morn-ing. I am sure that the Minister, who is a practi-cal person, would understand that allowing theliquor outlets to trade from six o'clock in themorning is giving them absolutely nothing.Very few people involved in hotel trading orany other form of licensed liquor outlet wouldbe interested in trading at 6.00) am.

It has been claimed that additional tradinghours have been granted to hotels and licensedclubs, but they really are meaningless becauseno-one will avail themselves of those hours.Very few members of the public are looking fora place in which to enjoy a drink at six o'clockin the morning.

The National Party is very disappointed thatthese hours are represented as some type of anoffer to the hoteliers. It really is an empty offer.

Mrs Deggs: They were not offered, they wereasked for by the AFIA.

Mr COWAN: The Committee knows that theNational Party, through the agency of themember for Avon, has placed on the NoticePaper some amendments which deal with thetrading hours we regard as being ideal.

As with every other vote in this Chamber,National Party members will have a right toexercise a free vote on this legislation. Therecertainly is no unanimity among NationalParty members on this legislation, particularlyin relation to the Sunday trading issue. Themajority of the argument has been basedaround Sunday trading hours.

Most of the argument revolves round Sundaytrading hours, but we should examine bothweekday and weekend trading and providewhat we regard as the ultimate trading hours,not only for hotel owners but also for the pub-lic. For that reason we have produced, underthe name of the member for Avon, a series ofamendments which change the trading hoursfrom 6.00 am to 12 midnight on a weekday to10.00 am to 12 midnight, and on a Sundayfrom 1l.0am to 10.O0 pm.

The reason we propose that change is thatnobody in the hotel or licensed club trades-[suppose the best way to describe it is the liquortrade-wants, the early opening. I suppose Ishould not use the term "nobody", but very

rarely would they want to use that time. Ourinquiries indicate that the time required isfrom 10.00 am to 12 midnight.

The other time required-and this is a con-tentious issue and one which the Minister andher Government reject-is the extendedSunday trading requirement. I can recall thegradual process in this State of allowing thepublic to enjoy the privilege of having a drinkin licensed premises on a Sunday. I can recallthe weekend journey up to the hills or out intothe rural areas around Perth for the Sundaysession. That was a dreadful thing. Finally theGovernment saw the light and decided to ex-tend the privilege of Sunday trading to thewhole of Western Australia, thereby ending theweekend procession of vehicles to the varioushotels on the border of the metropolitan area.

I do not think anybody has objected to that,except to the concept which has now crept in ofa limited period on a Sunday for people toenjoy themselves. They behave like pigs at thetrough. They really do. If members want to seethe difference they should go to a hotel or pubon a weekday or a Saturday. People, knowingthey have an extended trading period, do nothave to consume liquor at a fast rate in theknowledge that the premises will soon beclosed. They are orderly and generally well be-haved. They certainly do not swill their drinksknowing there is only a limited space of time,which seems to happen on a Sunday when thehou rs are i mi ted.

The Minister and her Government are notbeing realistic in looking at that social phenom-enon. Comparing what happens on weekdays,and Saturdays in particular, with what ishappening now on Sundays with the Sundaytrading hours, only one conclusion can bedrawn, and that is that Sunday trading shouldbe from 11. 00 a m to 10.00 p m. Peopl e shou ldbe able to take their time and be in no hurry.They should be able to go to a hotel or a puband enjoy a quiet beer, and then, in their owntime, go home. Where we have the two-hourtrading session, they try to cram in what theycan in that time. The result is this swill-type ofsituation where everyone behaves somewhatlike pigs at the trough. We cannot accept that.

In addition to that general issue, there is thematter of country hotels, clubs and countrycommunities which enjoy those facilities. inthe main, the life of country people is basedaround weekend sport. Their recreation isbased around sport and what happens at theweekends. Some people choose to enjoy sporton a Saturday, but many others choose Sunday.

2802

[Thursday, I8 June 19871 20

It is the one time when people have time awayfrom their often isolated workplaces to congre-gate and have some interaction with others intheir community. They are now preventedfrom doing that because of those very restric-tive trading hours.

For that reason there is added meani.ig. toNational Party members at least-and I amsure to many other members who representcountry constituencis-who know that muchof the social and recreational life of their con-stituents is based around Sunday. Whether welike it or not, the local licensed premises be-comes the hub of much of the social activity ofcountry people. Placing that limitation onSunday trading makes it very difficult forcountry people. They often travel great dis-tances to participate in social activities. To findthat when they get there they are denied accessto a pub or something of that nature is verydisappointing. For that reason they would liketo see these trading hours extended.

We have a series of amendments on the No-tice Paper. I see the member for Avon has nowreturned. I am sure he will be very anxious toreinforce what I have said in much greater de-tail and with much greater confidence. I will beinterested to hear the Minister's comments onthe amendments on the Notice Paper, becausethere should be some degree of orderliness inthe liquor industry in Western Australia. and itis very important to remove this stigma at-tached to Sunday trading at the moment toachieve it.

Most of the problems occur as a result ofthose trading hours. If they were extended I amsure those difficulties would be removed andthere would be a much more orderly andpleasant atmosphere in which to enjoy thesesocial events, especially in the country. The ho-tel or the club is the hub of social life for manypeople. I do not mean any disrespect to manyof the church groups, who still regard Sundayas the Sabbath and attend church, but they arein the minority. The majority of country peopleuse the hotel or the club as the social hub formany of their recreational activities.

Mr LIGHTFOOT: I recall that last night theMinister undertook to review and consider thesuggestion put forward by the Leader of theNational Party with respect to trading hoursand I was very encouraged by that indicationfrom the Minister. I do not intend to speak forlong on this clause although it is an integralpart of the amendments proposed by the Oppo-sition.

The importance of social life in the bush can-not be overestimated. In fact, it may be seen tobe mundane and perhaps to have beenembellished by previous speakers, but I canassure the Minister that that is rnot the case. Itis especially so in the outback where some ofthe smaller towns have only one hotel. Thatcategory includes places such as Yalgoc, Sand-stone, Menzies, Laverton, Paynes Find, andKookynie. The hotel becomes a focal pointwhen people meet. In my neck of the woods,around Sandstone, it is still traditional for mostpeople to work on Saturdays. so that rules outsocialisation on Saturdays. Much of the social-isation occurs on Sundays. with people travel-ling many kilometres to a focal point.

Some people travel for between 70 and I00kilometres to come into Sandstone. Sandstonedoes not have a bitumen road leading to it, nordoes it have much else, but it does have a veryfine little pub. It has great meals and is a top-class facility run by Barry and Maureen Hewitt.The meals and the welcome there are extraordi-nary and I would recommend that anyone inthis place who wants to travel in the outbackwithin a long day's drive from Perth go toSandstone and meet the people there. How-ever, if members want to go there for lunchthey will have to start out early.

Mr Court: Did they win a Golden Plateaward last night?

Mr LIGHTFOOT: The Minister is privy tothat information, but I do not think they did.

Mrs Beggs: They were nominated, but theyjust missed out.

Mr LIGHTFOOT: I will take that back to theproprietors of the Sandstone Hotel. I can onlyendorse what the Minister says-if they did notwin they would have missed out by only a whis-ker.

With closing time at 8.00 pm it inhibitsmany people from coming to the Sandstonesettlement. The meeting place there is the ho-tel. There are no police in Sandstone-we areself-regulated, very responsible people who donot need the police, of course. But the closinghour of 8.00 pmn is not right for that area; notonly Sandstone but other places like it. I wouldbe very pleased if the Minister would giveserious consideration to extending the closingtime to 10.00 pm. If the Minister wants thehotels to open for the same number of hourseach week, some hours could be taken from themorning trading. Very few people would go tothe Sandstone Hotel at 6.00 am, so we couldsacrifice some of those early hours, open at

2803

2804 ASSEMBLY]

8.00 am or 9.00 am on weekdays, and lack on acouple of hours on Sundays. That would begreatly appreciated.

I do not think that move would lead to anymore drunkenness, crime, misdemeanours. orcommon offences. It is important for peoplewho travel so many miles to those outbacktowns to have the opportunity to remain attheir meeting place until 10.00 pm. They wouldprobably remain in any case, butn it would benice if they could do so without breaking thelaw. I was pleased with the comment of theMinister last night that she will give earnestconsideration to adjusting those hours. Sincethen I have talked to some people in the tradeand in the Western Australian Hotels Associ-ation. Maybe they are backtracking, but theyare not pleased with the 6.00 am legislationthat is proposed.

Mrs Beggs: Why did they ask for it then? Didyou ask them?

Mr LIGHTFOOT- That puzzles me. I didnot actually ask them why they requested6.00 am trading. I accept that they put it to theMinister that 6.00 am trading was what theywanted;, however, it is my opinion and the con-sensus opinion of several people to whom Ispoke that they do not want 6.00 am trading. Ifind that puzzling. Maybe hoteliers in areaswhere there are shirt workers would want earlytrading-I can see the benefits of their openingat 6.00 am. Years ago, when I worked atBroken Hill. two or three hotels there wereopen virtually 24 hours a day to cater for theshift workers. When I lived in Kalgoorlie manyyears ago the Boulder block became quite infa-mous because once the hotels in the Kalgoorlietownsite closed, people went to Fimiston andcontinued grogging on at the Boulder block. Itwas pretty rough. but it was there. It was nearthe Golden Mile. so the men on shift workcould finish work and have a beer before goinghome.

That has to be a consideration for shiftworkers, but I amn generalising in respect of thecommunity as I see it. and particularly I amthinking of the country and outback people.

Mr TRENORDEN: I believe the 6.00 amtrading provision is generally not required be-cause the public do not demand it, and surelythat is what the debate should be about. If thepublic do not want to frequent hotels or clubsbetween the hours of 6.00 am and 10.00 am,the industry will not want to open then becausethe cost of opening without patronage wouldobviously be too high.

As the Minister said last night, some hotelswill wish to open at 6.00 am and I am notsurprised at that. My electorate office is locatedfairly close to a liquor store and I have oftennoticed that people are on the doorstep of thatstore when it is about to open. Some people inour community are looking for alcohol 24hours a day, but they are not the general run ofpeople who use the facilities. I have heardnothing in the debate that should dissuademembers from supporting the amendment.

I now refer to the proposal to extend Sundayclosing lime from 8.00 pm to 10.00 pm. For thesame reason that I strongly hold my point ofview, I suspect that the Minister also does notdisagree personally with 10.00 pm closing onSundays. It is a social matter-and social atti-tudes are changing. We have all noticed thatwhen we attend meetings and functions thesedays people are less inclined to smoke becauseof the social pressure that has been placed onthem; the same thing is happening with regardto drinking. Many people I know drink muchless or have given up altogether and in the fu-ture we will see a better public attitude towardsdrinking.

However, the argument I was trying to putlast night, with little success, is that the hoteland club industry is trying very hard to give adifferent sort of focus to their establishmentsthan is generally perceived. Hotels and clubsare trying to make their establishments meetingplaces for families-for husbands, wives, andtheir children. Many country towns in my elec-torate have hotels which are spending a con-siderablc amount of money in putting in barbe-cue facilities, shaded areas, and playgroundsfor children. It is not only a case of their spend-ing money to try to attract the father to go tothe hotel; they are also encouraging him tobring his wife and children. Indeed, in manycases thec whole fam ilIy d oes go to t he hotel.

Mr Hodge: They would have to be hotels thatdo not have strippers and those lurid sorts ofshows.

Mr TRENORDEN: Of course the hotels donot have strippers.

Mr Hodge: Country hotels have naked bar-maids.

Several members interjected.Mr TRENORDEN: A couple of my hotels

did too and I had to go down to check thesituation out because so many people werecoming through my doors complaining aboutit. However, the Minister knows I support herviews in this respect.

2804

[Thursday, IS June 19871 20

Generally good publicans and well managedclubs are trying to move away from thedrinking house atmosphere. Country pubs andclubs have become social meeting places. Mymother, for example, lives in Mandurab andshe loves going to the two clubs with which sheis involved. She plays bridge and those sorts ofgames and enjoys the company of her friends.They usually play after a game of bowls or golfor some other type of sporting activity, and mymother is in her seventies, It is a major break inher week, not only for her but also for manyother people in that town. I am sure the mem-ber for Mandurah knows a number of peoplewho love to play cards in the evening; whyshould Sunday evening be any different fromany other evening of the week? Sunday is asocial day.

Country hotels have barbecue facilities intheir covered areas, which attract people. TheGrass Valley Hotel in my electorate has devel-oped a tremendous community atmosphere forpeople who use that hotel; it is a meeting placefor the entire community. People meet thereand talk to their neighbours; the husbands,wives and children all attend, particularly on aSunday afternoon. They play tennis on the ho-tel's tennis courts. Not everyone plays tennis,but I guarantee that the majority of them notonly play tennis but also go to the hotel to meetpeople. That is why it is so important for manydifferent types of people to be able to meetuntil 10.00 pmt Sunday.

I was disappointed by a couple of itnterjec-tions last night which said in effect that I wassupporting this amendment solely because I ama conservative and support big business. I pointout to the people opposite who like to makethose sorts of accusations that I am not particu-larly concerned about the licence holders in myelectorate but I am concerned about supportingthe sporting clubs of the region-the tennis,golf, cricket and other sporting activities.Nearly everyone in my electorate participatesin one type of sport or another and they wantto be able to use those premises on Sundays.

In the National Party we have a free vote onthis issue, and on all issues, and we vote withour consciences. I am arguing my position asMax Trenorden and because I have spokenlong enough. I move an amendment-

Page 3 line 26-To delete -6"~ with aview to substituting "10"

Dr LAWRENCE: While I would not want tosuggest I am totally opposed to ever extendinghours in the way suggested, there is another

side to the story which members would do wellto consider. I am sure the Minister will con-sider it, and that is: What about the residentswho live near these premises?

I am sure the member for Nedlands has hadcomplaints, as I have, about Steve's Hotel inNedlands, a wonderful institution but a placethat causes the neighbouring residents con-siderable headaches. It did during theAmerica's Cup period to the extent that whenthe licence came up for renewal, there was con-siderable opposition from local residents andthe councils involved. They did not do thatlightly but because of the late night trading dur-ing the America's Cup period there was a lot ofnuisance behaviour from patrons of Steve's.Local residents complained about ears beingparked illegally in their driveways-the councilspent a lot of time removing cars andpmosecuting owners-rowdy behaviour in thestreets and people urinating and copulating ingardens. Local residents had to put up withevery sort of bad behaviour.

Some of the residents affected live in theCity of Subiaco and some in the City ofNedlands. Both councils protested on differentgrounds about that application. It is not a triv-ial issue to say that extending trading hours onSunday evenings, when many people would bepreparing for work the next day and wouldexpect a quiet evening when children could beprepared for school the following day, is civi-lised and people will not then behave in theseabominable fashions. They did, and they stilldo, even when they can drink all day. I thinkwe have to give special consideration to thatand not dismiss it as something of little import-ance.

I know that residents have contacted me andthe member for Nedlands in respect of thismatter. The residents are an active group andthey are quite reasonably complaining aboutthat hotel. One cannot necessarily blame thelicensee. It is not the only place in the whole ofthe State that has that problem. I can mentionother hotels; for example the Shenton Park Ho-tel quite frequently suffers from similar com-plaints. There are at least two hotels in my areawhere the local residents frequently protestabout extensions of licences, special permitsand so on.

The country area, with which I am familiarhaving spent my childhood there, was depictedin glowing terms by the member for Avon, as awonderful place where people could gathertogether at the hotel. According to the memberfor Avon, most of the hotel patrons were not

2805

2806 [ASS EM BLY]

drinking:, it is my experience, however, thatthey do indeed drink and can become asinebriated as city people. My mother and herfriends were always grateful that on Sundayevenings they could go home at a reasonablehour, get the children into bed by 8.00 or 9.00pmn and did not have to drag their menfolkaway from the bar at 10.00 or 11.00 pm. Beingrealistic, Sunday night in the country is a nightwhere people return to their dwellings and pre-pare for the next day if they have young chil-dren:, they are not all that keen to be swilling atthe bar or in the club.

While I do not want to say firmly that itshould not be considered, there is a downsideto this story. It is not all sweetness and light:there is a cost to be borne by the community.Many of the people who the member for Avonsays are pushing for these extended hourswould resist them quite strongly for familyreasons. The member for Avon has describedquite vividly the disintegration of the family inrecent days:, that disintegration is onlyaccelerated by those sorts of pressures beingplaced on them. These communities, whetherin the city or the country, have plenty of oppor-tunity to meet together and recreate during theweek.

Mr Cowan: Not when they work six days aweek.

Dr LAWRENCE: I know how hard farmerswork but I am also aware that in many countrytowns the major sporting events are held onSaturday afternoons rather than Sunday. It de-pends where one comes from. However, a lot ofthat recreation goes on on Saturday; after thesporting events people get together at the cluband stay there until 11.00 pmn or whatever isappropriate for those premises.

Sunday is a quiet family day, and they all gohome peacefully around 8.00 pm. We have tothink of the residents and. secondly, there arecosts involved even in *small communitieswhere members say it would be of great valuefor hotels and clubs to stay open on Sunday. Ioppose the amendment.

Mr COURT: I do not know whether this Isthe appropriate time to make some commentson the question Of trading hours, but there aretwo points I want to discuss during the Com-mittee stage. One is the question of tradinghours, and the second has to do with the com-plaints procedure.

The previous speaker referred to problemswhich have arisen with some hotels in my elec-torate, and I know the Minister is only too well

aware of them. One hotel in particular, theNedlands Park Hotel, has always been ex-tremely popular. In recent times it has becomeeven more popular and Some problems havearisen which I am sure are not unique to thathotel. Perhaps the Minister will be able to giveme some idea about that when she replies. Theresidents near the hotel have expressed greatconcern about its operations.

Whenever we discuss this question of tradinghours-and we have been through theemotional debate on this subject in relation toretail shops or whatever-and there is ablanket law which covers the whole State. it isdifficult to take account of different circum-stances. There are three l'road areas-countryhotels, hotels in commercial areas, and those inresidential areas. I support all the argumentsput forward by members representing countryconstituencies. They are quite correct in whatthey have said about the social habits whichtend to occur in country areas. Hotels in com-mercial areas have busy periods, and even inresidential areas hotels have different require-ments and different problems.

I ask the Minister to explain at some stagewhat flexibility there will be if these changesarc introduced and certain problems arise indifferent areas. Is there some flexibility tochange the hours where specific problems oc-cur? Leaving aside the question of the time ofclosing of the Sunday session, can the Ministerindicate whether trading through the day, asdistinct from sessions, spreads the amount ofbusiness? Do people, as one membermentioned, jam into the hotels like pigs at thetrough when a session is on? There is no doubtthat in built-up established residential areasthere are some real problems when trading goestill midnight during the week and there is aSunday session. There is a problem of compati-bility between the operation of the businessand the rights of residents which cannot beignored. It may be my problem today, but I amsure many members will come up against asimilar problem. I have been told that there are264 residents living in close proximity-within175 metrs-of the Nedlands Park Hotel.

I support the free market when it comes toissues like trading hours, but it is importantthat a mechanism is in place so that whenthings get out of hand people are able to com-plain and the necessary changes to the systemcan be made. I do not think it would be right tochange the liquor laws of the State because ofone place. That is not the right way to go about

2806

[Thursday, 18 June 1987) 80

it. because 1 support the arguments put forwardby other members who see the need for differ-ent trading hours in their areas.

I know it is always difficult to work out asolution without worrying about the legislativeor legal side of things. The problem is not justwith that hotel to which I have referred. Thereare three in one street, two in the SubiacoCouncil's area, and one in Nedlands Council'sarea. That is a problem I will discuss later. Inthe last year in particular, when hours wereextended for the America's Cup, the hotel oper-ations became very popular throughout theweek, and it was not just a problem on one day.I hope a solution can be reached because of thegreat concern of the residents. I hope it doesnot have to rely on legislative and legalapproaches; commonsense should prevail. Asthe member for Subiaco said, there is a needfor all the different players to be considered.

Mr DONOVAN: I rise to dispel two import-ant myths which have been advanced by mem-bers opposite, particularly the members forMurchison-Eyrc and Avon. They relate to thequestions of travel on Sunday and weekendsand Aboriginal addiction to alcohol.

Mr Lightfoot: Are you saying that Aboriginaladdiction to alcohol is a myth?

Mr DONOVAN: It is an absolute myth, andif the member bears with me for a moment hewill hear something he ought to know given hisexperience and residence in that area.

Mrs Begg: In Dalkeith?

Mr DONOVAN: I was referring to the areawhich he is known to visit from time to time.

Mr Lightfoot: We have a home in Sandstone,and one in Dalkeith, and one at lBindoon.

Mrs Beggs: J ust joking! Settle down.

Mr DONOVAN: I have lived and worked inmost parts of the State-the Kimberley, thePilbara, the south west, and the goldfields-and as the member for Murchison-Eyre knows,I spent a large chunk of that time in his terri-tory. I must confess I am not too familiar withhow people do th Ings in the member for Avon'sterritory.

I want to lay one myth to rest. My experienceof sporting activities and clubs around thecountry is not that an away team in a footballor a cricket match hurtles home to take advan-tage of drinking hours at home or community-making activities in the local hotel in theirhome town.

In fact, they go to the licensed sporting clubor to the hotel in the town in which they haveplayed their sport and they stay there and drinkand then drive home. The amendment, ifpassed, will allow hotels to remain open until10.00 pm on Sunday. The argument tosubstantiate it is that the sportsmen need to gohome and that they cannot do that at the mo-ment because the hours of trading in theirhome town do not allow them to avail them-selves of the services of a licensed premises.

Mr MacKinnon: They do not go to theirhome town because when they arrive there thecl ub or t he hotelI i s not ope n.

Mr DONOVAN: Tf the Leader of the Oppo-.sition would like to think about it, what willhappen is that they will stay and drink at thehotel for a longer period and then drive home.

Mr Trenorden: Were you there in the 1 920sor the 1930s?

Mr DONOVAN: No, I was not in thecountry in the 1920s. My last activities in thecountry were in the electorate of Murchison-Eyre, and that was in 1982-83. The member forMurchison-Eyre knows something about travel.The Li beralI Pa rty k nows a lot a bo ut orga n isi ngtravel in the Murchison-Eyre on particular daysand it also knows a lot about organ ising travelout of this State on particular days.

The member for Murchison-Eyre suggestedthat visiting cricket teams to Sandstone,Leinster, Mt Magnet, and Meekatharra will notleave to travel home if they have two hours left

I n which to drink. Instead, under this proposalthey will have the opportunity to drink for anextra two hours, until 10.00 pm, and then drivehome. Let us be realistic and not misled by theidea that if we extend trading hours everyonewill be good boys and good girls. It is a mythand it is a pipe dream.

The second issue to which I will refer relatesto another myth that the member forMurchison-Eyre put forward last night andwanted members to believe, lie said that some-how or other 6.00 am opening will make wayfor what he regards as Aboriginal addiction toalcohol. It is well known and documentedthroughout this State and country that theproblem of alcohol that confronts Aboriginalcommunities has nothing to do with some sortof immunity system, except for the immunesystem problems associated with poor diets andmalnutrition. I accept that, but it has nothingto do with alcohol; it has, however, something

2807

2808 [ASSEMBLY]

to do with the history of political, social, andeconomic oppression that these communitiesin our State have experienced over the years.

Mr Court: Do you think the hotels shouldopen at six o'clock?

Mr DONOVAN: Whether or not hotels openat 6.00 am. the member for Murchison-Eyre'snotion of addiction will not be altered. Theproblem is not a clinical issue, it is a political,social, and economic issue. Even the memberfor South Perth acknowledges that.

Several members interjected.Mrs Beggs: What you arc saying is that if the

hotel trades for 10 hours and opens at 6.00 am,Aborigines will drink more. The member ispresenting a good argument to keep hotels to alimit of six hours of trading on Sunday.

Mr DONOVAN: I am surprised that in 1987members in this Chamber are using a clinicalargument as a smokescreen over social, econ-omic, and political conditions which Aborigi-nes have had to get on top of.

If the member for Murchison-Eyre were to betaken seriously, we would have to say. "Let usgo back to the old days and take citizenshipaway from Aborigincs." That is what thc Oppo-sition is advancing. Members opposite are say-ing that somehow we gave Aborigines drinkingrights in he magic year of 1967. What we, infact, did was to finally, after 150 years, givethem their right to exist as citizens. Rightly orwrongly, foritunately or unfortunately, thatright gives the Aborigines the right to enterlicensed premises. Let us not start reinventingnotions members opposite are promoting.

Mr Court: As a social worker I wish youwould explain why there is a serious problemtoday with Aboriginal people, particularly inthe Pilbara and Kimberley regions. Thedrinking rights and other rights have been det-rimental to those people. Let us not get aca-demic about it, there is a problem.

Mr DONOVAN: If the member forNedlands wants to take up the history of theAboriginal problems in the Pilbara with me, Iwould be happy to do so. It is time the mythswere dispelled.

The problem facing those people is not 6.00am opening, it is their economic, political, andsocial exclusion.

Several members interjected.Mr DONOVAN: To the extent that it exists,

the problem Aborigines experience with al-cohol and alcoholism will reduce, parallel tothe extent to which they make political, social,

and economic progress towards equality andparticipation in this State. That is when al-coholism among Aboriginal communities willsee a reduction, just as it is worldwide in in-digenous and other subordinate groups thathave been held down in their aspirations. Itwill not be related to opening hours, eithermorning or evening. It will be related to ourability to assist them in their achievements, towhich they have a right.

Mr D. L. SMITH: The licensees within myelectorate are not unanimous in seeking thesorts of extensions the AHA is seeking totrading hours. Some regard themselves as goodfamily men who believe they should have atleast one evening a week to spend with theirfamilies.

Several members interjected.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (MrsHenderson): Order! The member has been onhis feet for less than one minute. [ ask membersto give him the opportunity to develop his ar-gument before they start interrupting him.

Mr D. L. SMITH: I have received represen-tations from two of these licensees in my elec-torate along the lines that they are happy withthe Act as it stands and that they personallyoppose any extension to the trading hours.

In relation to country trading hours, it is notonly the problem of drivers driving under theinfluence of alcohol, but it is a combination ofalcohol and tiredness that results in accidents.If a person is in the country drinking until 8.00pm and he has a I 'A hour drive home, thenthere is an acute problem. The reason weshould be looking at Sunday more than anyother day of the week is that usually on Sundaythe driver at the wheel is not alone in his ve-hicle. He may have his wife and children withhim in the vehicle and if there is an accidentthe consequences of that accident on a Sundaywould be greater than if it occurred on a Fridayor Saturday.

If the position in country areas is as somecountry members opposite have suggested, Iwould have expected to receive representationsfrom organisations in those areas; for example.the Country Women's Association which rep-resents the interests of communities in countryareas. I have not received a single represen-tation on this issue and I am fully confidentthat had I received representations they wouldhave supported the trading hours proposed inthe legislation and not those supported bymembers opposite.

2808

(Thursday, 18 June 1987J]80

In some country areas schoolchildren areexpected to rise at 6.00 am, catch a bus at 7.00am and spend an hour or so travelling toschool. If their parents leave licensed premisesin the country at 10.00 pmn and get home at11.00 pm. it will be 11.30 pm before thosechildren are in bed. They will then be expectedto rise early the following morning.

It can be said that it is not compulsory forpeople to go to these licensed premises butmembers opposite have indicated that theproblem arises on Sunday nights when peoplewho perhaps only see each other once or twicea week get together. In those circumstancesthere is a strong predilection to stay at the li-censed premises regardless of the impact thatwill have an one's children. This will causeadditional hardship for those families becauseit will increase the pressures which alreadyexist as a result of the rural crisis. The people inmy electorate are not directly affected by thesort of issues raised by members opposite: theydo not have long distances to travel and theyare not experiencing the economic crisis affect-ing so many other areas. Certainly the childrendo not have to travel the same long distances toget to school.

Extending the trading hours would have anadverse impact on the community in terms ofthe effect on schoolchildren in country areaswho are required to travel long distances thenext morning to get to school: and, in terms ofroad trauma it is a critical impact.

This Bill is a reasonable balance between theinterests of the clubs and communities, theneeds of families, and the need to protect thecommunity from itself in terms of road trauma.

Mr TRENORDEN: I will run through someof the issues raised since I last spoke. Themember for Subiaco referred to trading hoursfor hotels in the metropolitan area:, I agree thatthe situation is serious for those who live closeto the hotels. However, surely she is notsuggesting that every other hotel should beclosed because of that problem. The membersaid that a few people had indicated thatshould be the case. I would support any reason-able amendment to help solve that problem butI think the best way of resolving it is throughinteraction between the licensee of the hoteland the people who live nearby, assisted bysome pressure from the C;overnment. I hope itwill not be necessary to legislate for this but, ifit is. the publican is the person to deal with. Hemay be persuaded to take the necessary actiongiven the option that if he continues to have alarge number of people in the hotel making a

welter of it, the hotel could be closed to allpatrons. The publicans must take some re-sponsibility in these cases.

I shook my head in disbelief at the contri-bution made by the member for Morley-Swan.I do not believe he has ever been in the countryin his life: the drivel he spoke was unbelievable.His comments were applicable several decadesago but the days of travelling to other towns,taking part in sporting activities, and stayingovernight are gone. I wish that that stillhappened because I believe it is commendable:,it certainly happened in the days when I wasinvolved in sport.

Mr Donovan: It still happens in Murchison-Eyre: the host puts on something to eat and thepeople stay there.

Mr TRENORDEN: It does not happen any-where in the central wheat-belt. It used to hap-pen and it was a great thing for people incountry areas because it helped provide socialcontact with people in other iowns. However, itno longer happens. Members of opposingteams in sporting fixtures in my electorate arevirtually strangers because as soon as the gameis over, they shower and change and returnhome. They do this because of the problemsassociated with drinking and driving. The pub-lic is well aware of those problems. The".skipper" programme and other such pro-grammes have been highly successful in thisregard.

I will not comment on the member's remarksabout six o'clock trading and Aborigines; butseveral Press cuttings in the library indicatethat Aboriginal elders rue the day that drinkingrights were given to Aborigines. I read a similarnewspaper article some months ago.

Mr D. L. Smith: Are you saying that the"skipper' programme operates in countryareas?

Mr TRENORDEN: It certainly operates inmy electorate, without question.

Mr D. L. Smith: I would be surprised if itdoes

Mr TRENORDEN: Of course the memberfor Mitchell would be surprised:, that is typicalof him: he does not understand and has nointerest in country areas. Three of the towns inmy electorate have small community buses forpeople using the "skipper" scheme. They wentto the extent of buying buses just because ofthat programme. They attend sporting eventsin other towns and at the end of the day oneperson, who does not drink, drives the othershome.

2809

2810 ASSEMBLY]

Mr D. L. Smith: I would like to know whattime the last person gets home.

Mr TRENORDEN: Of course, the personwho drives the bus is the last one home, but ina social group one must accept that situation.The driver of the bus needs a 'B'-class licenceand most of the people in my electorate havesuch a licence. They take it in turns to be skip-per and each person's turn may come aroundonly once a year. The members seems to havethe attitude that it is a swill, that the peoplestay on the licensed premises until they dropoff the seats.

Mr D. L. Smith: The first two hours ofdrinking are not so bad but after four hours itbecomes a problem.

Mr TRENORDEN: The member has con-firmed my worst fears. We are saying thatmany of the functions at sporting clubs do notnecessarily finish by eight o'clock. With manysporting clubs, once the presentations and soon are finished. 75 per cent of the people gohome. However, those formalities may not befinished until 8.30 or 9.00 pm. The member issaying that many people stay at the clubs tosup, they do not think of their families and theykeep their children out at all hours of the night.He is saying it is a terrible social issue. How-ever. mnst of the people in my electorate areresponsible people and they make sure thattheir children are home at a reasonable hour.

I would be willing to lay a wager with themember for Mitchell that if this amendment iscarried many clubs will be open at eight o'clockbut will close by 10 o'clock because people willleave once the functions are finished. Themembers of the Government are not takingheed of these points because they do not knowwhat goes on. They can send as many spies asthey like to the country but they will find thesituation is as I have stated. Parents are notkeeping their children out too late becauseeither the father or mother is too weak to gohome at a reasonable time. l am not saying thatthat is never the case but the vast majority arereasonable and responsible people.

The crux of this whole matter is how muchprotection we give man against himself. I agreethat same sections of the community haveproblems controlling their personal habits butthe vast majority do not; they are responsible.We are penalising the majority in favour of theminority just one more time.

Mrs BEGGS: All the points raised in thisclause were well canvassed last night.Unfortunately the Leader of the National Party

is not in the Chamber: I wanted to point outcategorically that the Government did not offerthe industry the 6.00 am to 10.00 pm tradinghours.

It was part of the package of proposals thatthe Australian Hotels Association put to me asthe Minister responsible, and which I put toCabinet, and it has only been since the associ-ation did not get total approval for the hours ofSunday trading that it thought were necesaarythat it has started to indicate that 6.00 am to10.00 am is unnecessary and unwarranted. Iam not a mind-reader. That is what I put up,and I was given every indication from my dis-cussions with the AHA that many licenseeswould enjoy being able to trade unencumberedbetween 6.00 am and 10.00 am.

I think the member for Nedlands made thebest contribution to this debate in pointing outwhy we need some time before we could acceptthe amendments from the National Party asthey are on the Notice Paper. It is right thatthere is a provision in this Bill to enable peoplewho live close to hotels which are causing somenuisance problem to be able to object at anytime, and not just under the conditions of theold Act, where they could object only at thetime the licence was up for renewal. People cantake complaints at any time to the Director ofLiquor Licensing if they think they are beingpenalised in any way because of the activitiestaking place on that licensed premise.

However, we took into consideration whenwe considered the hours on Sundays, for all ofthe reasons that have been put forward thismorning, that perhaps residents who live closeto hotels would expect that at least on one nightof the week, there would be an early closing andthe sorts of problems they have to put up withfor every other night of the week would beeliminated to a certain extent. For that reason,the Government was anxious to have a look atall the issues regarding this whole question ofextended trading hours.

We have given a clear indication to the in-dustry that we are not totally opposed to theproposal that has been brought forward in re-cent weeks about eliminating some of thetrading hours during the week and transferringthem to Sunday. However, we also indicatedthat at this stage we could not amend the legis-lation because it would be impossible to can-vass all the opinions on that matter and tomake sure that we had safeguards in placeagainst the sorts of activities that we all knowtook place during the America's Cup. whichcaused some distress and concern not only to

2810

(Thursday, lB June 1987J 81

residents but also to health authorities, and thestrain it would put on hospitals etc. I am notgoing to canvass all those issues at this point.

I need some guidance here because with allof the amendments on the Notice Paper thathave been moved by the member for Avon-

Mr Trenorden: If the first two amendmentsare defeated, the rest are consequential.

Mrs BEGGS: Some good arguments havebeen put forward with regard to deleting the6.00 am to 10.00 am trading hours, but I amstill not convinced that all sections of the in-dustr want the deletion of 6.00 am to 10.00am trading. However, if I accepted thoseamendments and deleted 6.00 am to 10.00 am.but did not accept the amendment for exten-sion of trading hours on Sunday. would thatsuit the member?

Mr Trenorden: The amendment which con-cerns me most is the one that the Minister isnot accepting, but obviously 1 would be de-lighted if you accept any of my amendments. Iam not arguing on a political basis. I believe inmy argument absolutely, and the amendmentthat concerns me most is the social interactionof people between-

Mrs BEGGS: I understand that.Mr Trenorden: If you arc saying you will

accept 6.00 am to 10.00 am, we will go alongwith that.

Mrs BEGGS: So the member is quite happyto believe from the negotiations he has hadwith the industry that it wants 6.00 am to 10.00am trading deleted?

Mr Trenorden: No. I think the Minister mis-understood my position.

Mrs BEGGS: I am seeking some guidancebefore I make a decision.

Mr Trenorden: I will accept the amendment.but I am not doing it wholly and solely becauseI have been requested to do so by the industry.I am sure that many people in the industry dowant 6.00 am to 10.00 am trading. However, Ibelieve it is a time the hotels should be open:,full stop. That is my personal opinion as mem-ber for Avon. Other members have debated theissue here, but that is my personal stance. Ihave had no representations whatsoever fromthe hotels in my electorate on this issue; I haveon the Sunday trading issue.

Mrs BEGGS: Has the member had any indi-cation from industry representatives as to howthey would feel about deleting 6.00 am to 10.00am if there was not an extension of tradinghours on Sunday?

Mr Trenorden: I believe they would see it asa reduction of trading hours.

Mrs BEGGS: That is my feeling also, but Ithought perhaps the member may havereceived some other indication.

Mr Trenorden: I could not say in all honestythat I have had in-depth consultations andcould speak for the industry, because I havenot.

Mrs BEGGS: That is the point I am making,and I explained it lasi night but I will gothrough it again: When the America's Cuplegislation was due to expire, which was on 30March, the industry representatives came tome and asked for an extension of that untilJune to enable the Government to preparelegislation which would give them the flexibletrading hours that they had requested prior tothe America's Cup. We agreed to that. How-ever, under the circumstances, and aftercanvassing a lot of people, we found it verydifficult to go to the extent that the industrywanted because we did not have time to can-vass all the opinions to make sure we had allthe necessary safeguards in the Act to preventsome of the problems I discussed earlier.

It is absolutely essential that we adopt theamendments as they are now so that nobody inthe industry will suffer and have to go back topre-America's Cup hours. In the three-monthperiod while we are reviewing the whole Act,industry representatives will have time to goback to their members to see exactly what theywant, because I am not convinced that there isa consensus in the industry about the deletionof 6.00 am to 10.00 am trading.

Similarly, I am not convinced that some sec-tions of the industry would like to give that upin return for an extension of trading onSundays. I believe that in that three-monthperiod we will be able to assesss the situationmore fully than we have had time to do now.Fo r that reason. I rej ect t he am en d men t.

Mr CRANE: I share the concerns of mem-bers in many areas, particularly thosementioned in the contribution by the memberfor Subiaco. While I would be the last person inthe world to want to inhibit the trading of busi-ness people. I am concerned about the contin-ual extension of liquor trading hours. particu-larly on Sundays. While I am sure the memberfor Avon is thinking in terms of hotels-

M r Treno rden: A nd s port ing cl ubs.

281 1

2812 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr CRANE: It has been my experience thatsporting clubs do seem to be able to stay open alitle longer than 7.00 pm or 8.00 pm. I am sureI have seen them open longer than that.

Mrs Beggs: This amendment addresses ho-tels.

Mr Blaikie: They are probably doing cleaningand odd jobs.

Mr CRANE: I have been around a long time.and I do not see any point in opening theseplaces from 6.00 am to 10.00 am. To chop thatout would reduce the trading hours, but therewould not be a reduction in trading because Iam sure there would not be anyone in the hotelat 6.00 am anyway.

However, it is the amendment for extendingthe hours at night that I am concerned about. Iam not concerned on religious grounds or any-thing like that, but I am concerned for the com-munity. I am sure that the sporting bodies canconduct the business that they need to conductwithin those prescribed times withoutextending them further. I agree with the mem-ber for Avon that most of those people willhave gone home, but as long as there are somethere, trading will continue.

That is the point I make, and I make it verystrongly. The Minister suggested that perhapswe should not support these amendments andshould have a look at the situation during thisthree-month period to find out what we want todo. I think that is a very sound suggestion.

I cannot support these amendments. I do notagree to the extension of trading hours onSunday nights. I have to stand alone on thisside of the Chamber, I am not afraid to do so. Ithink this would be a retrograde and a wrongstep, and I think the great majority of countrypeople do not want it. During my lifetime-which goes back to the days when horses weretied up outside country pubs-I have seen chil-dren running around waiting to go home whiletheir parents. perhaps not legally, weredrinking in the hotel. Nevertheless. I believe wehave a strong responsibility to children and tofamilies. Therefore I do not support the exten-sion of trading hours on Sunday night.

Amendment put and a division taken with thefollowing result-

Mr BlaikieMr CashMr CowanMr OraydenMr HassellMr LewisMr LightfootMr MacKinnon

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BertramiMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr BurkettMrCarrMr CraneMr DonovanMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMr Grill

AyesMr ClarkoMr WieseMr BradshawMr CourtMr SchellDr Lawrence

Ayes 16Mr RushtonMr SpriggsMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TrnordenMr TubbyM r WattMr Williams

Noes 25Dr LawrenceMr MarlboroughMr ParkerMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P. J. SmithM r TaylorMrTroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PairsNoes

Mr Tom JonesMr ThomasMr BridgeMr PearceMr Gordon HillMr H-odge

rrdler)

(Tefi&)

Amendment thus negatived.Mr TRENORDEN: I believe that most of the

debate that should have occurred has occurred.l am disappointed by the member for Moore.

He spoke against drinking from 6.00 am tol0.O0am and then voted for it. I thought thatwas rather a strange thing to do, but he has hisown position to hold. The debate has takenlong enough and there is nothing further I canraise in this respect. Therefore I move anamendment-

Page 4 lines I to 5-To deletesubsection (b) with a view to inserting thefollowing-

(b) on a Sunday between I I am and10pm

Mr MacKINNON: I wish to speak on thisclause in relation to Sunday trading hours. Thisamendment is to substitute a paragraph whichwould enable the extension of trading hours onSunday. Members last night spoke of' the effectof this extension. Many members here agreedin the debate that the "six o'clock swill" wasnot a good idea. In fact Sunday sessionsencouraged people to go to the hotel, whether itbe the Nedlands Park Hotel, the Raffles Hotelor the Cottesloe Hotel-or indeed hotels in the

2812

[Thursday. 18 June 1987] 21

country-and make the most of those twohours. This amendment would encouragepeople, particularly in the country area, in re-lation to sporting activities to behave in a Simi-lar way. If one plays sport until 5.00 pmn or5.30 pm. and showers and changes, one carttravel to a hotel close to one's home by7.00 pm. depending on how far away from thehotel one has been competing. The alternativewould encourage people competing far fromhome to drink at the hotels close to the sportingvenues. I do not think that is sensible. I have agreat deal of sympathy and regard for the com-ments of the member for Moore who said thatit will not restrict a lot of sporting clubs incountry areas because many of them drink onafter trading hours.

Mr Crane: A lot of them have extended li-cences.

Mr MacKINNON: Yes, but many of them donot, and break the law. It seems to me that onemust have flexibility in respect of countrypeople in particular.

The point also needs to be made that this isnot compulsory. Nobody is forcing the hotels tostay open for these times. I have alreadyindicated that what the Minister has done inrespect of the legislation in giving core hoursthrough the week and on Sunday in hotels andclubs is a very sensible move. Nobody turns ablind eye to the problems experienced bySteve's, the Raffles, the Ocean Beach Hotel orthe Cottesloc Hotel. Many hotels over the yearshave faced difficulties and problems, some ofwhich have been worked out and some ofwhich will be worked out tomorrow, some ofthose problems are yet to occur.

The amendment to section 169 of the Actwill result in a much more sensible approach tothe resolution of such problems. While mem-bers might say there could be some problems inthat respect, the Bill we are now debating willprovide a much better action to take againstpeople who are transgressing and infringingupon the rights of the general community.which may be seriously affected by the actionsof those people.

if we are to be by any stretch of the imagin-ation an international tourist destination weneed commonsense liquor laws so that peoplewho come here can get the basic services theyexpect seven days a week, the sort of serviceswe get when we tour overseas.

I am mindful of the problems that somepeople have mentioned that could flow fromthe extension of our liquor trading hours, but I

believe that the arguments in favour of thisamendment moved by the member for Avonare sufficient to support the amendment.

Mr CRANE: I believe the member for Avonmentioned me when he was speaking a moment*ago, but unfortunately I did not hear exactlywhat he had to say about me because I wasspeaking to another member at the time. How-ever, 1 believe he said that I had spoken againstsometh ing and then had voted for it(; but that i snot quite true.

I know how people operate and how theirminds work. Had we reduced the trading hoursat the time from 6.00 am till 10.00 am peoplecould have argued legitimately that havingtaken a little from them here they should havebeen given a little more somewhere else. Mem-bers may think I am green just because I amcabbage-looking, but I am not. If we allowpeople to trade legitimately from 6.00 am to10.00 am, it will not make any real difference.We will have extended the trading hours butliquor outlets will not have extended trading.because not many people drink at that time ofthe morning.

It is the evening drinking that concerns me,and there are legitimate ways in which tradingcan be extended on Sunday evenings. I knowpeople can drink on Sunday evenings because Ihave seen them:, I have been there and donethat. There is no need for us to fool ourselves.

Let us be honest about this. We must actresponsibly. We are all concerned about thetrauma on the roads. I do not wish to recall inthis place the names of people who have diedon Sunday evenings after prolonged drinkingbouts in country hotels;, I could name peoplebecause some of them have been my friends. Ifwe are to tackle the problem of the trauma onthe roads responsibly, let us do so and not justpay lip-serice to something in which we do notbelieve.

It is not necessary far us to legislate to extendtrading hours on Sunday evenings. The mem-ber for Subiaco said that that is the time, par-ticularly in country areas, when people shouldbe able to go to their homes. Yet members talkabout supporting the family. We will have aFederal election in a couple of weeks and I canvouch for the fact that both Labor and Liberalpoliticians, indeed politicians of all parties, willbe out on the hustings talking about how theyfeel resp'onsible for the family unit. This is theplace to show how we feel about the family; thisis the place to do something about our concernfor the family. I am concerned for the family. I

2813

2814 (ASSEMBLY]

love my family and I like to see other peopleloving and caring for their families. We willalways have trauma on our roads if we extenddrinking hours. Statistics show that.

I am not afraid of any ridicule or condem-nation that I might receive, and I know (herewill be plenty of people phoning me soon to dojust that. But I am here to do a job and 'by hell Iam going to do it. In fairness to the family wecannot extend drinking hours unnecessarilywhen provision already exists for people tocarry on drinking that little bit longer if theyneed to.

I strongly oppose any extension of drinkinghours and I strongly oppose the amendmentbefore us which allows for that on Sundayevenings.

Mr COWAN: I am disappointed that somepeople in this place have suddenly displayedgreat pretensions of being virtuous and beingkeepers of society's morals. I ask the memberfor Moore: How much does a member herehave to protect people from themselves?

The arguments against extended tradinghours have all been heard before, and I canunderstand them. Allegations are made abouthow the family will be destroyed. how roadtrauma will increase, and how patrons at placessuch as the Nedlands Park Hotel will createfurther disturbances. We have heard it all be-fore. but how much must we protect the peoplefrom themselves?

Mrs Beggs: I don't believe you can progressthat argument. If you take it to its illogicalconclusion-

Mr COWAN: Why not take the Minister'sargument to its illogical conclusion and banSunday trading and have no liquor industry atall? The Minister would have us go back to thedays of prudes.

Mrs Deggs: You know very well that myposition is not dissimilar to yours.

Mr COWAN: Exactly.Mrs Beggs: But I have explained that there

are difficulties at the moment because we havehad to rush this amendment to Parliament be-cause We are not in a position to bring theresult of the complete review of the Act to theParliament.

Mr COWAN: We accept that these amend-ments represent a rush job, and we are notterribly critical of that. We accept that theseamendments are better than nothing. However,I do not think anyone can argue sufficiently todissuade us from putting forward amendments

which we believe would make the Bill betterthan it is. It behoves us now to declare ourposition and to make it very clear that we re-gard as very important the need for theGovernment to reconsider its whole approachto l iquor trading hours. That is really all we aresaying. We cannot be the keeper of society'smorals;, we cannot protect people from them-selves forever; we cannot pretend that we aresuddenly overcome by virtue and responsibilityfor the family.

Mr Brian Burke: Your members were quickto ban "X"-rated videos;, some of your mem-bers were the strongest supporters of that.

Mr COWAN: That is better than this rub-bish.

Mr Brian Burke: You want to keep the pub-Si c's mo ralIs accord ing to you r own m oralIs.

Mr COWAN: I am quite sure the Premierknows that the trading hours inherent in thisBill are nowhere near good enough.

Mr Brian Burke: We will invite you to talk tous. As we said to the AHA, we had no hope ofagreeing to an amendment to the Bill at thisstage. If Parliament wants to reject the legis-lation. then until we bring in a complete re-vamp of the law we will go back to the pre-America's Cup arrangements.

Mr COWAN: I heard the Premier and I ac-cept the invitation offered by him. We will cer-tainly accept any invitation to consult with theMinister and other people.

Mrs Beggs: We will consult with you on atotal review of the Act.

M r COWAN: I appreciate that.I believe it is proper for the National Party to

state its principles to the House. We do notaccept the arguments presented by members inopposition to the extension of trading hours onSunday. We accept that there are problems, butthose problems have to be addressed individu-ally. Perhaps the quickest way to deal with themembers' complaints about overcrowding atsome hotels is to give people greater access to agreater number of liquor outlets. We wouldalso have to do something about the parkingfacilities and about making certain that the ho-tels comply with the health laws.

Perhaps the best way of dealing with con-cerns about the destruction of the family is tobegin an education programme to make peopleeven more aware of the problems associatedwith alcohol abuse. If members are concernedabout the road-trauma statistics, let ussubstantially increase the penalties for drink

2814

jThursday. lB une 1987] 21

driving. However, we should not thrust all ofthe responsibility for these problems onto theliquor industry.

I heard the Minister, by interjection, andsupported by her Premier. say that this is aninterim measure and that the Goverment willconsider the whole question of trading hours. Iaccept that. We all accept the invitation to be-come involved in the finalisation of the legis-lation. However, I claim the right, as a memberof this Parliament, to stand by the principles inwhich I believe. I support the amendment.

Mr CRANE: 1 have been asked by the Leaderof the National Party to explain how I wouldprotect people from themselves. I have neversaid I would try to do that. I have argued forProtecting people from other people who arenot concerned about protecting themselves.There is nothing virtuous about that. TheLeader of the National Party may return to hisvirtuous couch if he wishes.

I believe the only way we can protect theperson who will be injured by an inebriatedperson is to ensure, as far as possible, that thatperson does not become inebriated. If a drunkruns off the road and kills himself, that is sad,but I am not trying to prevent him from doingthat. I am trying to protect other people frombeing injured by him Or her. I hope the Leaderof the National Party can see the difference.

I believe an extension of trading hours willlead us into trouble. I would prefer hotels notto open at 6.00 am, because I believe theyshould open at 10.00 or 11.00 am. However, asI said earlier, if liquor outlets are to receiveextended trading hours, those extensionsshould be in the early morning when nobody isaround and they will not do any harm. Themajority of people do not drink between 6.00am and 10.00 am and therefore the extensionof hours in that lime is the lesser of two evils. Ibelieve hotels should open early and shut early.

As an extension of the Leader of the NationalParty's asking me how we protect people fromthemselves, I believe that we pass laws for thatreason. Laws are made, as has been said before.for the guidance of wise men and the obedienceof fools. Laws are made for people who do nothave the power, the desire, or the ability tomake responsible decisions for themselves.

I do not support any further extension todrinking hours, particularly on Sundays. Wehave a responsibility to live by our Christianethics. I am not ashamed to say that I believe inthose ethics.

Mrs BEGGS: It is important for me to indi-cate that if and when there are extensions toSunday trading hours, the Licensed Stores As-sociation has indicated that it will lobbyheavily to also have Sunday trading hours. Ibelieve the National Party needs to give con-sideration to that over the next couple ofmonths. After all, that association representsanother section of the liquor industry whichhas been very considerate in regard to the pro-posals presently before the House.

Amendment put and a division taken with thefollowing result-

Mr CashMr CowanMr GraydenMr HassellMr HouseMr LewisMr LightfootMr MacKinnon

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BertramMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr CarrMr CraneMr DonovanMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMr Grill

AyesM r ClarkoMr WieseMr BradshawM r CourtMr SehellIMr LauranceMr Blaikie

Ayes 16Mr RushtonMr SpriggsMr StephensMr ThomrpsonMr TrenordenMr TubbyMr WattMr Williams

Noes 24Mr Gordon HillDr LawrenceMr MarlboroughMr ParkerMr ReadMr D. L, SmithMr P. J, SmithMrlroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PairsNoes

M r Tom JonesMr ThomrasM r BridgeMr PearceMr BurkettMr IHodgeMr Taylor

(7W/nj

MTher

Amendment thus negatived.Clause put and passed.Clauses 9 and 10 put and passed.Clause 11. Section 26 amended-Mr TRENORDEN: The other amendments

listed on the Notice Paper in my name are nolonger relevant as the first two amendmentshave been defeated.

I point out to the Minister that she needs totake on board with some degree of concern thatthe hotel industry is under severe pressurefinancially. The three-month period to whichthe Minister referred is necessary for theproposed actions. However, duiring those threemonths the industry will have to bear thosefinancial burdens and, particularly in some of

2815

2816 [ASSEM BLY]

the country areas, these imposts have come at atime of reduced trade. When people are shortof money one of the first things they cut downon is social activity, such as going to the foot-ball or the hotel.

I am keen to push for this review becausewhile time is passing these problems remain.The members of the National Party werepromised that the review would take place thissession. I will take the Minister's word that itwill be completed in three months.

Mrs Beggs: It is a very difficult Act.Mr TRENORDEN: I am aware of that, but

the longer it goes on, the more the hotels in myelectorate are affected financially.

Mrs Beggs: The country boteliers have beencrying out for this amendment and the flexi-bility it will allow.

Mr TRENORDEN: I agree, but we shallwatch the situation very carefully. I know it isdifficult to rewrite the Act from beginning toend but the matter is urgent. A number ofbusinesses are on the brink or failure, particu-larly in the rural area.

Some hotels in the metropolitan area and incountry areas have spent large sums of moneyon improvements. For example, the ShamrockHotel at Northam has spent $I million in prep-aration for the tourist industry. It needs theseamendments yesterday because the money hasalready been spent and it now needs the busi-ness. It is a very important issue. We shallwatch the progress of the review very closelybecause it is of great interest to us.

Clause put and passed.Clauses 12 to 36 put and passed.Clause 37: Section 169 inserted-Dr LAWRENCE: This clause is a very im-

portant addition to the Act and I commend theMinister for it: it allows various people to com-plain about the activities or noise on licensedpremises, the issue to which I referred earlier.One of the difficulties is that it appears not toallow a council, such as Subiaco Council. in thecase of Steve's Hotel, to submit a complaint.The council has raised this matter with me' It isparticularly concerned in the light of the recentcourt decision that the council could not appealagainst the renewal of the licence for that hotelon the ground that it was not under the Actdeemed to be an appropriate body to do so.Having looked at the relevant section of theAct. I can see that the situation is somewhatdifferent: in one case it is the court which shalldecide, and in the other case it is the director.

Can the Minister give an assurance that acouncil such as Subiaco Council. whose resi-dents are affected by licensed premises not inits area, will be able to act on behalf of itsresidents? The Minister will appreciate that itcan be a costly and time-consuming businessfor a group of residents or an individual tolodge a complaint against a hotel or licensedpremises.

Mr COURT: The Subiaco, Council has alsoapproached me on this matter. Section 37(2)(b)of the Act refers to the council of the munici-pality of the district in which the licensedpremises concerned are situated. The problemin the Nedlands electorate is that there arethree licensed premises on the road which isthe border between the Subiaco and NedlandsCouncils: The Nedlands Park Hotel, the SilverSlipper, and the Fat City Cafe. It is interestingto note that in two cases the complaints madeabout those licensed premises have come frompeople living opposite the premises.

It seems to be quite specific in the Bill thatthe complaint must be made by the council ofthe municipality of the district in which thelicensed premise is situated. If a related councilalso has a close relationship to the problem, isthere any way that it can also be involved inmaking a complaint?

The other thing I would like the Minister toexplain is how this mechanism is going towork, and the sort of time frame that she be-lieves would be involved from the time com-plaints are made to the time when they areheard, and what takes place during the appealprocedure.

Mrs BEGGS: Under the amendment a com-plaint may be lodged by a police officer, or bythe council of the municipality of the district inwhich the licensed premises concerned are situ-ated, or by any person claiming to be adverselyaffected by the subject matter of that com-plaint. I suppose it could be argued that a coun-cil or shire clerk could consider that he was aperson adversely affected by the subject matter.I cannot see any reason why a council outsidethe location of the premises cannot be con-sidered an appropriate person or body to lodgea complaint, if it is a matter affecting its rate-payers. As we are reviewing the Act. I give acommitment to have a look at that to see ifthere is a way in which we can resolvc thatproblem.

Regarding how the complaint procedurewould work, the director may act only on acomplaint by not fewer than 10 persons, unless

2816

[Thursday, 18 June 1987) 81

he is absolutely satisfied that the nature orgravity of the complaint warrants a lesser num-her of persons, and he can then issue an orderlimiting the type of entertainment provided.the hours during which that entertainment isprovided, and also the particular circumstancesof the licensed premise where the entertain-ment should take place. As I repeated oftenduring this debate, it may be necessary whenwe are reviewing the Act, in view of some ofthe experiences we may have through thecourts in this interim period, to extend thepowers of the director even further than that.They are some of the things we will be lookingat when we review the whole Act.

Mr Court: That answers the first part of thequestion-how it works. Could the Ministergive an indication of how long she believes itwould take to handle these sorts of complaints,and what happens during the appeal pro-cedures?

Mrs BEGGS: Is the member talking aboutthe appeal to the courts if people are aggrievedby the decision of the director?

M r Court: Yes.

Mrs BEGGS: It would be the same as any ofthe procedures that go through the LicensingCourt now. The matter would have to be listedbefore a judge and come up before him in thenormal way. I am not sure of the time framethat exists now, but certainly by having a direc-tor of the licensing authority separate from thecourt, it has been indicated to me by my de-partment that the court process has beenspeeded up considerably. I am sure that if itwere a matter of great urgency, the directorwould deal with it expeditiously and give it toppriority, just as the court would if the judgedetermined there was a need to deal with thematter as quickly as possible.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 38 put and passed.

Title put and passed.

Repori

Bill reported, without amendment, and thereport adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by MrsBeggs (Minister for Racing and Gaming). andtransmitted to the Council.(891

BUSINESS FRANCHISE (TOBACCO)AMENDMENT BILLCouncil's A mendmnents

Amendments made by the Council now con-sidered.

In CommitteeThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Dr

Lawrence) in the Chair: Mr Peter Dowding(Minister assisting the Treasurer) in charge ofthe Bill.

The amendments made by the Council wereas follows-

No 1.Clause 2, page 2. lines 2 and 3-To

delete the clause and substitute thefollowing clause-

2. (1) Subject to subsection (2).this Act shall come into operationon the day on which it receivesthe Royal Assent.

(2) Sections 7. 8, 10 and 12shall be deemed to have comeinto operation on 2 December1986.

No 2.Clause 5, page 3, line 30-To delete

"The" and substitute the following-Subject to subsection ( Ia), the

No 3.Clause 5, page 3. line 31 -To insert

after the word "any" the word"reasonable".

No 4.Clause 5. page 4. after line 17-To

insert the following subsections-(Ia) The Commissioner or anyofficer or person authorized byhim in that behalf shall not undersubsection ( 1) enter any premises.or part of any premises, used forresidential purposes unless-(a) the consent, express or im-

plied. of the occupier or aperson present at the prem-ises has been obtained:

(b) such entry is authorized by awarrant issued by a Justice ofthe Peace on complaint madeon oath, the Justice being sat-isfied that there are reason-able grounds for believing

2817

2818 [ASSEMBLY]

that the entry is required forthe purposes of subsection(1); or

(c) in the opinion of the Com-missioner or of the officer orperson the delay in obtaininga warrant under paragraph(b) could frustrate or impedethe purpose of the entry.

(I b) The Commissioner shall fur-nish to an officer or personauthorized by him for the pur-poses of this section a certificateslating that he is so authorized.

No 5.

Clause 5. page 4. line 24-To deletethe word "The".

No 6.

Clause 5. page 4. line 26-To insertafter "circumstances" the words..where the use of such force canreasonably be anticipated to involvepersonal violence, the personexercising the power shall be ac-companied by a police officer.".

No 7.

Clause 5, page 5, after line 22-Toinsert the following paragraph-

(c) by repealing subsection (3) andsubstituting the followingsubsection-

"(3) A person does not commit anoffence against paragraph (a), (b)or (c) of subsection (2) in relationto the exercise or attempted exer-cise of a power referred lo in thatparagraph. if he proves to the sat-isfaction of the court that, at thetime of the exercise or attemptedexercise of the power. the Com-missioner did not identify himselfas such, or the officer or persondid not produce a cert ificateissued to him under subsection(Ib).".

No 8.

Clause 7. page 8, line 5-To insertafter -holder or' the following-

a

No 9.Clause 12. page 10, lines I I to 22-

To delete subsection (1) of theproposed section 1 2D and substitutethe following subsection-

(I) Where an offence is commit-ted against section 6(l), 6(2) or8(l) by a body corporate, everydirector of the body corporate isjointly and severally liable withthe body corporate and everyother director for the paymentof-(a) any fine imposed on the body

corporate for the offence and(b) a fee that is payable under

section 12A.No 10.

Clause 19. page 12. line 32-To de-lete -$2 000" in the third column ofthe table and substitute the foallow-i ng-

$ 10 000No 11.-

New Clause 8A. page 8. after line30-To insert the following clause-

Liability of Employees8A. A person is not guilty of anoffence against section 6(l) or (2)or 8(l) as an employee if heproves to the satisfaction of thecourt that he acted under anhonest and reasonable belief thatthe tobacco wholesaling, the pur-chase of tobacco, or the sale oftobacco, as the case may be. tookplace under, and in accordancewith, a licence.

Sitting suspended 'fron /. 00 to 2.1 IpmMr PETER DOWDING: We will not accept

Council's amendment No 6. Council's amend-ment No 5 is a consequential amendment andtherefore we will not accept that either. Wewould not hang out the washing over the word"theX but that amendment is related toamendment No 6.

In relation to Council's amendment No 11,.will seek to move the amendment appearing onthe Notice Paper in the Treasurer's name, but Iwill not move the amendment on the NoticePaper to amend Council's amendment No 6.

1 move-That amendments Nos I to 4 made by

the Council be agreed to.

2818

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]181

Mr WILLIAMS: The Liberal Party will ac-cept amendments Nos I to 4.

Question put and passed; the Council's amend-ments agreed to.

Mr PETER DOWDING: I move-That amendments Nos 5 and 6 made by

the Council be not agreed to.The Government's position on this is verystrong and that is what led me to note withgreat surprise the fact that an amendment inthe name of the Treasurer had inadvertentlycrept onto the Notice Paper.

The proposal that has come down from theLegislative Council is that an investigatingofficer must be accompanied by a police officerwhen the investigating officer can reasonablyanticipate that the ultimate use of some of thepowers of the investigating officer mightreasonably be anticipated to involve personalviolence. In our view this is not a practicalamendment it would in fact require aninvestigating officer on every occasion to takewith him or her a police officer. That is just nota mechanism we can accept and I do not be-lieve members opposite would genuinely acceptthat if they saw that that was the outcome of it.

The investigating officer is given a widerange of powers to enter premises and searchfor and seize goods, and that necessarily carrieswith it the capacity to exercise such reasonableforce as is needed. Before the investigatingofficer embarks on the course of his or herinvestigations, there is no way in which theinvestigating officer will know what ultimateextension of the use of the powers within theAct he or she will be required to engage i. sothere is no way in which he or she would knowultimately what extension of those powers he orshe will be required to use.

But for an investigating officer then to be ina position of perhaps having his or her auth-ority challenged, on the basis that he or sheought reasonably to have foreseen some set ofcircumstances which would require thepresence of a police officer, would be an unde-sirable way of frustrating an investigatingofficer in the course of his or her duty. Inevi-tably. if the investigating officer in this areawere to have any real powers of investigation, itwould require the permanent presence withevery investigating officer of a police officer.The powers of the investigating officer havebeen circumscribed in this Act. These taxationinvestigations have been conducted through avariety of legislative authorities without any

problems that the Government is aware of. andthere is simply no rationale for this power to befurther circumscribed.

This is a $60 million issue in terms of rev-enue collected. It is an issue where we haveseen major avoidance procedures put in place.South Australia has taken another route whichvirtually enables people who buy a packet ofcigarettes to be questioned by someone stand-ing outside the shop. That is not the route thisGovernment has taken but we must be awarethat in the industry there are people who aredeliberately setting out to avoid this legislation.The Government urges the Committee not toaccept this amendment.

Mr WILLIAMS: The Opposition does notaccept the Minister's suggestion. We will standfirmly behind the insertion of this clause forvarious reasons.

One of the most important reasons is that webelieve it must be reasonably anticipated therewill be personal violence, and if that is to be thecase, a police officer should be present with theinspector. We know there are inspectors whodo abuse the powers given to them. In mostcases when an inspector has to investigatesomeone, they handle it amicably. A personmay be incensed because the inspector had theright to enter his or her property by kickingdown the door. We believe that is an invasionof an individual's rights and should not becondoned by anyone, particularly in the casewhere a person may go to a delicatessen andbuy a packet of cigarettes. That person iswatched by an inspector who may reasonablyassume those cigarettes were bought inQueensland. That inspector has the right toforcibly enter that person's home and confis-cate the cigarettes.

Even the Premier, when I mentioned thisearlier, agreed that is going a little too far. Thestabilising effect of a policeman is very import-ant. I would like the Minister to interject andtell me how many cases like this are currentlybefore the courts. In other words, where inspec-tors have found storekeepers and individuals-

Mr Peter Dowding: I do not have that infor-mation, but I can assure the member that Ihave been informed by the Minister for BudgetManagement that he is not aware of any com-plaints about the exercise of powers of inspec-tors.

Mr WILLIAMS: I wonder whether it is allworth the effort we are going to.

2819

2820 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Peter Dowding: The difficulty is thatyour amendment will effectively require apolice officer to accompany an investigator onevery investigation.

Mr WILLIAMS: A police officer will berequired to accompany the inspector if the in-spector makes it clear that he has the right toenter the property. For example, the inspectorcould decide at midnight that he wants to entera premises. He may wish to see the books of thedelicatessen or a company retailing in ciga-rettes. That delicatessen owner or retailermight say that the books are with his account-ant so. at midnight. the inspector has the rightto forcibly enter the accountant's property tolook at the books.

It is very important that the word..reasonably" be inserted. It is reasonable toexpect that if we are to have instances like theone I have just mentioned, a police officershould accompany an inspector. Having apoliceman present would invariably avoid anyundue act that may follow. If I were retailingcigarettes and an inspector decided to come tome at midnight and break down my door, hewould get short-changed. I would take him on.In a case like that, there would be very goodreason for a policeman to be present.

Mr Peter Dowding: He has to have the con-sent, a warrant, or special circumstances.

Mr WILLIAMS: The policeman is a pro-fessional and knows how to handle such things.If an inspector is going to forcibly enter a per-son's home and break down the front door, thepresence of a policeman is absolutely essentialas far as we are concerned. We do not acceptthat an inspector would act with dignity anddecorum at all times. One has only to talk tosmall businessmen to find out that inspectorsdo overreact. That person is entitled to someprotection and the police ought to have asteadying influence.

We feel that people's rights are being undulyinterfered with and for that reason we do notagree to oppose the amendments made by theCouncil.

Mr LAURANCE: I wonder what sort ofgame the Government is playing. We have anamendment put in place by the LegislativeCouncil. We think it was perfectly appropriatefor the Council to agree to it and it is reason-able for the Government to accept it here. Itseems to me that the Government is playing agame with a number of Bills circulating be-tween both Houses as we come to the end ofthe first part of the current session.

Is this some sort of tactic on the part of theGovernment? We had the extraordinary situ-ation last evening where the Governmentrejected an amendment that had come backfrom the other place having been agreed to byGovernment members in that place. TheGovernment virtually rejected its own amend-ment coming back from the Council. Thisseems to be a pattern which has emerged overthe last few days of the session.

Mr Peter Dowding: How can you say thatwhen we have accepted their whole set of majoramendments to this legislation in this Com-mittee?

Mr LAU RANGE: Why nitpick on thisamendment?

Mr Peter Dowding: We are not nitpicking.We are not being unreasonable either. I do notknow whether you were in the Chamber earlier.but we recently progressed through four majoramendments to this legislation which thisCommittee accepted.

Mr LAU RANGE: We are not convinced thatthe Minister is not playing games.

Mr Peter Dowding: Your view is not borneout by what has taken place over the last 10minutes.

Mr LAURANCE: The Government seems tohave adopted some crazy strategy, with minoramendments being sent backwards and for-wards between the Houses. The Governmentseems to want a number of measures to go to aConference of Managers as pant of this strategy.

Mr HOUSE: The National Party supportsthe retention of this amendment in the Bill-forthe reason that we strongly believe that therights of people must be safeguarded in everyway possible. The law is one thing, but themost important thing is to see that the law isenforced properly. If by retaining this amend-ment we can ensure that the rights of peoplewill be protected, I do not see that it should bea great burden for the Government to acceptthe amendment.

Mr Peter Dowding: How does it do that?Mr HOUSE: By making sure that more than

one person is involved when an inspector en-ters someone's premises.

Mr Peter Dowding: It doesn't do that.Mr HOUSE: If the Minister does not accept

the amendment we could have an inspectordeciding to enter someone's premises withoutanyone else being able to make judgment onwhether entry should have been effected.

2820

(Thursday, IS J.une 1981j )2

Mr Peter Dowding: This amendmenteffectively requires every inspector to take apolice off icer with him at all limes.

Mr HOUSE: That is why I support theamendment.

Mr Peter Dowding: That means an inspectorwill need to have a police officer with him allthe lime because he will not know whether viol-ence will be involved. An inspector could ask toenter a premises and the occupier could tellhim to come in. but when the inspector asks forcertain filies the occupier could say that theinspector could have certain files but notothers. The inspecbor could say that he was anauthorised officer and wanted to take all thefiles, and a tussle could ensue.

Mr HOUSE: What the Minister is doing iswhat happens in this place a great dealunfortunately; he is jumping at shadows. It isno wonder we pass bad legislation. The Minis-ter should accept the amendment in order toprotect the rights of every person in this State.

Mr WILLIAMS: We want to insert after theword "circumstances" the words "where theuse of such force can reasonably be antici-pated .. .

Mr Peter Dowding: The inspectors don'tknow what would happen.

Mr WI LLIA MS: They will not need a pol ice-man unless they can reasonably assume thatviolence will be involved. A person shouldhave the right to deny an inspector to enter hispremises in the middle of the night.

Mr Peter Dowding: Not if he has a warrant.Mr WILLIAMS: A person should still have

the right to refuse the inspector entry. We donot believe that inspectors will have the righttemperament to do the job properly. A policeofficer accompanying an inspector issufficiently trained in these sorts of mattersand would be able to overcome any difficulties.

Mr Peter Dowding: Do you think fisheriesinspectors are any better than taxation inspec-tors?

Mr WILLIAMS: We hear a lot of complaintsabout fisheries inspectors.

Mr Peter Dowding: But they don't need awarrant.

Mr WILLIAMS: But this sort of provision isnot in their Act.

Mr Peter Dowding: You gave the fisheriesinspectors the power to move without a war-rant.

Mr WILLIAMS: In hindsight we did thewrong thing. As I said earlier, if an inspectorcame to my door at midnight and tried to entermy premises he would have a fight on hishands.

Mr Peter Dowding: But if he has a warrant?

Mr WILLIAMS: He would still have a fighton his hands. The Minister knows that at timesinspectors are rather overpowering, and this iswhere the presence of a policeman is needed. Itis a basic right of any individual to refuse suchan inspector the right of entry. The amendmentshould be accepted.

Mr CASH: Surprisingly the Minister isadopting a very extreme stance by suggestingthat by inserting this amendment an inspectorwould need to be accompanied at all times by apolice officer. If the Minister really believesthat, he has introduced very bad legislation;there must be something wrong with the legis-lation. The Minister's stance is both extremeand an attempt to misrepresent the true inten-tion of this amendment.

Mr Gordon Hill: It is a question of what theinspectors want. This amendment would re-quire that a police officer accompany them atall times, which would be an imposition on thePolice Force; it would waste a lot of time of thePolice Force.

Mr CASH: The Minister for Police andEmergency Services believes, as does the Min-ister handling the Bill, that every time an in-spector moves he will need to be accompaniedby a police officer. I do not think that will bethe case. Where an inspector believes that theuse of force can reasonably be anticipated toinvolve personal violence, he shall be ac-companied by a police officer; but first he mustanticipate the likelihood of violence. He mayvisit someone's premises and, in discussionswith the person concerned form the view thatto obtain the material he wants will result inviolence. An inspector would then retire andseek to be accompanied by a police officerwhen returning to those premises.

Mr Peter Dowding: It is not a question ofwhether the inspector anticipates violence butof whether the use of force can reasonably beanticipated. You could have hundreds of in-spectors and on one of five occasions theymight have to use some force or violence, youcould argue that on every occasion it could bereasonably anticipated that violence would oc-cur.

2821

2822 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr CASH: The Minister is interpreting theamendment to suit his own convenience. TheMinister used the words "hundreds of inspec-tors'. How many inspectors are involved?

Mr Peter Dowditng: I have no idea.Mr CASH: Then it was silly to refer to

hundreds of inspectors.Mr Peter Dowding: I didn't say that.Mr CASH: Did any member hear the Minis-

ter refer to hundreds of inspectors?Mr MacKinnon: He said "hundreds of in-

spectors".M r CASH: Thank you.M r Peter Dowding: Hansard will show that I

didn't say that.Mr CASH: It will. It is a clear indication of

the extreme tactics the Minister adopts to riderampant over things in order to try to preventsomething quite reasonable being placed in thelegislation. I support the amendment.

Question put andfollowing result-

Dr AlexanderMrs BcggsMr BryceMr BurkettMr CarrMr DonovanMr Peter DowdingMr EvansDr GallopMrs HendersonMr Gordon Hill

Mr CashMr CourtMr CowanMr GraydenMr HassellMr HouseMr LauraneMr MacKinnon

AyesMr Tom JonesM r ThomasMr BridgeMr TaylorMr BertramMr Brian BurkeMr Grill

a division taken with the

Ayes 2 2Mr "dgMr MalroughMr ParkerMr PearceMr D. L. SmithMr P. J. SmithMr TroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

(Teller)Noes 16

Mr MensarosMr RushtonMr SprigMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TubbyMr WilliamsMr Wait

PairsNoes

Mr ClarkoMr WieseMr BradshawMr SchellMr BlaikieMr LewisMr Lightfoot

Question thus passed; the Council's amend-ments not agreed to.

Mr PETER DOWDING: I move-

That amendments Nos 7 to 10 made bythe Council be agreed to.

Question put and passed; the Council'samendments agreed to.

Mr PETER DOWDING: I move-That amendment No I I made by the

Council be agreed to subject to the in-clusion after the words "following clause"of the following-

9. After section 8 of the principalAct the following section is inserted-

This is done on the advice of ParliamentaryCounsel. The Council's amendment does notincorporate enough words for it to take effectwhen it is accepted.

Question put and passed; the Council'samendment agreed to. subject to further amend-ment.

Report. etc.Resolutions reported and the report adopted.A committee consisting of Mr Williams, Mrs

Beggs (Minister for Tourism), and Mr PeterDowd ing (Minister assisting the Treasurer),drew up reasons for not agreeing to amend-ments Nos 5 and 6 made by the Council.

Reasons adopted and a message accordinglyreturned to the Council.

STATE ENERGY COMMISSIONAMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 20 May.MR LAURANCE (Gascoyne-Deputy

Leader of the Opposition) [2.53 pm]: Theseamendments come before the Parliament pre-sumably because of a review of the provisionsof the State Energy Commission Act by thecommission's solicitors. No doubt there havebeen cases in recent times which have causedthe commission some difficulty and this, inturn, has led to this review. The changes arefairly technical in nature and I will deal witheach of them in turn.

I would like to take this opportunity to ex-press my appreciation to the Minister and tothe commission for making available to me thecommission's solicitor who went through theamendments with me. I found the briefingmost useful and I am very grateful for it.

This amendment to the State Energy Com-mission Act gives the Opposition the oppor-tunity to mention a number of matters inwhich it has been interested in relation to theoperation of the commission. Before I dealwith the actual amendments. I would like toraise a couple of general matters.

2822

[Thursday, ISiurie 19871 82

It is true to say that the history of the SEC inthe last few years has been very much tied upwith the whole question of the production ofenergy for Western Australia. That leads me todiscuss briefly the whole question of the NorthWest Shelf gas project, which is the biggestsingle project in the history of Australia.

Mr Blaikie: It is an outstanding project.Mr LAURANCE: Yes, it is. Of course, being

the biggest project in Australia makes it thebiggest undertaking in this State in which theSEC has been involved.

As you. Mr Speaker, would know from yourexperience in this Parliament the recentBudgets of this State have been by and largeoverwhelming in relation to some of the capitalrequirements of that enormous project.

The SEC has done a magnificent job withthat project and not only the commission, butalso the State can be very proud of it. We knowthat the Premier, who inherited the magnifi-cent project, is very proud of it. lie has said soon many occasions.

The Commissioner of the SEC, Mr BruceKirkwood, is on public record as stating that itis a magnificent project and a great thing forthis State. For that reason, the Opposition con-demns the Minister for Minerals and Energyfor his recent public statement about this proj-ect.

About a fortnight ago he appeared on thenational television programme "Sunday" andcriticised the project; that is fairly standard forhim. On a number of occasions he has roundlycriticised the North West Shelf project. TheOpposition wants to roundly criticise the Min-ister. It is quite churlish of the Minister to at-tack a project and his predecessors for some ofthe decisions they made. Thank God they didmake those decisions because we will see theresults of them for many years to come.

The Government cannot have it both waysand that is the reason I have taken this oppor-tunity to highlight these matters. On the onehand, the Government cannot have thePremier going to Karratha and saying. "What awonderful project for the State" and, on theother hand, the Minister criticising the projectand the people involved with it, particularlyprevious Ministers of the Crown. hispredecessors, who made these bold and cour-ageous decisions on behalf of the people ofWestern Australia.

Many people were concerned and upset atthe Minister's comments on the national tele-vision programme to which I have referred. It

is interesting to note that the programme wastelevised on a Sunday. about a fortnight ago.and on the following Tuesday, just two dayslater, 1 visited Karratha with a number of mycolleagues. We visited the North West Shelf gasproject at Burrup Peninsula and were told bythe staff and management that they were veryupset with the programme and especially withthe derogatory remarks made by the Minister.They told us that a lot of footage had beentaken and a number of people had beeninterviewed and had put forward the verypositive side of that project. However, that par-ticular footage had not been used in the pro-gramme. It was a negative programme.

A couple of days later the local managementtold us it was unhappy about the situation.Only 24 hours later we returned and had dinnerin the single men's mess where hundreds ofworkmen, subcontractors and employees, wereeating their meal. We mixed and talked withthem. Many of those people had come fromother pans of Australia and they said. "How isit this Labor Minister is knocking the work weare doing?"

Mr Parker: That is not true. I was talkingabout the domestic gas project which was fin-ished 21/ to three years ago.

Mr LAURANCE: It is part of the total proj-ect.

Mr Parker: No it is not.Mr LAURANCE: How can the Minister say

that? We categorically deny that and reject it.People in the general work force were very

put out by the comments of this Minister, be-cause they thought it was an attack on themand the work they were doing. There was apride amongst them for what they were doingfor this nation, but here is a Minister of theCrown who has inherited this magnificent proj-ect-

Mr Parker: There was no LNG project until Ibecame Minister.

Mr LAURANCE: There would have beennoth ing at all if-

Several members interjected.Mr Parker: That is not true.Mr LAURANCE: That is denied by every-

one.Mr Parker: It is not denied by the principals

of the project. Ask them.Mr LAURANCE: It has been roundly con-

demned from one end of the work force to theother: from the work force and the manage-

2823

2824 [ASSEMBLY)

ment. The Minister has been condemned forthe statements that he made. It is churlish. 1could give him same advice. It is a tactic of his,along with many of his ministerial colleagues.to look back and blame their predecessors. It isthe only policy this Government has.

Mr Parker: That is why we won two electionsin a row.

Mr LAURANCE: He has been given the op-portunity-, it is a wonderful opportunity toserve this State as a Minister of the Crown.With all those opportunities, all he has to do isto look forward and try to produce a recordequal to that of some of his predecessors in thisState.

Mr Parker: It has been exceeded already.Capital investment in this State is more than atany other time.

Mr Court: Because of the North West Shelfproject,

M r LAURANCE: Because of the very projectthe Min ister is knocking.

Mr Parker: It is not true.Mr Court: There has also been the casino.Mr LAURANCE: I am talking about some-

thing we will debate later today. We will haveanother go at the Minister over decisions hemade before. He is churlish and looking back-wards.

The Minister has an opportunity to displayvision and look forward to producing a recordof which he can be proud at the end of his termin February 1989. He can look back and say."This is what I did." But he concentrates alarge proportion of his time on knocking proj-ects which were put in place prior to his periodof administration, and the people who wereresponsible for them.

I can see no gain in this for him. It is anunintelligent way for an intelligent person toact, and I cannot understand why he wants todo it. [ encourage him to look forward. Many ofthe decisions he will make in the future will becriticised by other short-sighted Labor Minis-ters.

Mr Rushton: He has not made any decisions.Mr LALURANCE: If he makes any between

now and 1989.Mr Parker: I have made many positive de-

cisions. Look at the State!Mr LAURANCE: I hope people do not try to

besmirch his record as he does to other people.I encourage him to take the situation as hefound it when he took over office and look

ahead; have some vision: try to get new proj-ects on stream instead of nitpicking and criti-9cising people who have gone before him.

To return to the North West Shelf project:The Commissioner of the State Energy Com-mission of WA, Mr Bruce Kirkwood. madethese comments in April 1987, just a few shortweeks ago-

I believe that the North West Shelf andthe availability of gas for the domesticmarket is one of ihe most important de-cisions ever made for the WA energy in-dustry. Without it we wouldn't have theLNG export project, which is a great thingfor Australia."

In case the Minister did not hear it I will repeatthat quote so that he has a chance to withdrawhis earlier remarks. when he said it was asimple thing to have the second stage of theLNG-

Mr Parker: I did not say that.Mr LAURANCE: Obviously the Minister is

withdrawing his earlier remarks.Mr Parker: I am not Withdrawing my

remarks. You are not telling the truth.Mr LAURANCE: I am quoting Mr

Kirkwood in April 1987.Several members interjected.Mr LAURANCE: That is a man of vision. It

is unfortunate that he has had to serve undersuch a Minister who can only look over hisshoulder and criticise those who have gone be-fore him. Why can the Minister not be like MrKirkwood and look ahead? I do not need to tellthe Minister for a third time that what he saidtoday is quite wrong.

Mr Parker: What I have said is quite true.Mr LAURANCE: The Minister had better

talk to Mr Kirkwood about that.Mr Burkett: A lot of people in the com-

mission think he is one of the best Ministers wehave ever had.

Mr LAURANCE: There we go! It isinteresting that the company saw fit to send amemo to all its staff after that Channel 9"Sunday" programme to express its disap-poiniment at the Minister's statements.

M r Parker: Ofecourse they are disappointed.Mr LAURANCE: It pointed out that some of

the statements he made in that television re-port were incorrect.

Mr Parker: That is not true.

2824

[Thursday, 18 June 19871 22

Mr LAURANCE: For instance-and I quotefrom the memo to the staff-

It is incorrect to assert that under thetake-or-pay provisions of the contract withthe State Energy Commission of WesternAustralia (SECWA), the taxpayers of West-ern Australia are paying an $80 million ayear subsidy to the Joint Venturers for therest of this decade.

The simple fact is that there is no sub-sidy involved.

Mr Parker: What a lot of nonsense!

Mr LAUJRANCE: The Minister can go onlike that if he wishes, but he is trying to defendthe indefensible. There have been somesubstantial changes over the life of the projectalready. We all understand that. Projects muchsmaller than this have had substantial changesin economic and world conditions during thelives of those projects. This happened duringthe lead-up to this project. Some changes havehad to be made by the consortium, by the Fed-eral Government. and by the State Govern-ment. It is a small price to pay.

In any event, most of those commitmentswhich have had to be given by Federal andState Governments in terms of revenue and soon will, at the end of the day, be shown to havebeen "revenue forgone". The benefits to theState and the national Government itself overthe life of the project are enormous. They willbe enormous, less a little extra which will haveto be given to the project at the beginningwhich was not envisaged in the early stages.

So what? Do we throw the baby out with thebath water? Do we say that because the babymight get wet, we are not to have a bath? Thebenefits are enormous. In order to ensure thething gets going from the domestic to the ex-port phase. Federal and State Governmentswould have to give a bit more away than theyanticipated. It is only revenue forgone out ofthe total amount both Governments will re-ceive at the end of the day.

This Government cannot stand on its hindlegs and say that the Western Australian econ-omy is going better than the economies of mostother States because the North West Shelf proj-ect in tota! is pumping $4 million a day intothis State's economy, and then say the projectshould never have gone ahead in the first placeand the people who let it go ahead made amistake.

Mr Parker: No-one has said that.

Mr Court: You play that game every day.Your Premier does it and that makes it worse.

Mr LAURANCE: It is simply not a credibleposition for the Government to try to uphold.and the Opposition is very critical of the Minis-ter for trying to continue that stance.

I will move on to the terms and conditions ofthis amending Bill. The first amendment seeksto clarify the legal position in relation to thecommission being able to provide expertise toother interested parties, whether in this Stateor, more particularly, in other States and over-seas. I had a briefing from the commission'ssolicitor, and I note that gentleman is in thegallery now. In case he was not here at thecommencement of my remarks when Iindicated to the Minister that I was veryappreciative of his services and of the briefingbeing made available to me, I reiterate thoseremarks now.

From my reading of the Bill and the briefingI have had it seems that the commission doeshave a number of powers in respect of thesematters, but on legal examination there is ap-parently some doubt as to whether it has thepower to sell expertise to other States, particu-larly to bodies that are not Governmentagencies, and to other countries. I understandthat a number of other States are interested intechnology that has been developed within thecommission, as is one other country, which Iunderstand is Malaysia. No doubi there will beothers in the future. That is a great feather inthe cap of the commission and those peoplewithin the commission who have developedpackages that are obviously of great interest toother electricity utilities.

The Opposition has one nagging doubt whena Government agency says it wants to becomemore commercial, and that is that it will begetting into areas and functions that could bet-ter be performed by the private sector, or atleast that it will be in competition with theprivate sector.

Mr Parker: It is not an area where there islikely to be much competition. In Australiathere are not any private electricity utilities andthe Malaysian one you spoke of is very much incooperation with the private sector.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes, I checked that withthe commission and that is pretty welt theanswer I received. However, I want that pointunderstood because it is a philosophical point.By and large we are satisfied with the answerswe have been given.

2825

2826 [ASSEMBLY]

Clause 4 of the Bill seeks to amend section27 of the Act, and clause 5 seeks to insert a newsection 27A which deals with trading outsideWestern Australia. Section 27 of the Act as itstands is a very important section because itdeals with the functions of the commission andits duties. 1 have just checked that section-and it is a lengthy one-and subsection (3) ofthat section already gives the commission theduty on behalf of the Crown-

... to acquire, hold, distribute, export, orotherwise deal in, resources from whichenergy in any form may be derived;

Obviously that is one of the sections that wastoo narrow in its interpretation to satisfactorilydeal with this matter of selling the informationoverseas. I thought the words, ".. export, orotherwise deal in resources from which en-ergy.. .." may have covered it but I am assuredthat doubt has arisen about that.

I am also told that section 89 of the Act as itstands deals with the matter of the commissionentering into arrangements with other bodies.Subsection 89 (3) says-

The Commission may enter into ar-rangements with-

(a) a Minister of State of the Common-wealth. or a Minister of any State ofthe Commonwealth, or any depart-ment of the public service, instru men-tality or authority of the Common-wealth, a State, the Australian CapitalTerritory or the Northern Territory,or any person holding office under anAct, an Act of another State or of theNorthern Territory, or a Common-wealth Act, relevant to energy matters;or

(b) a university or other tertiary insti-tution, or any other body or personhaving relevant ,specialised knowl-edge. experience, or facilities,

That is pretty wide-ranging so that it can dealwith any other Government department in anyother State. and with tertiary institutions, butobviously it does not allow the commission toenter into arrangements with foreign govern-ments and it is apparently because section 89 istoo restrictive that the Minister now seeks toamend the Act in this way.

If we are going to expand the duties of thecommission it seems to me an appropriate timeto look at some of the existing duties of thecommission, and I will take this opportunity to

relate a couple of these to the Minister. Section27 outlines the functions and duties of the com-mission, and subsection (9) says-

(9) The Commission is charged with theduty-

(a) of promoting the safety, health andwelfare of persons engaged in the con-struction, maintenance, repair or useof energy works and apparatus.. .

That is interesting because we have just dealtwith a very significant Bill in this Parliamentconcerning health, safety, and welfare. Mem-bers opposite want to give wide-ranging powersto people, especially those in the union move-ment, in respect of health, safety, and welfare.When we look at the existing legislation cover-ing. the operations of the State Energy Com-mission we see they have that duty.

Mr Parker: With respect to electricalworkers.

Mr LAURANCE: Subsection 27(9) of theAct goes on to say-

(b) of safeguarding operators, users andthe public by ensuring that persons en-gaged in the performance of work on,or the operation of, any apparatus ...

So the commission has many duties in respectof the people who work in the electrical busi-ness, and I remind the Minister that somedoubts were raised about whether the health,safety. and welfare of people engaged in electri-cal undertakings in this State have been prop-erly addressed.

Mr Parker: People have raised doubts, butthe report you are holding says there is no suchdoubt but that those things were wrongly raisedor wrongly based.

Mr LAURANCE: I am ready to enter into afierce argument with the Minister on almostany subject at any time but I do not want tomake this issue a political football, because it isfar more serious than that. The Minister gavewhat I could only regard as a flippant answer amoment ago because a serious reading of thisreport indicates that all is far from well.

Mr Parker: The report indicates that changesshould be made and that the review, which hadnot been undertaken for 40 years. was overdue.It is also true that fundamental questions wereraised by the electrical contractors union andby the family of the young man who was killedwhile working for an electrical contractor, andthat that sont of concern was simply wrong.

2826

[Thursday, I8 June 1987) 82

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister is correct onthe one hand but on the other hand the reportsays that there is a lot of concern in respect of anumber of areas and there were a great manyrecommendations made which should be actedupon.

Mr Parker: Yes there are.Mr LAURANCE: There are people dying in

the interim and the Minister who is responsiblefor the State Energy Commission is chargedwith the responsibility I have outlined to theParliament.

Mr Parker: That report makes exactly thatpoint. There is nothing in the fundamentalstructure or methods of operation which needto be changed. People were saying the structureof, for example, the inspectorate service withinthe SEC, and its role, and the number of peopleit had working for it were partly responsible, byomission or commission, for the death of theyoung man to whom I referred, but it is exactlythe opposite.

Mr LAURANCE: Is the Minister satisfiedthat all the responsibilities I have outlinedunder the SEC Act are being attended to as wellas they possibly could?

Mr Parker: There is always room for im-provement. but they are being attended to verywell and certainly to the satisfaction of peoplewho comprise the review committee handlingthat. There are certain things that can bechanged; it would be stupid to say that it isperfect because it is not;, but it is basicallysound and doing the right things.

Mr LAURANCE: I appreciate what the Min-ister has indicated but I think that there iscause for considerable concern, one of whichrelates to the delay. It was obviously out of asense of urgency that the Minister com-missioned this report to which I refer now-theReview of the Inspection Branch of the StateEnergy Commission of Western Australia andof the Electrical Workers Board and the Electri-cal Contractors Licensing Board. It is avoluminuous document which was presentedto the Minister in October 1985 and as far as Ican see, to the best of my knowledge, there hasnot been one change as a result of therecommendations of this report in almost twoyears. Two years have gone by and nothing hashappened, yet there are recommendationswhich call for action infa number of areas. I donot think that is anywhere near good enough.The Minister is charged with the respons-ibilities that I have just outlined. As we aretalking about the extension of the duties of the

commission in the Act at the moment, I thinkit is appropriate to point out that we are notcarrying out the existing duties anywhere nearas well as we could do.

This is an important matter because youngpeople are being killed in this State at a ratewhich is of great concern. Members shouldk now th at i n the last 10 years 6 5 you ng peopl ehave died from electrical accidents in thisState.

MrT Parker: A lot of those died as a result ofhousehold accidents, not from working in in-dustry.

MrT LAURANCE: Most of them were veryyoung people. That is a tragedy of significantproportions-propo rt ions significant enoughfor th is House to do som eth ing about it rap idlyand not wait for two years, and do nothing'regardless of the recommendations that weremade by the commission and were before theGovernment all that time.

I was shocked 10 find that the report referredto the deaths of 65 young Western Australiansd uri ng that ID0-year pe riod.

MrT Parker: The report does. not say that.None of the recom men dat ions in the report-apart from general improvements that arealways in any system that operates-says thatthose deaths are to do with deficiencies in theexisting system. It is quite the reverse; itspecifically rejects criticism made of theexisting system, for example by the MTU andthe family of the man who died.

Mr LAURANCE: Nothing the Minister hassaid indicates to me that he is doing his job inrespect of this matter. Serious concerns havebeen expressed about the efficacy of the inspec-tonial system at the moment, and the Ministeris now bri ngi ng forwa rd proposalIs wh ich woulIdchange that system. I am not saying I disagreewith the thrust of the proposals because I donot;, however he is looking to implement a vol-untary system. He has made public the fact thata number of people have come to him andindicated they are prepared to be listed amonga group of people who are prepared to be partof a pilot scheme to see whether this voluntaryscheme would work.

I asked the Minister a question last nightabout this matter-that is, I asked him whetherhe would provide a list of 20 names of elect ri-cal contractors who volunteered for randomtesting of new electrical installations. That wasa pretty straightforward question; it was madepublic that there are 20 contractors who have

2827

2828 ASSEM BLY]

been listed in this way. I received the simplest.mast direct answer I have ever received to aparliamentary question in 13 years-"No".

Mr H-odge: it was very clear and concise.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes, but why would I re-ceive an answer like that? What good reason isthere for the Minister not to make that infor-mation available?

Mr Parker: I'll tell you a very good reason:The Electrical Contractors Association and itsexecutive officer, Mr Gus Ferguson, made itvery clear -to me that they disagreed with thisand will campaign against it and try toundermine the system and destroy it.

Mr LAURANCE: That is a totally differentpoint from the one on which I have beenrequesting information. It does not make anydifference to the publication or the list.

Mr Parker: Yes it does, because I do notwant Mr Ferguson to have that list.

Mr LAURANCE: But he is the Secretary ofthe Electrical Contractors Association.

Mr Parker: And he has made it very clearthat he will do everything within his power todisrupt the programme.

Mr LAURANCE: So the Minister is going torun a secret campaign-

Mr Parker:, It is not a question of my runninga secret campaign:, I just do not want him tolearn the names of those people. They do notwant him to have their names because two orthree of them, who he assumed were on the list.were approached by the association and askedto desist from cooperating and participating.As I said in answer to the member for EastMelville when he asked me a question on thissubject, it is amazing how all of the sorts ofbodies which are always calling for smallergovernment and deregulation say, "No, do itsomewhere else" when one tries to achieve thatin a way which many people regard as sensible.That report, for example, recommends this.

Mr LAURANCE: I compliment the Ministeron this, but why does he have to keep thissecret? Who will be involved?

Mr Parker: I will tell you eventually, when itis complete.

Mr LAURANCE: This is an amazing set ofcircumstances, about which I am very con-cerned.

Mr Parker: I am not obliged to give you thatinformation.

Mr LAURANCE: No. but it is remarkablethat the Minister has seen fit not to give it. TheMinister can give any answer he likes; equally,I am entitled to put any construction I like onhis answer.

It does not change Ihe facts: A report hasbeen before the Minister since October 1984which recommends substantial changes toexisting practices, which are designed to ensuresafety for young people in the electrical indus-try;, 65. mostly young, people have died in thelast 10 years in this State as a result of electricalaccidents, there is a change to the system ofinspection being promoted by this Govern-ment; the proposed system involves a numberof electrical contractors a-nd the Minister wantsto keep the people involved in this new systemsecret. I think that all is not right.

I will be looking to him to startimplementing some of the recommendations ofthat report and to do whatever is necessary toensure the best safety standards for any youngperson who desires to take up that occupation.Look at the hypocrisy of it! Here is the Ministerstonewalling on a safety issue-

Mr Parker: I am not stonewalling.

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister is. He isstonewalling when he is part of a Governmentwhich has brought here major legislation abouthealth, safety, and welfare. The legislationspells out the duties the Minister has but whichhe will not properly accept. The Ministershould have a good look at what he is doingand at how it conflicts with the very thing theGovernment has been on about in recent times.

That is enough about this change to the du-ties. We are not opposed to adding new section27A which extends the duties of the com-mission.

The next proposed section deals with an ad-ministrative matter, and I will not dwell on it.It allows the commission to approve contractsand arrangements entered into for finances upto $2 million without the Governor's approval.At the moment his approval must be sought forthe execution of a financial arrangement in ex-cess of $1 million. That figure is being raised to$2 million, and the commission will be able todeal in single contracts up to that figure. Forcontracts in excess of that the commission willrequire the Governor's approval, and thatbrings it into line with other Governmentinstrumentalities. We have no quarrel withthat.

2828

[Thursday, 18iJune 19871 22

The next matter relates to legal ownership ofelectrical works and other things related to elec-tricity undertakings, It amazes me that thismatter can have arisen because I would havethought the commission had power to deal withall the facilities it has under its control.

Mr Parker It thought that it did have thatpower. People review these things from time totime as cases or potential cases came up.

Mr LAURANCE: Apparently a legal doubthas arisen as to the commission's power to dealwith electrical undertakings and associatedworks which were not built or put in place bythe commission, but were acquired. There aremany of these in this State, particularly elec-tricity undertakings previously operated by lo-cal authorities. We are aware that over a longperiod of years the State Government hasgradually acquired those undertakings from thelocal authorities either directly by purchase atth ,e time, or by first leasing the equipment andpurchasing it later. Apparently there is a legaldoubt as to the commission's ability to havefull control over and access to these works andfacilities which it acquired from another body.We support the clearing-up of this particularmatter.

There are only two other minor matters dealtwith by the Bill, and I understand that theyresult from problems experienced by the com-mission in dealing with legal cases. The firstrelates to expenses incurred in bringing pros-ecutions under other pieces of legislationadministered by the SEC-for example, theElectricity Act or the Gas Standards Act. Ap-parently in some cases expenses could not beawarded against the other party, and this Billwill clear up that doubt.

Finally I turn to a matter with which theMinister may be able to assist me because itseems to me to be a point of confusion. Theamendment relates to the making of regu-lations exempting the commission's energysupply contracts and other matters from theprovisions of the Commonwealth Trade Prac-tices Act 1974. 1 understand there is someproblem in relation to section 5 1(1) of that Act.It appears the commission is not subject to theTrade Practices Act at the moment. Presum-ably there is some exemption for Governmentinstrumentalities, and some doubt has beenthrown on the legality of the commission'sexemption. I wonder it' the Minister can con-firm that.

Mr Parker: I will deal with that in my reply,but in general terms, yes.

Mr LAURANCE: It is a technical point, andwe are not going to make a song and danceabout it but I wondered why this major publicutility should be exempt from the provisions ofthe Commonwealth Act. I presume it has thatright, but the Bill makes it clear that thatapplies in all circumstances. I would appreciatesome further explanation for the Minister'sproceeding in that manner.

The Opposition supports the legislation.

MR COURT (Nedlands) [3.35 pmn]: I want todeal with two areas in this legislation, and per-haps the Minister will be able to give me someanswers. I would like to reinforce the com-ments made by the Deputy Leader of the Op-position in relation to the Government's hand-ling of the North West Shelf project.

One part of this legislation allows the SEC toprovide or sell expertise to non-Governmentbodies within Australia and overseas. Will theMinister explain more about the type of exper-tise or information it is considering selling toother people? Is the Government consideringother overseas projects, and what work is beingcarried out in Malaysia and India, asmentioned in the Minister's second readingspeech? Can he explain those activities and thesorts of problems that have arisen?

The second area I want to cover relates to theconditions when the SEC takes over the man-agement of an energy utility from local govern-ment or other authorities. I want to ask somequestions in relation to Fremantle Gas andCoke Co Ltd and the provision of electricity tosome Aboriginal communities in theKimberley.

On the question of the North West Shelfproject, I take this opportunity to express myconcern about what I consider to be an appal-ling and childish performance not only by theMinister, but also the Premier, in relation tothis project. I know the Minister has a lot onhis plate and has to deal with a lot of people,but he has become too cocky over this import-ant project. There is still a lot to be done toensure the State gains the full benefit of thislong-term project.

The Minister and the Premier are takingevery possible opportunity to rubbish the pre-vious Liberal Government for the decisions itmade regarding this project. I am not sensitiveabout this issue because I happen to have arelative and friends who are parliamentary col-leagues and who were involved in the project. Ido not mind saying that Ilam very proud of the

2829

2830 [ASSEM BLY]j

fact that the former Liberal Government did avery creditable job in putting together thismassive project.

I understand that with the passage of timethings change. This Government has been inoffice for 41/ years and when I saw the-Sunday" programme in which it tried to painta picture of a disastrous project, 1 was veryconcerned.

In the lass week of this Parliament we haveheard the Minister and the Premier say, duringquestion time, that the previous LiberalGovernment put together a disastrous project.The Minister also said that he was only talkingabout the domestic stage of the project.

The public understand that there is a NorthWest Shelf project. We all understand thatthere are different phases and different parts tothat project. When the project was puttogether, it was important that there be a domn-estic stage before it moved into the largerstages. A project of this size involves nego-tiations with a number of different Ministersover many years. The Minister said that if hehad negotiated this project in its initial stageshe would have done it differently. I supposethat if we all had the advantage of hindsight wewould have donc a lot of things differently. Itappears that the previous Government is con-tinually knocked, and that action is quite stu-pid.

The Government and this Minister particu-larly face many challenges and they have toperform. When this Government came intooffice it was made aware of the gas commit-ments relating to the domestic part of the proj-ect and of the aim of the project as far as theexport side of it is concerned.

Four and a half years ago the Governmentsaid it was a fantastic project. It was aware ofthe commitments and it knew what had to bedone. However. 4 / years'later we have heardthe Premier and the Minister try to ridicule theproject in this House and it does the State a lotof harm.

Mr D. L. Smith: The Government is not try-ing to ridicule the project: it is critical aboutthe organisation of the project by the previousGovernment.

Mr COURT: Members of the Governimentdo not mind taking the credit for the develop-ment half of the day while knocking it the otherhalf. The Government should be saying, "Wehave a challenge of selling so much gas", and itshould do something about selling it.

We have heard the Government speak aboutproposed project after proposed project, butnothing has come to fruition. I remember thePrime Minister, prior to the last State election,visiting the south west and promising all sortsof things. I think that on that occasion heannounced, for the third time, that a smelterwould be established in Collie.

Mr Blaikie: Not only that, all theschoolchildren were on the streets to hear thePrime Minister make that announcement. Thenext day, the State Government changed itsmind.

Mr COURT: The Government has a chal-lenge to sell the gas, and I do not believe it hasdone anything about it.

The North West Shelf project has been de-scri bed by the Labor Ponrty as be ing eq ual to t heSnowy Mountains project and is the largest en-ergy project in the world. As I mentioned in adebate in this House last night, when onetravels through Rockingham, Kwinana,Geraldton, and Karratha and realises that anumber of industries in those areas are directlyrelated to the North West Shelf project, one cansee the tremendous effect that it is having notonly on the big operators, but also on smallbusiness.

The Minister is trying to say that the part ofthe project he is most critical of is the domesticside of it.

Mr Parker: I did not say that. I said I amcritical of two specific decisions that weremade, both without the benefit of advice fromthe SEC and from areas you would expect sup-port. The first was to increase the amount ofgas from 250 million cubic metres to 300million cubic metres and the second was totake on the marketing of Pilbara gas.

Mr COURT: The point I made was thatwhen this was negotiated some years ago itinvolved a whole series of different commit-ments on both sides of the fence. Of coursethere will be problems and there is a need torenegotiate these decisions. When this Govern-ment came into office it had a challenge toaccept extra gas and it accepted it, but it is sadchat 4'/2 years later the Minister is referring to acouple of decisions made by the previousGovernment which he thought were not correctdecisions.

Can the Minister recall Rex Connor wantingall the gas to be used as domestic gas.

Mr H-assell: He wanted a pipeline acrossAustralia to make sure that Perth did not getany of it.

2830

[Thursday, 18 June 1987])83

Mr COURT: It was 15 years ago that RexConnor was playing his role.

Mr Laurance: You cannot take any one ofthose decisions in isolation. You may changethem marginally. There was decision after de-cision for years.

Mr Parker: There was a lot of work done atthe time to assess what the State needed andwhat it could take. I do not dispute that. I havesaid many times that I am not a critic of thedecision to build a pipeline. It will pay for it-self. As far as the 250 million cubic metres ofsouth west gas is concerned, a lot of work wasdone and the contract was for more than weneeded. We could have sorted that out. Thetwo decisions are the ones I spoke of earlierand that is where the problems arise.

Mr Laurance: We are saying that there wasgood reason for those decisions to be taken.

Mr Parker: There were good reasons not totake those decisions.

Mr Laurance: You have spent a lot of timesaying that they were wrong.

Mr COURT: The Deputy Leader of the Op-position has made a good point; that is, we canregard it as a problem, but others could regardit as an opportunity.

Mr Parker: We have seen it as an oppor-tunity and we have successfully takenopportunities.

Mr COURT: I realise the Government hashad to sell the gas, but at the same time theGovernment has signed contracts for the pur-chase of coal. I have heard explanations timeand time again about how the Government isjustifying the need to sign those contracts.

Mr Parker: You are wrong. There are twocoal contracts. The first is with Griffin and itwas in 1978. It was for 2.1 million tonnes. Wehave renegotiated that and it is now 1.95million tonnes. The second contract was actu-ally signed in 1985-it was signed by thisGovernment-and it is for coal that we takefrom Western Collieries. The amount involvedis one million tonnes. The heads of agreement.signed by Mr Peter Jones, committed himFirmly to take it back.

Mr COU RT: Who signed the agreement?Mr Parker: It was based on the heads of

agreement entered into by Peter Jones andWestern Collieries, and that was in 1982 or1983.

Mr COURT: Is the Minister saying that hehad no option but to sign that agreement in1985?

Mr Parker: No, l am not saying that. I wouldnot go that far. We could probably have got outof it to some degree, but there may have beensame question of damages.

Mr COURT: The situation is that there isplenty of energy to sell, and we have to get onwith thejob of selling it.

Mr Parker: We are.Mr COURT: My major concern is the lack of

investor confidence which will result if we con-tinue along this line of abusing people. I amgrateful for what happened in the past. Weseem to have been singled out by this Govern-men t.

Mr Parker: I have criticised decisions andpolicies, but can you give me one instancewhere I have critisied an individual, on a per-sonal basis?

Mr COURT: I hear the Minister have a goevery day at former members of this House.

Mr Parker: At decisions and policies, yes, butnot at people on a personal basis.

Mr COURT: That is a fine distinction.When the Minister carried out these nego-

tiations between the State and Federal Govern-ments and the company, as I understand it theyincluded what they call a lifeboat clause. TheGovernment had the option to negotiate a bet-ter arrangement than it has done. Here we aretalking about negotiations. That lifeboat clauseis in clause 10 of the gas project contract andprovides that gas must be commerciallymarketed in a mixed energy economy. At thattime the Government had the ability to nego-tiate a different type of solution to the problembeing faced at that time. I would be interestedin the Minister's comments on that.

I want now to deal with the SEC's takingover a utility which belongs to a local govern-ment or other authority. These changes are be-ing brought about because of difficulties beingexperienced with the purchase of the FremantleGas and Coke Company Ltd.

Mr Parker: The Fremantle Gas and CokeCompany easements are affected by this clause,but the principal thing which led to this clausecoming under review was the takeover by theState of the Kalgoorlie electricity undertaking.What normally happens is that the local auth-ority-not just in Kalgoorlie, but that is themain one-used to run the utility itself. Thenperhaps the present Opposition or the TonkinGovernment introduced in country towns anassistance scheme which resulted in a wholerange of these things being managed by the

2831

2832 [ASSEM BLY]

SEC. When we connected up to the SEC inKalgoorlie in 1984 or 1985, problems becameapparent when we wanted to do somethingwith some land in Kalgoorlie. The same thingmay arise with Fremantle Gas and CokeCompany Ltd, but that is not the principalreason leading to the drafting of this clause.

Mr COURT: When the Government tookover Fremantle Gas and Coke Company, 1asked a question about maintenance costsalready spent on that project. I do not have theanswer in front of me, but it would appear thatthere was a large budget for the network for thenext financial year. The Minister might bc ableto comment on whether the system or the net-work was in as good a condition as the Govern-ment thought when it purchased the company.Is the amount budgeted for maintenance ex-penditure abnormally high?

Mr Parker: I am not sure if it was in answerto one of your questions. but in answer to somequestions, I made the point that the amountdiscounted in the financial year for theFremantle area is, if anything, in terms of num-bers of customers, slightly less than if it weredone on that basis.

Mr COU RT: Some of the large gas users whowere supplied by Fremantle Gas have ap-proached us and they are not very happy withthe large increases in their gas prices. I quotedin this House ealier this year examples of largeincreases which have occurred. The manufac-turing industries are Struggling, particularlyagainst imports and the like, and it does nothelp them when they are faced with such largeincreases in one year, just because this Govern-ment has decided to take over what was pre-viously a private gas utility.

In the Kimberley area a number of com-munities are now being serviced with power.They have automatic power stations which arequite an elaborate operation.

Mr Parker: They are semi-automatic.Mr COURT: They call them automatic, but

there is no such thing as a fully-automatic ma-chine. I would like the Minister to explainwhether they are provided by the State.whether they are maintained by the SEC. andon what land they are situated. We are talkingabout local title with casements and the likewhere the power station is established.

Mr Parker: I do not have the precise infor-mation. If you like I will get it and send it toyou. In general terms, in the case of Aboriginalcommunities, or even an Aboriginal com-munity in a town like Turkey Creek, the

stations are owned by the community. Thecost, in general terms, is met by the FederalDepartment of Aboriginal Affairs. The allo-cation comes from the DAA through the SECto purchase and install a machine, so we areacting as the agent for the DAA because of ourexpertise and so that the department need nothire electricians. Maintenance is undertaken bythe SEC, partly by training local Aborigines todo some of the maintenance involved, and thatis all paid for by the DAA, We subsidise theelectricity to the same extent as we subsidiseother towns, but to no greater extent.

Mr COURT: I have inspected the powerstation at Turkey Creek. 1 think a part-timeperson did the basic maintenance, oil changesand so on.

Mr Parker: He would have been an Aborigi-nal. There is a depot in Broome for all thesethings.

Mr COURT: Does the Minister know howmany power stations have been put in?

Mr Parker: It would be getting on Car adozen. I will give you the precise information.

Mr COURT: The Minister has answeredmost of the queries I have in relation to theseareas.

The Opposition understands that theGovernment has a challenge to take advantageof the energy which is readily available in thisState, and we will always be assisting to encour-age those industries which will use our surplusenergy.

It is no skin off the Opposition's nose if theMinister or the Premier wants to have a go atus about the details of that project, but I be-lieve it is very important for this State that weare not seen on a national television pro-gram me. for example, airing those sorts of dis-agreements about how certain contracts werenegotiated many years ago when there aremany positive sides to the project. If there areproblems that must be renegotiated or fine-tuned; and there will be problems over theyears, so let us solve those problems. It is wrongfor the Premier to carry on in this House everyweek about the terrible thing he has been leftwith, He cannot take that approach if, when heis at a public meeting, he says that it is a fantas-tic project which pumps $4 million a day intothe State's economy. Thai does not ring true.The Premier might be trying to win pointsagainst the Opposition but in the broader com-munity it does no good at all.

2832

(Thursday, IS June 19871 23

MR HASSELL (Cotteslue) [4.01 pmj: I want10 take the opportunity presented by this de-bate to raise some issues with the Ministerabout the overall state of the State EnergyCommission.

I posed a series of questions to the Ministerin the last couple of weeks-questions 1209 to1215 inclusive and 1266 to 1268 inclusive-andI received some startling and very frank answersfrom the Minister to those questions. I thank theMinister for the way in which he answered them;nevertheless they have raised in my mind and inthe minds of other people who have shown an in-terest in that information some quite significantquestions about the financial future of the StateEnergy Commission and its capacity to serve theState in the future.

Let me first summarise those matters thatwere revealed by the Minister's answers tothose questions.

First, they showed that at 29 May 1987 theState Energy Commission's indebtedness wasS$3.448 billion, and that 39.72 per cent of thatindebtedness was foreign exchange debt;, thatis, roughly 40 per cent is owed overseas. TheMinister informed the House through theanswer to the question that the average interestrates were 11.88 per cent for the Australiandebt and 7.66 per cent for the foreign debt.Looking at the SEC's annual report and makingsome calculations, it seems as though the SEC'sinterest bill in the forthcoming financial yearwill be in the region of $350 million, give ortake a few million for the roughness of thecalculations.

Mr Parker: It will be over $400 million.

Mr HASSELL: I thank the Minister for that;,I was just trying to make an estimate. That, ofcourse, represents a simply huge increase in thelast couple of years.

Secondly, the answers to the questionsrevealed that the Collie coal stockpile hadgrown from 31 July 1986, when it was under amillion tonnes at 945 882 tonnes, to 31 May1987. when it was 1 503 122 tonnes. That is avery big increase, even taking into account theMinister's comments yesterday about the nor-mal stockpile that is retained for SEC require-ments. I understand that the value of that coalis some $30 to $40 per tonne, so we are talkingabout a stockpile worth somewhere in thevicinity of $60 million.

Thirdly, the answers to the questionsrevealed that the SEC has contracted to pur-chase an average 250 880 tonnes of coal per

month and that over the first 11I months of1986-87 the SEC burnt an average of 183 467tonnes of coal per month. So for that period itwas purchasing 137 per cent of its require-ments.

Fourth ly, the answers to the questions revealthat the reserve stockpile is costing $1 millionto maintain this financial year, and that purelyin maintenance of the stockpile 16 to 22 peopleare engaged.

Mr Parker: You would need to understandthat stockpiling coal is not simply a matter ofputting it in a heap and leaving it there likeiron ore. You must continually compact it andstop it mov ing arou nd, water i t, and so on.

Mr HASSELL: Still, $1 million is a signifi-cant cost. We have a stockpile of coal worth$60 million and this huge debt to which I have-referred.

Fifthly, the answers reveal that despite theenormity of our gas surplus and supplies,Alcoa, one of the SEC's major customers forgas, was forced to purchase Woodada gas forthe period 8 to 10 May when North West Shelfgas supplies were short because of mainten-ance. I do not know whether it was routinemaintenance or maintenance problems andperhaps the Minister could comment on that,but it seems an extraordinary situation that theSEC is so oversupplied with gas, as the furtherfigures I will quote will reveal, yet sends one ofits principal customers to get gas from some-body else for a few days.

Sixthly, the answers to the questions revealthat in the I I months to 31 May 1987 the SECused 77.5 per cent of the North West Shelf gasfor which it is required to pay. It is importantto understand that every time the SEC usedthree units of gas it paid for four, Of course,that contributes very materially to the cashflow problems that the State Energy Com-mission has. It is also important to understandin that context, and in the context of the gen-eral debate that has taken place so far and thecomments of the member for Ned lands, thatthe gas that has been paid for will remain avail-able and that at a future time when it isrequired it will be there in Ihe ground and canbe drawn on and used by the SEC and sold inthe future, no doubt at a higher price, withoutany further payment being made for that gas.

Seventhly, the answers to the questionsrevealed that the State Energy Commissionreported deferred unrealised foreign exchangelosses of $457.231I million in its balance sheetto 30 June 1986.

2833

2834 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr Parker You are meant to understandthat a substantial proportion of thai-about 30or 40 per cent-is actually attributable toAlcoa.

Mr HASSELL: I have been looking at thenotes to the accounts. It is still a large sum, andis still a liability of the SEC.

Mr Parker: It is not an insubstantial amountof money, but that liability is in turn a liabilityto the SEC of Alcoa's. I do not say that tominimise the issue but you must understandthat, because Alcoa is in effect underwriting asubstantial proportion of the pipeline contract.That is how this came about.

Mr HASSELL: Note 1.5 to the accounts ofthe annual report in the State Energy Com-mission 1986 accounts indicates the manner inwhich those foreign exchange transactions havebeen dealt with, and that is of interest to some-one who is making a detailed study.

Mr Parker It is very important because weare dealing with them in a prudent way except-ing that the loss will remain there forever, eventhough it may not do that because the currencymight change; and then to amortise it we havea sinking fund to deal with it at the time theloans come up for repayment.

Mr HASSELL: Eighthly. the answers to thequestions reveal that quite a significant disputewith Fluor/Maunsell in relation to the StateEnergy Commission's communications systemhas not been resolved and that an interimsystem is being used. That dispute has beengoing on for some time and involves millionsof dollars. It particularly involves a continuingcost to the SEC because of the expectation thatits budgeted amount for the operating system islikely. in the final resolution of the matter, tobe significantly exceeded on a continuingannual basis.

When we start to look at those sorts of fig-urn we have to be concerned about the overallstate of the SEC. One has to be concernedabout the situation in which a State instrumen-tality has a total indebtedness that significantlyexceeds the total of the CRF Budget of theState for a year.

Questions necessarily arise about the futureand what will happen to the SEC and powercharges. Much of the discussion has been aboutcontracts that were made in the past. I agreedebate has necessarily dragged on by the way inwhich the Government has approached thematter in trying to blame its predecessors forthe coal contracts it entered into in I1985. I amasking the Min ister to look at the situation as it

is today and step back from his immediate ad-visers at the SEC and say in a very objective,searching and incisive way. "What is thefinancial health of the SEC and what does thefuture hold?"

It is important to ask those questions and getanswers to them. As we have already heard, thesuggestion has been made that the problems ofthe SEC will be solved if we sell more gas or weget more industry which will absorb the excess.However, we will have a major problem inattracting more industry because of the currentcost of electricity. I wish to refer to some re-search figures that have been extracted by theOpposition research officer. They are mainlytaken from the Victorian State Energy Com-mission report of March 1987. It shows thatdomestic electricity costs are higher in WesternAustralia than in other States. For every $ 100we spend in Perth on electricity, residents ofMelbourne pay $75; Adelaide. $77; Brisbane,$80;, Sydney, $63; and Hobart, $75. Memberswill see from those figures that if we live inPerth and pay $100 for electricity the nexthighest payment is 20 per cent less, in Brisbaneat a cost of $80. If one lives in the most popu-lous city. Sydney, one would pay only $63. Thedifference is substantial. Adelaide. which isgenerally recognised as a city which is flounder-ing in a sense relative to Western Australia-Ishould not say floundering, but South Australiadoes not have the future prospects WesternAustralia has in terms of economic potential-would pay $77 for electricity that costs us $ 100.

Let us look at the cost of industrial elec-tricity. These figures are equally frightening. Ifin Western Australia we pay $1 000 for indus-trial electricity, Melbourne pays $568,Adelaide pays $795, Brisbane pays $648.Sydney pays $784, and Hobart pays $585. Thenearest amount to the Perth figure is that ofAdelaide, at a cost of $795.

Mr Parker: You are excluding the NorthernTerritory.

Mr HASSELL: The figures I have do notinclude the Northern Territory, but I am notexcluding it.

Mr Parker Given that you advised us thatthe figures were taken out by the Oppositionresearch officer, I am not surprised. In fact, thefigures would show in each case that the North-ern Territory has substantially higher chargesthan Western Australia.

Mr H-ASSELL: It is clearly not a very rel-evant comparison.

2834

[Thursday. 18 June 1987] 83

Mr Parker: It would depend on what figuresyou took in Queensland and which parts ofQueensland you went to. Even in south eastQueensland you will Aind that the figures arenot that different: but if you went to the north-ern pants of Queensland the costs would besubstantially more because the QueenslandGovernment, despite the political rhetoric ofits Premier, does not subsidise country con-sumers in the way we do.

Mr HASSELL: That may be. but I have madea capital city to capital city comparison in theStates.

Mr Parker: It is true of the consumers inthose capital cities but it is not true of thewhole picture.

Mr HASSELL: It is not the whole picture.There is always another side. I could have in-cluded Canberra, Woolongong and all sorts ofplaces. The Minister may be right aboutQueensland having different rates in differentareas.

The Minister must acknowledge that in thismajor capital city centre we have far and awaythe highest power charges in the country. Thepoint l am making is twofold: Firstly, given thefinancial situation of the SEC. it seems morelikely that it will get relatively worse ratherthan better. The other point I make is that thepromoted solution is for us to be selling moregas and electricity by getting more business. Itwill be harder to find that solution because ourpower charges are so much greater. We arc in abind because not only is it a bad situation butalso it is a harder situation io get out of becausewe are discouraging the very thing we need toget out of it; namely, new industries.

Mr Parker: Except that in the case ofcompanies for which energy is a very importantfactor in their investment decisions, we are i n aposition to supply them with very competitivepower charges.

Mr HASSELL: Under contract. The point isthat with some industries power is an insignifi-cant factor, but with most large industries thecost of energy is a very significant factor.

The second paint is that)I am sure the Minis-ter will understand-having in Opposition ar-gued so vigorously about cost subsidisation andsecret deals as he used to all the time at greatlength-that if we start trying to solve ourproblem by giving new industries special powerdeals, we will reach a point when it becomes acase of providing further cost subsidisation bythe consumers to that industry.

Mr Parker: But often it is a question of givinga concessional rate at the start, and given thatwe have substantial surplus capacity, no sub-sidy is involved.

Mr HASSELL: I understand that; that isgood business. However. my point, which Imake very seriously, is that in the political con-text and the political debate that has beentaking place in recent times, we are perhapsconcentrating too much on the past and notlooking to the future; we are not being preparedto stand back and say that regardless of how wegot to the present point where we are $3.5million in debt and we have a huge stockpileand a lack of usage of the gas available, the factis that that is the situation in which we findourselves. We now have a body which is themost important Government instrumentalityin this State in terms of the State's future. Weshould be asking ourselves: Should we not begetting some outside independent internationalpeople who are suitably qualified to look at theSEC and consider what it is doing and whatshould be done?

Mr Parker: Have you not been looking at thequiet revolution that has been taking place inthe top levels of the SEC in the last couple ofmonths?.

Mr HASSELL: I know what the Minister istalking about, but I am not talking about whatis happening in the commission. We needpeople to come in who have no vested interestin and no ties with this body, people suitablyqualified like those who used to advise us andthe lenders about the financial arrangementsfor the gas contracts, people who were able toproject best scenarios and worst scenarios andpresent them to our Cabinet for consideration.

Mr Parker: Hopefully they would do it some-what better than they did.

Mr HASSELL: That remark was out of place.I put it to Ihe Minister seriously that thereneeds to be this independent look at the SECby people who really are independent and withabsolutely no interests in this body. I am nottalking about a firm like Price Waterhouse, nomatter how good that firm is, accepting that itdoes have international connections and hasproduced some fine reports.

I am talking about suitably qualified people,totally independent, who could come in andsay perhaps, "if you go on the way you arc youwill reach this or that stage in 10 or I5 years. Ifyou take this kind of incisive action yourposition will be improved." They might applysome lateral thinking that today we would re-

2835

2836 [ASSEM BLY]

gard as extraordinary:. they might say we wouldbe better off doing certain things with OUr gaSthat we had not thought of rather than continueto leave it in the ground even though it will beavailable to us down the track.

The SEC is the State's largest instrumentalityand its operations are absolutely critical to thefuture of the State. We need to know that wecan have total confidence in it. If tough de-cisions need to be made they ought to be facedup to sooner rather than later. Everyone whohas had anything to do with business knowsthat a business that is financially sick willalmost invariably wait until the disease is fatalbefore it does anything about it. It is unthink-able that the SEC could fail commercially. Itcan fail, but it cannot be allowed to collapsebecause it is a State instrumentality and it pro-vides an essential service. I hasten to say that Iam not saying it is on the brink of collapse.

We need a vigorous external examinationand review of the SEC to reassure the people ofthe State and to have it put it on record for thesake of the Government that this necessaryexamination has been carried out. The Minis-ter needs to be advised by someone other thanan SEC commissioner; he needs to be advisedby someone who is not tied up with the com-mission and who would be capable of lookingat its operations with an external perspective.

It is time we recognised that we have reacheda position of' settlement: the projects are overand things are in place. However, problems arethere so let us have them looked at and seewhere the future takes us. That is my plea tothe Minister. it is in the nature of a submissionto him that he really ought to be prepared toestablish an outside examination of' the SECrather than 10 brush aside the suggestionlightly.

MR COWAN (Merredin-Leader of theNational Party) [4.28 pm]: MrT DeputySpeaker-

Mr Bryce: The supporter of Joh!Mr COWAN: Hear, hear!Mr Parker: And of Ian Sinclair.Mr COWAN: No, no; definitely not. I am

very much a supporter of the WesternAustralian National Pafly-

I will not canvass the matters raised by pre-vious speakers in relation to whether we did ordid not make correct decisionE in the past whenpurchasing primary energy resources or how weshould now utilise those resources. I aminterested in tie five different aspects of this

Bill and 1 will go through them in the orderthey appear in the Minister's second readingspeech.

Firstly, the Bill is designed to ensure that theState Energy Commission has legal authority tobe able to sell its expertise. That authority ap-pears to be divided into two categories, and thefirst relates to the provision of assistance to lessdeveloped countries in relation to energy re-sources and the second relates to what happensdomestically.

What is the SEC's involvement in countriessuch as India and Malaysia? Is SEC staffseconded to those countries or is some contrac-tual agreement in place to supply staff to estab-i sh t he i nfrastructu re of a power plIantI?

Similarly there have been moves in this Stateto transfer some of the responsibilities inalternative energy resources research from theSEC to Murdoch University. How will this pro-vision affect that? I know that separate legis-lation deals with that, but I would like to knowwhether this also relates to it.

M r Parker: I t has noth ing to do with iLt

Mr COWAN: I thank the MinisterI think it is very important that a utility such

as the State Energy Commission has an exten-sive involvement with those bodies, whetherthey be academic bodies or private companies,because of the SEC's position as a monopolisticsupplier of electrical energy and gas to thepeople of Western Australia. The commissionwould have much to contribute to those bodieswhich are involved in research and develop-ment of new techniques in the application ofenergy and energy resources.

A very simple matter and one that theNational Party supports is the extension of theability of the SEC to enter into contracts with afinancial limit of $2 million. However, I amconcerned that the amendment to section 43 ofthe principal Act which more clearly, as Iunderstand it, defines the security of tenurethat the SEC has over the reticulation systemsit has purchased, does not clear up some of theresponsibilities of various bodies in relation topowerlines and easements under the control ofor which were established by the SEC.

The Muja-Kalgoorlie powerline. when it wasconstructed through the agricultural region-agreat part of it went through the Merredin elec-torate-was constructed with very little disrup-tion to or complaints from landowners. Never-theless, a number of problems were created asis natural with a project as large as that.

2836

[Thursday, l8 June 1987] 83

Concern was expressed by some landownersthat the SEC. in installing that very high volt-age powerline through private property, wastaking such an extensive easement. I would liketo know whether, with this Bill strengtheningthe powers of the commission, the commissionis likely to exercise those powers indetermining how farmers will use the landcontained within the easement. I know thatonce a powerline is established, rules have to beobserved in relation to the moving of machin-ery, and the planting of trees etc. within thelimits of the powerline. l am aware that the useof the land reverts to the farmer after the linehas been established, and there is very littledisruption to his operation. I am interested toknow, though, whether there is any anticipatedchange in the way that now operates. Theagreement between the SEC and the land-owners appears to have been successful. Whilethere was disruption to farm operations duringthe construction stage, it is now rare to seemaintenance officers travelling along the lineand even rarer still to see landownersprevented from using the land as they wish. Iam interested to know how land containedwithin those easements is likely to be affectedand how landowners are likely to have theiroperations affected by any change in the legis-lation. I hope the Minister will say there will beno change.

Mr Parker: I will say that. I will elaborate alittle later.

Mr COWAN: The other two matters I wishto raise relate to the power of the court to grantthe State Energy Commission expenses incurredin bringing prosecutions. Does that provisionexist in legislation relating to other statutoryauthorities or does this legislation set aprecedent?

The final provision in this Bill exempts theSEC from the provisions of the Trade PracticesAct. I thought this provision would have beenput in place some time ago. Once a Govern-ment creates a monopoly, it does not wantother Government departments investigatingthose monopolistic powers.

Mr Parker: Especially a Federal Governmentdepartment.

Mr COWAN: Especially after I I July whenthat Government will probablybe hostile to thisGovernment.

The National Party supports the legislation.

MR PARKER (Fremantle-Minister forMinerals and Energy) [4.37 pmj]: I thank themembers who contributed to the debate andthe Opposition parties for their support of thelegislation.

A number of members raised many ques-tions, some directly related to the Bill, andsome more generally related to the issue of en-ergy supply and energy issues in WesternAustralia. I replied to many of those commentsby interjections.

The first point with which I wish to deal isthe North West Shelf project. That project isbeing constructed in two stages. The first stagewas to obtain domestic gas and the secondstage, which commenced in 0985, will supplyliquefied natural gas. There is no reason what-soever for one being connected to the other.Whether one is or not will be a questio 3feconomics, commercial considerations, -meavailability of gas, contracts, and so on. If weasked the joint venturers about it, they wouldsay that the real money is in the LNG project.That is the major project for them over theyears and that is what they wanted. Howeverthe State decided it wanted access to domesticgas and I do not quarrel with that. I have said,not only by way of interjection, but also on anumber of occasions, that the studies we havedone show conclusively that even with theselowish levels of gas demand that we are using atthe moment and taking into account projectedincreases over its lifetime, the pipeline pays foritself, contrary to the views of Mr Stone, theformer secretary of the Federal Treasury De-partment. He said that the pipeline project wasa "grasshopper project"-it would never payfor itself.

I am not critical of the pipeline project andnever have been. It has created substantial debtfor the commission. It is a very lumpy projectin capital terms, which creates problems for us.I have been criticised but I do not want to dwellon this because that is not the sort of thing todwell on. I do believe in looking to the future.If!I had a Hansard reporter following me andcovering every movement it would be foundthat only a fraction of one per cent of my timeis spent even talking about these things.

Mr Laurance: You went to a lot of trouble toput up that document in 1985, and on everymajor occasion, like you did on national tele-vision, you knock it.

Mr PARKER: I will deal with that later.Mr Laurance: There is no way you can undo

the wrong you did on that programme.

2837

2838 (ASSEMBLY]

Mr PARKER: It is not a question of a wrongdecision being made. If the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition will let me conclude I will saythere is no question that errors were made. Ihave detailed the two errors which I believe arethe principal ones and I do not want to gothrough them again. The whole project waswell founded when first conceived, and wouldhave continued to have been well founded hadthose two decisions not been made.

I was interviewed for about an hour-and-a-half for that programme. The Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition, or perhaps the member forNedlands, said that a lot of footage was takenfor that programme but was not used.Hundreds of hours of footage must have beentaken for that programme. from information Ihave had from people interviewed. A widerange of issues concerned with that projectwere Covered.

It is true, as the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition has said, that the managing director ofWoodside took exception to a couple of pointsI made on the Programme and advised his staffaccordingly. We are on opposite sides of thecommercial fence in these matters, so that isnot entirely surprising.

The principal cause of the concern of peopleassociated with the project, especially thoseassociated with the LNG project now-there isnot a word of criticism in that programme byme of the LNC programme;, I have nevercriticised it-was that the LNG project mightfall over because the Japanese would walk awayfro m that contract. There was nosubstantiation for that fear.

Mr Jack Wilcocks, the Chairman of the JointCoal Boards, was interviewed on some experi-ences he had had with the Japanese concerningcoal matters. Mr Brotherton was alsointerviewed. That was the only basis forsuggesting any problem with the LNG arrange-ments.

That is where the sensitivity of the joint ven-turers lie, because they are pouring $4 million aday into the ground on the basis of contractsand assurances from the Japanese about takingthat energy. Each time I go to Japan or meetthe buyers in Australia, I always make sure thatthe Japanese are committed to taking that gas.and they are. They tell me quite unequivocallythat they are.

They are putting their money where theirmouths are, because they are spending largesums of money building receival facilities inJapan. There is grave reason for concern on the

part of the joint venturers. Someone watchingthat programme might feel that all this ismoney out of the window when there is nobasis for that at all.

Mr Laurance: I was in Japan a couple ofweeks ago and they have renegotiated with theIndonesians.

Mr PARKER: The Deputy Leader of the Op-position is absolutely right. It is interestingwhen it comes to the point of whether there isor is not a subsidy. I was in Japan six or eightweeks ago and they told me they had negotiatedthose first LNG contracts with Indonesia. Atthat time the company, Pertamina, which is thecontracting company, was virtually bankrupt.It would have been bankr-upt had it not beenfor the fact that it was owned by the State.Some individual had gone oft with hundreds ofmillions of dollars.

Neither the State of Indonesia nor Pertanainaitself was in a position to guarantee the loansnecessary to build plant. The bankers looked tothe Japanese buyers as guarantors, not issuing abank guarantee but as a result of the nature ofthe contracts. The take-or-pay contracts werewritten to guarantee financially insolventPertami na.

The Japanese said, in effect, 1'ertamina isno longer insolvent, Indonesia is no longer in-solvent, those loans arc largely paid off, there-fore we no longer need to provide thosesubsidies to pay off those loans. We will screwthem down tighter and get more flexible take-or-pay conditions for ourselves." This theyhave now achieved.

Virtually the same position applied to thetake-or-pay contracts written with the thenWestern Australian Government andWoodside. Woodside was not in as bad aposition as Pertamina, but it did not have a lotof substance in financial terms. The bankscould not look to Woodside's balance sheets foran assurance as to its ability to pay off theloans. The banks and Woodside required theState to provide the guarantees to the banks forWoodside.

That is the nature of our take-or-pay con-tracts. The clauses are almost identical to thosewhich had been earlier negotiated with theIndonesians, and for very much the samereasons. We are very much in the sameposition. Woodside has now left behind a lot ofthat early risk and it is a much more substantialcompany. Its shareholders are much moresubstantial. It is almost half-and-half owned byShell and BHP. We will ultimately go down the

2839

[Thursday, IS June 1987J]83

same moute as the Indonesians have gone. Asseveral members opposite have said, in anylarge contract like that, this sort of thing is onlyto be expected. Those sorts of guarantees andsubsidies which the State is providing forWoodside will at some stage, depending on cir-cumstances, become no longer necessary. Wewill be able to remove ourselves from theseonerous provisions without hurting Woodside.That is what is happening in Indonesia and Iexpect it to happen here.

The go-ahead for the LNG project in 1985was the result of hard work by a huge numberof people, some associated with the Govern-ment and some not. Most people, certainly thejoint venturers, would acknowledge that it wassubstantially as a result of the hard work of thisGovernment that the go-ahead for that projectwas achieved. We took risks, but that projectwill undoubtedly be successful.

Senator Gareth Evans and I established aliaison committee to make sure that as much ofthat work came to Western Australia andAustralia as possible. We have been very suc-cessful. It was originally anticipated that lesswork from the second stage would come toAustralia than in the first stage because of itsmore technically complex nature. Experienceshows that we are getting about the same levelsas in the first stage. This is very important forindustry in this State.

Mr Court: What is the percentage at the sec-ond stage?

Mr PARKER: In the ultimate it looks asthough the second stage will be somewherearound 70 or 72 per cent Australian content,which is about the same as the first stage.

The critical element in the second stage is theheat exchangers. They have to be built inTexas. It is the only place in the world whichdoes it. I commend Woodside and its partnersfor going to considerable lengths to make surethat a lot of that work was done here in West-ern Australia. Occasionally it has to be said thiswas under considerable pressure from theGovernment. Franz Mittertrainer in particularhas gone to extraordinary lengths to helpcompanies wanting to find ways of getting inon the project, helping with the formation ofjoint ventures and so on. Even when those jointventurers have found themselves in trouble, assome of them have. Woodside has been verysupportive of what they are doing and ensuringthat they do not go bankrupt.

I have absolutely nothing but praise for theway in which the Woodside operated manage-ment here in Perth and the people they dealwith have handled this project.

Mr Laurance: Talking about pressure fromyou, one of the ways you will have to beinvolved is industrially because the point wasmade very strongly to me in Japan only a fewdays ago that reliability of supply, not only ingetting it but also in getting it on time, everytime, is absolutely crucial to the 90 millioncustomers of those eight utility companies.

Mr PARKER: That is true, and the Japanesehave been given every assurance by the FederalGovernment and ourselves, and by the jointventurers, that that will be the case. Indeed, thejoint venturers themselves negotiated quite abreakthrough in that regard with the maritimeunions a year or two ago. it was negotiated forthe first time ever that the maritime unionswould accept continuity of supply so far asshipping was concerned. Last year, as a resultof the very unfortunate strike on the gas plat-form, we had the same arrangement so far asthe operational work force was concerned. Sothere is no reason to suppose anything otherthan that is very much in place, and it will beprovided for. But I accept that this is also anobligation of the Government, and it is one wefaced up to and took very tough action on inone particular aspect last year.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition alsoreferred to the Menz & McLellan and Sharkeyreport on the inspectorate. Again, by way ofinterjection. I dealt with some aspects of that.What led to the creation of that inquiry andthat report was quite simply a campaign thatwas being waged by the Electrical TradesUnion and the family of the apprentice whowas killed.

The SPEAKER: Order! Members, I knowthis is slightly unusual but in case my guestleaves before I have the opportunity to advisemembers of her presence, I wish to advise themthat Cathy Hughes, who is a 13-year-old dis-abled athlete, is my guest on the floor of theHouse and will be here for a period listening tomembers.

Members: Hear, hear![Applause.]Mr PARKER: A campaign was being waged,

saying in essence that the whole of the inspec-torate of the SEC needed review. Indeed, it wassuggested that it should be moved out of theSEC and become completely separate, eitherbecoming autonomous or moving into

2839

2840 [ASSEMBLY]

DOSHWA or somewhere like that. I had anopen mind on all of those things. I asked Menz& Mcelclan. a very substantial firm ofconsulting engineers specialising in electricalmatters, and Mr Peter Sharkey, who at thattime was a barrister, to review the matters forme. They came up with a report that said fun-damentally there was no matter of serious con-cern and that the claims made by those whowere campaigning were wrong, but they didmake certain recommendations for change.

There are two points about this. The first isthat we have gradually been making some ofthe changes that have been referred to; one isthe introduction of random electrical inspec-tions. The second point is that one of the prob-lems we have in Government is that we havethe greatest difficulty in getting things draftedby Parliamentary Counsel, not because thereare problems with the Parliamentary Counselbut because there are too few of them. Thereare no restrictions on appointing them as theAttorney General has an open book to do so,but I understand that they are a very rare breedof person and very hard to come by. I wouldnot like their job myself-I think it would bepretty dreadful-but obviously some peoplelike that sort of job unfortunately, not toomany do. That is a real problem for us andcertainly one of the major problems we havewith the Electricity Act regulations, where aspecific review is waiting for drafting and hasbeen for some considerable time now. Thereare other things we can do and are doing in theinterim and I hope the whole matter will befinalised during the course of this year.

The other matter raised by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition related to the TradePractices Act. The Trade Practices Act does notof itself exempt statutory authorities of theState from its provisions. What it does do isprovide that if a statutory authority is doingsomething which is in its own legislation-thatis, something specifically authorised by the Actwhich creates it or by regulations made underthat Act-that activity is exempted from theTrade Practices Act. So what we are doing iscreating a power for us to make regulations toallow us to be placed in that situation. There isalready a power in the Act and we areredefining it a little more closely because it isoccasionally the subject of High Court chal-lenges and decisions. As they come through itbecomes apparent how we should better phrasethose powers. There is no intention to changethe scope of the existing Act, but merely tomake it clearer.

Another question asked by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition, the member forNedlands, and the Leader of the National Partyrelated to the power to undertake certain workand engage in certain contractual arrangementsoutside the commission and the State Govern-ment apparatus. Firstly, it is not the intentionof the State to set up a major body that will dothe contracting and advertising, and otherwiseinvolve itself in the whole range of electricalengineering and associated matters. However,there are many smaller utilities in the worldwhich do do that very successfully. Forexample, Osaka Gas, which is a privately-owned facility having the same functions as theSEC so far as gas is concerned, is one of themajor businesses in Japai, and engages itself ina whole range of areas. Quite a substantial pro-portion of its revenue comes from venturesother than supplying gas to its customers.

But that is not our proposal. Our proposalsimply is lo be able to participate in providingour expertise to people who need it. Forexample, the Hydra Electricity Commission ofTasmania is very experienced in hydra mattersbut because it was put in the position of think-ing it would have to have a thermal powerplant, in which area it did not have expertise, itasked us to provide that expertise. We had avery substantial power development groupwhich had finished its work at the Muja PowerStation and had less to do than it had pre-viously had, and we thought it best to use thosepeople to advise the Tasmanian Government.

I cannot tell members the precise details ofthe current proposal in Malaysia, but it relatesto conversion from fuel oil to gas turbines. Wehave had a lot of experience with that, datingback to the conversion of the Kwinana PowerStation. Two conversions have been made atKwinana, from fuel oil to coal, then from coalto gas. Indeed, Kwinana is fully convertibleand is one of the most flexible power stations inthe world so far as fuel is concerned.

As well. Burmot, a very major private engin-eering company, and ourselves are involved intendering for contracts in Malaysia which willbe a very major undertaking for the SEC andthe private consulting engineer fraternity.

The same situation applies with India. Weare giving advice to the Government and theChamber of Commerce of Tamil Nadu whichis seeking to build a private power station be-cause it is sick and tired of the continual re-strictions placed on power because of a lack ofavailability of power. The Indian Federalsystem is such that the State Governments do

2840

[Thursday, I8 June 19871 84

not have independent financial power, as Iunderstand it, and the Federal Governmentseems to have blocked the States' ability tobuild power stations. As a result the privatesector is saying, "We need the power to enableus to grow as industries, so we will build ourown." Again, in essence those are the activitiesthere.

The Leader of the National Party askedabout secondment of personnel. At the mo-ment I am not aware that there is anybody onpermanent secondment, although we have hadpeople spend extensive periods of time in Ma-dras. 1 do not think anybody is doing that at themoment.

We also have had people in South Korea and1 think ultimately, if we are successful with thisMalaysian project, people will be seconded tothat country for some time.

The member for Ned lands also asked a ques-tion in relation to the purpose of thetransmission easements and the reticulationeasements and so on. It is true that they applyboth to utilities the Government has taken overwhich were run by local government-such asKalgoorlie-and to utilities such as theFremantle Gas and Coke Co Ltd. This makes itabsolutely clear that those easements whichexisted continue to exist now that the Stale En-ergy Commission is in charge of them. One alsohas to say that some of those locally-basedutilities-that is. local government-based andeven the Fremantle Gas and Cake Co Ltd-were run in a fairly free and easy way which didnot secure for them the local easements that theSEC would be required to acquire.

Many people regard the SEC as a bit of fairgame. The Government wants to put itsposition quite clearly in respect of those ease-ments. To reassure the Leader of the NationalParty there is no change whatsoever to thoseareas where the commission already has case-ments which were already negotiated, such asthose which were negotiated for the Kalgoorlie-Muja line or for those areas of easements wherewe ,were prepared to obtain easements for fu-ture purposes. It simply puts into that categorythose easements and other instrumentalitieswhich are of a similar nature where we havetaken over other utilities and have those thingsunder the jurisdiction of the SEC.-

In relation to the question raised by themember for Nedlands in respect of Aboriginalcommunities, I think I answered it by way ofinterjection. I do not want to go into that mat-

ter in any more detail unless the member has aspecific query. In general terms, the Govern-ment is not trying to achieve anything out ofthe ordinary that we would not apply to anyother country town in respect of work which isprovided through the Department of Aborigi-nal Affairs. The Government subsidises thoseareas more or less to the same degree as wesubsid ise towns' supplies-for exam pie TurkeyCreek would not cost us any more per unit ofelectricity, than, say, Kununurra.

I could spend a considerable time talkingabout the projects and so on that we have dealtwith. I heard the member for Nedlands say thathe had heard about a lot of projects but nothinghad come to fruition. He said he had been inKwinana recently: under construction inKwinania at the moment is the liquid petroleumgas project. which is something created andinitiated by this Government. That project willconsume 25 million cubic feet of gas a day.which is about one-quarter of the State's Sur-plus. The Government is very confident thatthere will be other projects.

To take the point of the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition and the member for Nedlands.the Government is out there seizing theopportuniti'es wh ich are presented to it. It isfinancially painful [or us from time to time butI will deal with that when I deal with the com-ments of the member for Cottesloc. However,the Government has seized many opportunitiesfor the economic development of this State,which is by no means solely related to theNorth West Shelf Gas project. The State'seconomy is running at a very high rate, notonly by comparison with the rest of Australiabut also by comparison with the rest of theworld. We are facing some problems in respectof the shortage of skilled tradesmen and ma-terials and so on, One of the critical things forthe Government. as the member for Cottesloenoted, is load growth.

Indeed, our load growth is running at one ofthe highest rates for any energy utility in theworld. Our central long-term forecast for loadgrowth is about 2.5 per cent to three per cent ayear. In the year which is about to end we grewat a rate a fraction under seven per cent and theforecast for 1987-88 is a load growth of similarmagnitude. We believe there will be substantialload growth and we are in a position to makeattractive offers to new industries which areenergy-intensive, particularly industries whereit improves our base load composition.

2841

2842 [ASSEMBSLY]

One of the problems we have had in runningan energy utility is that we have had to buildfor the peaks of demand but most of the timeone chugs along using far less energy than that.That is a very inefficient use of capital andlabour resources. Industry is particularly im-portant to the SEC and where the SEC can itmakes some financial concessions to those in-dustries which make better use of our capitalbase load by being 24-hour operations, such asthe turbine proposal that the Deputy Premiernegotiated or the silicon smelter for whichnegotiations are under way at the moment. Ofcourse the granddaddy of them all would be analuminium smelter, but thus far this has notemerged.

I think the SEC is growing substantially. In-deed the Kalgoorlie-Muja line is growing atsuch a rate that we will have to bring forwardplans that were originally for five or 10 yearshence, to upgrade by incremental expenditurethe load capacity on that line. I think that whenwe took over the line its maximum load, frommemory. was about 40 megawatts. Now it isover 70 megawatts. going up to 100 megawatts.So we will have to do something 10 improvethat line.

Mr Court: Are you considering putting in agas line to Kalgoorlie?

Mr PARKER: No. all the advice and econ-omic indicators are that no company could useelectricity to that extent in Kalgoorlie. There isno financial basis for a gas line to Kalgoorlie-,there is no demand for it.

Mr Court: But what if there were industrieslocked in place, and the gas i ne went there?

Mr PARKER: Obviously if someone wereprepared to or an industry was capable of mak-ing payment for that gas. that might alter. Itwould have to provide sufficient capital pay-ment per unit of gas to fund that proposition ofa pipeline. In that case the Government wouldcertainly look closely at it. However, that is notthe position at the moment. As members wouldknow, the gas price is a very importantcomponent of whether a local industry wouldbe available. Is would be very unlikely thatsomeone would want to contribute the capitalcosts to fund the construction of a $100 millionor so pipeline. However, if someone wanted todo that, there is nothing to stop them. I takevery much a private enterprise approach tothese things. If someone wants-to take the gasat the gate from the SEC and build their ownpipeline that is something which I have oftensaid I would be very prepared to contemplate.

I thank the member for Cottesloe for his verydispassionate analysis of the financial problemsbeing faced by the SEC. I am not saying I agreewith it absolutely, but I think a lot of what hesaid is true. Whenever possible I try to be asfrank as I can about the SEC's problems,although obviously there are times when com-mercial considerations preclude completefrankness. I think the member for Cottesloemade that point. It is true that the SEC is in afairly grave financial position. I have made thatpoint before; I do not want to shirk the issue.There were two very large lumps of capital ex-penditure undertaken in the last few years-one was to build the Muja -D" power stationand the other was the decision to build thepipeline. Both of them were sensible decisionsin the long term. One can argue about thetiming of them but taking the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition's point I do not want to get intonitpicking about that. For whatever reasonsthey were undertaken their effect has been hugeborrowings and investments in new capital.

Ultimately, especially in the case of thepower stations, that will be very profitable.Already we are making a substantial profit onour interconnected power system which isheavily subsidising our non-interconnectedsystem-the country system other than in thesouth west-and our gas problems as well to acertain degree.

Large iumps of capital expenditure have oc-curred in a very few years. The member forFloreat can correct me if I am wrong, but myrecollection is that when he created the SEC in1975 its turnover was something like $70million a year-certainly under $100 million ayear-and the SEC's turnover this forthcomingfinancial year will be $1.2 billion, excludingborrowings. So we are talking about an organ is-ation which has grown extraordinarily rapidlyand a system which has grown equally rapidly,largely in response to the State's own growth.We have a very modern and efficient system.Whatever people say about the SEC and itspersonnel, most would agree we have a verygood energy utility, in technical terms, and onewith a very good supply reliability basis. Theproblems that we have are of capital expendi-ture recently and of the gas contract.

Dealing with the stockpiling issue. I pointout that the sensible way to approach our en-ergy is to say that we have an energy surpluswhich consists of both coal and gas. If we wereto generate electricity in the way it has beentraditionally generated, by principally burningcoal. there would be no stockpiling of coal. The

2942

[Thursday. 18 June 1987] 84

contractual obligations we have can be fullyutilised by burning coal in the way we have forthe last 10 to 20 years. However, we havechosen to burn gas in our power stations be-cause we have a surplus of 'gas and it isfinancially better to burn it than to leave it inthe ground. There is a whole range of contrac-tual reasons for that which I will not go intonow. We make a substantial saving by burninggas rather than leaving it in the ground becausethat is the nature of the Lake-or-pay contract wehave.

Secondly we physically own and have thecoal stockpile. We have paid for it, of course,and it is ours to do with what we will-, whereaswith the gas stockpile, although we have paidfor it we do not physically have it-it is stillunder the sea. Indeed, we have to pay for itagain-we have to pay for it twice-if we donot take it within a certain time. It is verymuch in our interests to minimise the gasstockpile and maximise the coal stockpile.given that we have an overall energy inventory.

Mr Court: The gas is stockpiled under theground as well, isn't it? I cannot see the differ-ence between storing it in the ground-

Mr PARKER: While it is in the ground it isin the hands of the joint venturers, not ours.That in itself is not a problem. It is in ourinterests to minimise the amount that is in theground because if we do not use it before acertain period-say, within four or five years-not only do we pay holding costs on the capitalwe have expended to hold it in the ground, butalso we have to pay the then cost less wh~at wehave already paid. So we actually have to payfor it twice, whereas that is not the ease withcoal.

Mr Court: You do not pay twice: you makean additional payment.

Mr PARKER: Yes, but if the gas price hasdoubled in five years' time, which is not anunreasonable assumption to make, we will payan equivalent amount again. With coal. oncewe have it we have got it.

Mr Laurance: ItI depreciates and deteriorates.

Mr PARKER: It does, but not to the samedegree. I can assure the Deputy Leader of theOpposition that all those equations have beendone and will continue to be done because theycan change, It may bethat in the future we willdecide that the opposite is the case because ofthe way the price of coal and gas have changedover the years. None of the things is set in

stone:, they are alL changeable depending on thevolatile energy markets we have at the momentand the nature of the contracts we have.

The critical projection is not whether the gasor coal stockpiles will reach a certain level, butrather what the energy inventory in total is go-ing to do, and then manage within the umbrellaof that inventory what proportion is held incoal and what proportion is held in gasstockpiling. Thai is what we are seeking to do.At the same time there are things we need to doby way of renegotiation, and we are continuallydoing that. We are looking at a whole range ofissues which need addressing. I mentionedearlier that we succeeded in getting Griffin toreduce its contract from 2.1 million tonnes to1.95 million tonnes, It does not sound like a lotof money, but 150 000 tonnes of coal a year isseveral million dollars. We are negotiating withGriffin and the other company at the momentto do similar things without disrupting thefields.

We are also continually looking atopportunities which present themselves fornegotiations with the joint venturers as well asgoing out and sell ing the gas.

I refer to the point the member for Cottesloemade about the overall stale of the SEC. Mem-bers may have noticed substantial changes havetaken place in the SEC in the last six or eightmonths. I brought to this House last year a Billwhich altered the composition of the board ofthe SEC and provided a chairman for the firsttime. It also provided an opportunity to ap-point additional associate commissioners anddeputies. Without wanting to dwell on it toomuch, members will have noticed that I havebrought in new people. Dr McKee, forexample, who is the Chairman of the SEC. es-sentially comes from a commercial back-ground. He is a chartered accountant originallyby trade but he has worked extensively in theoil industry and entirely in the private sectoruntil he came to this position. The fact that Ihave appointed him as chairman is very muchin recognition of the fact that the principalproblems facing the SEC in the future are of afinancial nature. In the last few years theprincipal problems facing us were of an engin-eering nature. 1 think similar factors willprobably be taken into account when appoint-ing the chief executive of the commission.which position is, up for appointment at themoment. However, it is also very importantthat we have a reliable body from an engineer-ing point of view.

2843

2844 [ASSEMBLYJ

As far as external advice is concerned. it isalso the case, as the member for Cottesloe said,that his Government had external advice fromthe Royal Bank of Canada and the Orion RoyalBank, which is a merchant bank associatedwith the Royal Bank of Canada. We, too, havesubstantial input from different bodies. Theprincipal body which advises me and the com-mission board on these matters is Credit SuisseFirst Boston which is a merchant bank inLondon. The two shareholders are obviousfrom the name-First Boston of New York andCredit Suisse of Switzerland. We have exten-sive discussions and briefings from them on thenature of our financial position-our solvencyif you like-and borrowing capacity and prob-lems we face with banks. Those matters arekept continually under review,

As well as that. particular projects or con-tracts we may be entering into, for example, theLPG contract entered into with Wesfarmers afew months ago or the ammonia-urea contractwhich is nearly finalised now with Wesfarmersand Norsk Hydro. are also reviewed both bythose financial advisers and by people with ex-perience in the particular fields who arebrought out. Frankly, we spare little expense inmaking sure we get the best possible advice inthe world on those matters. As we havediscovered, skimping on advice in those areasis a very expensive process and we continuallyhave people from London, New York, and SanFrancisco talking to us about these issues. Nomajor contract is signed without extensive ad-vice being available to us on equivalent mattersin the world.

Mr Laurance: When do you expect to getsome financial advantage from the two projectsyou mentioned?

Mr PARKER:, The LPG project will com-mence buying gas from us in late 1988 or early1989. and will immediately start relieving us ofthe burden of 25 million cubic feet of gas a day.If the ammonia-urea project is finalised thisyear, as I hope it will be, it is a three-yearconstruction programme and it will start pro-viding us with that benefit then.

The trouble with these major resource proj-cts is that things just do not happen overnightand they do not take energy overnight.

Mr Laurance: I give a commitment that afterMarch 1989 when we are running these thingswe will not criticise you. We will only lookahead.

Mr PARKER: I can do that with a great dealof confidence. I have no doubt that in 1989 theOpposition will be sitting on the same side ofthe House and the Government will be sittingon the same side of the House as it is today.Maybe I will hire the Deputy Leader of theOpposition to give me independent adviceabout that circumstance.

Mr Laurance: I hope that is on the record.

Mr PARKER: I commend the member forCottesloe for his dispassionate analysis and hisconcern. If members analyse the steps I havetaken over the three years I have been in chargeof the State Energy Commission and the steps Ihave taken over the last eight months they willsee that I am not at odds with the member forCottesloc on those matters. Indeed, verysubstantial changes in direction have beentaken to try to deal with those matters.

It is interesting to look at the graphs of whatdoes good things for the SEC and what doesnot. The biggest single thing is not tariff in-creases, it is load growth; the most critical th ing.to have is load growth. Load growth is far moreimportant than tariff increases for a wholerange of reasons which I do not have time to gothrough.

At the moment, we are in the fortunateposition of getting excellent load growth. It hasa compounding effect because it diminishes thestockpile and increases sales. That is the reasonwe have tried very hard to minimise tariff in-creases. Even when one could say,"Responsibly you needed more tariff in-creases," we have been shown to be right. Inthe years we have mininiised the tariff in-creases we have received higher-than-expectedload growth.

In the time available to me I have dealt withall the issues raised by the Opposition. I thankit for its support of the Bill.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Comittlee, etc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by MrParker (Minister for Minerals and Energy), andtransmitted to the Council.

2844

(Thursday. 18 June 1987J]84

METROPOLITAN MARKETAMENDMENT DILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 4 June.

MR LAURANCE (Gascoyne-DeputyLeader of the Opposition) [5.25 pmj: The Op-position supports this Bill. The debate will behandled for the Opposition in another place bythe shadow Minister for Agriculture. He hasassured me that everything is in order from theOpposition's point of view. He advised me thatthere is no reason that we should delay thismatter in the Legislative Assembly.

I have checked with the Metropolitan MarketTrust and it is quite happy with this legislation.

I will briefly make a point about the in-clusion of representatives of the buyers andagents as members of the trust. The Bill is im-portant to those groups, but it is not contro-vensial. I know, from my own experience, thatthey can be Controversial because every area ofthe State wants its own representative on theMetropolitan Market Trust. My area is no ex-ception. I presume that the member forGeraldton's area is no exception and thatwould apply also to the member for Warren.Not only do we have people who want industryrepresentation, but also there is often a requestfor geographical representation.

In recent years the market trust has takenaccount of the particular aspirations of thoseareas. I know that Carnarvon, while it probablywill never be 100 per cent happy, has at leastbeen appeased in recent times because a rep-resentative who has a close connection with theCarnarvon irrigation area is on the trust.

Some years ago I was involved in a disputethat took place between the Metropolitan Mar-ket Trust, a Carnarvon transport company andthe growers of Carnarvon. They felt they werenot being listened to. Through a series of thingsthat have occurred over the last 10 years themarket trust now does give a very good hearingto the growers I represent.

I am pleased the Opposit Ion is able to give itsfull support to the measure before the House.

MR LEWIS (East Melville) [5.27 pmJ: I sup-port the comments of the Deputy Leader of theOpposition. As the Minister for Agricultureknows. I have been communicating with him

over the last 18 months, since I have been amember of Parliament, on the basis of the rep-resentation that exists on the trust.

Although the legislation has taken some timeto put in place, I compliment him onintroducing it. I recognise that there are legis-lative procedures to be put in place to providefor representation for people operating on thefloor. An ironic circumstance did prevailwhereby everyone had a say except the oper-ators on the floor of the markets. The Ministerhas seen f it to amend t he legisl at ion to i ncreasethe membership of the trust to seven membersand it will allow representation for people fromthe floor of the market. I support the legis-lation.

MR GRILL (Esperance-Duridas-Ministerfor Agriculture) (5.28 pmJ: I must apologise fornot being in this House when this Bill wasbrought on for debate.

I thank both members who have spoken fortheir support of the Hilt. It is a fairly simple andclear-cut Bill and it provides for a much betterrepresentation for people who control the mar-ket.

I acknowledge the fact that the members whohave spoken have an interest in this industryand from time to time they make represen-tations to the Government along the lines ofthis Bill.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Comnmillce, etc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by Mr Grill(Minister for Agriculture), and transmitted tothe Council.

BILLS (2): RETURNED

1. DogAmendment Bill.

Bill returned from the Council withoutamendment.

2. Government'nnuation Bill.

Employees Super-

Bill returned from the Council withamendments.

2845

2846 [ASSEMBLY]

fQuestions taken.jSitting suspended.froin 6.02 to 7 IS pm

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEESSUPERANNUATION BILL

Council's AmendmentsAmendments made by the Council now con-

side red.

In ComnmitteeThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Dr

Lawrence) in the Chair; Mr Peter Dowding(Minister for Works and Services) in charge ofthe Bill.

The amendments made by the Council wereas follows-

Not1.Clause 5

PageS8. line 4-To insert after the word..appointed"-

.subject to subsection (6) of thissection

No 2.Clause 5

Page 8. after i ne 16-To add-(6) Employees of the Board shallnot be eligible for appointment asthe Chairman.

No 3.Clause I I

Page 10, line 24-To insert after"dlates" the following-

,not being less than once in every3 years.

No 4.Clause 54

Page 44. lines 28 and 29-To deletethe lines and substitute-

(2) Subject to subsection (3). thedecision of the Board on a reviewunder subsection (1) is final andconclusive.

No 5.Clause 54

Page 44. after line 29-To insert-(3) A decision of the Board on areview under subsection (1) maybe referred for independent re-view in accordance with the regu-lations.

No 6.Schedule 3

Page 50, after line 17 to insert the fol-lowing subsection-

(I A) A member of the Board whohas given advice for remunerationto the Board or to theSuperannuation Boardconstituted under theSuperannuation and Family Ben-efits Act 1913 with respect to-(a) a matter that is being con-

sidered, or is about to be con-sidered, at a meeting of theBoard: or

(b) a thing being done or aboutto be done by the Board.

shall, notwithstanding that for thepurposes of subelause (1) themember no longer has a direct orindirect pecuniary interest in thatmatter or thing, as soon as poss-ible after the relevant facts havecome to the member's knowledge,disclose the nature of the interestat a meeting of the Board.

Mr PETER DOWDING: I move-That the amendments made by the

Council be agreed to.Mr MacKINNON: We are pleased that the

Government has accepted several of the sugges-tions we have made. The four suggestionscovered by these amendments are firstly, thatemployees of the Superannuation Board willnot be eligible for appointment as chairman ofthe board. That is in line with the PriceWaterhouse report's recommendations ofMarch 1984. Secondly, there will be an actu-arial review at least every three years. I thinkthe first review is to be 12 months after thepassage of the Bill, and the Bill initially saidthat after that it would be as often as theTreasurer wished. We believe, and we arepleased to see that the Government has ac-cepted. it should be at least every three years.

The third amendment means there is now aright of appeal against decisions of the board incases where it adjudicates on a matter which acontributor to the fund may have raised withthe board. Under this clause it may be referredfor independent review in accordance with theregulations. That is sensible. Finally, the ques-tion of conflict of interest which I raised duringthe debate has been covered by an extraamendment. We thank the Government foragreeing to the amendments.

2846

[Thursday. 18 June 1987J]84

Quesuion put and passed; the Council'samendmemts agreed to.

ReportResolution reported, the report adopted. and

a message accordingly returned to the Council.

ACTS AMENDMENT (ELECTORALREFORM) BILL

Council's AiwndmenrsAmendments made by the Council now con-

sidered.

In CoinmileThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Dr

Lawrence) in the Chair; Mr Bryce (Minister forParliamentary and Electoral Reform) in chargeof the Bill.

The amendments made by the Council wereas follows--

No 1.Clause 5-

Page 2. lines 20-32-To delete theclause.

No 2.Clause 8-

Page 3. lines 20-26-To deletesubsections (2) and (3) of the proposedsection 6 and substitute the followingsubsections-

(2) The electoral regions known,respectively as the North Metro-politan Region and the SouthWest region shall each return 7members to serve in the Legislat-ive Council.(3) The electoral regions known.respectively as the South Metro-politan Region, the East Metro-politan Region. the AgriculturalRegion and the Mining and Pas-toral Region shall each return 5members to serve in the Legislat-ive Council.

No 3.Clause 10-

Page 5. lines 24 and 25-To delete thewords 'of the Elctoral Act 1907 asamended by the Electoral ReformAct"

No 4.Clause IS-

Page 9. after line 4-To insert the fol-lowing-

".voting ticket" means a writtenstatement of a particular order inwhich an elector might allocatepreferences in an election, being astatement for use under this Actin interpreting the votes of elec-tors who choose to vole in accord-ance with the voting ticket;"voting ticket square" means asquare printed on a ballot paperto indicate in relation to the nameof a candidate, or the names ofcandidates included in a group,that a voting ticket is registered inrelation to that candidate orgroup;

Page 9. lines 21 to 24-To delete thel ines and substitute-

(a) 7 members of the Council in thecase of the North MetropolitanRegion or the South West Region;or

(b) 5 members in any other case.

No 5.

Clause 44-

Page 24. lines 20 and 21I-To delete-the prescribed form" and substitutethe following-

a form approved by the ElectoralCommissioner

Page 25, line 2-To delete "theprescribed form" and substitute thefollowing-

a form approved by the ElectoralCommissioner

No 6.

Clause 46-

Page 26 lines 10 to 30-To delete theclause and insert the followingclause-

Section 84 repealed and a sec-tion substituted

46. Section 84 of the principal Actis repealed and the following sec-tion is substituted-

2947

2848 ASSEMBLY)

Return or forfeiture of deposit84. (1) The deposit made by or onbehalf of a person nominatedshall be retained pending the elec-tion, and after the election shallbe returnied if he is elected or-

(a) in the case of an election in aregion where the relevantnumber is more than one, ifthe total number of firstpreference votes polled in hisfavour or in favour of themembers of the group inwhich he is included is morethan one-twentieth of thetotal number of firstpreference votes polled by allthe candidates in the elec-tion:,

(b) in the case of a single mem-ber election where there aremore than 2 candidates, ifthe total number of firstpreference votes polled in hisfavour is more than one-tenth of the total number ofFirsc preference votes polledby all the candidates in theelection;

(c) in the case of a single mem-ber election where there areonly 2 candidates, if thenumber of votes polled in hisfavour is more than one-tenth of the total number ofvotes polled by both the can-didates in the election.

otherwise it shall be forfeited tothe Crown.

(2) On the death of a candidatebefore polling day. or on pollingday before the close of the poll-

(a) the deposit made by or on be-half of that candidate shall bepaid to his legal representa-tive: and

(b) the deposits made by or onbehalf of the other candidatesshall be returned.

No 7.

Clause 48-

Page 27, lines 12 and 13-To delete"between the hours of I I am. and 12noon on the day" and substitute thefollowing-

for the period of one hourimmediately prior to the hour

No 8.

Clause 51 -

Page 30, lines 15 to 20-To deleteparagraphs (a) and {b) and substitutethe following paragraphs-

(a) in subsection (2) by deleting para-graphs (0) and (fa);,

(b) in subsection (3) by deleting "~onpolling day" and substituting thefollowing-

"for an election in a district"'

Page 30, line 22-To delete "on Orafter polling day" and substitute thefollowing-

after the close of the poll

No 9.

Clause 53-

Page 31. after line 27-To insert thefollowing paragraph-

(d) by inserting after subsection(12) the following subsection-

(13) The issuing officer isnot-

(a) authorised to issuepostal ballot papers be-fore the expiration of 24hours after the hour ofnomination:

or

(b) required to issue a postalballot paper before theexpiration of 48 hoursafter the hour ofnomination.

No 10.

Clause 60-

To delete the clause and insert the fol-lowing clause.

2848

[Thursday. 18 June 1987]184

Section 113 amended60. Section 113 of the principal Act isamended-(a) in subsection ()

(i) by inserting before"prescribed" the following-

appropriate; and

(i i) by deleting ". arranged inlarge characters in the orderdetermined in accordancewith section 86(2a)";

(b) in subsection (2) by deleting "insmaller characters"; and

(c) by inserting after subsection (2)the following subsection-

(3) The printing in a ballotpaper shall be in characters ofsuch size or sizes as the Elec-toral Commissioner deter-mines.

No 11.

Clause 6 1-

Page 34. line 2-To insert after theline the following-

Voting tickets

I 13A. (1) For the purposes of anelection in a region a candidate ora group may, before the expir-ation of 24 hours after the hour ofnomination, lodge a voting ticketwith the Returning Officer.

(2) A voting ticket may be lodgedunder subsection (1) on behalf ofa candidate or a group by a per-son who is authorised to do so bya notice in writing that hasbeen-

(a) signed by that candidate, orby each candidate includedin that group: and

(b) lodged with the ReturningOfficer at or before the hourof nomination.

(3) Where a candidate is includedin a group, a voting ticket maynot be lodged under subsection(1) by or on behalf of the candi-date individually, but only by oron behalf of the group as a whole.

(4) A voting ticket lodged undersubsection (1) must-

(a) indicate by consecutive num-bers commencing with thenumber I an order ofpreference for all candidatesin the election; and

(b) 0i) in the case of a votingticket lodged by or on behalfof a candidate who is not in-cluded in any group-indi-cate a preference for that can-didate over all other candi-dates in the election;

(ii) in the case of a votingticket lodged by or on behalfof a group-indicatepreferences for the candi-dates in the group-(A) in the order in which the

names of those candi-dates are to appear in theballot paper; and

(B) overall candidates in theelection who are not in-cluded in that group.

(5) I f-(a) for the purpose of an election

in a region for which there isa group-(i) a voting ticket has been

lodged under subsection(1) by or on behalf of agroup; or

(i i) a voting ticket has beenlodged under subsection(1) by or on behalf of acandidate not includedin any group; or

(b) for the purposes of an elec-tion in a region For whichthere are no groups a votingticket has been lodged undersubsection (1) by or on behalfof a candidate.

then, except in the case of avoting ticket lodged by or onbehalf of a candidate in anelection in which there arenot more than two candi-dates, the voting ticket shallbe regarded as beingregistered in relation to the

MSO

2849

2850 [ASSEMBLY]

group or candidate, as thecase may be. for the purposesof the election.

Page 34. line 5-To delete thesection designation -11 3A." andsubstitute the following sectiondesignation-

1138.Page 34, line 12-To delete-across" and substitute the fol-lowing-

inPage 34, lines 20 to 23-To deletethe proposed paragraph (d) andsubstitute the following-

(d) The names of candidates.if any, not included in anygroup shall be printed in theballot papers in the order de-termined under section 87(6)and, where warranted byreason of the number of suchcandidates, may be printed asa group.

Page 34. lines 27 to 35-To delete(he lines and substitute the fol-lowing-(3) In printing the ballot papersfor an election in a region-

(a) a square shall be printedopposite the name ofeach candidate; and

(b) where a voting ticket hasbeen lodged under sec-tion 11 3A an additionalsquare shall be printed inthe prescribedposition-(i) in the case of a votingticket lodged by or onbehalf of a group-above the names of thecandidates included inthe group or above thesquares printed oppositethose names: and(ii) in the case of a votingticket lodged by or onbehalf of a candidate-above the name of thatcandidate or above thesquare printed oppositethat name, or, where thenames of candidates areprinted in a group as

authorised by sectionI l3B(i)(d). adjacent tothe name of that candi-date or adjacent to thesquare printed oppositethat name,

in order to indicate that avoting ticket is registered inrelation to the group or can-didate, as the case may be.(3A) Ballot papers for anelection in a region shall be inthe form of Form A or FormB in Schedule 3 as the easerequires.

Page 35, line I-To insert afterregion" the following-

where the relevant number ismore than one.

Page 35. line 7-To delete "(5)or"Page 35. line 8-To insert afterthe line the following-

Printing of political partynames or "independent" onballot papersI I 3C. (I) Subject to this sec-tion, where a candidate in anelection in a region applies tohave a name specified in theapplication being-(a) a name of a political

party:(b) a composite name of two

political panies compris-ing a name of one politi-cal party and a name ofthe other political party,

printed adjacent to the appli-cant's name on the ballotpapers for use in the election,the name so specified shall beso printed on those ballotpapers.(2) Where-(a) in accordance with

subsection (1), a name isprinted adjacent to thename of a candidate onballot papers for use inan election: and

(b) a voting ticket square isprinted on those ballotpapers in relation to the

2850

[Thursday, I8 June 1987] 25

candidate or in relationto a group in which thecandidate is included.

the name so printed shall alsobe printed adjacent to thatvoting ticket square.(3) An application undersubsection (1)-(a) must be in a form ap-

proved by the ElectoralCommissioner:,

(b) must be signed by thecandidate:

(c) must contain a declar-ation signed by an auth-orised officer of the pol-itical party or. if the ap-plication is for the print-ing of a composite name,by an authorised officerof each political partyconcerned, stating thatthe party supports theapplication;.

(d) where the name of theapplicant is to be in-cluded in a group, mustbe in the form of a jointapplication by all thecandidates to be in-cluded in the group forthe printing of the samename, adjacent to thename of each of thosecandidates: and

(e) must be received by theReturning Officer notlater than the hour ornomination.

(4) The Returning Officermay reject an applicationunder subsection (I) if. in theopinion of the ReturningOfficer, the name to whichthe application relates-

(a) is obscene:,(b) contains more than 6

words;,(c) is not a name of a parlia-

mentary party and-(i) is the same as a

name of anotherpolitical party: or

(ii) so nearly resemblesa name of anotherpolitical party that itis likely to be con-fused with or mis-taken for that name;

(d) comprises the words-Independent Party" orcomprises or containsthe word '*Independent"and-

(i) a name of a politicalparty;. or

(ii) matter that so nearlyresembles the nameor a political partythat the matter islikely to be confusedwith or mistaken forthat name; or

(e) contains the word"Royal" or any sugges-tion of royal patronage.

(5) Subject to this section,where a candidate in an elec-tion in a region who is notendorsed as a candidate inthe election by a politicalparty applies to have theword "Independent" printedadjacent to the applicant'sname on the ballot papers foruse in the election that wordshall be so printed on thoseballot papers.

(6) Where-

(a) in accordance withsubsection (5). the word"Independent" isprinted adjacent to thename of the candidateon ballot papers for usein an election:, and

(b) a voting ticket square isprinted on those ballotpapers in relation to thecandidate or in relationto a group in which thecandidate is included,

that word shall also beprinted adjacent to thatvoting ticket square.

2851

2852 ASSEM BLY)

(7) An application undersubsection (5)-(a) must be in a form ap-

proved by the ElectoralCornmissioner;

{b) must be signed by thecandidate:

(c) where the name of theapplicant is to be in-cluded in a group, mustbe in the form of a jointapplication by all thecandidates to be in-cluded in the group forthe printing of the word"Independent" adjacentto the name of each ofthose candidates; and

(d) must be received by theReturning Officer notlater than the hour ofnomination.

(8) The returning officermay. in any case, and shall, atthe request of the candidate.refer to the Electoral Com-missioner any question as towhether or not-(a) a body or organ ization is

a political party;(b) a name is the name of a

political party or a com-posite name of two pol-itical parties:,

(c) an application should berejected undersubsection (4);, or

(d) a candidate is entitled tomake an applicationunder subsection (5),

and, for the purposes of thissection. the decision of theElectoral Commissioner onthat question is final.(9) For the purposes ofsubsection (8)(c) the ElectoralCommissioner may form theopinion referred to insubsection (4).(10) In this sect ion-..authorised officer", in re-lation to a political party.means a person who has beennominated by the Secretary

or the chief executive officer(however designated) of thatparty to be an authorisedofficer of that party for thepurposes of this section bynotice in writing, specifyingthe name and address of theperson and signed by the sec-retary or chief executiveoffice, lodged with the Elec-toral Commissioner, andwhose nomination has notbeen cancelled by notice inwriting signed by the sec-retary or chief executiveofficer, lodged with the Elec-toral Commissioner:"'name" includes an abbrevi-a tion or acronym of a n a me;"parliamentary party" meansa political party at least onememinber of wh ich-

(a) is a member of the Legis-lative Assembly or theLegislative Council orthe Parliament of theCommonwealth; or

(b) was a member of theLegislative Assemblythat most recently ex-pired or was dissolved.

Claims etc may be lodged withElectoral Commissioner

I113D. Where a claim, votingticket, notice or applicationunder section 80, 11 3A orI I13C is lodged with the Elec-toral Commissioner it shallbe deemed to have beenmade to, lodged with orreceived by the ReturningOfficer and to have been somade, lodged or received atthe time at which it waslodged with the ElectoralCommissioner.

Page 35. line 10-To deletethe section designation-113B." and substitute the

following section desig-nation -

I 13E.

2852

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J]85

No 12.Clause 62-

Page 35. line 23-To insert..scrutineer" the following-

after

at a timePage 35. line 28-To insert after".scrutineer" the following-

at a timeNo 13.Clause 63-

Page 36. line 10 to page 37, line 6-Todelete clause 63 and substitute the fol-lowing-

63. Section 128 of the principalAct is repealed and the followingsection substituted-

flow votes to be marked(Assembly Elections):128. (1) In an election in adistrict where there are only2 candidates on the ballotpaper an elector shall markhis vote on the ballot paperby placing the numeral l1" inthe square opposite the nameof the candidate for whom hevotes.(2) In an election in a districtwhere there are more than 2candidates an elector shallmark his vote on the ballotpaper by placing the numeral"I" in the square oppositethe name of the candidate forwhom he votes as his firstpreference, and consecutivenumerals beginning with thenumeral -2" in the squareopposite the names of the re-maining candidates so as toindicate the order of hispreference for all candidates.How votes to be marked(Council Elections)

128A. (1) In an election in aregion where there are only 2candidates on the ballotpaper an elector shall markhis vote on the ballot paperby placing the numeral "I" inthe square opposite the nameof the candidate for whom hevotes.

(2) In an election in a regionwhere there are more than 2candidates on the ballotpaper an elector shall markhis vote on the ballot paper-

(a) by placing the numeral"I" in the square op-.posite the name of thecandidate for whom hevotes as his fi rstpreference and consecu-tive numerals beginningwith the numeral -2- inthe squares opposite thenames of the remainingcandidates so as to indi-cate the order of hispreference for all candi-dates: or

(b) by placing the numeral-"a tick or a cross in a

voting ticket squareprinted on the ballotpaper.

No 14.

Clause 66-

Page 37. lines 27 and 28-To delete-elector's first preference for one can-didate" and substitute the following-

order of the elector's preferencefor all candidates

No I5.

Clause 67-

Page 38. lines 10 and IlI-To delete"to the extent necessary for the pur-poses of' and substitute the follow-ing-

as necessary under

Page 38, line 15-To delete "to theextent that his intention is clear".

Page 38. line 20-To delete "a man-ner required or authorised" andsubstitute the following-

the manner required by section128(2)

Page 38. lines 22 to 32-To deletesubsection (4) of the proposed section140.

2853

2854 [ASSEMBLY]

No 16.Clause 12-

Page 40. lines 5,t 14-To delete theproposed paragraph (d) of section144(l) and substitute the following-

(d) If the candidates have anequal number of votes section145 applies.

Page 40. lines IS to I8-To deleteparagraph (b).Page 40, lines 22 and 23-To deleteparagraph (d).Page 40. line 28-To delete "the votesremaining in the count" andsubstitute the following-

votesPage 40. lines 30 to 35-To deleteparagraph (f).Page 41. line 2-To delete..paragraphs" and substitute the fol-lowing-

paragraphPage 41, lines 3 to 8-To delete theproposed paragraph (g).Page 41, lines 14 and IS-To delete..or the tied candidates being the onlynon-defeated candidates".Page 41. after line 23-To insert thefollowing paragraph after paragraph(I)-

(i) If after any count 2 or morecandidates have an equal numberof votes and they are the only can-didates, or the only non-defeatedcandidates, section 145 applies.

Page 4 1. lines 26 to 28-To delete theproposed subsection (3) and insert thefollowing-

(3) In this section -absolute ma-jority of votes" means a greaternumber than one-half of thewhole number of ballot papersother than informal ballot papers.

No 17.Clause 73-

To delete the clause and insert the fol-lowing clause-

Section 145 repealed and a sectionsubstituted73. Section 145 of the principalAct is repealed and the followingsection is substituted-

Tied elections145. (1) If after any count 2or more candidates have anequal number of votes andthey are the only candidates,or the only non-defeated can-didates, the ReturningOfficer shall re-count thevotes on the ballot papersand, where appropriate, de-clare one of the candidatesduly elected under section144( 1)(c). (2)(ea) or (2)(Q).

(2) The Returning Officerconducting the re-count shallhave the same powers as ifthe re-count were the scru-tiny. and may reverse any de-cision in relation to the scru-tiny as to the allowance oradmission or disallowance orrejection of any ballot paper.

(3) If after the re-count 2 ormore candidates (in this sec-tion called "the tied candi-dates") have an equal num-ber of votes and they are theonly candidates, or the onlynon-defeated candidates, theReturning Officer shall notifythe Electoral Commissionerof the result of the re-count.

(4) On receipt of notificationunder subsection (3) the ElectoralCommissioner shall file a petitionaddressed to the Court ofDisputed Returns consititutedunder Part V-

(a) setting out the results ofthe scrutiny and countand the re-count: and

(b) requesting the Court todetermine whether anyof the candidates wasduly elected and, if so, todeclare that candidateduly elected.

(5) Part V applies in respect of thepetition as if it were a petitionduly filed under sections 1 58 to160 and, for the purposes of thatapplication, the tied candidatesshall be regarded as parties to thepetition.

2854

[Thursday, I8 June 1987) 25

(6) The Court shall endleavour tomake its determination as soon aspracticable after the petition isfiled.(7) The Court may order that anew election be held in place ofthe election to which the petitionrelates if-(a) the tied candidates both or all

jointly request the Court todo so or

(b) the Court is unable to declareany of the candidates dulyelected.

and, notwithstanding anything inthis Act, except where the Courtotherwise orders, the same roll aswas used for the election shall beused for the new election.

No I8.Clause 74-

Page 44, line I to page 45, line 30-Todelete the proposed sections 146E and146F and substitute the following-Informal and formal ballot papers146E. (l) Section 139 applies to and inrelation to ballot papers used in anelection in a region.(2) Subsections (1) and (2) of section140 apply to and in relation to ballotpapers used in an election in a regionand in subsection (2) of that section,as applied by this section. "prescribedmanner" means-

(a) where there are only 2 candi-dates on the ballot paper, themanner required by section128A( I:

(b) where there are more than 2candidates on the ballotpaper, the manner authorisedby section I 28A(2)(a).

(3) A ballot paper shall not be in-formal under section 139(d) if theelector has marked his vote on theballot paper under sectionI 28A(2)(b).(4) If a ballot paper-(a) has been marked under sec-

tion I 28A(2)(b): but(b) has also been marked so as to

indicate (he order of the elec-tor's preferences in such amanner that it would not be

informal under section139(d) if it were not markedunder section I 28(2Xb).

the elector shall, for the purposesof subsection (5) and section146F be deemed not to havemarked his vote on the ballotpaper under section 128A(2)(b).(5) If a ballot paper has beenmarked under section I 28A(2)(b)any indication of preferences onthe ballot paper otherwise thanunder section I 28A(2)(b) shall bedisregarded for the purposes ofthis Division.(6) For the purposes of this sec-tion and section 146F an electorshall not be taken to have markedhis vote under section I 28A(2)(b)if the elector has placed apreference mark in 2 or morevoting ticket squares printed onthe ballot papers.(7) In subsection (4) *'preferencemark" means the numeral "I". atick or a cross.Ballot Papers deemed to bemarked according to voting tickets146F. Where an elector hasmarked his vote on the ballotpaper under section I 28A(2)(b)the ballot paper shall be deemedto have been marked in accord-ance with the voting ticketregistered for the purposes of theelection in relation to the candi-date or group whose voting ticketsquare the elector has marked.

No 19.Clause 83-

Page 60, lines 6 and 7-To deleteclause 19 of proposed Schedule 1.Page 60, lines 16 and 27-To delete"144(l)(d) or (2)(h)" and substitutethe following-

I 44(2)(g)No 20.Clause 87-

Page 62. line 26-To delete "1907."and substitute the following-

1907;Metropolitan Area" means the re-gion that was, as at I January1987, described in the Third

2855

2856 ASSEMBLY]

Schedule to the Metropolitan Re-gion Town Planning Scheme Act1959.

Page 64. line 35-To delete -directedunder section 2A(2)" and substitutethe following-

No 2 1. (2) or directed under sectionClause 89- 2A(3)

Page 64, lines 6 to 15-To deletesubsection (I ) of' the proposed section2A and insert the followingsubsections-

( 1) The State shall be divided intodistricts and regions in accord-ance with this Act as soon as prac-ticable after the day of the com-mencement of the Acts Amend-mnent (Electoral Reform) Act 1987.(2) If the same division under thisAct has applied in respect of 2successive general elections forthe Legislative Assembly the Stateshall be divided into districts andregions in accordance with thisAct as soon as practicable afterthe day that is one year after thepolling day for the second ofthose general elections.

Page 64, lines 17 and 18-To delete-and section 73A of the ConstitutionAct 1889".Page 64, line 20-To delete "(2)" andsubstitute the following-

(3)Page 64. line 24-To delete "directedunder subsection (2)" and substitutethe following-

(2) or directed under subsection(3)

Page 64. line 25-To delete -'(a) or (b)or (2)" and substitute the following-

,(2) or (3)No 22.

Clause 90-Page 64, lines 31 and 32-To delete-57 districts and 6' and substitute thefollowing-

districts and

Page 65. line 30-To delete -6"Page 65, line 32-To delete "6"Page 64. lines 32 and 33-To delete".and section 73Aof the Constitution Act1889'".

Page 65. lines 21 to 24-To delete thelines and substitute the following-

(a) the quotients obtained underthis Act for the purposes ofdividing the State into 57 dis-tricts;

No 23.

Clause 9 1-

To delete the clause and insert the fol-lowing clause-Section 4 repealed

91. Section 4 of the principal Act isrepealed.

No 24.

Clause 92-

Page 66. lines 3 to 5-To delete thelines and substitute the following-

Sections 6 and 7 are repealed and sec-tions substituted: Basis for division ofthe State into districts and matters tobe considered in so dividing the State

6.( I) The Commissioners shall-

(a) divide the Metropolitan Areainto 34 districts; and

(b) divide the area comprisingthe remainder of the Stateinto 23 districts.

(2) The Commissioner shall makethe division of an area mentionedin subsection (] )(a) or (b) into dis-tricts in accordance with the prin-ciple that the number of enrolledelectors comprised in any districtin the area must not be more thanI15% greater, or more than 1 5%less, than the quotient obtainedby dividing the total number ofenrolled electors in the area bythe number of districts into whichthe area is to be divided.

2856

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 25

Page 66, lines 6 to ID-To delete thelines and substitute the following-Matters to be considered in dividingthe State into regions and districts7. In making the division of the Stateinto regions and districts the Com-missioners shall give due consider-ation to--

(a)(b)

community of interest:means of communicationand distance from the capi-tal,

(c) physical features:,(d) existing boundaries of re-

gions and districts:(e) existing local government

boundaries:.(f) the trend of deomographic

changes:and where the State is divided forthe first time-(g) boundaries of the electoral

provinces and electoral dis-tricts into which the Slatewas divided prior to the div-ision.

No 25-Clause 94-

Page 66. lines 22 to 27 and Page 67,lines I to 14-To delete the lines andsubstitute-

9. The Commissioners shall div-ide the State into 6 regions sothat-(a) 3 regions, to be known, re-

spectively, as the NorthMetropolitan Region, theSouth Metropolitan Regionand the East MetropolitanRegion, each consist of corn-plete and contiguous districtsthat together form the Metro-politan Area,

(b) one region, to be known asthe Mining and Pastoral Re-gion, consists of completeand contiguous districts thatare remote from the capitaland where the land use is pri-marily for mining and pas-toral purposes;

(c) one region, known as theAgricultural Region. consistsof complete and contiguous

districts that together forman area that is generallysouth, or south and west, ofand adjacent to the Miningand Pastoral Region:, and

(d) the remaining region, to beknown as the South West Re-gion. consists of completeand contiguous districts.

No 26.New Clause 82A-

To insert after Clause 82-Section 213 amended82A. Section 213 ofis amended bysubsection (1)subsections-

the principal Actinserting afterthe following

(2) Notwithstanding section 113B(3A) the form of ballot papers for elec-tions maybe prescribed by regulation.(3) In subsections (4) to (8) "Councilballot paper regulations" means regu-lations referred to in subsection (2)prescribing the form of ballot papersfor elections in regions where the rel-evant number is more than one.(4) Either House of Parliament, within14 sitting days of that House afterCouncil ballot paper regulations havebeen laid before that House under sec-tion 42 (1) of the Interpretation Act1984. may, in pursuance of a motionupon notice, pass a resolutiondisallowing the regulations.(5) Where-(a) a notice referred to in subsection

(4) is given with respect to Coun-cil ballot paper regulations:, and

(b) at the expiration of the Periodduring wh ich a resolutiondisallowing the regulations couldhave been passed-(i) the notice has not been with-

drawn and the relevant mo-tion has not been called on:,or

(i i) the relevant motion has beencalled on, moved andseconded and has not beenwithdrawn or otherwisedisposed of,

the regulations shall be deemed tohave been disallowed.

2857

2858 [ASSEMBLY]

(6)17-(a) neither House of the Parliament

passes a resolution in accordancewith subsection (4) disallowingCouncil ballot paper regulations;and

(b) the regulations have not beendeemed to have been disallowedunder subsection (5),

the regulations take effect on the dayimmediately following the last dayupon which a resolution disallowingthem could have been passed or onsuch later day as is specified orprovided for in the regulations.(7) If, before the expiration of 14 sit-ting days of a House of the Parliamentafter Council ballot paper regulationshave been laid before that House-(a) that House. being the Legislative

Assembly, is dissolved or expires.or the Parliament is prorogued;and

(b) a resolution for the disallowanceof the regulations has not beenpassed by that House,

the regulations shall, for the purposesof this section, be deemed to havebeen laid before that House on thefirst sitting day of that House after thedissolution, expiry or prorogation, asthe case may be.

(8) Sections 41 (1) (b) and 42 (2) to (S)of the Interpretation Act 1984 do notapply to Council ballot paper regu-lat ions.

Mr BRYCE: I indicate that the Governmentintends to accept the amendments returnedfrom the Legislative Council. It does so with agreat deal of regret and a very heavy heart inmany instances. I wish to spell out a couple ofmatters of principle that concern us most.

There are two fundamental principles thathave been denied to the system of election ofmembers of Parliament in Western Australia asa result of the work done by the LegislativeCouncil on the Acts Amendment (ElectoralReform) Bill. The first relates directly to thequestion of vote weighting. When the Bill leftthis House. it proposed a system of 57 equallynumbered Legislative Assembly electorates and

a system which was virtually one-vote-one-value for the Legislative Council. It becamepatently clear after the debate in this Chamberand after the discussions which took place be-

tween December last year and March this yearthat the Legislative Council would not agree tothe Bill as it was. As a result, the Governmentagreed to a number of amendments in the otherplace.

The vote weighting now contained in thisBill which will become law is the worst inAustralia-it is worse than Queensland.

Mr Mensaros: Why did you accept it?Mr BRYCE: Because we believe that the

nonsen se i n t he rest of t he Act-M r Men saros: Wh y d id n't you callI our bl u ffMr BRYCE: I will call the member's bluff

right now. I dare the member for Floreat andhis colleagues to-

Mr Mensaros: You did not bring that matterto a vote in the other place because you did notdare.

Mr BRYCE: We will see who is the hypocriteand who is not. The Labor Party has proposedseven legislative measures for one-vote-one-value in this place in 13 years. We received afair dinkumn statement from the National Partythat it will never budge from its position on theone-vote-one-value philosophy. We, and agrowing number of members of the member forFloreat's party do believe in it. I understandwhy he feels uncomfortable; he knows that tobe a reality.

The truth is that the system of vote weightingwe now have for the Legislative Council, whichprovides for 3:1 in favour of certain pants ofWestern Australia, is the most severe form ofvote weighting anywhere in the country; it isprobably one of the most severe anywhere inthe world.

The Legislative Assembly is not even as re-spectable as that in Queensland;, many mem-bers of Parliament will not find that surprising,given the attitude of the National Party. Voteweighting in Queensland is 1.86:1. WesternAustralia is within 0. 1: t or 0.2:1 of the situ-ation in the Legislative Assembly ofQueensland.

Mr Cowan interjected.Mr BRYCE: There may be one example in

Queensland which is slightly beyond that but Iam talking about the average enrolment con-stituency difference. I am happy to table thedata so that we are not walking around in thedark.

WYe have nothing to be proud of on the sub-ject of vote weighting in terms of reform. Manyuseful things have been achieved, in many in-

2858

[Thursday. 18 June 19871 85

stances to the embarrassment of members ofthe Liberal Party who definitely had theirhands on the pen when those indefensible lineswere drawn around the metropolitan area andthrough the north.

Mr MacKinnon: Which members?Mr BRYCE: The members of the Cabinet

who endorsed and accepted those lines. Thosemembers of the Liberal Party carry the re-sponsibility for drawing those absolutely unac-ceptable and morally indefensible lines on theold map. The establishment of the independentcommission and the removal of those veryworst features of the old system, a system fromwhich the wheels were about to fall, warrantedthe sacrifice made and the price paid.

The member for Floreat has called me a hyp-ocrite. I have been called many things in mytime and I am not worried in the slightest. Iwould be the happiest man in this place to callthe member for Floreat's bluff, as I did theLeader of the Opposition's, and have him re-spond by giving us a guarantee today that theLiberal Party will endorse a proposal for genu-ine one-vote-one-value in both Houses of Par-liament. The Government will take the mem-ber at his word.

Mr Mensaros: You are not worth anythingbecause you blatantly betrayed my confidenceand you are not a man. You are certainly not agentleman, nor even a man. People like theRussians and Americans can negotiate in confi-dence, but you cannot keep a confidence. Youdid this and you have confessed to doing it.

Mr BRYCE: I will not trade insults with themember for Floreat unless he wants me to.

Mr Mensaros: I have never insulted anyonein this Chamber, I have only defended myselfGive me an example. That is the style of youand the Premier. If the Premier cannot answera question he insults the Opposition. I never dothat. I just state the facts.

Mr BRYCE: The member for Floreat wasmost devastating a moment ago and he calledme a hypocrite. Does he not realise that hisorganisation is in the stew it is in today becausethe Liberal Party never accepted the simple re-ality that electoral reform will happen andsooner than it wanted? The Liberal Party didnot have a defined position so that the memberfor Floreat could negotiate. The National Partyand the Government both had definedpositions and it was possible to hold dis-cussions, if necessary, about the clearly definedpositions to identify the differences -andsimilarities. However, it was not possible to do

that with the Liberal Party, and the member forFloreat knows he was in that position. If themember wishes to defend his organisation. thatis his right. I will not talk about the detail of thed iscussion s we had as far as t hat i s con cerned.

Mr MacKinnon: You gave the Press copiesof the information. Will you now say that youdid not?

M r BRYCE: As a matter of fact the Leader ofthe Opposition in this place stuck his oar intothe middle of this situation from a position oftotal ignorance, and told a blatant untruth tothe people in the Narrogin constituency. Thatis the reality. I make no bones about it. Had nobarefaced lies been told in this community andhad there been no blata nt pol it ical post uri ng bythe Leader of the Opposition on this subject tothe people of Narrogin before the by-election,that material would never have been released.The Leader of the Opposition knows that.

Mr MacKinnon: You are trying to justifyexactly what the member for Floreat said toyou-you are a hypocrite. Sit down.

Mr Cash: Look at the cartoon on the back ofthis newspaper-it refers to scum, sleazebags,and harlots. Is that what the Minister for Par-liamentary and Electoral Reform is?

Mr BRYCE: Is this the best the Liberal Partycan offer in the form of the member for MtLawley? He is devastat ing!

Another political principle is involved-thequestion of fairness.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Dr Lawrence):Order! I think it is appropriate under StandingOrders for the Minister for Parliamentary andElectoral Reform to move agreement or dis-agree ment with the amendments so that we candebate the issue.

Mr BRYCE: With a great deal of reluctance,and I hope members opposite will rise to thechallenge, rather than indulge in the mealy-mouthed rhetoric and nonsense we have seenfrom defenders of privilege in the other placeduring the last few weeks. I move-

That amendment No I made by theCouncil be agreed to.

I hope members opposite will give the Parlia-ment a guarantee that they have had a changeof heart, and in this Chamber and in anotherplace they will vote to support the introductionof one-vote-one-value in both Houses of Parlia-ment.

The second principle to which I referred isthe simple question of fairness based on theelectoral system. The simple truth is that we

2859

2860 [ASSEM BLY]

introduced a Bill into this Chamber which, sofar as the Legislative Council was concerned,provided for a system under which if the LaborParty polled more than 50 per cent of the votesit would gain more than 50 per cent of theseats, and if the Liberal Party and NationalParty won more than half the votes in thatother place, they too would have more thanhalf the seats.

The most fascinating aspect to unfold wasthe Liberal Party's introduction of a systemdesigned 10 screw the Labor Party and keep itin a position of minority in the other House.When the Opposition reacted badly to our chal-lenge and sought access to our figures. its mem-bers had the hide to say that the calculationsthey had made for the Legislative Council elec-tions had been based on Legislative Assemblyfigures.

They used figures for this House to make thecomputations that in their opinion would haveenabled the Labor Party to win- Why did theynot use the figures relating to the LegislativeCouncil? The simple truth is that if Councilfigures are used and applied to the model thathas been introduced into the debate by both theLiberal and the National Parties on this sub-ject, it is impossible for the Labor Party to wina majority in the other House.

To his credit, Hon. Eric Chariton stood inthat other place and said, "We acknowledge"-and he might have been a bit naive, but he wasfair dinkum honest-"that the Labor Party,based on the 1986 and 1983 votes, where itheld more than 52 per cent of the popular votein that other House, could not win a majorityof the seats under the National Party's pro-posal." The Liberal Party was never gameenough or big enough to admit that. The truthis that the result would be exactly the same. Wewant the world to know on the eve of our ac-ceptance of this that we believe there are manythings in this legislation of which nobody canbe proud, and we believe that on balance-andit required a debate in our Cabinet that lastedfor five hours, and in our Caucus room forthree or four hours before we finally decided toaccept the proposal-

Mr MacKinnon: Was that the meeting inGeraldlon?

Mr BRYCE: The member has no credibility.Any member of the Chamber knows that wecould write on the back of a postage stampwhat the member understands about electoralreform.

Mr MENSAROS: The unfortunate subjectwe are dealing with now had a very sad anddishonourable conception, gestation and birth.This Bill, as amended with the provisionswhich are the subject of this message, isclaimed to be a compromise. It might well be.but if it is. it is a compromise of unhealthy andhumourless cynicism, combined with blatanthypocrisy. Further, it is a compromise of tellinguntruths, using distortions, and it might,finally, be a compromise based on breach ofconfidence and what clearly appears to be abreach of firm promises and undentakings. Ithink it would be called a compromiseamounting to a Kamikaze for the NationalParty.

I am going to substantiate these allegationsbecause as I said before I never accuse anyone,either in this Chamber or outside, withoutreason, and I would be glad to repeat themanywhere. It is cynicism and hypocrisydemonstrated in general and in specific ways.In general ways it is claimed by all that the newproposals are designed to have an equitablesystem, and not one for party political advan-tage. It has been added in the past that ofcourse one has to look after the interests ofone's party, but the main thing is to have a fairand equitable system which does not advantageone side or the other.

Mr Bryce: When was that said?Mr MENSAROS: The Minister said that sev-

eral times-in Parliament, and during thenegotiations. The Minister said that fairness isthe main aim, an equal chance for each side.These words ran through the Chamber, throughthe air on radio and television, and wereprinted in the newspapers. What has happenedis that only party political advantage guided thepath and arrival to the final solution to thatcompromise. The Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform said, either in thisChamber or during negotiations-I did notlook it up-that the fewer regions one has, themore the Liberal Party is advantaged; the moreregions one has, the more the Labor Party isadvantaged. He said that one to one regionsadvantage the Liberal Party; three to three re-gions advantage the Labor Party.

Mr Bryce: That is not what I said.Mr MENSAROS: Hon. Gordon Masters is

the witness to that statement. That is exactlywhat the M in iste r sa id.

Mr Bryce: Would the member like me to tellhim what I said? One has only to look at thedata. If one wanted to advantage the Labor

2860

[Thursday, I8 June 1987]186

Party, one would put three regions in the cityand one region in the country. If one wanted toadvantage the conservative parties, one wouldput one region in the city and three regions inthe country. If one wanted to be fair dinkum, tostructure a PR system so that one can havechanges, one would have an equal number oftwo and two or threc and three. That is thesimple reality of it.

Mr MENSAROS: If we look only at electoraladvantage for parties, we would be much betteroff with the original Tonkin Hill. However, wewere not hypocrites. We did not accept it be-cause, contrary to all the allegations, for a brief,short and unholy electoral advantage it wasclaimed that we deserted the country. We didnot. We could have accepted that legislationwhich, as was amply proved by the example Istated, would have been much more to our ad-vantage.

Then of course we have the cynicism andhypocrisy in a specific way. If we look at themetropolitan boundaries, it was heralded allthe time when the Bill was introduced, and inevery forum, that we get away from thiscrooked system of Parliament drawing theboundaries. Everybody applauded that, yetwith a stroke of the brush it is accepted thatinstead of the policy which we proposed, whichwas the fairest one imaginable, that what isgenuinely country should be country, and whatis genuinely metropolitan should be metropoli-tan, Parliament decided in a statutory way.That suits the Labor Party; therefore it is fair.With the northern seats, if one has a statutoryboundary, if it does not suit the Labor Party-albeit lately it did-then it is unfair. That ishypocrisy.

There are other examples of hypocrisy andcynicism, combined with telling untruths andbeing shamelessly accepted by the media. Whatabout one-vote-one-value? Was that not thecreed, the unchallengeable truth, the testament,the only redemption for the Labor Party foryears? Were there not car stickers around?Have all the members taken those stickers offtheir cars? Was there not testifying before theSenate committee? The Minister for Parlia-mentary and Electoral Reform testified aboutit. However, what happened is that when it wasrealised that one-vote-one-value, comparedwith the status quo that we have now, wouldwork to the disadvantage of the Labor Party.the Labor Party departed from it. Whathappened at the Geraldton Cabinet meeting?

What was decided there? Why did Mr Tonkinresign? Was it for nothing-just because he hada headache?

Mr D. L. Smith: Sour grapes.Mr MENSAROS: That is not an answer. The

member will lose his seat in due course withone-vote-one-value.

Here we have blatant hypocritical cynicismjoined with the telling of untruths and distor-tions, because the Government has not eventried in the Legislative Council to put clause 5to the vote. It departed from it and used allsorts of tactics to pass it. and then bring it back.It has thrown away its own Bible because ad-herence to its teachings would hurt it. How-ever, it claims it has sacrificed principle for acompromise. The media generally accepts that,and writes it down this way, that the ALP andthe Government are decent fellows forjettisoning their principles. There is no men-tion of the stark, undeniable fact that the prin-ciple was thrown away because of self-interest.I ask again, why did Arthur Tonkin resign? Itwas because with all his unpleasant and notendearing characteristics, he did not want togive up the principle for which he was destinedto be the flagbearer of the Labor Party for sev-eral years.

We had the Geraldton Cabinet minute. Weknow precisely what was discussed and why theGovernment wanted to keep the status quo-unless it got a better system of reform. Througha number of ways, it did get a much bettersystem.' Through this system the National Partycommitted harakiri. They did it because theywere persuaded and they blocked their cars tothe facts we wanted to offer them. The Leaderof the National Party said he did not want tohear anything before or after Narragin. Weoffered him all the figures.

Mr Cowan: You offered nothing. We askedyou three times to tell us what you were pre-pared to offer and you never once told us theLiberal Party bottom line. You could not tell usbecause you did not know. Your leader wasgoing one way and you were going another way.Your leader was saying he was not going to doanything and he was going to oppose it. Behindthe door, you were doing a deal. Don't talk tome about your high moral grounds. You haveno morals at all.

Mr MENSAROS: We did negotiate with theGovernment but never without the knowledgeof the National Party. Never did I put a policyto the Government other than our original pol-icy. I only put various propositions. I said,

2861

2&62 [ASSEMBLY]

"This is something which I will put at our ownparty meeting for its consideration, where Imight be able to persuade them to acept it andthen we will discuss it with the National Partyand try to have it accepted by them.

Mr Cowan: We told you what our bottomline was and you could not tell us.

Mr MENSAROS: At the last meeting I hadwith the Minister for Parliamentary and Elec-toral Reform, he asked me what the bottomline would be and I told him what I could putto the party meeting. That is what I had alreadytold the National Party. The Minister madenotes.

The next morning he rang me and said hewanted to check whether his notes were correct.I said they appeared to be correct but I wouldsend them down in writing. I sent a horizontaltyped paper where, on the left-hand side, wasour bottom line and on the right-hand side wasthe National Party's bottom line. That wasknown to the deputy leader of the NationalParty because he came to me days before andtold me of one item that was not quite correct.On the sheet I covered the National Party pantbecause it had nothing to do with the Govern-ment. It was not a secret. I never gave anythingto the Minister or talked about anything whichwould not have been discussed with theNational Party. It was the basis of our nego-tiations. They were not open but confidentialnegotiations. Without blushing, the Ministerrevealed them. That was the misplaced confi-dence I had in the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform. That is the reason Isaid-and I do not withdraw it-he is not aman let alone a gentleman. I am very sorry Ihave to say that.

The next day the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform came back to me. satright here and gave me a note in his own hand-writing that he could come very near toaccepting the bottom line;* lHe knew that wasnot the policy but was something he could offerto the party. I have still got this paper but I willnever show it to anyone because his breach ofconfidence will not make a crook out of me.They do not keep confidences. This Premierwent around and said that was the LiberalParty policy. It was never its policy! The Minis-ter for Parliamentary and Electoral Reformknew that. He cannot say I did not tell himbecause with every negotiation there were twoconditions. The first condition was that I couldonly talk about things which I might have putto the party room. That is not the policy. Sec-ondly, I said I would not make a deal without

the National Party. Fortunately, it turned outthat I was wrong. They made a deal without us.That was bad luck because I believed in theirstraight character. I have negotiated withJapanese, Americans, and English businesspeople reasonably successfully. I did not expectthis treatment at home.

The next thing we heard that the Premierhad used my note publicly as Liberal Partypolicy for the by-election. This was entirely un-true, hence the reason I made the accusationsof untruth. The facts are well known to boththe Minister and the deputy leader of theNational Party.

The next allegation whi-h I had made quiteclear was that we had a breach of undertaking,We had several meetings with the NationalParty. There was one meeting where there weresix members at the Leader of the Opposition'sorn ce. The final line was that we would like toagree on a policy but if we could not, or thepolicy was not accepted, the Bill would bevoted out.

Mr COWAN: Unlike the Government, theNational Party is very pleased to see this mess-age returned to the Legislative Assembly forone very simple reason. For something like twoyears the National Party agonised over the for-mulation of its electoral policy. During thatperiod, it was widely canvassed among themembers of our organisation as to what ourpolicy would be.

Having arrived at a policy-I must say it wasnot a unanimous decision within the party-itwas very clearly documented. In the two yearssince our policy has been established the partyhas made one minor change. Some people maygive it greater significance than others but I willtell members what the change was.

Originally our policy called for three countryregions and one metropolitan region. We ac-cepted an argument that there needed to beequality of regions between the metropolitanarea and the country area. We accepted sometime ago that there needed to be three regionsin each of the areas. That is the only changethat has been made to National Party policy onelectoral reform over the last 18 months. I wantto make that very clear because, in his conclud-ing remarks, the member for Floreat, for whomI have some regard as an honest person and oneof principle, made the claim that the NationalParty had made a deal. I repeat that all thismessage we are debating tonight incorporates

2962

[Thursday, l8 June 19871 26

all of that National Party policy. We have notcompromised any part of our policy in anyway, shape, or form.

I would have thought. from my agrarian up-bringing, that in order to do a deal one has tocompromise. If we have not compromisedsurely even people with an IQ of two aboveplant life would understand there was no deal.

Our party's policy was not compromised inany way. Therefore there was no deal done. Ireject completely the allegation by the memberfor Floreat that a deal was done.

I turn now to some of the provisions of thelegislation.

Mr Brian Burke: You stitched them up andnow you are going to stitch us up.

Mr COWAN: In many respects I am disap-pointed that the Government hasdemonstrated a reluctance to accept what I re-gard as an excellent policy. Nevertheless, theNational Party, as the only political party notto have suffered any compromise on this elec-toral reform legislation, understands the disap-pointment felt by the other parties, so I have nointention of trying to stitch up anyone.

I turn now to some of the discussions thattook place in search of common ground be-tween all political parties. I readily admit tomeeting with members of the Government,particularly with the Minister for Parliamen-tary and Electoral Reform-there was a suc-cession of Ministers-and to meeting withmembers of the Liberal Party to discuss thisissue. I particularly remember a series of meet-ings that took place between the National Partyand the Liberal Party in which we made it veryclear that we preferred to be able to bring aboutelectoral change while we formed part of aGovernment. We said, "Our policy is laid outbefore you. What is the Liberal Party's finalpolicy, because we had an agreement, which wehonoured with the member for Floreat whenwe were debating the legislation in the Legislat-ive Assembly, that we would oppose the thirdreading of the Acts Amendment (ElectoralReform) Bill if common ground could not befound between the Liberal Party and theNational Party?" We had three meetings inwhich we went to the Liberal Party and said,"if that agreement is to be honoured we mustknow what is the Liberal Party's bottom line."We were frustrated on three occasions.

Shortly after the final meeting the Leader ofthe Opposition called a Press conference atwhich he said-and he can correct me if I recallwrongly-that the Liberal Party was going to

have nothing to do with electoral reform andwas going to vote against the second reading ofthe Bill. There was to be no further debate onthe matter of electoral reform.

Members will recall that at that time a by-election was being held for the seat ofNarrogin. and that by-election was the subjectof some very intense negotiations between theLiberal Party and the Labor Party in the hopethat one of those parties could win the seat ofNarrogin from the National Party, which hadonly just regained it. Some figures wereforwarded to the Government, I understand-a move which was quite a departure from theLiberal Party's stated position and which wasdefinitely a contradiction of the Leader of theOpposition's stated aims at his Press confer-ence.

*After three meetings and three requestswhere the National Party tried to discover thebottom line of the Liberal Party's position onelectoral reform so that we could reach someunderstanding and some agreement on the fateof the legislation, we were given no indicationof what was going to happen. This was becausethere were discussions between the LiberalParty and the Government. I believe now thatthose discussions concentrated not so much onachieving meaningful electoral reform but onthe recommendation of the Government that itdirect its preferences to the Liberal Party can-didate for the Narrogin by-election.

Mr MacKinnon: Totally untrue. Not oncedid we have any discussion with the Govern-ment about preferences-and we never will.

Mr COWAN: The negotiations and the dis-cussions between the Liberal Party and theGovernment on electoral reform were notgenuine. They were negotiations and dis-cussions held with a view to securingpreference at the Narrogin by-election. I willrepeat that time and time again, and the Leaderof the Opposition can deny it as often as helikes, and so can his colleagues. Even if they arenot prepared to admit it is true, an awful lot ofpeople out there know it to be true. That is afact.

Mr Lightfoot interjected.

Mr COWAN: I repeat for the sake of themember for Murchison-Eyre that the nego-tiations that took place between the Govern-ment and the Liberal Party were not seriousnegotiations aimed at trying to achieve elec-toral reform but were nothing more than a fa-cade and a fraud by the Liberals in an attempt

2863

2864 [ASSEM BLY]

to convince the Government that there wassomething there and that preferences couldperhaps be allocated to the Liberal Party.

Mr Brian Burke: Firstly, we seriously con-sidered not allocating our preferences; and sec-ondly, we allocated them to the Liberal Partycandidate in Narrogin because we believed theLiberal Party was dinkum.

Mr Mackinnon: You are a joke.

Mr COWAN: We have stated for a long limethat the basic principle on which the NationalParty wanted to bring about etectoral reform inthis State required that there should be no nu-merical loss of genuine country seats. If mem-bers are honest and look at the electoral systemwhich I hope is about to be enacted, they willnote that there is no numerical loss of genuinecountry seats. There are 57 Legislative As-sembly seats now, and of those, under existingboundaries, 30 are in the metropolitan areawhile the other 27 are in what is alleged to bethe country area.

But let us remember that the country area isa boundary determined by people and it reallyfollows this road, goes across this bridle path,over this fallowed paddock, and down thistrack: it is a boundary drawn to favour the thenGovernment.

We have said that ihe metropolitan areaboundary should be drawn correctly, whichmeans four seats now designated country willgo into the metropolitan area. We would thenhave 34 metropolitan seats and 23 countryseats. Thai is what this clause provides.

Mr Brian Burke: The point you are making isthat Kalamunda is not a country scat.

Mr COWAN: That is right. The NationalParty's desire for the Legislative Council was17 members representing the country area and17 members representing the metropolitanarea. At the moment there are 20 allegedcountry seats and 14 metropolitan seats. One ofthose country seats is West Province whichcomprises Mundaring. Darling Range, andKalamunda. That means that two councillorsshould really represent the metropolitan area.If that were the case, the numbers would be 16and I8. Lower West Province is made up of anarea roughly half of which is a metropolitanarea and half of which is a country area. Thatbrings the representation back to I 7-all andthat is what we asked for. Not one seat has beenlost from genuine country areas. I am proud ofthat because we have been able to bring about

electoral reform without denying countrypeople the numerical representation theyalready have.

We have taken out of the legislation some ofthe anomalies that existed in vote-weightingand we are proud of that.

Mr MENSAROS: I am sorry if what I saidabout the National Party was not a6cepted byits members, but it was true. At the last meet-ing we had in the Leader of the Opposition'soffice, we all understood and agreed that unlessthe full propositions of both the Liberal Partyand the National Party were accepted, wewould vote against the Bill. I know that appearsto be illogical because at that time we did nothave a joint policy, and we do not have onenow. However, we were hoping for one. Wegave a firm undertaking, in the hope that wemight arrive at a joint policy, that if either ofthe parties did not achieve what they set out t0achieve-not for the Legislative Assembly, be-cause the Bill had passed it at that stage, but forthe Legislative Council-the other party wouldvote against the Bill. That did not happen. Ireluctantly call that a breach of an undertaking.

Mr Stephens: You misunderstood and I wilZexplain the misunderstanding later.

Mr MENSAROS: It was not a misunder-standing: it was an agreement. I even repeatedit as we left the Leader of the Opposition'soffice so that we all understood it.

Members of the National Party who votedfor the amendments now contained in thismessage from the Legislative Council believethat the Bill is now to their advantage. That isnot true. My comments were underlined by theNational Party's most experienced member,the member they call their leader in the upperHouse, who took the line that I take and didnot support the backbone of the amendments.After an election based on these provisions, theNational Party would win only three seats, notfour, in the Legislative Council. It deliberatelyabdicated one.

Mr House: You will see what happens afterthe next election.

Mr MENSAROS: The member will see. TheNational Party will be lucky to retain five of itssix seats in this Kouse and will more than likelywin only four.

Mr Cowan: You don't draw the boundariesany more.

2864

(Thursday, IS June 19871 86

Mr MENSAROS: The only boundary draw-ing that took place in this legislation wasproposed by the National Party and that wasthe acceptance of the MRPA boundary for thedivision between country and city seats.

M r Cowan: That is a very good boundary.Mr MENSAROS: It is a boundary not drawn

by the independent commission. I will repeatthat, as a result of this legislation, the Legislat-ive Council will be abolished in the near future.I congratulate the Labor Party because its ori-ginal policy was to abolish it. During this de-bate the Labor Party said it was not its policyany more. However, I believe it will bereintroduced into its platform very subtly. Thepublic will demand its abolition as soon as theysee its members being elected at the same timeas the Legislative Assembly members and assoon as they see that it does not represent anystabilising force for politics in this State. Infuture there will be no difference in party linesbetween this House and the upper House andthe upper House will no longer act as a Kouseof Review:. its stability will disappear. Shouldthe Labor Party win the next election and it hasa majority in the upper House, it will abolish it.

There used to be a time when members op-posite adhered to some sort of principles. Theyhave now chucked those principles out the win-dow and that has become a virtue. They havedone away with one of the great checks andbalances of our democratic system. if that iswhat they wanted, they have achieved it andgood luck to them. I am only sorry that ourgreat democracy has suffered.

Mr STEPHENS: I am disappointed with theway this debate has begun. During the closingstages of the debate on the Bill, members saidthat it was one of the best and fairest debatesthat had ever taken place in this Chamber.Already that has gone out the window and re-criminations seem ro be the order of the day.

Unfortunately, the statements being madeare far from factual. I said I was disappointedbecause, until the debate on this Bill, I thoughtthe member for Floreat was one of the mostsincere members that I had ever met in thisChamber. I respected his integrity and hishonesty. Either he has lost grip of his memoryor he has lost that integrity and honesty. That iswhy I am sad that my faith in that man hasbeen destroyed because of the way he spoke aMoment ago.

He spoke about hypocrisy. It certainly doesnot apply to this party or to the manner inwhich my negotiations took place. I remind

him that we had an understanding while wewere negotiating that, in no way would wenegotiate with the Labor Party, either jointly orindividually.

I was approached by the Labor Party to talkwith it.M r Mensaros interjected.Mr STEPHENS: The member for Floreat

should listen to me;, I did not interject on himwh ile he was spea k ing.

I discussed it with the leader of my party andsaid that because of the arrangements we hadwith the Liberal Party under no circumstanceswould I negotiate with the Labor Party. I wasi mmed iatel y told by m y leader th at he was gladI had that opinion because it was also hisopinion.

I rang the member for Floreat and said thatan approach had been made, and I felt it wouldbe worth while meeting with the Labor Party tofind out what was its bottom line. At that stagethe member for Floreat advised me over thetele phone, I felt from the tenor of his voice thathe felt a little guilty about it, that he hadalready discussed some matters with the Minis-ter for Parliamentary and Electoral Reform. Heacknowledged that he had and 1 accepted it.

We met the Minister for Parliamentary andElectoral Reform and did not find out any-thing. We had a party meeting where the wholeposition of the, National Party was discussedand the only alteration that was ratified by theparty was going from three regions in thecountry and one in the city to three in theco unt ry a nd th ree i n the ci ty. The Leader of theNational Party has already explained thereason far that alteration.

At the conclusion of the party meeting Icalled into the office of the member for Floreatand told him that I could not find out the bot-tom line of the Labor Party, but that my partyhad Spent between two and three hours' debat-ing the issue in the party moom and I advisedhim of my party's bottom line. He made a noteof it. At that stage he said to-me, b"We are nowlooking at offering 20 metropolitan and 14country." An additional point was that hisparty proposed a half election for the upperHouse. Members should bear in mind that ifthere was a half election in the LegislativeCouncil in 1989 the numbers remaining in theupper House would mean that the Labor Partywould already have a majority. I pointed outthat it would be giving control to the LaborParty on a plate.

2865

2866 [ASSEM BLY)I

Because I realised the seriousness of the situ-ation I immediately rang the Leader of theNational Party and told him that [ thought thatas a matter of urgency we should have a meet-ing with the Liberal Party to explain what wasgoing on. However, before we arranged thatmeeting the Leader of the National Party wastold that the otter of 20-14 had already beenmade to the Labor Party. That was the firstintimation that we had about its decision.

The offer had been made to the Labor Partyprior to any opportunity of discussing it withthe National Party,

Mr Mensaros interjected.Mr STEPHENS: The member for Floreat

look notes, so he is aware of it. They are thefacts of the matter. There was no breach on ourpart.

I turn now to the arrangement we had withthe Liberal Party, and this is where the memberfor Floreas is either deliberately misrep-resenting the facts or his memory is failing. Thearrangement was that if we could not reach acompromise we would go along the line ofputting forward our own amendments, but wewould not agree to the Labor Party taking someof the Liberal Party amendments and some ofthe National Party amendments and gettingwhat they wanted that way. We understoodthat in that situation we would vote against thethird reading.

The arrangement was that if either party gotall its amendments through they would be freeto support the third reading. We havehonoured that arrangement. We have not madeany change to our position. As I said, the mem-ber for Floreat's memory is failing or he is nottelling the truth. They are the facts and it iscommonsense. He admitted when speaking amoment ago that it would not be realistic for aparty which got what it wanted to vote againstthe third reading. As I said, the agreement wasthat if either party had its amendments agreedto it could vote for the third reading. We werenot going to allow the Labor Party to pick offthe titbits from either the Liberals or theNationals and come up with a composite dealon that arrangement.

The member for Floreat made reference tothis Bill being given to the Labor Party on aplate and that we would see the demise of sheupper House. When this debate was raging inanother place, Hon.-.Gordon Masters said thatif the existing situation prevailed the LaborParty would get control of the upper House. Ido not know what the Liberal Party is fright-

ened about. The Leader of the Liberal Party inanother place acknowledged that with a con-tinuation of the present voting pattern theLabor Party would get control of the upperHo use.

The other point the member has completelyoverlooked is the question of a referendum.Under the Constitution the upper House can-not be abolished unless a Bill is passed by bothHouses and is put to the people at a refer-endum and, of course, passed. The other pointwith respect to hyprocrisy is that the LiberalParty in another place moved for a referendumon electoral reform. There have been four orfive moves for a referendum in this place andthe Liberal Party has not supported them. I goback to a request for a referendum in 1982. 1actually moved in this Chamber for a refer-endum to look at the system of voting for theupper House in proportional representationand would members believe it, the LiberalParty, which was in Government, supportedthe move.

Dr Gallop: They were asleep, that is why.Mr STEPHENS: I think it was the early

hours of the morning, but nevertheless, the Lib-eral Party voted for it. Having been passed bythis Parliament, the Liberal Party did nothingabout it-and it talks about hypocrisy! Now,because it thinks is suits its purpose it is talkingabout a referendum. It had the opportunity todo that five years ago, yet it has the gall to talkabout hypocrisy. I think members of that partyshould refer to the dictionary to determine theproper meaning of hypocrisy. I am afraid theyare using it under a misapprehension of itsmeaning.

I must mention another point regarding elec-toral reform. Quite frequently the Press criti-cises politicians, and regrettably some of thosecriticisms are merited. If the Press is going toset itself up as a critic, it must be without blem-ish. Yet, on 10 June on the front page of TheWest Australian we saw a headline,"Government, Nats do deal on seats". TheLeader of the National Party made it clearearlier that no deal was done and why there wasno need to do a deal. We did not have tocompromise. That has been clearly outlined bymy leader.

The article in The West Australian stated,"Closed door discussions continued until adeal was struck late last night". The regrettablefact is-I have seen the copy that went fromthis Press gallery to the newspaper-that theword -agreemnent" took the place of the word

2866

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J186

"deal", Thai was in the copy that was writtenby Di Callander in the Press room. 1 saw it. Theeditor, or one of h is staff-the editor must takeresponsibility-altered the word from..agreement" to "deal".

Mr Thompson: Do you have a special ar-rangement to look at the copy?

Mr STEPHENS: Has not the member forKalamunda seen copy in the Press room? Ithappens quite frequently. Journalists haveshown me what they have written and they askme if I disagree or agree with it.

Mr Brian Burke: It is quite common if thejournalist thinks he or she has been badly dealtwith.

Mr STEPHENS: If the Press feels that it is ina position to criticise politicians, it must lift asstandards. It is a very serious error. I would goasfar as saying that on the face of it, it appears tobe deliberate, and I would repeat that. Whywould a word be changed from "agreement" to"a deal"?

Mr Brian Burke: An agreement can be re-ferred to as a deal, but I have always found thatout of every 100 conspiracies, there has usuallybeen not even one on average.

Mr STEPHENS: It is strange that it wasaltered, and it was factually wrong and hasbeen shown to be so. I think I have coveredsome of the accusations that were made earlier.

Finally, the National Party has nothing to beashamed of in supporting vote weighting- Bycontinuing to press the issue as we have done, Ibelieve we have protected country people. It isabsolutely essential in a democratic society thatthe will of the people can be represented at anelection and that changing attitudes can comethrough in the results of those elections. By thevery nature of Western Australia and the greaturban population that we have, it is essentialthat we have vote weighting to protect theinterests of the minority, being people livingoutside the metropolitan area.

We are not alone in this. Nobody talks aboutone-vote-one-value for the Senate and nobodyhas ever criticised the Senate for that. inCanada, Great Britain, and even Japan, withthe great urbanisation that it has, there is voteweighting. We are not ashamed of supportingvote weighting and are proud of the fact thatwe have stood by the people that we representin this Chamber and have maintained that voteweighting is essential if the minority people,

most of whom produce the greater part of thewealth of this State, are going to get a fair dealelectorally.

Mr MacKINNON: There is one member inthis Parliament who above all has the respect ofalmost everybody here for his integrity andhonesty, and that is the member for Floreat. Hieis a man that I would back against anybody inthis Chamber for his diligence when given atask. I totally stand behind his comments herethis evening. On behalf of my colleagues Ithank the member for Floreat for the tremen-dous amount of work he has done, over andabove the call of duty, on our behalf on thisBill.

There is really only one winner in relation tothe legislation that is before us tonight, and ifany member doubts that, he should cast his-m ind back to a coup le a days ago wh en a Mess-age came down from the Council, and recallwho was cheering the loudest. Who are thepeople tonight with smug grins on their faces?It is the Government members. Without ashadow of doubt they are the real winners inthis'piece of legislation, as has been outlinedclearly by the statistics put forward in anotherplace. I will not recount them here tonight be-cause-

Mr Bryce: You cannot because you do notknow them, and you never have. You cameright out of this issue. All you tried to do waspoliticise it. It is no wonder the member forFloreat did not know. IHe had his feet on egg-shellIs; he had a new t heo ry every other d ay.

Mr MacKINNON: I have them all here, andthe fact is that the Government will be the realwinner out of this piece of legislation, certainlyin relation to the Legislative Council. I predictnow that after the next election the Govern-ment will hold 17 seats in the Legislative Coun-cil, and it knows it, and that is why the legis-lation was so willingly accepted by the Govern-mentI.

To bring members back to the essential pointhere this evening in relation to this clause, it isa very historic moment that we have the LaborParty Government of today moving to deletefrom this Bill the principle of one-vote-one-value. To prove the hypocrisy of its move, mystaff went to the Australian Labor Party officea few days ago and got these pamphlets:"Everyone's vote should be equal-, let thepeople decide."

Government members: Hear, hear!

2867

2868 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr MacKINNON: Government memberssay. "Hear, hear", yet the Deputy Premiermoved a motion this evening to delete thatclause from this Bill.

Mr D. L. Smith: That is a step along the way.

Mr MacKIN NON: It says here, "Everyone'svote should be equal: let the people decide".yet when given the opportunity to let thepeople decide, which was the purpose of mov-ing the motion for the referendum, to test theGovernment's bona fides, the Governmenteven rejected the motion to let the people de-cide.

Mr Brian Burke: Why not be honest. It was areferendum on these changes.

Mr MacKINNON: I challenge the Premier togo now and put these stickers on his car. Hecould not put them on Government cars, buthe could put them on the cars of his supporters.

I said at the time we debated this Bill-as themember for Floreat has clearly indicated-thatthe Government knows, as we know, that if wewere looking at the strict politics of one-vote-one-value, we would be supporting that clause,because we would be the winners in strict pol-itical terms. However, one-vote-one-value hasnever been given serious consideration on thisside. It has been debated, but it has not beenseriously considered because we believe in theproper representation of country people in thisChamber and in the Legislative Council. so wehave rejected that point of view, although onthe face of it and on the strict mathematicalcalculations, we would have come out in front.

Let me say. so there can be no doubt at allwhere we stand on this matter-and I said thispublicly, many weeks ago before the by-elec-tion, and I have said it to the Leader of theNational Party, and if not, I am saying itnow-that we have never considered doing adeal with the Labor Party on preferences, andnever will. We never believed that we would getthe ALP preferences in the Narrogin by-elec-tion. I believed, as did the National PartyLeader, that we could win that election in ourown right without the ALP, and why would wedo a deal with the devil anyway? So I totallyreject any allegation that we endeavoured tomake a deal, either directly or indirectly. Therewas no such hope from this side of the House,and there will be no such hope in the future. Ifwe have to rely on ALP preferences to get intoGovernment in our own right or to win seats,then we do not want to do so. I also stand bythe comments made by the member for Floreat

about our discussions with the ALP. At alltimes he kept me informed, and at all times theNational Party was advised of our discussions.

At all times in his discussions with both theALP and the National Party, he was advised hecould go away and debate a broad range of'issues. Both the Government and the NationalParty knew our policy position because it wasput forward here in this Chamber, but he wasadvised to go away and debate the issues withthe opposite sides of the equation-theNational Party and the ALP-and come backto the party room to report on what he thoughtwas achievable, and we would then see whetherwe could accept such an arrangement. That wascommonsense, and that was what he was doing.

I did hold a Press conference and said thenexactly what I had said to the National Partyearlier, or subsequently-I cannot rememberwhich, but I am pretty sure it was earlier. Itmakes no difference. We indicated consistentlyall the way through in our discussions with theNational Party that our first priority and firstpreference was to see the Bill defeated at thesecond reading stage. There was never anydoubt about that. At that Press conference Irepeated what I have said so many times-, wedid not believe the Bill warranted a secondreading. We opposed its second reading in theCouncil. and we were always going to. So therewas nothing inconsistent about that Press con-ference or about the statement that we wantedto see the legislation defeated at the secondreading.

Mr Cowan: It was inconsistent with yourspokesman on electoral reform in so far as hehad sent down a proposal to the Governmentfor consideration, and that proposal was sig-nificantly less in terms of numerical voteweighting than is the proposal before ustonight.

Mr MacKINNON: Nobody has denied that.But let me return to the point: We wanted tosee the Bill defeated at its second reading. Thatwas a consistent point of view. Does the Leaderof the National Party not agree with me? weconsistently said we wanted the Bill defeated atits second reading. Was that not our point ofview?

Mr Cowan: No.

Mr MacKIN NON: When did we ever not saythat?

2868

[Thursday, 18 June 19871 86

Mr Stephens: If we could not come to acompromise we would have our policy, oralternatively if all of your amendment was ac-cepted or all of our amendment was accepted-

Mr MacKINNON: That was the third read-ing. l am talking about the second reading.

Mr Brian Burke: How can you move amend-ments after you defeat something at the secondreading?

Mr Stephens: Unless it gets a second reading.

Mr Bryce: This is the reason your party isdivided. You are demonstrating to thisChamber precisely the lack of leadership on theissue and the three different positions.

Mr MacKINNON: Ifithe Minister for Parlia-mentary and Electoral Reform wants to knowall about positions, he should read the KamaSufra.

We said consistently that we wanted to seethe Bill defeated at the second reading stage.The National Party indicated it would notagree with that point of view. We tried to con-vince them but they indicated to us quiteclearly that that was not their preferredposition. So. while we stated our total positionin the hope of convincing them, we alsocontinued our discussions. But our preferredposition was-and it never varied; it was likeCraven A-that we wanted to see the secondreading of the Bill defeated. That was a consist-ent point all the way through.

Mr Cowan: That means you were saying pub-licly you were not prepared to support a secondreading, but your spokesman on electoral mat-ters was sending material to the Governmentfor its consideration and you were having dis-cussions with us on what you would do in theCommittee stage. Knowing full well you wereopposed to the second reading, your spokes-man was sending down material for consider-ation and you were talking to us about what wewould do in the Committee stages. That iscrazy.

Mr Bryce: I can't believe it!

Mr MacKINNON: I cannot understand theNational Party's or the Government's perplex-ity. Our position was one of total opposition tothe Bill and we wanted to see the Bill rejected.We continued all the way through in an effortto convince the National Party to agree withour point of view as they continued to attemptto get us to change our minds. But on the basisthat we did not, or that they indicated they

were probably not going to agree with thatpoint of view, we had to have a contingencyplan.

Would other members not have done thesame thing if they believed our party was doingsomething different? They would have beendiscussing it day after day. Would they havesaid, "We are going to vote against the secondreading as our preferred position, but given thefact that we will probably lose that vote we willthen do nothing else: we will see what happenswhen we are beaten"? We are not that stupid orthat silly.

Given that the National Party's view was oneof non-negotiability-that it did not believe weshould defeat the Bill at that stage-we alsothen were in the process of being prepared forthe contingency of not succeeding in our at-tempt to defeat the Bill at the second reading.That is commonsense and straightforward, andthat is what we did. Everybody knew that.There were no doubts at the time from any-body's point of view as to what we were doing,and there still are not.

I will sum up by saying that the outcome thatwe have now achieved with this Bill is not ourpreferred position, as members well know. Wewould have preferred a different point of view.I will indicate why I disagree with the positionsas outlined, as I am sure the member forFloreat will, and what our preferred point ofview would be. But let there be no mistake:After this evening we are not going to go moan-ing and groaning through the community aboutthe position we are in. The position we face hasnow been agreed, by whatever means, with theGovernment and the National Party, and weintend at the next election to go forward andwin Government on the boundaries that arethere. Let there be no mistake about that. Andafter the election we will endeavour to put inplace what we believe will be a much moresensible electoral arrangement in this State.

Members know what our position is; it hasbeen outlined quite clearly. That is the point ofview we will put forward and I hope one daythe people of Western Australia have the ben-efit of voting under it.

Mr THOMPSON: I am disappointed withwhat has emerged from the treatment in thisParliament of the electoral reform Bill. But Irecognise that what has happened in the case ofthis piece of legislation is the most dramaticreform of the electoral laws since responsibleGovernment. Dramatic ramifications that flowfmom this will roll on over the years. There have

2869

2870 [ASSEMBLY]

been some significant changes in the electorallaws in the time since responsible Government,but most of those changes have occurred in theLegislative Council. I cannot think of one oc-casion where there have been such dramaticchanges that simultaneously affected the elec-toral system with respect to both Houses. Atthe time adult franchise was introduced intothe Legislative Council, that had a very dra-matic impact on that House but there were notsimilar sorts of things that happened with re-spect to this House.

On the night of the last election I recogniseda Bill of this magnitude and type would passthrough this Parliament. I did not know inwhat form it would come, but I knew jolly wellthat electoral reform would occur because thenumbers were such, in my estimation, thatsomething could be worked out that would re-sult in a reform Bill, bearing in mind that I wasconscious of the campaign that had been wagedby two principal members of this Parliament,one now gone, who were keen to see electoralreform. One of them was Arthur Tonkin, whodevoted his whole parliamentary life toreforming the system. Although I disagreedwith him vigorously in many areas, one had toadmire that fellow's steadfastness in pursuingthe goat which he determined was appropriate.

Mr Bryce: The moment a Labor man is pol-itically dead, how you hypocrites put him on apedestal! You Absolutely scorned him when hewas here; and you are the third member on thatside of the Chamber tonight to put the man'spolitical memory on the pedestal. I hope hereads your comments with satisfaction.

Mr THOMPSON: That is the view of theMinister for Parliamentary and ElectoralReform and he is entitled to it, but he shouldallow me to develop my theme.

The second principal player in attempting toachieve electoral reform has been the memberfor Stirling. and although I disagree with himon many points and on many occasions, some-one had better get the smelling salts to himbecause what I am about to say will probablycause him to faint. He has been very much acampaigner for electoral reform and I knew bythe way the numbers fell on election night thata Bill would pass through this Chamber thatwould see changes in the electoral system.' I donot want to accuse people of doing deals orcoming to agreements-I do not want to getinto any arguments like that-but I knew atthat point that electoral reform would becomea reality, and I can tell members that I actedupon it and took the steps necessary to ensure

that whatever happens out of the redistributionthat occurs after this Bill is proclaimed. I amgoing to be a member of this place. I intendbeing that.

Mr Stephens: Congratulations to you. Ifevery one of the Liberals adopted that attitude,there is no doubt we would have Governmentwith you after the next election. That is a verypositive statement and I congratulate you for it.

Mr Brian Burke: I think the member forStirling misunderstood the statement. What hemeant was that he is going to make sure Spriggsdoes not get his seat, not that he would becampaigning against us.

Mr THOMPSON: The fact is that around themetropolitan fringe therc are now four seats,three of which are held by the Liberal Partyand one by the Labor Party. After the bound-aries change with the redistribution there willbe two seats, both of which will be won by theLiberal Party, and the member for Mundlaringwill no longer be with us. That is what willhappen. So the ramifications for the LaborParty as a result of the passage of this Bill willbe quite profound. The member for Geraldtonis history, of course-he will be looking for aseat in Perth very soon.

It has been my experience in this place thatthe people who perpetrate or bring in legis-lation to bring about electoral change finish uplosing out.

Mr Brian Burke: That shows we are altruisticin intention.

Mr THOMPSON: I think the Premier justmade some misjudgments.

Mr Brian Burke: It would not be the firsttime-I have made a lot of mistakes in my life.

Mr THOMPSON: One of the ramificationsof this quite momentous piece of legislation isthat the Legislative Council will disappearwithin the parliamentary lifetime of people inthis Chamber. There will be no longer any needor reason for its existence and, mark my words,if it is not taken out as a result of a directdecision of the Labor Party which has had anambition and, indeed, at some times a writtenpolicy to abolish the Legislative Council, thatLegislative Council will cease to exist because itwill become a nothing place-an absolutelynothing place.

I suggest there is a way that the LegislativeCouncil could play a role similar to that playedby the Senate in the Commonwealth scene.There is for the House of Representatives asystem of one-vote-one-value, and we see under

2870

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 27

this system that one has the ludicrous situationof Esperance and Wyndham being in the sameFederal seat. To my way of thinking that is notonly ludicrous, it is also rather unusual. No-one, however, is suggesting that there should besome change to the electoral system to alterthat one-vote-one-value system for elections tothe House of Representatives.

We have, on the other hand, the situation inthe Senate where one-vote-one-value does notapply, and I do not hear anyone call, from any-where in this country, for the system of electingpeople to the Senate to change, because theSenate has always been recognised as a placewhich protects minority interests. I draw a par-allel here with the situation which I thinkshould occur in Western Australia. This wouldonly result from the passage of legislationwhich enabled the Legislative Council to sur-vive and to have a role. That would come aboutonly if a system could be introduced into theelectoral laws under which one-vote-one-valuewere to apply for the election of members tothe Legislative Assembly.

One of the reasons we are now debating thisclause is that the Labor Party became awarethat within the Liberal Party ranks there are anumber of people who believe that for electionto membership of the Legislative Assemblyone-vote-one-value should apply. When theLabor Party heard that, its leaders thought,"Niow hold on-"

Dr Gallop: The member for Murchison-Eyresaid that was a lie.

Mr THOMPSON: I am telling the Chamberwhat the Labor Party's perception was. TheLabor Party's perception was that there werepeople in the Liberal Party who would supportthe principle of one-vote-one-value.

Mr Pearce: Why did you think we had thatperception?

Mr THOMPSON: Because Hon. SandyLewis in the upper House said he would sup-port the principle of one-vote-one-value.

Mr Bryce: No, that is not so. I will show youthat piece of paper and you will be very embar-rassed. Sandy had come by way of a certainport of call when he gave me that paper.

Mr THOMPSON: The perception of theLabor Party was that there were a number ofLiberal Party members who were movingtowards the principle of one-vote-one-value,and the last thing the Government wanted wasthis Bill to pass one-vote-ne-value. TheGovernment did not even divide on this ques-tion; it ran away from it because if it had been

put to a division there is a chance it might havesucceeded. The Government knew that if thathad occurred at that point the National Partywould not support the Government, and thewhole of this Bill would go.

I issue this challenge now: If. after this legis-lation has been passed, the Government bringsa Bill into this place that calls on a system ofelection of members of the Legislative As-sembly which involves one-vote-one-value, Iwill support it.

Mr Brian Burke: What about the upperHouse?

Mr THOM PSON: I cannot vouch for my col-l eagues; nor ca n I vouch for what mnigh t h appenin the other place; but I know that the Govern-ment knew there were people in the LiberalParty who were moving towards that point ofview. I heard the Premier say it earlier tonight.I challenge the Government to bring a piece oflegislation here in the spring session after thislegislation has been wrapped up, so that it doesnot risk losing all these "you beaut" things-

Mr Bryce: We won't be hypocritical;, we willmake it one-vote-one-value for both Houses.

Mr THOMPSON: That is the challenge Imake. I challenge the Government to do so. Ifthe system of voting for membership of thisChamber becomes one-vote-1ore-value, I willsupport it because one would then have a situ-ation akin to that which applies in the FederalParliament. The House in which the FederalGovernment is made is elected on a system ofone-vote-one-value. I think that is fair anddemocratic, yet the other House is designed toprotect minority interests, such as farmers, be-cause there is no doubt that people in thecountry areas of this State require some form ofprotection and redress. That is why I say theLegislative Council could do it in this State justas it occurs as far as the Slates are concerned inthe Australian Senate. That is the point Iwanted to make.

I have been opposed to the principle of pro-portional representation for election to anyParliament. However, we have had it in theSenate and we are now to have it in the Legis-lative Council. To my way of thinking thatserves no-one's interests because under asystem like that one finishes up with the tailwagging the dog. I do not believe that is in theinterests of the people of the State. The crazysituation exists in the Senate where the twoparties which together hold 95 per cent of the

2871

2872 [ASSEMBLY]

seats are being dictated to by people who haveabout Five per cent of the seals. I do not thinkthat is appropriate or fair and equitable.

Mr Stephens: How do you reason that out?Mr THOMPSON: I know the National Party

would support it because it is the party whichhas becn the tail wagging the dog in State andFederal Parliaments for years.

Mr Stephens: How successful are we whenthe Liberal Party and the Labor Party gettogether?

Mr THOMPSON: Let us look at thepracticalities and the track record. Memberswill find that those minority parties in the Sen-ate and in the Legislative Council have had farmore clout than they have been entitled towhen one considers the number of votes theygather.

Mr LAURANCE: It will not surprise any-body to know that my interest in this matterlies in the area which will be known for theLegislative Council regions as the mining andpastoral areas.

Mr Pearce: I thought your interest lay inFloreat.

Mr LAURANCE: Not at all.I have a question for the architects of the

Bill, the National Party, as to what would hap-pen with the Legislative Assembly seats whichare contained within the region which will beknown as the mining and pastoral region. Itwill have ive Legislative Council seats.

Mr Cowan: They will have approximately10 000 electors each.

Mr LAURANCE: Will the boundaries ofthose Assembly seats be contained completelywithin the Legislative Council region?

Mr Stephens: You would have to direct thatto the independent commissioners, but my be-lief is yes, otherwise there would be a problemwith the rolls and you would need a double lotof rolls.

Mr LAURANCE: But it is not spelled out inthe Sill. Other areas are spelled out, but thisone is not. The Assembly areas will lie com-pletely within the Legislative Council regions.It is not clear whether that pertains to the As-sembly seats within the mining and pastoralregion. I appreciate the reply. Can I ask theMinister for Parliamentary and ElectoralReform the same question?

Mr Bryce: Read the Bill.Mr LAURANCE: Point out where it says

that.

Mr Bryce: We will show you when we cometo the clause.

Mr LAURANCE: Does the Minister for Par-liamentary and Electoral Reform believe itgives me an answer?

Mr Bryce: I will not give you in this Chamberthe benefit of my interpretation. Seriously.those boundaries will be drawn up by the inde-pendent Electoral Commissioners, and nobodyis going to shove under the noses of any com-missioner an interpretation from me or any-body else. This is the strangest, quietest andquaintest phase we have seen from you in along time.

Mr LAURANCE: I want to know the answer.I can draw two interpretations from that. First,it is spelled out in the Bill. I am not aware ofthat and the Minister may be able to show methe clause where it is spelled out. The otherinterpretation is that, unlike the answer fromthe member for Stirling. the Minister believesthe boundaries of the Assembly seats couldoverlap the Legislative Council region line.

Mr Brian Burke: Suit yourself.Mr LAURANCE: Is there an answer? The

Government is proposing this legislation.Mr Brian Burke: Take whatever answer you

want.Mr LAURANCE: Is there an answer avail-

able?Mr Brian Burke: Suit yourself.Mr LAURANCE: This is a fundamental as-

pect I would like to know. There may be ananswer.

Mr Brian Burke: Work it out for yourself.Mr Bryce: When we invited people to the

conference we deliberately did not draw lineson the map. When your party went to the Elec-toral Office the condition on which I made thefacilities available was that it would not beasked to make that interpretation, and that wasdone quite deliberately for the ElectoralOffice's protection. I said that if you wantedassessments done the Liberal Party had to in-terpret it itself and draw the lines on the map.

Mr LAURANCE: I asked because I under-stand the region for the Legislative Council isprescribed because it says -rmining and pas-toral" and specifically excludes "agricultural".That gives one the line virtually of the miningand pastoral region for the Legislative Council.It will not contain any agricultural land accord-ing to my reading of the Bill. Does that mean

2872

[Thursday. I8 June 1987] 87

therefore that Legislative Assembly seatswithin the region known as mining and pas-toral will not contain any agricultural land?

Mr Bryce: It says that one region is to beknown as the north and east region and is toconsist of four complete and contiguous dis-tricts. That is in clause 94.

Mr LAURANCE: Is the Minister saying thatthe word "complete" gives the answer to myquestion?

Mr Bryce: Complete and contiguous.Mr LAURANCE: That would seem to agree

with the answer given by the member forStirling.

M r Bryce: But where the i nes go-Mr LAURANCE: That was not the question

I asked. I asked whether they would lie com-pletely within that region and the Ministerseemed to tell me that they will as a result ofthat clause referring to "complete". That hassome influence on how I will look at this fromnow on.

The point I want to make about represen-tation has been made obliquely by the mem-bers for Kalamunda and Stirling. They haverepeated the reasons why there has always beensupport in this State for giving some weightingto the most remote areas. I make no apologyfor saying it is a very sad day when the specialprivilege given to people in the very remoteareas is to change through having their rep-resentation reduced.

Mr Cowan: Are you talking about the peopleof Kim berley?

Mr LAURANCE: No.M r Cowan: I should hope not.Mr Bryce: How can you seriously argue for

special consideration for remoteness when yourGovernment put 17 000 people intoKimberley. 3 000 into Murchison-Eyre and4 000 into your seat?

Mr LAURANCE: Very easily. It isinteresting that there are very few seats in thisChamber whose boundaries have not changedsince responsible government in 1890. My seatis one. The boundaries and the name of theGascoyne electorate have remained largely un-changed since that time. There are very fewseats with that distinction.

Mr Parker: Fremantle has not changed.Mr LAURANCE: There arc eight seats Out Of

57. 1 do not know how many there will be afterthe next election. Gascoyne is one; it is thesmallest of the four north west seats. It is

roughly equal in size to Victoria-68 000square miles compared with the State ofVictoria which is 72000 square miles.Gascoyne is just a fraction smaller than thatState. The neighbouring electorate ofMurchison-Eyre is roughly equivalent in size tothe State of New South Wales. This Bill is look-ing to add them together. It may not fall thatway. but it is quite likely that Gascoyne andMurchison-Eyre will be joined together. andthen some. because it has roughly 9 000electors.

Mr Parker: It will include Kalgoorlie andother areas.

M r LA URA NCE: That is why I was aski ng ifit will include the agricultural area. I have beentold it will not.

Mr Bryce: There is no agricultural, pastoraland mining area at all. It is not a matter ofwhether those areas will merge.

Mr LAURANCE: It prescribes a region thatincludes the mining and pastoral areas and willnot have an agricultural region.

M r Stephens: It does not say that.Mr LAURANCE: is the member for Stirling

sure?Mr Stephens: Where the land is primarily for

mining and pastoral purposes, the com-missioners will have the discretion as to whereto draw the line. If you will look at page 18,clause 94, you will see it set out.

Mr LAURANCE: That is what I wanted ananswer to.

Those people I represent now have beenrepresented by members in this Chamber since1890. There have been some outstanding mem-bers among them and more than half of themwould have been Labor members. Perhaps themost famous of those members was the lateHon. Frank Wise who represented the seat ofGascoyne from 1933 to 1950: that is a periodof 17 years. The longest serving member wasMr Dan Norton, who rose to the position ofSpeaker of this Chamber. He was a member for21 years. Between them those two of mypredecessors occupied the seat of Gascoyne for38 years, which is to their credit.

I have been a great supporter of the existingsystem. I have followed the representation ofthe north of the State over a long period. Ithink that the most representation the northhas ever had was when it was represented bynine members out of 48 members. I am refer-ring to the area north of the 26th parallel. Thatsituation prevailed in the late I1940s.

2873

2874 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Cowan: You realise that under this pro-posal you will have one extra Assembly seat inthe north west?

Mr Stephens: At least one extra.Mr LAURANCE: We now have four.Mr Stephens: you are talking about a re-

duction in representation. You should bethanking us because we are improving the rep-resentation for your people in the north.

Mr LAURANCE: We will see about that. Iwill defend the present system, but if the northreceives more representation I will thank theNational Party.

Mr Stephens: After the 1989 elections we willsit back and wait for all the thanks.

Mr LAURANCE: As I said, 40 years agothere were nine members in this Chamber outof 48 members who represented the north west.That representation is now four out of 57 mem-bets. The seats in the north west represented 85percent of the land area of Western Australia. Ibelieve that it is appropriate that the people inthat area have more representation than fourmembers out of 57 members.

The National Party's proposal is extreme andit will mean that an area as large as Victoriawill be added to an area as large as New SouthWales and that area will be represented by onlyone membcr. That is what will happen to myelectorate.

Mr Stephens: You will have more seats in thenorth.

Mr LAURANCE: Not in my area. It is aremote area of the State and it has had rep-resentation for a long time, including represen-tation by some outstanding people. The rep-resentation of the interests of the people in thenorth has declined while the representation inthe metropolitan area has increased. I agreewith that, but we should not take away from anarea the size of Victoria the one member ofParliament it has had for many years.

Mr Stephens: You are getting an extra seat. Itmust be an advantage.

Mr LAUJRANCE: What is happening is thattwo electorates will be added together. If it doesnot work out that way, it will be very similar. Iftwo electorates are added together there will beonly one member. From my point of view I donot care about it, but I do care about it for thepeople in the area. The situation could havehappened in 1890. All of us think that thismatter is important because we are involved.With the passing of time we will go on fromhere.

The people who have had representation inthe past deserve to have it in the future andthere is no reason that the number of membersrepresenting the north of this State should bereduced.

Mr BRYCE: Since this is the clause that re-fers to one-vote-one-value I want to give anundertaking to the Chamber that in the nextParliament a reform Bill will be introduced andthis matter will be again discussed. The ques-ton Of one-vote-one-value will not go away and

there will be a good deal of argument abouthow it should be implemented.

Members can insist all they like that therehas been hypocrisy, compromise. change andthe shifting of positions on the part of membersof the Labor Party. Its record speaks for itself.The members of the Labor Party, the party Irepresent in this place. have taken the initiat-

I ves I n this Parliament on seven occasions over13 years in pursuit of that objective. It remainsour objective. The National Party knows it isour objective. We know that it does not acceptor agree to our position and we know there is amixture of opinion in the Liberal Party.

I indicated to the Chamber tonight that assure as day follows night if our Government isreturned to office in 1989 a reform Bill will beintroduced into the Parliament in 1989 or 1990and the central theme of that reform Bill will beone-vote-one-value It will not be a pick-and-choose situation between the different Housesof Parliament.

Several members interjected.

Mr BRYCE: I indicate to members oppositethat this Bill will be approved by this Chamberin its amended form. If members opposite andsome of their colleagues in the other Housewould welcome the Government's initiative inthe spring session of Parliament to bring in aBill advocating one-vote-one-value we willmake sure it is a dinkum and fair one-vote-one-value: that is one-vote-one-value in bothHouses of Parliament.

I make the point to the member forKalamunda as I did to members of the Liberaland National Panties when I discussed thesematters that one of the fundamental positionsour party has adopted is that it believes there isno moral justification whatsoever in this Stateto distinguish between the two Houses of Par-liament by way of vote weighting. The particsdisagree on this, but it is a fundamentalposition that the Labor Party holds.

2874

I[Thursday, I8 June 19871 87

The Liberal Party holds steadfastly to theview that there ought to be staggered elections,and it has a right to do so. The Liberal Partyentered the discussions with us by saying it wasnot negotiable; it would not talk to us aboutany changes; it is either a staggered Parliamentor it is riot. I do not agree with the LiberalParty, but I respect its right to hold thatposition. I do not agree with the NationalParty's adherence to the principle of voleweighting, but I respect its right to adhere tothat position. I spell it out clearly: If membersopposite indicate that there is a change of hearton the part of certain Liberals in this Parlia-ment to support one-vote-one-value. I would bevery happy as the Minister for Parliamentaryand Electoral Reform in this spring session tobring in a Bill, and I guarantee members itwould be an opportunity for members in bothHouses of Parliament to vote on the implemen-tation of the principle of one-vote-one-value.

Mr THOMPSON: It did not take the DeputyPremier very long to move his ground becausewhen he spoke earlier on in terms of supporti .nga Bill to introduce the principle of one-vote-one-value for the election for members of theLegislative Assembly-

Mr Bryce: I have not changed ground. I amtelling you what our party position is.

Mr THOMPSON: I am telling the Ministerwhat he said when we last spoke together-andit is important that members of the Committeeknow this-and he said he would have a Bill inhere tomorrow, if Parliament sits. Then he hada bit of a think about it and thought. "Hold on:I do not want that Bill. soal will just amend thata bit and we will throw in the bit about theupper House."

At no stage during my speech did I suggestthat one-vote-one-value should be introducedinto the Council, and I gave a logical reason forthat. That was the nature of our speech, and theMinister accepted that proposition and saidthat he would be here with a Bill tomorrow ifParliament met.

Mr Bryce: That is right. I would, if a Billcould be printed.

Mr THOMPSON: To have one-vote-one-value for the election of members of the Legis-lative Assembly would be a far more equitablesystem than what would happen under thispresent system.

Mr Peter Dowding: How would you feelabout having fewer electors? How many elec-tors have you got?

Mr THOMPSON: When I spoke in the sec-ond reading debate, I said it was an embarrass-ment to me to have the situation that prevailed.so do not suggest that I have shifted ground.

The other paint which I wanted to makeearlier, which slipped my mind, was the situ-ation with respect to country people. There isan overreaction on the part of members of Par-liament. They think that people in the com-munity have as intense an interest in electoralreform as those of us who sit in this House.

Mr Bryce: We agree on that point.Mr THOMPSON: In point of fact, they do

not have anywhere near that level of under-standing. I believe that electoral reform is nomore an issue in the country than it is in themetropolitan area, and if country people areaffronted by the proposition of one-vote-one-value and would not support a candidate.whether it be Liberal. Labor or National Party,how is it that the member for Warren is hereand how is it that the member for Oeraldtonand the member for-

Mr Bryce: No-country Labor members.Mr THOMPSON: Yes. How did those memn-

bers get here? If it is against the interests ofcountry people and if espousing that philos-ophy is going to cause country people not tosupport them, howdid they get here? I think weshy at shadows or we underestimate the intelli-gence of country people if we think that oncearoused to the question, they have any moreinterest in it than city people do.

Mr Bryce: If -1 might put it the other wayround, in respect of the argument of voteweighting, it is my view that country MPs ofcertain sorts, and members of their politicalbranches. may hold strong opinions, but veryfew of their constituents do.

Mr THOMPSON: I agree. because sittingmembers of Parliament and members of politi-cal parties have become very comfortable withthe system that exists, and they then use theargument that it is against the interests ofcountry people. I think that is a furphy. I havenever believed that electoral reform has beenan issue in either the country or the metropoli-tan area.

If the Labor Party is going to bring in one-vote-one-value, I would support it, and I daresay there would also be some other Liberalmembers who would support it, but if that is anissue, how is it that the Labor Party can pick upWarren, when it cannot pick up those otherseats? It never has been an issue and it neverwill be.

2875

2876 [ASSEMBLY]

Question put and passed, the Council'samendment agreed to.

Mr BRYCE: I move-That amendments Nos 2 to 26 made by

the Council be agreed to.Mr MENSAROS: I will try to deal with

amendments Nos 2 to 26 together. The secondCouncil amendment is one of the most import-ant parts of the amended Bill because it organ-ises the Legislative Council into regions. Thequestion came up. particularly from the Depu-ty Leader of the Opposition, whether there willbe complete districts in the region and whetheragricultural parts could be in the region whichis defined as mining and pastoral. I think thefirst answer is clearly that only complete dis-tricts can be within a region. The secondanswer is simply that the whole system isdesigned on numbers. It is only the name.whether one calls it agricultural, or pastoraland mining, which is reinforced by the defi-nition which says "primarily".

Once the Bill defines that there are so manyAssembly seats in the country and so many inthe metropolitan area, and if we find how manyregions there are and how many members thereare in those regions, the numbers would haveto be taken into consideration at the time of theredistribution. If we start a redistribution fromthe north and show the pastoral and miningregion, which has five members, that regionwill need to have a complete number of Legis-lative Assembly districts. Therefore the num-bers will be about how far the boundary of thatregion goes and the same for the next one. Thisis the way the redistribution would be done.

There is little logic in the proposed 3:3 re-gions because there is no community of interestinvolved. It may be claimed that there is somecommunity of interest involved in the countryareas, but no-one can claim that there is a sep-arate community of interest in the three regionsin the city. No-one can claim that the people inwhat will be the north metmopolitan regionhave different interests from people in whatwill be the east or the south metropolitan re-gions. They are all metropolitan people andmost of them will commute to and work in thecentral business district.

Furthermore, contrary to very carefullymade statements, the amendment will providevirtually no chance for the smaller parties likethe Australian Democrats to gain any represen-tation. In the best case, the north metropolitanregion, the quota will be one eighth, which is12.5 per cent of the votes, and a small party

would need to win 12.5 per cent of the votes togain onc of the seven seats. I wonder whetherthis has been taken into consideration.

I agree with the member for Kalamunda gen-erally that it is a necessarily unhealthy solutionbecause proportional representation really doesnot provide for representation. It needs to berepeated, because as soon as we have pro-portional representation a member's constitu-ency is his party selection committee. Thevoters would have nothing to do with his elec-tion. Once a person is selected to his party'sticket-and we can pretty well predict whichmembers on the ticket will be elected-nothingcan prevent that person's being elected.

Mr Peter Dowding: Nonsense.

Mr MENSAROS: The Minister is entitled tohis opinion, but I maintain that with pro-portional representation a member's constit-uency is his party selection committee. Oc-casionally the public might vote one candidatein whose position on the party ticket wouldnormally have prevented his election; but thatwill not happen very often.

Therefore it is very difficult to play aroundwith figures and show that the country is beingadvantaged or disadvantaged if certain num-bers come up. In negotiations it was suggestedthat there could be a very small region in thenorth, considering the present status quo andthe enormous size of the region, and this alonewould have been an advantage to the country.Why? Not because of the numbers but simplybecause if we have three members in the regionit must be 2:1 solution. In order to achieve twoof the three seats the Government of the daywould have done a lot of pork barrelling, whichwould have been of advantage to the region. Itis a very untoward and gross way of arriving atthe conclusion that that would be the only situ-ation where the country would be advantaged.

Amendment No 3 deals with casualvacancies and we see nothing objectionable init,' In any event, the amendment was based par-ticularly on a mistake in the original Bill.

Amendment No 4 includes a definition ofvoting ticket and the voting ticket square. It isalso consequential on the withdrawing of theoptional preferential voting system which wasincluded in the original Bill, which providedfor voluntary preferential voting rather thancompulsory preferential voting. I will come backto this on the more appropriate amendment.

2876

[Thursday. 18 June 1987] 27

The fifth amendment changes the definitionof the form of nomination of a regional candi-date. Instead of a prescribed form we would goto using the discretion of the Electoral Com-missioner, and the form will be what the com-missioner approves. It is said that this will pro-vide more flexibility, but it is necessary becauseof the conflicting closing times for those peoplewho are submitting nominations, and thiscould include an individual or a group ofpeople. If a person or a group submits a votingticket later than the time for the close ofnominations they can still submit the ticket,and if they form a group this voting ticket issent to the electoral returning officer. Becauseof this, the form is more flexible and has oursupport.

Amendment No 6 deals with the return andthe forfeiture of deposits, and we have no greatargument with it. It deals particularly with thecase where a candidate dies between the timeof the close of nominations and when the votesare counted. It indicates how the depositshould be returned, because in the case of anew election there would be nominations andnew candidates.

Amendment No 7 is a fairly machinerymeasure also which we do not object to. In-stead of nominating midday as the closing timeit provides that there should be -an hour", andit relates the other actions prior to or after thisclosing hour. It seems quite logical.

Amendment No 8 deals particularly withclause 5 1(a) and concerns cases of failed elec-tions and provides that old nominations willstill be valid for the election which will followexcept if they are withdrawn. I would like theMinister to indicate what happens if a candi-date dies after the close of polling on pollingday.

This applies to both the districts and regions.However. it is not an earth-shattering matter. Iwas not able to work it out.

Extension of TimeOn motion by Mr Bryce, the member's time

was extended.

Committee ResumnedMr MENSAROS: Amendment No 9 deals

with two different time spans when the elec-toral officer can issue the postal ballot paper.This comes about because he may or may notknow within 24 hours of the closing of thenominations whether the candidates who havenominated have submitted a voting ticket. Of

course, his actions have to depend on whetherthat ticket has been submitted. The provisionsays that he is authorised to give out the ballotpaper any time after 24 hours, but he cannot berequired to do so before 48 hours have expired.

Amend mentI N o 10 re lates t o cl ause 60 of theBill. The clause provided that where two candi-dates had the same surname, they could havetheir Christian names added to the ballot paperin smaller print. That has been deleted by thisamendment and the discretion has been givento the Electoral Commissioner to determinewhat should appear on the ballot paper.

Amendment No I I relates to clause 61 anddeals with the voting tickets. This is a newconcept. I believe parts of this clause can bejustified on purely selfish grounds by all of theparties. Independents will have to go to the endof the queue because, if somebody nominatesas an Independent, he is afforded a differentstatus than a group which, I suppose, in almost100 per cent of cases, would be a party. I alsoquery why anybody who nominated as an Inde-pendent could not combine that deinoninationwith a tag of an existing party. Argumentscould be put for and against this case. There isno doubt that, from an lndpendent's point ofview, it is important that he be able to indicateto the public whether he is a socialist or Laborsupporter or whether he is a conservative. Inde-pendent members in the past have indicatedwhether they are Independent Labor or Inde-pendent Liberal and, in many cases, have beenelected. It is extremely difficult for Indepen-dents who have fewer funds anyway to attemptto explain to the electorate their policies, ratherthan allowing them to show their allegiances onthe ballot paper. At the same time, though, theinclusion of the party's name on the ballotpaper may also hurt the candidate standing forthat party.

I should deal here with a technical thoughnot unimportant matter in connection with themarking of the two ballot papers for the Legis-lative Council and the Legislative Assembly.The Legislative Council ticket is like a Senateticket. Each party can indicate its preferencesand, somewhere near the group, is a square onthe ballot paper. If that square is marked cor-rectly it is recognised as a valid vote, It can bemarked in three different ways: By a tick, by across, or by a No 1. However, the LegislativeAssembly ballot paper can also be marked withthe No 1, 1 suggest that there will be a numberof informal votes for the Assembly because, inone case, we are saying to the people that it iseasier for them to put a mark in a square and

2877

2878 ASSEMBLY]

that vote will be valid, but when they vote forthe Assembly and see the name of the personfor whom they want to vole, they again, byplacing a mark against his name, indicate theirpreference for him. Thai vote would then beinformal. I suggest that the square on the Legis-lative Council ballot paper should require anumber.

Mr Bryce: The reason the tick, the cross, andthe number were decided on was to be consist-ent with the Commonwealth legislation. We aretalking about voting practices. We did not setout to be different. We thought there was anadvantage for people in having the samesystem of voting for Commonwealth and Stateelections.

Mr MENSAROS: However, in the case ofoptional preferential, the informal ballots willbe fewer because one mark would be enoughfor a vote in the lower House where there is asingle constituency electorate. I suppose that isa flaw. However, we will see in time whether Iam right and whether the number of informalvotes increases.

The other provisions are cumbersome butunderstandable. A person can go through thewhole ballot paper and mark it in sequence, ashe did in the past with the Senate vote, and ifthe person did not make a mistake and markedthem all but the last one, his vote would bevalid.

The person can think, however, that it mightbe wise to mark the voting ticket square as well.in this case the Bill provides that the individualmarking should prevail provided it is correct. Ifit is not correct, it goes back to the voting ticketsquare. It is really giving two chances to theelector. I suppose that was the intention. Itcould be acepted but I do not think it is correct.

Amendment No 12 deals with scrutineers. Itis fair to insert the words -at a time". If there isone scrutineer for one candidate that scrutineermust be the same scrutineer for the whole day.There could be different scrutineers as long asthere is not more than one at a particular time.

Amendment No 13 provides how to vote andtalks about the informal ballot paper. Amend-ment No 15 provides which ballot paper shouldbe valid and which ballot papers should beinvalid. It is a compromise between what wasthe intention of the Bill-to give protection toalmost everyone whose vote, according to thestatus quo. is invalid. It is more strict but it stillallows a tremendous tolerance, If one scruti-neers ballot papers one will often find a num-ber Of rude things written on those papers

which makes them invalid because the hand-writing could be recognised and identify thevoter. That situation has been taken away.There is now no danger thai the vote will beinvalid.

I cannot comprehend the omission from sec-tion 139(e). That subsection says that the ballotshould be invalid if one or more of the postalballot papers does not contain the candidate'sname. Often the postal ballot papers do nothave the name of the candidate printed, forvarious reasons. If they are not written in,theoretically a ballot paper can be valid wherethere is no candidate's name. Section I 39(e)deals with postal ballot papers where one ormore names of the candidates are not on theballot paper, That needs some explanation. Itdoes not seem to make sense.

The other provisions are as a consequence ofdoing away with optional preferential voting.Amendment No 16 is machinery and not worthmentioning.

Amendment No 17 deals with the equality ofvotes. That could be a compromise. Variousamendments were suggested in the lowerHouse debate. If the final count-that is thecount between the two remaining candidates-is equal, there is a certain process that has to beundertaken. We suggested automatic re-elec-tion. This provision details various provisionswhich should ge gone through and scrutineerednot only by the returning officer but also by theElectoral Commissioner who sends it to theCourt of Disputed Returns. In ever case thefirst task is to try to declare a winning candidate.If that is impossible it goes to a new election.There are provisions where both candidates re-quest a new election. The court can make anorder that it is unable to declare a winner.

Further rules about the ballot paper arecontained in amendment No 18. That dealswith the different markings of the LegislativeCouncil and the Legislative Assembly ballotpapers, which I have already mentioned.

Amendment No 19 deals with provisionswhere the ballot papers shall be set aside where,at the transfer, it is found that it expresses nopreference for the next candidate. This again isa consequential amendment because there is nooptional preferential vote.

Amendment No 20 is very important. I haveseverely criticised it. Nothing could have beenmore equitable than the Liberal Party's policyto draw the boundaries between the metropoli-tan area and the country area. The specifi-

2878

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J]87

cation which was contained in one of the lostamendments clearly set out that what was gen-erally urban should be the metropolitan areaand what was generally rural should be thecountry area. This amendment accepts theexisting MRPA boundary ignoring whether it isrural or urban. If someone is vaguely objectivehow could they criticise the present boundariesof Kalamunda or Dale and accept this amend-menit? It is an arbitrary line drawn by Parlia-ment and ignores entirely what the electorateshould be. That line has been drawn for en-tirely different purposes. It has been acceptedcontrary to our request that we do away withhaving adjoining boundaries drawn by Parlia-ment and give the job to independent com-missioners. It is a gross hypocrisy. Many com-binations in electoral reform just happen to beconvenient for the Labor Party and theNational Party. There are also combinationsfavouring the Liberal Party and the ALP. Therewere virtually no scenarios for the Liberal andNational Parties' joint interests. That is thereason there was no agreement between theLiberal and National Panics.

I wish to draw the Leader of the Opposition'sattention to this. In his magnificent contri-bution I was expecting him to mention whatthe agreement between the Liberal andNational Party was. The agreement after de-bate was that if either party's amendmentswere not fully accepted-not one party, butboth panties-the Bill would be voted against.That was the agreement. We asked if it was stillstanding and the answer was yes. I hope theLeader of the Opposition will con firm that factbecause the member for Stirling claims that Ido not remember it.

Amendment No 21 deals with the ElectoralDistricts Act. It is a consequential amendmentbut it deals with the redistribution arrange-ments. I submit that what the Liberal Partyproposes is fairer. I have often expressed theopinion that representation is one of the mostimportant duties of parliamentarians, particu-larly members of the Legislative Assembly-the lower House-who have singleconstituencies. This should preclude changingwilly-n illy the electoral boundaries just becausenumbers are the most important things.Change could be made in various other waysbut if we want to observe the numbers. Isuggest that with the present system the mainrequirement is that the seats should not be outof kilter.

The Bill provides for a four-year maximumterm, not a fixed term. It is a maximum termand therefore theoretically-and I think inpractice too, because we have never had anearly election during a three-year term-thetemptation would be greater to have early elec-tions with a four-year term. The FederalGovernment has an election virtually every twoyears. According to this provision there couldbe a redistribution every two to three yearsbecause it is not bound to time or to changes ofn u mbe rs i n va rio us electorates. I t i s bound onl yto the passing of two elections, and the elec-tions could be held much earlier than everyfour years. I think that is quite inequitable andvery much against the interests of having rep-resentation in a particular area.

I think amendment No 24 is important andmust be noted. It brings in more conditions inorder to do the redistribution than the demo-graphic provision, which was the only one orig-inally in the Bill. One can only hope that theinitial 15 per cent plus/minus tolerance will beused by the commissioners to do the redistri-bution in the way it was meant to be done. Inother words the anticipated growth or other-wise of the area will not be taken into mainconsideration but rather the fact thai-as theDeputy Leader of the Opposition stressed-some large areas would be left with one rep-resentative who must cover an enormousphysical terrain, which might be reduced in theinterest representation.

The last amendment deals with the ballotpapers which can be prescribed by regulation.My understanding is that there was an agree-ment that there will be no regulations gazettedduring the parliamentary recess. That is notrecognised in the Bill and I query that.

1 deliberately wanted to be brief. What I saidin the beginning still stands: I am sorry that wehave a result which is of advantage to theGovernment only.

Mr STEPHENS: I think the member forFloreat has given a very accurate resume of thevarious amendments before us tonight. 1 do notintend to weary the Chamber by going throughthis matter again and saying [he same things indifferent words. I will confine my remarks to acouple of points that the member made in re-spect of the amendments.

Proportional representation for upperHouses is a very fair and proper system. Itbroadens the area from which the members areelected and removes the parochial nature ofthings that can exist in single-member

2879

2880 [ASSEMBLY]

constituencies. When a member represents amuch broader area, he is in a position to give abroader approach to legislation. With a Houseof Review. I think it is quite desirablc that thisbroader approach be given.

I also indicated previously, when talking onthis matter, that having a broader area to rep-resent breaks down that desire and/or the needfor the upper House member to make a closecontact with the voting public. As a result ofthat need we have seen in the past upper Housemembers running around electorates acting asif they were Legislative Assembly members. Ido not think that is desirable and I think it is awaste of time and effort in a bicameral system.

With proportional representation we will seethe upper House aopting the role for which itwas dlesigned: that is, acting as a genuine Houseof Review. This was clearly indicated by therole of the Senate; when it moved to pro-portional respresentation a greater emphasiswas placed on the committee system. I think itis generally accepted by all students of politicsthat the Senate is now performing in a muchbetter way than it did prior to the introductionof proportional representation. Memberselected to the upper House will achieve theirindlentity by their performance on these com-mittees and can receive public recognition onthat basis.

I feel that in the interests of good govern-ment and good parliamentary representation.proportional representation is a big step for-ward in the interests of the people. The oppor-tunity to have two approaches on the upperHouse ballot papers is very desirable. It bringsus into uniformity with the Senate ticket and Ithink that over a period people will readilyadapt to this system, which enables them tomark their cards very simply and allow theparty's registered ticket to then apply: but itdoes not deny them the opportunity of markingtheir cards and their preferential voting in ac-cordance with their own wishes.

I think it simplifies matters and I am pleasedthat is does not apply to the Legislative As-sembly. I do not think the need is as great for itto apply to the Legislative Assembly becausenormally there is not the multiplicity of candi-dates that there is for the upper House.

The member for Floreat mentioned hisunderstanding of the agreement between theNational Party and the Liberal Party. It wasquite clear between us that if any one partyobtained all its amendments, it was free to sup-port the third reading of the Bill. The arrange-

ment was designed so that the Labor Partycould not pick the best pieces from the twopanics and finish up with all the plums, whilewe were left lamenting. As it turned out, theLabor Party has seen fit to accept the amend-ments that the National Party put up and it isonly commonsense that we should support thethird reading of the Bill. It would be unrealisticto go into the Committee stage after all theamendments had been accepted and to turnaround and oppose the legislation at the thirdreading stage. The public certainly would won-der at the rationale of' that sort of approach.There is no way that the National Party

thought that the arrangement was other thanthat which I have outlined.

I refer to the point made earlier as to whetherwe knew of the Liberal Party's offer to theLabor Party of 20 metropolitan seats and 14country seats prior to the offer being made. Imentioned I had consulted with the memberfor Floreat immediately following the NationalParty meeting. Reference to my diary showsthat we had that meeting on 24 March. On theafternoon of 24 March I discussed the NationalParty line on this legislation.

The member for Floreat had sent to the Min-

I ster for Parliamentary and Electoral Reformthe Liberal compromise policy for the electoralBill 1986.

Mr Mensaros: I sent it to you.

Mr STEPHENS: I never received it.

Mr Mensaros: You commented on the otherside.

Mr STEPHENS: The comments were there,and they were put to us at a later date. It has inthe Minister for Parliamentary and ElectoralReform's own handwriting "Received on 24March". That was the day of the NationalParty meeting. It was that afternoon that Ispoke to the member for Floreat. On that factalone there is no way that we could have beenaware of the 20-14 position before it wascommunicated to the Labor Party.

Mr Mensaros interjected.

Mr STEPHENS: I will accept the other sidewould have been covered. I did not give themember for Floreat the National Party's bot-tom line position on this legislation until afterthe meeting we had on 24 March. The memberfor Floreat took those points down and thisinformation was communicated on 24 March.

2880

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]188

I am sorry that these accusations have beenmade by the member for Floreat. I have torecord in Hansard that they are incorrect andcompletely without foundation.

I have covered the several points of where Idiffer from the member for Floreat. There is nopoint going over the various amendments otherthan to say that the National Party is pleasedthat the amendments we brought before theChamber have been accepted by the Govern-ment. and we are convinced that at the nextelection based on the boundaries decided byindependent Electoral Commissioners thisState can look forward to a period of improvedparliamentary representation.

Mr BRYCE: The Government is very con-cerned about clause 61, which deals with thesubject which has been touched on by both themember for Floreat and the member forStirling. Consideration by both Chambers hasproduced a situation whereby we have ticketvoting in the Legislative Council and no ticketvoting in the Legislative Assembly. To be pre-cise, in the Legislative Council, ticket voting isan alternative to the voter numberingpreferences exhaustively. Party names and des-ignations are also on the ballot papers for theLegislative Council.

For some strange set of reasons which com-pletely escapes me. members of the Liberal andNational Parties in the other Chamber deletedthose provisions as they applied to the Legislat-ive Assembly. We now have the strangephenomenon where, when members of the pub-lic stand for election to this Chamber, they areprevented from having the name of the politi-cal party they represent inscribed on the ballotpaper. Should they stand for the other House ofParliament. the name of the political party willbe stamped on the ballot paper. Ticket votingwill apply to the other Chamber but not to thisone.

This is a prescription for maximising infor-mal votes. I see no logic associated with it atall. I will be charitable to my colleagues andfellow members of' this Chamber who sit op-posite me and say that I assume that they donot believe they have a vested interest in seeingthe informal vote increase.

Mr Mensaros: That is precisely what yousaid. It is absolutely correct. It proves what Isaid at the beginning. We did not approach thisquestion from the point of view of our vestedinterests. We are trying to keep up the indi-viduality of the simple constituency electionsystem. John Brown can have some chance

(91)

against the Labor candidate. The member forGascoyne had some experiences in his elector-ate.

Mr BRYCE: I assume we want to minimisethe number of informal votes in any election. Iguess we will learn from the experience of theSenate and the House of Representatives in thenext few weeks and know whether we havemade the right decision.

Mr Mensaros: The last time was the firsttime they had the ticket. The Government ofthe day did not advertise or inform the publicof the different procedures for the Senate. Westayed with the old procedures for the House ofRepresentatives. The Government confusedthe public by not making that point clear in theadvertising campaign. At the next election itmay be different.

Mr BRYCE: I for one shall look on that datewith interest, because it may influence some ofthe comments I make in the spring session.After the experience of the Federal election it ismy intention, if my worst fears are confirmed,to bring an amendment to the Act to the springsession. I have indicated to all members whohave worked on the negotiations that we intendto bring in what we call a bits-and-pieces ornuts-and-bolts electoral Bill to pick up a wholelot of individual issues with no theme attachedto them, like six o'clock closing and variousother things.

It is my intention to ensure that a minimumnumber of Western Australian votes are castinformally at the next election. The first step asMinister responsible will be to bring a furtheramendment to the House to reconsider its situ-ation in September. after the experience of theFederal election, and give the House an under-taking that it will cost the taxpayer a good dealof money if the Government is to embark uponthe sort of public awareness campaign that themember for Stirling has just indicated iswarranted. If ticket voting were an option inboth Chambers with the notation of politicalpanties in both cases, it would be as clear as abell.' If any individual person wanted to exer-cise his right to single out individuals in a dif-ferent order in single member constituencies,he would have the opportunity to do so.

Mr House: You are trying to sneak inoptional preferential voting.

Mr BRYCE: That is not so. I am not going toworry the Chamber now, but between thissession and the spring session members mightwork out what they believe is the justification

2881

2882 [ASSEMBLY]

for prevcnting members of the Legislative As-sembly from actually disclosing the name oftheir political party on the ballot paper.

Mr Mensaros: Why should you not make iteasier for people to vote for parties rather thanpeople?

Mr BRYCE: Because, with all due respect.political parties are a fact of life. They aresomething we should be proud of. not ashamedof. We should admit that the political partiesare a very important social institution in ourcommunity, and that the democracy we enjoydepends very much upon the National Party,the Labor Party, and the Liberal Party havingviable, well-organised, and well-funded politi-cal partics. To the best of my knowledge,democracy starts to come unhinged more oftenthan not in those places where the structure isbased upon the egos of competing groups ofindividuals rather than established politicalpanics. I will defend the interests, reputation,status, and standing of political partics in theinterests of preserving democracy any day ofthe week, in any forum. We should be proud ofthose parties. not ashamed of them.

Mr MacKINNON: I understand that now weare debating all the amendments other than No1. and I assume they will be put en bloc.

Mr Bryce: Nos 2 to 26 inclusive.

Mr Mensaros: We are against Nos I and 2.

Mr MacKINNON: But we are now going tovote on No 2 onwards. I wanted to clarify that-We intend therefore to vote against it, not be-cause we oppose all of those amendments butbecause there are significant sections withwhich we disagree, as the member for Floreathas outlined.

Mr Bryce: I appreciate that.

Mr MacKINNON: I wanted to make surethat is on the record so people know where westand for the future.

Question put and a division taken with thefollowing result-

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BentramMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr CarrMr CowanMr DonovanMr EvansDr GallopMr GrillMrs HendersonMr Gordon HillMr HodgeMr House

Mr BlaikieMr BradshawMr CashMr CourtMr GraydenMr H-assellMr LauranceMr Lewis

AyesMr Tom JonesMr ThomasMr TaylorMr BridgeM r Peter Dowding

Ayes 29Dr LawrenceMr MarlboroughMr ParkerMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P. J. SmithM r StephensMr TroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WieseMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

Noes I5Mr LightfootMr MacKinnonMr MensarosMr ThompsonMrTubbyM r WatMr Williams

PairsNoes

MrClarkoMrSpriggsMrSchellMr CraneMr Rushton

(ref efl

(Teller)

Question thus passed; the Council's amend-ments agreed to.

Report

Resolutions reported, the report adopted.and a message accordingly returned to theCouncil.

MAIN ROADS AMENDMENT DILL

Council'~s Message

Message from the Council received and readnotifying that it insisted on its amendments towhich the Assembly had disagreed.

BILLS (2): RETURNED

I . Waterfront Workers (Compensation forAsbestos Related Diseases) Amend-ment Bill.

2. Workers' Compensation and AssistanceAmendment Bill.

Bills returned from the Council withoutamendment.

2882

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]188

ACTS AMENDMENT (WATERAUTHORITY RATES AND CHARGES)

BILLReturned

Bill returned from the Council with amend-ments.

Council's Amendments:- In CommitteeThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Dr

Lawrence) in the Chair; Mr Bridge (Ministerfor Water Resources) in charge of the Bill.

The amendments made by the Council wereas follows-

No 1.Part VI (clauses I138 to 162):

To omit the Pant.No 2.

Clause 186:Page 66, line 30-To delete "theLand Drainage Act 1925."

No 3.New Clause 3A:

Page 2. after line 8-To insert thefollowing clause-

Application of Part3A. The amendments effectedby this Part arc of no effect inrelation to the Land DrainageAct 1925 or the doing of any-thing under or for the purposesof that Act and the principalAct applies in relation theretoas if this Part had not beenenacted

No 4.Long Title:

Page I-To delete "the LandDrainage Act 1925.," from thelong title.

Mr BRIDGE: I move-That the amendments made by the

Council be agreed to.These amendments came about as a result ofrepresentations made to me by membersrepresenting that region of the State and alsothe interest of the drainage committee in theBusselton drainage district. A view wascanvassed by certain members of the com-mittee that the Bill in its complete form offeredsome areas of concern and anxiety in relationto the current drainage inquiry. They felt themost appropriate step to take would be for thatclause of the Bill to be deleted. I took advice

which was contrary to that view, but becausethere was some uncertainty and a perceptionhad been generated as a result of the com-mittee's view I considered that the amendmentwas the most appropriate way of going aboutthe matter. Accordingly, I was happy for theamendment to proceed in the upper House.

Mr MENSAROS: The amendments achieveprecisely what the Opposition wanted in theLegislative Assembly to dlate: namely, to repealthis whole part of the Bill. The reasons for theamendment are precisely the same as were ad-vanced by the member for Vasse and me at thetime. We failed because we did not have thenumbers, not because of our argument or thereasons we gave. I accept that Ministers veryoften do not want to rush into acceptingamendments in the lower House because theyfeel they need time to consider them. The Min-ister for Water Resources had an adviser withhim during the debate but perhaps he felt theadvice was not adequate, and he left the de-cision with the upper House. I do not have anyquarrel with that, but I take exception to whatthe Minister said about the amendment comingabout because of representations by membersrepresenting the area. Do not be ridiculous!Those members spoke against our amendmentand voted against it. Now the Minister tells usthe amendment came about because they maderepresentations. In the Chamber, properlycaucused, those members voted against it.Since then they have thought about it and per-haps convinced Caucus that it may not be pol-itically wise to leave the clause in the Bill.

Mr Bridge: Come on! You and I have beenvery fair in debating this. I am surprised youshould criticise me for that. I said "membersrepresenting the area" and I meant the lot.

Mr MENSAROS: That is all right. I willphrase it differently. It cannot be said that thishas come about as a result of representationsmade by those members who voted against ouramendment. If that is the proper way for a localmember to act, I as a constituent would havesecond thoughts about electing someone whodoes not know what to do one day and thensuddenly wakes up.

It is a political ploy, but we have achievedwhat we wanted. I do not blame the Minister.He was fair enough and I gave him his dueduring the debate as well. He keeps meinformed, and if I have any problems I tell him.If he meant his remarks in the way that he saidI take them to include the member for Vassewho called for the division with me. However.he cannot give the credit to the members for

2883

2884 ASSEM BLY]

Mitchell and Bunbury who spoke and votedagainst our amendment and now want thekudos.

Mr D. L. SMITH: The member who has justspoken took the high ground during the debateon the electoral reform legislation on the basisthat he never criticised anyone in an unwar-ranted way or directed criticism at memberspersonally. Now he attempts to say as a poli-tician of some years' standing that because cer-tain members in this Chamber supported theGovernment on a vote they were not in anyway involved with what has been achieved.

If he took the trouble to look at what I said inthe debate he would see that I said I had beenmaking representations to the Minister forabout a fortnight prior to the debate on thebasis that this pan of the legislation should bewithdrawn. He would know the member forVasse approached me on the basis that he didnot think there was any prospect of this pro-vision being taken out of the legislation unlessthere was a united approach from the localmembers. He also knows I not only spoke tothe Minister about it privately, but on a num-ber of occasions I arranged for members of thedrainage committee to speak to the Minister bytelephone, and I also arranged a meeting hereon Wednesday for the members of the drainageaction group to speak to the Minister. The re-sult of those representations is what has beenachieved tonight.

The hypocrisy is that the member for Floreatis a former Minister for Water Resources whopresided over the evolution of the land drain-age system and refused to have an independentinquiry into it. He presided over the escalationof land drainage rates which was the greatestever known under his administration. Thetruth of the matter is that the Minister and thisGovernment are the First to listen to the drain-age ratepayers and set up an inquiry. The Min-ister made sure that the committee was inde-pendent in that it had a barrister chairing it. arepresentative of farming interests, and a rep-resentative from the Water Authority. All thathas happened is exactly what I said in the de-bate in relation to the Bill itself. A few mem-bers opposite took no interest in land drainagewhen in Government and did nothing tochange the system. They suddenly found thatour Government was gaining an advantagefrom its efforts on behalf of people affected byland drainage rates.

What they sought to do when they knewabout this amendment was to go to the landdrainage committee and try to persuade it that

somehow or other the matters proposed in thisBill would prejudge those matters which werebeing considered by the committee of inquiry.

As a result of that the Minister took thetrouble to take advice from ParliamentaryCounsel as to whether what was being hinted atby members opposite was, in fact, true. Theadvice came back that it certainly was not true.

However, the Minister wanted to ensure thatas a result of representations from me, themember for Buribury. and the member forSouth West Province the opinion and standingof the committee of inquiry before the landdrainage ratepayers was not lost. Every rep-resentative of the action group to whom I havespoken has praised the independence of thatcommittee of inquiry. They have praised theway it has gone about its task, they havepraised its terms of reference, and they havepraised the Minister for setting it up. What wedo not want to happen is for their opinion ofthat committee and its findings to be in anyway detracted from by the activities of mem-bers opposite. That is the major reason theGovernment has withdrawn the amendments.For people like the former Minister for WaterResources in a previous Government to try toscore cheap political points is a disservice tothose people involved in the work of represen-tations to the Minister. It does not in any waylive up to the sort of high moral ground that hewas trying to attract for himself earlier.

Mr BLAIKIE: First. I would like to thank theMinister in charge of the Bill for what he hasdone.

While members of the Opposition have beenaware of the way in which the member forMitchell has conducted himself for some time,he has just made a complete spectacle of him-self in this Chamber. The member for Mitchellspoke against the amendments put forward bythe Opposition and he also voted against them.However, he has now supported the Minister'sproposal to delete the sections from the Billwhich referred to the Land Drainage Act.

I am pleased that the Premier is in theChamber tonight. I would like to advise himand other members that one of the tragedies ofthe south west at the moment is the bad advicethat the Premier and his Ministers receivedfrom certain people. I include the member forMitchell at the top of that list.

I sent to the Busselton land drainage com-mittee copies of the Minister's second readingspeech and a copy of the Bill. On this parlia-mentary record I state quite unequivocally that

2884

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]188

at no stage did I give that committee any formof direction. It reachend its own conclusions.quite contrary to what the member for Mitchellsaid. The parliamentary record will be there forall to read and the people concerned will, indue course. Lake the matter up with the mem-ber for Mitchell.

Time and time again I have said that thisMinister inherited a problem that was not ofhis making. In fact, the problem has beencreated by his predecessor on the advice of themember for Mitchell.

Mr D. L. Smith: That is nonsense.

Mr BLAIKIE: This Minister has made agenuine attempt to resolve the problem and ifthe Minister had been able to continue in thevein in which I believe he intended when thelegislation came before the House, this mattercould well have been resolved a week ago with-out any of the acrimony that has accompaniedthis debate.

I thank the Minister for his considerationand for the fact that this matter has finally beenresolved. More importantly. I thank the Minis-ter for recognising the importance of the Legis-lative Council and its role as a House of Re-view. It was the upper House that was able tomake the final examination.

When the Bill was introduced into the Legis-lative Council it was introduced without anyland drainage amendments at all. I support theamendments made by the Council.

We have seen an example in this Chambertonight of how Governments can be ill-advised.The Government had received incorrect adviceabout the Land Drainage Act from the memberfor Mitchell. By his own admission in both theearlier Committee stage and this stage of theBill he will be judged by this peers for what heis.

Mr D. 1. Smith: I will be pleased to have thatdone, but I will not be judged by the Oppo-sition.

Mr BLAIKIE: The member for Mitchell'selectors will judge him.

Question put and passed,amendments agreed to.

the Council's

Report

Resolution reported, the report adopted. anda message accordingly returned to the Council.

PIGMENT FACTORY (AUSTRALIND)AGREEMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from I17 June.MR LAURANCE (Gascoyne-Deputy

Leader of the Opposition) [10.48 pm]: At theoutset I advise the House that the Oppositionsupports the Bill.

The Opposition believes that this agreement.bringing as it does a major new plant to thisState with an expected expenditure of $I150million with 36 additional jobs on top of thejobs already provided at this plant, and an ad-ditional $50 million-worth of exports per yearfor the State. and being located on a morefavourable site all adds up to a wonderful ar-rangement for the State of Western Australia.For that reason, it has the Opposition's sup-port.

Like all these things, we never get 100 percent of what we want. The only downside inthis proposition, as far as the Opposition isconcerned, is that such an important agreementhas come before the Parliament in a very hastyway. It is unfortunate because the more import-ant the agreement, the more homework thatshould be done by not only the Governmentbut also the Opposition. The Opposition wouldhave liked the opportunity to have done morework on this Bill and to have had more consul-tation with the parties involved before dealingwith it.

It is an important issue and it deserves to bedealt with at greater length before the Parlia-ment. It is a matter of some regret to the Oppo-sition. We do not want to hold up the Bill, butit should have been dealt with in the samemanner as the other ordinary matters thatcome before this Parliament. Normallymeasures of this kind are presented to the Par-liament a week before they are debated and wewould have expected more than a week for aBill of this importance.

Mr Parker: I would prefer that too, but youunderstand the circumstances.

Mr LAURANCE: I do, but I want to recordthat fact because it is of importance. If it were aminor matter, nobody would complain, but it

Is a major issue and it should have been giventhe full consideration it deserves before theParliament. The Opposition is always a littleconcerned and wary that some majorcomponent in a Bill might be overlooked be-cause the Government has dealt with the legis-lation in a hasty manner. I hope history will notprove that to be so. I hope that nothing has

2885

2886 [ASSEMBLY)

been overlooked in this legislation whichshould have been picked up but was not, purelybecause of the Opposition's desire to cooperatewith the Government on this matter.

Mr Parker interjected.

Mr LAURANCE: I agree and in makingthose comments about haste I might add thatwe were given the reasons for this legislationbeing dealt with in this fashion. The Ministerhas done everything in his power to assist Op-.position members' study of this Bill. I amgrateful to him for that. Some members of theOpposition accompanied me to the Minister'soffice on Monday and we were given a detailedbriefing. The Minister made a copy of theagreement available 10 me as soon as it waspossible and he has also kept me informed ofthe progress and the reasons for the delay inbringing the legislation before the Parliamentthis week. The Opposition knew it was going tobe hasty but in fact we received the terms laterin the week than even the Minister had antici-pated. However, to his credit. the Minister haskept the Opposition informed throughout thelast two days in respect of the progress of thismatter.

Some commitments were made when this in-dustry was first attracted to WesternAustral ia-commitments made on behalf ofthe State which have become fairly burden-some over time. We are aware that there was adesire on the part of the Government torenegotiate those obligations. It was fortuitousthat this company, which is a major companyand has considerable assets around the world,particularly in the United States and theUnited Kingdom, saw a need to update itsplant. It has several plants around the world, atleast four that I am aware of-three in the USand one in the UK-which arc chlorideprocessing plants.

Therefore it was understandable that itwanted to upgrade this plant to a chlorideplant. That would overcome some problemsand give it some hope for the future. It wasfortuitous that an agreement could be reachedwhich will benefit the State. No-one could haveforeseen in 1961 just how onerous the con-ditions of the original agreement would be-come. I believe it is in the Stale's interests tonegotiate a way out of that because there issome cost to the State in meeting those obli-gations at the moment. There is a major benefitin being able to negotiate the State out of thatposition. I do not think anyone needs to apolo-

gise for the State becoming involved in thoseobligations in 1961. 1 will speak about that atthe conclusion of my remarks.

The original agreement was negotiated in1961 and I believe the Parliament-not justthe Government of the day-was desperate toattract industry to this State. Therefore wewere in the position of negotiating agreementswhich gave benefits to potential investors andwhich imposed obligations on the State. By theend of that decade we were in the positionwhere we could invite investors to come alongand invest in major projects in the Statevirtually without any commitment on the pantof the State to provide infrastructure and so on.We were obviously in a very desirable positiontowards the end of the 1 960s, and a number ofmajor agreements were negotiated to theState's benefit.

However, in 1961 that was not the case. I amsure that when the agreement was ratified allthe parties to it believed that they were doingthe right thing by the people of WesternAustralia. No-one need apologise for thatposition. After the agreement Bill passedthrough this House last year, we looked at thenew chloride plant being constructed to replacethe sulphate process on the existing Australindsite. I think it was always going to be difficultbecause of the risks associated with this plant.It was no surprise to the Opposition that theEnvironmental Protection Authority came outwith a decision which, while agreeing that theplant would proceed, expressed grave doubtsabout the risks being acceptable at that lo-cation.

As the Minister has already pointed out, thatopened the way for further negotiations withthe company. which 1 believe have now led to afar more desirable result. This amendment Billgives the company the ability to construct atitanium dioxide manufacturing plant and touse the chloride technology at the Government-owned land at Kemerton. The original plantwas for a 41t 000 tonne per annum capacity andit was to be constructed on the original site atAustralind. While the chloride process hassome benefits over the sulphate process-it isobviously a state-of-the-art process in terms oftitanium dioxide-it has some side-effectswhich are not altogether desirable. It requiresthe use of potentially hazardous toxic chemni-cals. The Minister dealt with that aspect, as didhis colleague, the Minister for Conservationand Land Management. We appreciate the as-sistance of the EPA and its chairman, Mr BarryCarbon, who agreed to discuss this whole ques-

2886

(Thursday, I8 June 1987]188

tion of risk assessment with me and othermembers of the Opp, sition because we are nowin a new era of environmental protection inthis State. The whole question of risk assess-ment will be the sort of thing that will have tobe considered in each new project which isplanned for the Slate at the moment.

The EPA has indicated that it will lookaround Australia and the world to try to findthe right sort of expertise so as to be able toenter this risk assessment business. This is per-haps the first time that we have gone into thisprocess and one cannot make out that thesethings are not dangerous. It will be dangerous:in the worst possible situation, it could lead toloss of life. It is a matter of assessing that riskand minimnising it to a point where it is accept-able to the community. I will dwell on thataspect for a moment because we are dealingwith it for the first time in this State. but wewill have to deal with the same question manytimes in the future.

Mr Parker: Especially given that a lot of thegrowth in the State is going to be in what mightloosely be described as the petrochemical area.and the problem these days for those sorts ofmodemn plants is not pollution per se but risk,as you say.

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister is right. Thewhole question has turned around from one ofpollution assessment to risk assessment, andthat is going to be a very important questionfor this State in the next decade or perhaps 20years, when a lot of these major projects comeon stream. I hope we can find satisfactory sol-utions to all of the problems.

One of the ways we are going to be able to dothat is by having acceptable buffer zones. Thesite at Kemnerton provides a greater buffer zonethan was available at Australind. While theEPA said that the Australind site could bemade environmentally acceptable, it did high-light a number of serious concerns. Those con-cerns worried the Government. and also led topeople in the area approaching the Oppositionand asking us to get involved and to make ourown study of those areas of concern, which wedid. We met the company and local authoritiesin the area, and also the various groups con-cerned. Following that series of meetings, wemet the EPA. This led to our conclusion thatthere were going to be difficulties on that site,and we were not surprised when the EPA gavewhat we could only call a qualified acceptanceof the proposal.

It is to the Government's credit that it hasbeen able to go out and negotiate with thecompany for a much larger plant, with anincreased capacity to 70 000 tonnes per annum,and as!I indicated at the outset, giving an initialcapital expenditure of some $150 million, morethan double the expected expenditure on theproposal originally for Australind.

If I could briefly cover some of the factorsinvolved with this plant going to Kemerton,first, the pigment will be transported by roadfrom Kemerton to the company's existing plantat Australind, which will be upgraded in ca-pacity. I think one or two of my colleagues willtalk about that transport task arid what thatwill involve, and how that will affect this area.The State is also required to provide a surfacedroad access to the Kemerton site and to pro-vide gas and electricity to the site boundary.

One of the major factors involved in thisagreement is that there is the incentive in thelonger term for the company. SCM, to amalga-mate all of its works at the Kemerton site. Iencourage the Minister to continue his nego-tiations towards that end because I believe thefact that the Kemerton site does have an ac-ceptabl'e buffer zone and is more favourable asa location than the Australind site should leadus to tr to amalgamate all of the operations onthat particular site.

Such a move would enable the existingAustralind site to be completely returned toresidential status. I think one of the problemswas that over the years two residential areashave been built up on either side of the existingplant, and. that has obviously caused problemsand reduced the existing buffer zone there.However, it is a very desirable location, and thelong-term interests of that area would be bestserved by having all of that existing Australindplant as a residential area. That may not bepossible, because I understand some fairlylong-term damage has been done to the im-mediate site of the Australind plant, and I donot know whether that can be successfullyrehabilitated and turned back into residentialland. In any event, most of the Australind sitewill be able to be used for residential purposes,and if we get a continuous residential develop-ment from Eaton through the existing site andalong Australind, that will be a very desirablething for the area.

I move now to consider the cost to the State.It is considerable, and there was an originalagreement for the State to pay its way out ofthe obligations to remove the effluent. Thosearrangements were covered in the Bill that was

2887

2888 [ASSEMBLY)

before Parliament last December, and requireda payment by the State to the company of $8million. I can only assume, not having been aparty to that agreement, that that was the bestdeal that the State could do in order to be ableto buy its way out of that obligation. 1 am wellaware of the problems caused by the disposal ofeffluent on the peninsula, because as Ministerfor Conservation and Energy for a period I hadsome direct responsibilities in that area.

This agreement calls for an additional $7million to be made available to the company,making a total of $15 million for the move. Itwill be up to the people of Western Australiaover the life of this agreement to work outwhether the State received good value for itsmoney. We are spending something in thevicinity of $750 000 I think it would averageout at, for our current commitment to theexisting plant. That could increase in futureyears, which is an unknown quantity-

Mr Parker: It is $750000 using a disposalmethod which everyone knows has to ceasesoon because it is environmentally unaccept-able.

M r LA URA NCE: Yes, so it is far more l ikelyto cost more in the future than less, so it maynot take many years before the State, havingcommitted itself to $15 million of expenditure.has to find another Solution to meet its existingcontractual obligations.

Mr Parker: One of the solutions was the pipe-line. which would have been far from satisfac-tory. In fact. I know the Busselton Town Coun-cil is opposed to it. and it would have cost $6million by itself.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes. As I said, that is adecision the people of Western Australia willhave to consider over the life of the agree-ment-whether it was worthwhile to spend $1 5million as the Stale's contribution towards thisshifting of the plant to the Kemerton site. That$7 million is made up in two ways: Through aland purchase and land swap arrangement for acost of $650 000: and in another $6 350 000,which has yet to be arranged in final terms, butcould take the form of a long-term, interest-freeloan.

Those sorts of details have not been finalisedand do make ih difficult to really work out whatis our reaction to this agreement. it is difficultto be able to run that past people who may beable to give the Opposition advice about thisarea. So I refer again to the difficulties we facein having to deal with this matter in haste. Weunderstand thc reason for the haste is that the

company will be able to seize a market oppor-tun ity. I have checked with the company to thebest of my ability, both with its managementteam here in Western Australia and with thepresident of the company in the United States,just in the last four hours, to confirm that thesituation is as the Government has indicated tous; namely. that unless it is able to movequickly to establish the plant, that opportunitycould be lost, and other plants, either underconstruction or being planned around theworld. may come on stream, and that maymake it difficult for this company to be able toexploit what it has termed a "window of oppor-tunity" to be able to get into the market whenthere is quite a demand around the world fortitanium dioxide.

We understand that is the reason these ap-provals have to be expedited, and we would notwant to do anything to delay this process andthereby make it more difficult for the companyto achieve those targets.

This is a major expenditure for the company.Its officials have told me that this is the largestsingle investment undertaken by this groupwhich leads from here to the United States andback to the United Kingdom. It has verysubstantial investments, including four of theseplants around the world. They have their con-cerns about the haste with which they have hadto operate. I understand that it is because oftheir corporate solicitors' going over this wholeagreement with a fine tooth comb that we haveh ad delays over t he la st fou r or fi1ve days wh ic hprevented the Minister's bringing the agree-ment to the Parliament before he did. One canonly assume that both sides have been able tonegotiate the best possible position for theirinterests.

The Minister has explained that the existingER MP for th is project on the Australind site islargely to stand, and we can appreciate that.The ERMP really deals with the constructionof the plant, and apart from an increase in sizethe plant will not change, so a new ERMP isnot appropriate. An ERMP has been carriedout on the Kemerton site and we understandthat the Minister will seek to have that standfor this new agreement. Nonetheless the EPAwill be required to look at the new proposal.and we understand that the Minister wants thatdone in a very confined period of time, perhaps30 days. We all know this will bring criticism. Iplace it clearly on the record that membersopposite when in Opposition complained bit-terly when previous Governments acted in a

2888

(Thursday, 18 June 1987] 28

similar way. It is amazing how pragmaticpeople can become when the reins of responsi-bility are thrust on them.

In future debates I will remind members op-posite that their action on this occasion was instark contrast to the position they adoptedmany times previously. But if this is the way wemust proceed we are prepared to accommodatethe Government's move. We accept that indoing so we, too, will be the subject of somecriticism. However, in the spirit of wanting tosupport the project we are prepared to have theEPA carry out its investigation in a short time.

The pipeline across the Leschenault Estuarywill eventually disappear, and this will be ofbenefit to the area because it will help to re-store the beauty of the area, which is very desir-able.

I understand that the notice of intent of theproposals was submitted by the company onlyin the last day or two. The company hasindicated it is quite happy for the Oppositionto see that notice of intent, although in mydiscussions with officers of the company Iexplained that it was not appropriate for me torequest the company to supply me with a copy.I did not want to embarrass the company inany way by doing so.

Mr Parker: I will confer with my colleague,the Minister for Environment, and with thecompany, but I am sure that will be okay.

Mr LAURANCE: In view of the shortness oftime involved, we would appreciate that.

The company has some difficulties with theEPA review because the company is proceed-ing, and will be proceeding, with some haste onthe assumption that everything will be clearedby the EPA, but there is that question markhanging over its activities.

Mr Parker: That is something the US lawyerswere worried about.

Mr LAURANCE: I can imagine they were.

We also appreciate that the Minister has tonegotiate on this matter with the Harvey Shireand that there is some difficulty involved hereas well. I only hope that the Government andthe shire can reach an acceptable compromise.All members of Parliament genuinely believe indecentralisation, and Governments of all pol-itical colours can demonstrate their record inmaking genuine attempts to bring about decen-tralisation. Both sides also know that politicalparties are criticised roundly for not being ableto achieve more decentralisation. To have

major centres of population away from the citywe need some sort of employment base, andthat is usually an industrial base.

It is a paradox that country communities willoften ask for an industrial base but will addthat they do not want it too close to their com-munities. in the last few days the Oppositionhas sent a team of shadow Ministers led by meto speak with members of the City ofWanneroo, whose councillors are complainingthat they have a rapidly growing dormitory cityclose to the metropolitan area and they are des-perate for some industrial expansion to provideemployment within their townsite. Here is onelocal authority screaming for industrial andcommercial opportunities to provide employ-ment for its rapidly growing residential popu-lation. However, in other parts of the State,because of the problem I mentioned, it is diffi--cult to provide permanent jobs that will help tosustain a major population centre.

Mr Parker: One of the problems localgovernment has is the nature of its base, be-cause very few people vote at local governmentelections and particular action groups can votea councillor in or out quite easily, so council-lors are cautious. When I was Minister forPlanning I found that councils really put up atoken show fully expecting the Government tochange the decision and make the decision forthem.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes, I think the Ministerand I agree that the system is a good one bothat State level and in the local government area,but it has anomalies. No system is perfect.

We appreciate being given the opportunity tohave brief negotiations with the company, as Iindicated earlier, through the local manage-ment and with Mr Don Borst in the UnitedStates. We reel it would have been more helpfulif the Company had sought our cooperation sothat the matter could have been dealt with inmore haste than it is being dealt with now.

Mr Parker: Surely it was a question of time.rather than discourtesy?

Mr LAURANCE: I am sure it was. Althoughwe had to seek out the company, once we did,we received all the cooperation we could haveasked for. I am sure that now we have madethat contact our future contact with thecompany will be to our mutual satisfaction.

We understand the company also requiresaccess to the site for preparatory work inAugust. It has indicated to us also that it wouldlike to have the plant completely operational byOctober of next year.

2889

2890 ASSEMBLY)

I congratulate the company for making sucha major commitment to Western Australia. Iwish it well in its endeavours to exploit thatwindow of opportunity on the world market. Itshould be a wonderful thing for WesternAustralia. It is a much better arrangement thanthe arrangement negotiated previously, and Ibelieve it will be of great benefit to the State formany years. By upgrading the capacity, it givesthe company the opportunity to process moreof Western Australia's minerals in WesternAustralia. All parties have agreed that is desir-able for this State.

Having given our support to the companyand to the agreement, I advise the Minister thatit has been his habit, in dealing with Bills ofthis nature, to look backwards. He seems not tohave sufficient vision or be prepared to leavethe past alone and get on with playing his partin unfolding an exciting future for our State.The Minister could not resist looking back-wards and taking a chip from the past as he didwith the North West Shelf project. The mem-ber for Mitchell asked the Minister a questionon 2 June about SCM Chemicals Ply Ltd. TheMinister gave a fairly lengthy reply andconcl uded by sayi ng-

The Government is in the process ofcorrecting one of the greatest environ men-tal blunders ever made in the State ofWestern Australia . .

There was no reason for the Minister to makethat remark. It does not advance his situationat all. The agreement was ratified by both par-ties, just as we are ratifying this one tonight. Hewill defend to his grave his actions inintroducing this Bill. He would not appreciatepeople saying in 25 years' time that this was thegreatest environmental blunder the State hadever experienced. The Minister has shown apenchant for making these sorts of statementsin recent times. He wants to shoot down every-thing that happened before this Governmentcame to power and tellI us coni nual ly about themagnificent job be is doing. History will provethat is not the case. I think the Minister shouldaccept the past. Mistakes have been made andmistakes will continue to be made.

The Laporte Industrial Factory AgreementBill was introduced into the House in 1961 bythe then Minister for industrial Development,the former member for Nedlands, Mr Court.He said-

This Bill is to ratify an agreement whichis the most important industrial agreementwritten in this State for decentralisation ofan industry out of the metropolitan region.

Those were glowing and well-intentioned wordsand extremely accurate at that time. MrTonkini, the then member for Melville andDeputy Leader of the Opposition, led the de-bate for the Opposition. Amongst other things.he said-

Frankly, I am prepared to admit that theGovernment has made a real achievementin the establishment of this industry .. .

Those were charitable words. He went on toexplain how he, as Minister for Works andWater Supplies in the Hawke Government, hadspent a considerable time travelling overseastrying to attract that factory to WesternAustralia and was unsuccessful, probably notthrough any fault of his, but because the econ-omic conditions at that time were not attract-ive enough to make the project feasible. Therewas a change of Government in 1959, and thenew Government entered into negotiationswith the company again. As economic con-ditions had changed. the Liberal Governmentof the day was able to bring that project to thisState. It was significant that the person whoendeavoured to get the project up and runningin this State and failed was the same personwho was prepared to say, "Well done" when alater Government was successful. H~e said laterin the same speech-

I congratulate the Minister and thoseassociated with him on following that line,and ultimately on getting this industry forWestern Australia.

I wonder who this Minister was criticisingwhen he said that agreement was the greatestenvironmental blunder ever made in WesternAustralia.

Mr Parker: I was not referring to the agree-ment:, I was referring to the siting. I was notbeing particularly critical of anyone. As yousaid, things are different.

Mr LAURANCE: I think the Minister did adisservice to two great Western Australians,one on my side of politics and one on his side. Ido not think he used good judgment in makingthat statement. It is typical of a number of the

2890

[Thursday, 18 June 19871 89

statements made by him in recent times. Ithink he deserves to be condemned for thosestatements.

I do not believe that it was the greatest en-vironmental blunder this State has ever experi-enced. It was a very wise decision at the time;the State has benefited enormously, particu-larly the Bunbury region, during the time sincethe agreement commenced in 196 1. It has beenof great benefit to the commercial interestsinvolved and to the people of the State. notonly to those who have gained employmentover a long period, but also by way of the un-told millions of dollars pumped into the systemin corporate and personal taxes.

It has created some difficulties as time haspassed; it is not that the plant or agreement wasan environmental blunder but perhaps otheragencies along the way mnade mistakes. I do notwant to criticise them because I am not awareof the pressures they may have been under atshe time decisions were made. That is in thepast. We must look forward and not back-wards, the Minister for Minerals and Energy isearning a reputation for look ing the wrong way.Because of his comments in the last few days Ifelt I could not let this opportunity pass, whiledebating this amending Bill, to bring these mat-ters before the Parliament.

We arc happy to give this measure our sup-port and we trust it will be of benefit to thecompany and to the State.

MR D. L. SMITH (Mitchell) [11.31 pm]: Ido not rise to canvass the issues of the past. It isfor the public at large to judge who was at faultand whether it was the right decision to buildthe original plant. The Deputy Leader of theOpposition raised the issue of whether we onthis side of the House were being pragmatic interms of our normal approach to environmen-tal matters;, that is, always extremely careful todevelop very slowly to ensure that environmen-tal mistakes similar to those made in the pastare not repeated.

On this occasion it is not a question of prag-matism but of necessity. The Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition well knows the length of timefor which the existing plant could havecontinued to operate-it was shortening all thetime because of the damage that had alreadybeen done to the peninsula:, of the damage thatwould have been done to the estuary if theeffluent continued to be pumped out andadded to the underground water; of the risk toGeographe flay of running a pipeline to the sea;and the immediate problems to nearby resi-

dents and the company. These issues werecrowding in and it was necessary to find a rem-edy very quickly. It is great credit to the Minis-ter that he was instrumental in finding sol-utions to that problem; they not only solvedthat problem but also ensured that the employ-ment and industrial benefits to the local econ-omy in the Bunbury region were not lost as aresult of the decisions made.

I do not want to canvass the issues of the pastor t he s ubject of the agree m ent, beyo nd ma k ingsure that as a matter of history some of thepeople who have been involved in achievingth is resulIt a re men t ion ed. Fi rst, I pay great tri b-ute to the Minister for the work he has done intrying to find alternatives for the plant,entering into negotiations with the company assoon as the environmental report was available,and bringing it to a successful conclusion soquickly. It confirms the very high opinionGovernment members have about the qualitieshe brings to his position. It says somethingabout the benefit of overseas travel and theadvantages of Ministers being given the oppor-tunity to travel overseas and maintain closecontact with overseas industrialists who have,or are considering establishing, undertakings inWestern Australia. I am certain that one of thereasons the Minister was able to bring this mat-ter to a successful conclusion so quickly was thecontact he has maintained with the generalmanager of that company during his time inthat position.

Also the Minister for Environment and theMinister for The South West were involved incooperating with the Minister for Minerals andEnergy to make sure that all the necessary in-vestigations were carried out and the necessaryreports, on both the environmental and socialfronts, were completed. It should also be saidthat it did not take very long to persuade thePremier, as Treasurer, to make available thenecessary funds to achieve this result, notwith-standing the heavy financial restrictions theState is under and will perhaps be under to agreater extent if there is a change of FederalGovernment in the near future.

I come now to the people on the local scene:The conduct of the action group involved inopposing the establishment of the chloride siteat Australind was exemplary-other suchgroups should follow that example. They didnot attempt to be an obstructionist organ is-at ion which criticised and raised all the nega-t ive aspects. Ea rly i n th e p iece they took ad van -tage of an offer to discuss with me how to bestadvance their interests. I made it clear that the

2891

2892 (ASSEM BLYJ

task for them and me would be to ensure thatany environmental or other concerns thatmight have been present in the proposal werefully investigated and that they obtained asmuch information as they could from overseasand interstate which could be utilised to makeappropriate submissions to the EnvironmentalProtection Authority. The members of thatgroup did that in a very constructive andpositive way; they were able to take advantageof the opportunity to make submissions whichin the end had a great deal to do with theoutcome. I mention in particular Mr MaudieJohansen, a resident of Eaton. who is probablythe most active member of that group. I men-tion also Cr Nita Bmogden. of the Shire ofHarvey, who lives in Clifton Park. Theycontacted me many times as well as otherpeople to make Sure that the interests of thelocal residents were presented to the Govern-ment and the EPA.

I also mention in passing Cr Pat Rutherford.It is no secret that, although we have beenfriends in the past, Cr Rutherford and I havefallen out over this issue and she is opposed tothe Kemerton site. At this stage she may beseen as an obstruction to the approval by thecouncil- However, I would not want that cur-rent difficulty to detract from the efforts shehas made for many years in relation to theenvironmental problems created by theLaporte-Australind site. Her work highlightedthe problems of that site if we were not able tofind alternative solutions: that work should notbe forgotten. Cr Rutherford and her husband,John, have been the most active communitymembers I know in the Bunbury region andthey have personally been responsible for manyof the positive features of Australind, includingthe sports centre, child-care centre, the hall andso many other things which it would take toomuch time of the House to list. I do not wanther to feel that she is the loser in this situation-,considering the history of her and her husband,they are winners.

I return to the Environmental ProtectionAuthority and the care it has taken to ensurethat this report properly took into account thesubmissions of all people. It is often said thatthe Environmental Protection Authoritymerely rubber-stamps matters in which theGovernment is involved. With the amend-ments made to the Act in this session and thepresent cornposition of the Environmental Pro-tection Authority that will not be the case. Wetook the trouble to ensure that the initial docu-

ments prepared by the company were madeavailable to everybody. Submissions made outof time were properly taken into account.

Subsequently, two meetings were organisedin the Australind area where people had everyopportunity to present their views. I congratu-late the Dardanup and Harvey Shires for thework they did in this regard. They have fol-lowed the path local authorities should take.They made sure they represented the views oftheir ratepayers and electors and that all theirfacilities were available to enable represen-tat ions go be made.

In relation to Kemerton, the shire and I havebeen in dispute. The shire probably would havepreferred the developm!nt not to go toKernerton but to somewhere else in the southwest as long as it was within the shire.

Mr Blaikie: Probably within your electorate.Mr D. L. SMITH: Probably within my elec-

torate, or the south west province. I ask themember for Vasse if he would have welcomedthis industry coming to Capel.

Mr Blaikie: I would not have had it atKemerton but I would have had it at CapeLI

Mr D. L. SMITH: Right among the drainageratepaying areas!

Mr Troy: Would you have had it nearBusseltan or Margaret River?

Mr D. L. SMITH: I do not want to spendtime scoring political points. This is a historict ime wh ich will1 long be remembered as be ing ofgreat benefit to the Bunbury region. When theelectoral reform Bill was before us tonight, themember for Kalamunda indicated that that washistoric for the State. This is a historic time forthe Bunbury region.

1 do not want it to be inferred that I acceptthe view that there are no environmental prob-lems involved with Kemerton. There arealways environmental problems with the estab-lishment of any industry on any site. We mustensure that the Environmental ProtectionAuthority's investigation of this site is asthorough as possible and people have the op-portunity to make submissions. To the maxi-mum extent possible. any environmental harmshould be prevented.

I am also concerned about the discharge ofeffluent to the Wellesly river. That needs to beassessed by the EPA. and if anything needs tobe done as an alternative it must be considered.

However, we do not have the luxury as theGovernment of excluding all possible environ-mental problems. The time is becoming critical

2892

[Thursday, I8 June 19$?]289

in terms of the continuance of the existingplant and the environmental dangers it is cre-ating. What was in danger was an estuarywhich is presently very healthy in compari .sonwith the Peel Inlet. It is one of the best utilisedwaterways in the State and is of major import-ance to Bunbury as a recreational asset, apartfrom its obvious scenic attraction.

The peninsula was also involved. Apart fromthe pollution pumped onto it, it is almosttotally free of any human or industrial activity.It is one of the few pristine areas of coastaldune country in the State.

If we had considered pumping or barging outto sea, we would have placed at risk theGeographe Bay area which no doubt the mem-ber for Vasse would have found disturbing.

Mr Blaikie: You would have incurred thewrath of the member for Vasse. I am glad youchose the lesser of two evils.

Mr D. L. SMITH: In the end result there willstill be some adverse impact as a result ofestablishing this plant at Kemerton. In the cur-rent circumstances with environmental dangersand the need to maintain all the jobs in theBunbury region there was no time to avoidthose problems altogether. No other siterecommended itself for the establishment ofthe plant.

By an accident of history and a stroke ofgood luck, the Government had done all thenecessary work. Through the cooperation of theMinister in charge of this Bill it has puttogether the Kemerton land-holding so that thismove could be made as quickly as it is beingmade.

That would not have been possible in anyarea in Capel. I am sure the outcry from allI thefarmers and residents who would have beennear the plant had the proposal been to estab-lish it there would have been such that wewould never have been able to persuade themto accept it. This is because we would not havebeen able to provide as great a buffer zone aswe are able to provide at Kemerton.

I am pleased that a group of local residentshas got together to ensure they make sub-missions to the EPA on the Kemerton site. Ihope they take into account that the Govern-ment has this large land-holding which pro-vides a buffer zone. The alternative of forcingthe company to move right away from theBunbury region would have had a tremendousimpact on the lives of the people who workthere or who service the factory. We would

have invited an economic doomsday type ofsituation if we forced the company to moveaway altogether.

Under the management of both the previousowner and the present owner, the company hasbeen making great strides in living up to whatnearby residents expect of a large factory of thissort. The company spent a lot of money tryingto upgrade and reduce pollutants issuing fromthe plant. It has tried to make all its infor-mation available to local residents. It hasattended public meetings, and in cooperationwith the Minister this result has been achieved.

This project presents remarkableopportunities for people in the Australind andthe Clifton Park areas. A large piece of landwill become available under State ownership. Itoverlooks what I have already described as oneof the best estuaries in the State. Local resi-dents should concern themselves with how thatland will be best utilised for residential andother developments and any other public uses.The State will have a fairly long job clearing upthat site if the rest of the plant eventuallymoves.

As a result of the work of this Minister andthe Minister for The South West and the SouthWest Development Authority, this land has be-come available for purchase. The peninsula isavailable as a result of the liquid effluent nolonger being discharged from the plant as pre-viously. That remarkable area of land needs tobe very carefully developed.

In the near future the Government will set upseparate advisory committees for theKemerton Park area and one for the peninsula.Local residents should be able to contribute tohow that land can best be utilised.

One of the problems in addressing whomshould be congratulated in matters of this kindis the fear of leaving someone out. I mustapologise to anyone who thinks he has played agreat part in this project whom I have notmentioned.

Two other people who ought to bementioned are Doug Wenn, the member forSouth West Province, and Beryl Jones, themember who represents the Australind andClifton Park areas in the upper House.

Those members have attended almost everymeeting and made representations on behalf oftheir constituents. I think it is great that in theend result we have been able to achieve whatwe did. I commend the Bill to the House.

2893

2894 [ASSEM BLYJ

MR BRADSHAW (Murray-Wellington)[1.51 pmj: I support the Bill with reservations.

This is my electorate whereas the member forMitchell is moving the plant away from hiselectorate. Obviously he is quite pleased, but Iam not so pleased because the plant is beingmoved closer to where I live.

I do have reservations about moving the fac-tory to Kemerton. Wherever it goes, it will cre-ate problems with local residents. I have sev-eral residents living in reasonably close prox-imity to the plant who certainly do not want itnear them. One family I spoke to have recentlymoved from the Eastern States to that area.They went there because of the quiet life anddid not expect such an industry to be estab-l ished near them.

Mr Parker: It will not affect them.Mr BRADSH-AW: It will not affect them in

the sense that there is a bigger buffer.Mr Parker: It was going to affect the people

of Australind, but it will not affect the peoplenear Kemerton. That is the difference.

Mr BRADSH-AW: I support the Bill becauseI believe it is essential to move the industry outof Australind. The Minister did misrepresentme in a Press release earlier this year when hesaid that I had changed my mind. I have neverchanged my mind about what I felt towards theAustralind site. I have always prefaced whatIhave said before I have gone on to defend thepeople of Australind who wanted the sitemoved. The changing to the chloride processwas a safe way for the chlorine to be stored.

Mr Parker: I do not disagree with anythingyou have said- Obviously it was safe.

Mr BRADSHAW: Generally the people ofAustralind did not want 25 tonnes of chlorinestored next to them. We have to consider thequality of life of those residents in the sensethat they want to be able to go to bed at nightand sleep without fear of being gassed.

I have reservations about moving the indus-try to Kenierton. It is easy for the Governmentto move it to my electorate away from an areawhere it will be controversial for their mem-bers. I believe it should have gone to the Capelarea where the raw material is located. I do notbelieve the Government has done a lot of re-search into that aspect.

Several members interjected.Mr BRADSHAW: I believe it would be bet-

ter located nearer the source of the raw ma-terial because it wilt save the trucks travellingthrough the Bunbury-Australind area. I am not

sure how they will get their raw material fromthe Geraldton region. There is obviously agreater risk when there is a further distance totravel. I am disappointed that the finishingplant will not be located at the Kemerton sitestraight away. I hope that before negotiationsare concluded the finishing plant is relocated atKemerton with the chloride plant.

I am worried that Kemerton is headingtowards becoming another Kwinana industrialarea. It would be sad because it has been statedin the past that, once the aluminiumn smelterwas established they would set up a recreationarea, plant trees, and make it a scenic area.

Mr Hodge: That is still going to happen. Itcould never be another t'winana. It does nothave the Facilities.

Mr BRADSHAW: It is amazing how littlethings keep building up.

Mr Hodge: It will take a long time to build aharbour.

Mr BRADSHAW: There is a harbour atBunbury.

Mr Hodge: You are talking about Kemerton.Mr BRADSHAW: Yes, but Kemnerton is only

a few kilometres up the road.Mr IHodge: It is more than a few kilometres.Mr BRADSHAW: It is probably about 15 or

20 kilometres. These days, that is no distancefrom a port. If most industries were as close toa port they would be quite happy.

Mr Hodge: It does not have the infrastruc-ture for a major heavy industrial area.

Mr BRADSH-AW: Members would not havethought that factories would be established in aplace like Pinjarra, but we now have a galliumplant, which is good for the region. We have arare earth plant and a charcoal plant.

Mr Parker: All these things are good for yourelectorate.

Mr BRADSHAW: Thank you very much.The Minister is upsetting more residents forme. I do not want my electorate to turn intoanother Kwinana area, because it is a ruralarea. There are farms surrounding it. It wouldbe a sin from that angle. It is all right for theMinister for Conservation and Land Manage-ment to say it will not turn into that type ofarea because of its lack or infrastructure. Thatis a load of rubbish. I have already pointed outthat we find that new industries do suddenlyspri ng u p. No-.ne had h ea rd of a galIi u m or rareearth plant until six or nine months ago. It isamazing what is around the corner.

2994

[Thursday, I8 June 1987] 89

The other reason I would like to see thechloride processing plant moved from theAustralind area is the fact that it put a bufferzone over the Hoff family land in theDardanup Shire and also the Bunbury GolfClub. One of the greens was a matter of only100 metres from the proposed new plant. Fromthat angle, it will at least take the pressure offthat golf course.

Overall, I support the move although I wouldhave preferred it in another area. Obviously.the people who are living in close proximity areupset about it but at least there is a reasonablebuffer zone now. I think people will be living aminimum of two kilometres from the plant.

Mr Parker: It is 2.5 kilometres.Mr BRADSHAW: I support the Bill.MR P. J. SMITH (Bunbury) 1 12 midnight]: I

indicate my support for the Bill and will try notto canvass the same areas the member forMitchell has raised although I will forgive himfor leaving my name out of the list of Govern-ment members who attended the meetings.listened to the people from the area, and putpressure on the various Ministers.

In 1961, 1 was in Burnie. Tasmania, and wastaken to see the effect of the ilmenite plantthere. As far as the eye could see, the sea wasred. At that stage the Government of this Statewas planning to open up a plant near Bunburyand the proposal was to pour the effluent intothe sea. It was pointed out to me that thatwould have a Similar effect. I could not under-stand why they should do such a thing and inany event it did not concern me because I didnot anticipate going anywhere near Bunbury inthe future.

But things change. A well-known journalistwho Writes a column for the South WesternTimes each week, John Nathan, said recentlythat probably no other topic has filled so manypages of the South Western Times by providingso many photographs, headlines, and stories ashas Laporte, or SCM Chemicals, or whatever itwill be called in the future. Even after this Billis passed and the plant has been built, I thinkstories will continue to be written about thisplant.

About 10 years ago when I became involvedin the problems of SCM Chemicals it was putto me by the people who live near the plant thata chlorine plant would be the ideal answer. Itwas safe, and clean, and the sooner anyGovernment could get it established, thesooner everybody in the Australind area wouldbe happy. In fact, the very people who have

complained over the last six months were thesame people who put pressure on me and othermembers of Parliament to get that chlorideplant in place.

Mr Parker: I have kept a file on which I haveletters from the same person, whose name Iwon't mention. One says. "Please put thechloride plant in," and another one says he isviolently opposed to it.

Mr P. J. SMITH: We all see these projects assaviours. People think when a plant is broughtin that there will be no more problems. How-ever, if we had even thought about the word,"chlorine" we would have foreseen the prob-lems. I am very pleased that having recognisedthose problems the various Ministers havemoved to do something about shifting thatplant from the Australind-Clifton Park area.

The problem, of course, was no longer one ofpollution so much as the risk of a gas that mayor may not escape, and that is the main prob-lem. Personally I do not think there was a riskbut certainly I felt that I would not like to bel iving there.

The shifting of the chloride plant to theKemnerton farm area gives me a few concerns. Iknow the Harvey Shire Council is concernedthat this plant may be rushed through. I wouldnot like to see it established without a thoroughEnvironmental Protection Authority report onthe plant. Most of the other speakers havementioned the problem of the WellersicyRiver. I cannot see how we can allow salinewater to be discharged into that river under anycircumstances because that river goes straightdown to Collie River and into the estuary. Iwill be anxious to establish just where thatsaline water is to be discharged.

The Harvey Shire also has a problem-andthe member for Murray-Wellington has alreadyraised this point-in that the Kemerton areamay in future become an industrial area. it isearmarked now for what we may call a heavyindustrial site and that does leave the way openfor this to be established and for future indus-tries similar to the one now to be establishedthere.

Mr Bradshaw. The Minister did say orig-inally that only an aluminium smelter would gothere.

Mr Parker: I did not say that.

Mr Bradshaw: I have two witnesses who saythat you did.

2895

2896 (ASSEMBLY]

Mr Parker: I don't think I said that. I had oneof my staff go through the entire H-ansard andthe Press clippings of the time and there is notone reference to that. I do not believe I haveever said that.

Mr Bradshaw: I think it was at a public meet-ing.

Mr P. .1. SMITH: If ihe two members do notmind, I will resume my speech now. They areinteresting points but the important thing isthat at some stage in the future there is a needfor heavy industries to be established in thesouth west. I can sit back in Bunbury and saythat wherever they are established they will beto the advantage of Bunbury, but if we aregoing to establish a heavy industry area in theKemerton-Parkfield area there will need to besome intensive negotiations with the HarveyShire to consider that site-as I am sure therewill be. If it is going to be closer to Bunbury, inthe Picton area, then so be it. If it is going to benear Capel or Busselton, t do not care. But ifwe are going to attract these heavier industriesinto the south west for the long-term employ-ment of the people of the region and to attractpeople to the area a decision must be madevery soon.

I too would like to thank all those peoplewhom the member for Mitchell thanked, es-pecially the Ministers, and in supporting theBill I express the hope that this move is but thefirst stage of a future amalgamation of alt theworks onto the new site.

MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) [12.06 amj: I say atthe outset that I support the endeavours torelocate the site, the endeavours for a new70000 tonne per annum factory to be built,and the endeavours to change from a sulphateto a chloride process plant. The project will beof benefit to the State and will significantlybenefit the very important'sand mining indus-try of Western Australia by producing a value-added product.

I refer to that sand mining industry. Thelatest figures 1 have available to me are from1983-84, and in that year within the Capcl re-gion some 1.4 million tonnes of mineral sandswere mined. Within the Cape] mineral sandsfield more than 300 people were employed, andat the SCM Chemicals plant which processesthose minerals a further 300 people areemployed. When we have a work force of morethan 600 people dependent on minerals sandswe can see that it is a very significant industry

and one which has certainly proved to be ofbenefit to Western Australia and to the southwest region in particular.

I regard the SCM Chemicals mineral sandsindustry as the Cinderella industry of the Stateand 1 do not believe that industry has ever beengiven the accolades it really deserves. It was thefirst inining and processing industry in thesouth west to get off the ground, and I believe itwas the minerals sands industry that providedthe base which led to the development of theport at Bunbury, and to more power gener-ation, which in turn opened up the door ofconfidence for more people to becomeinvolved in the State. Although the mineralssands industry has had more than its share ofcriticism in the past and no doubt will have itscritics in the future it has been a Cinderellaindustry that should have received far greatercredit than it has.

It is very interesting to see the proposals be-fore us tonight and to understand that thereason for the changes taking place is that thereis concern for the environment and conser-vation-a concern that no longer will the en-vironment be able to take up the effluent dis-posal from the SCM Chemicals plant atLaporte. It is also interesting to read throughsome of the speeches that were made at thetime when the Bill relating to the Laporte plantwas introduced to the Parliament in 196 1.

There were three speakers to the Bill at thattime, one of whom was the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition, Mr Tonkin, who said on page1988 of Ha nsard that he was concerned for theplant and its effect on the environment. Hestated-

I was particularly interested in the stepsbeing taken with regard to the disposal ofeffluent, being mindful of the problemwhich I considered this to be when thematter was before me some few years ago.The proposal is to build a pipe-line acrossthe estuary and above sea-water mark tothe disposal point, the company to providethree-eighths of the cost of the pipe-lineand the Government five-eighths. Govern-ment employees will patrol the pipe-lineregularly to ensure there is no leakage ofeffluent; and this is most important, ofcourse, because a good deal of fouling ofthe land could occur, thus creating a nuis-ance, should there be a leakage of effluentfor any considerable time.

Mr D. L, Smith: The Government was goingto be responsible.

2896

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 29

Mr BLAIKIE: Thai was the point I was goingto make. I want to give the Government creditfor what it did at the time.

Mr D. 1. Smith: There is no doubt inretrospect that it was the wrong decision.

M r BLA IKI E: The advice that was gi ven wasall that members were able to consider in thecircumstances at the time. The member forBeeloo, Mr Colin Jam ieson, made the follow-ing comment during the debate-

The matter with which I was about todeal was the discharge of effluent, and Iwas about to mention Tasmania's experi-enice. because a similar industry has beenestablished there. The part that worries meis that if there is no effective way ofpreventing the effluent discharged frompolluting the area, Bunbury might be in aworse position than Burnie in Tasmania. Isay that advisedly; because the tidal flowin Tasmania is far greater than it is atBunbury.

The concerns of the member for Beeloo werenot absolutely founded, but at least they hadsome basis.

Mr Parker: They were because if you go backto the time the original intention was that theeffluent was to be discharged into the ocean asit was in Burnie. When that debate took placethat was going to happen, and it did. It wasbecause of the correctness of what the memberfor Beeloo, then said that it had to be changedbecause in Burnie, as with Stallingborough inthe UK. as I said the other day, it all getswashed away very quickly. But the oppositehappens at Bunbury with the pleasant beachesdown there. it settles there. They had to changeit to a ponding process within a few years.

Mr BLAIKIE: I do not intend to make this along speech, but it is important for the recordof the Parliament and the history of the State torelate these matters again today because I haveno doubt that in 25 years time the members ofParliament who take our place will read ourcomments and judge us on the deliberations wemake.

Mr Parker. What you have revealed to me isvery educative. The member for Beeloo hadmuch More prescience than I realised.

Mr BLAIKIE: The member for Bunbury atthe time, Mr George Roberts, made a couple ofcomments and quoted from a letter. It isrecorded on page 1990 of Hfansard of 25October. He said-

On the 21st June, 1957, 1 receivedanother communication from anothersource in Tasmania. In this communi-cation it is stated as follows:-

We have such an industry estab-lished at Blythe near Burnie on theNorth West coast of Tasmania andfrom personal observation I would saythat the beach is definitely discolouredby the discharge from this factory.Approximately half a mile from thedischarge outlet the beach is now very

* definitely a rich rusty colour. Appar-ently the local residents are not at allconcerned about the discolouration atthe beach, and as far as can beascertained there is no known ill-effecton bathers or fish life.

I understand that there will be avery substantial expansion of this in-dustry in the very near future, and sofar there has been no objection raisedby local residents or others in regardto the waste discharge from the indus-try in its present state, or in regard toincreased discharges in the light of fu-ture development planned.

He then said-

So those letters were quite heartening atthe time. As was mentioned by the Minis-ter, there is a pipe-line from the factorysite that will be taken across LesehenaultiaEstuary by trestles. It will reach a pointeast of the cut, and it will go along theforeshore of Koombana Bay for somemiles. I feel confident that the company iswell cognisant of the effluent problem andthat we in Bunbury will have no difficult-ies in regard to the effluent at the dischargepoint or at the main bathing beaches.

I have no doubt that all the members whospoke then did so with the knowledge and as-pirations they had at the time. History hasproved some of them to be correct and othersto have been way off the mark. It is importantto record that because in 25 years time futureParliaments will judge us on the contribution

2897

2898 [ASSEMBLY]

we make tonight. As far as the development ofthe Laporte site, or SCM as it is now, is con-cerned-

Mr D. L. Smith: [f(you go back in the historythe critical issue is not so much when it wasdeveloped but the environmental problemswhich have been known for a long time, and interms of finding solutions of this kind therecord of the previous Government has to beconsidered in comparison with what has goneon under this Government.

Mr BLAIKIE: That is right. I will come tothat in due course.

As the plant grew and developed the effluentwas piped across the estuary and into lagoonsin the sandhills where it dissipated into thesand. Over the years the sandhills became fullof the product and no more could be disposedof there. For many years a number of proposalswere put forward as to how to get rid of theproblem of effuent from Laporte. It is signifi-cant that in that legislation to which I havereferred the problem of disposal of effluent wasthe Government's responsibility. If it had beenthe company's responsibility maybe sucessiveGovernments would have taken more positiveaction against the company. Effluent was theGovernment's responsibility and it had to finda solution.

Of the number of projects that were put for-ward 1o assist in gctting rid of the effl uent therewas one byproduct called Copperus. which waswidely hailed as being a new development foragriculture as a superphosphate substitute.Vast quantities were taken off at the miningplant and made available for farmers to spreadon their properties. That worked well for twoor three years until the cockeys realised it wasnot the last word. It helped the company to getrid of some of its problcms.

So this has gone on over the years, and it hascaused a real hiatus. On the ocean side of theestuary the effluent has caused staining of thebeaches. Previous Governments investigatedthe possibility of putting pipelines out to sea topump the effluent into deeper waters where itwould be dissipated. In spite of all the endcav-ours that were made there were no assurancesthat the sea environment would not be harmedfurther. It was a real problem for successiveGovernments.

I congratulate the Government on its abilityto find a company that is prepared to rebuildand to relocate its plant. That is the nub of thisissue. if the company had not been prepared torebuild, the Government and the people of the

State would have been saddled with a problem.The Parliament must acknowledge the goodwork that has been carried out.

As far as I am concerned, I will seize theopportunity to welcome the development, but Iwould prefer Kemerton not being the site. Ihave already indicated that I would havechosen a site in close proximity to the Capelmineral Fields as a preferred site. I ask the Min-ister to indicate in his reply whether Capel hadbeen considered as a site bearing in mind that90 per cent of the raw product for the plantwould be transported from the Geraldton area.I presume that the raw product would betransported by rail. If this were the case, theGovernment would have to provide a railterminal at Kemnert on.

Mr Parker: When we planned to build atAustralind-

Mr BLAIKIE: I am glad it is not beingconstructed at Australind.

Mr Parker: Wherever it is built, the transportfrom Geraldton will be by road. The productwill be synthetic rutile rather than ilmenite andit is of a much more compounded structure andthe volumes will be much less.

Mr BLAIKIE: It has a capacity of' 70000ton nes per yea r. butI so be i t.

I suggest to the Minister that there should bea wider range of transport options available tothe company. It should have a rail option or aroad option, but with the development atKemerton, those options will be denied it.

On a number of occasions I have indicatedthat if the decision concerning the smelCte hadbeen mine I would not have sited it atKemnerton. I would have taken it into the Colliearea and debated the issue with the environ-mental movement. It would have been locatedin such a way as to have have met the verystrict environmental standards and safeguards,but more importantly I would have located theindustry in close proximity to the alumina proj-ect.

The member for Murray-Wellington hasalready indicated his concern regarding theKemerton site. He said that it is a site whichthe Government owned and, therefore, it is thepreferred site. I F the Government owned 5 000hectares at Capel or Collie it would have beenfavourably disposed to use one of those sites.The fact that the Government owned the landat Kenierron made it an advantageous site.

2898

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 29

Mr D. L. Smith: It certainly was a majorconsideration. Had we gone to Cape!, we wouldhave had to buy farms within a two-mileradius.

Mr BLAIKIE: If the Government had pur-chased land in the Capel area in preference tothe land at Kemerton we would now have beendebating the plant being located at Cape! be-cause the Government owned the land.

Mr D. L. Smith: Look at the value of thefarming land. You could not use good agricul-tural land at Cape! for that purpose.

Mr BLAIKIE: I concur with the remarks ofthe member for Mitchell, but for the purpose ofthe argument if the Government had ownedland at Capel the development would havebeen sited on that land.

Mr D. 1. Smith: You have overlooked thefact that the Kemerton land was purchased be-cause it was an ideal industrial site.

Mr BLAIKIE: The member for Mitchell hassaid precisely what is concerning the memberfor Murray-Wellington. He said it is an indus-trial site and he is concerned that it will be-come an industrial estate. The member forBunbury is also concerned about that.

When one considers the entirety of the southwest region it is evident that the land known asthe Kemerton land has the potential to becomeprime residential land.

Mr Parker: It is certainly very poor agricul-tural land.

Mr BLAIKIE: I agree with the Minister. Byusing this site the Government will tie-up asubstantial amount of land which is well suitedfor residential purposes.

Mr D. 1. Smith: You are the shadow Minis-ter for The South West.

Mr BLAIKIE: No, I am not.Mr D. L. Smith: You used to be. You know

that there is such a thing as a regional Bunburyplan which indicates where the residentialareas are. We do not require the Kemerton siteto fulfil what is in that regional plan.

Mr BLAIKIE: I would have thought the areacould be used for residential purposes. I do notwant members to gain the impression that I donot want this project to proceed. The proposeddevelopment is in close proximity to Bunbury.Binningup and Leschenauht Inlet, which is avery important waterway and was the subjectof concern expressed by the member forBunbury in relation to the Wellersley River. Hehas also expressed concern about the dischargeof effuent into those waterways. My concern is

that Parliament is about to make a decisionbelieving it to be of advantage to the State. butthat perhaps in 25 years' time the then mem-bers of Parliament will say that this Parliamentonly transferred the problem from Australindto Kemerton.

The Government needs to be very astute inits planning of' this project to ensure that itreally is not transferring a problem. I haveindicated my support of the Bill and havecongratulated the Minister for the work he hasdone, but when the proposal finally proceeds Iwould like his assurance that in 25 years' timewe will not be identified as the Parliament thatshifted a problem. The environmental reviewsthat will take place now will be of some rel-evance in the future.

I ask the Minister to give his assurance that-adequate time is given to proper considerationof the full range of alternatives and theconsequences that might arise as a result of thesiting of this project. The Minister has notindicated a time limit for this consideration,but I would be of the opinion that we wouldneed at least two months. That time would besufficient to obtain the necessary input and tomake a final decision.

We have agreed with the plant. The Ministerhas said where it will go. I plead with him toensure that the Environmental ProtectionAuthority has sufficient input to Governments.

This is a monumental decision which is im-portant to the south west. It is a decision forwhich the member for Murray-Wellington hasindicated his concern. The member forBunbury has quite properly highlighted areas ofconcern, and I hope I have also indicated myconcern while supporting the project.

The Parliament has given its approval, butthe final determination will be judged on thedetail which the Minister decides this projectshould have. I request that he ensures sufficientinput in an environmental review to ensurethat the fears expressed do not come to fru-ition.

MR COWAN (Merredin-Leader of theNational Party) [12.31 am]: I indicate theNational Party's support for this amendmentor variation of the agreement. There is no pointrepeating what has already been stated by themembers with local constituency interests inthis matter, but one thing must be borne inmind: Many agreements and variations ofagreements have come before this Parliament

2899

2900 ASSEM BLYI

for ratification, but only recently have theybeen conditional upon approval by the En-vironmental Protection Authority.

Although I do not think it will happen in thisday and age, in the past agreements have comethrough this Parliament upon which no en-vironmental impact statement study has beenmade, and environmental matters were reallyirrelevant to the agreement. The Governmentwas prepared to allow the agreement to be rati-fied without being subject to some form of en-vironmental impact study. I am pleased thatthat has been incorporated in this variationand the Government is to be commended forthat.

What we have witnessed in the attempts torelocate this plant is a sign of the changingtimes. Once upon a time we had developmentat any cost in this State. People are becomingmore and more conscious of matters such asenvironment, compatibility with other indus-tries nearby, and compatibility with residentialand built-up areas. it is pleasing to see that weare getting to the stage where all the ingredientswhich make successful land and resourceutilisation are being properly and carefully con-sidered, and I commend the Government forthat.

In 25 years' time people may say it was amistake, but at this stage it appears to us-andwe do not have a corner on expertise in thisfield-that this is the right decision.

Before anyone starts claiming a mistake wasmade here, they will have to accept that in 20to 25 years' time we will have perhaps madeanother quantum leap towards a changed situ-ation which is even more stringent and putsgreater requirements upon Government tomeet obligations which have not yet beenthought of.

The National Party supports this agreement.MR PARKER (Fremantle-Minister for

Minerals and Energy) 112.36 am]: I thank theDeputy Leader of the Opposition and theLeader 'of the National Party for their supportof the Bill and their complimentary remarksabout the legislation, and also my own col-leagues the members for Mitchell and Bunbury.I thank the member for Vasse and the memberfor Murray-Wellington for their somewhat lessenthusiastic support for the legislation.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition saidthat the speed of dealing with this matter willinevitably create criticism. I think that is true. ihave become cynical in the last few years overthese things. Give people lots of time and they

exercise that time to criticise. If they are notgiven that time they still criticise. 1 have yet tofind the right solution.

Mr Blaikie: We are quite impressed by theway you are developing.

Mr PARKER: Thank you very much. Myexperience is that it does not matter what onesays or does or how cooperative one tries to be;inevitably, especially with projects of this sortwith an understandable degree of fear, peoplewill oppose it, no matter how one goes about it.One must decide what is the best way, and ifcriticism results, that is part of the job. I amco m ing to take t hat poi nt of v iew.

The Deputy Leader of the Oppositioncommented on the notice uf intent. As I said byway of interjection, I can see no reason why thenotice of intent should not be made availableto the Opposition. If matters of a confidentialnature are included, they could be deleted, orwe could obtain an undertaking from the Op-position. I will check with the EPA and thecompany, but I cannot see any reason for thatcooperation not taking place.

As far as the Shire of Harvey is concerned, itis my desire to achieve as much agreement aspossible. Certain aspects must be sorted out,but there will still be an agreement. The Shireof Harvey has cause to be concerned aboutsome aspects. It is concerned about the ratingof the land, the maintenance of the roads, andthose sorts of things. We will deal with thosematters and negotiate an accommodation.However, we are not going to have the Shire ofHarvey set itself up as a mini EPA. Those de-cis ions are for the Government to make. Wemay attract either praise or odium for them, asthe case may be.

Many people in the Shire of Harvey praiseour decisions very strongly, although one ort wo ta ke a di fferen t pers pect ive.

The member fo r Murray-Wellingtonmentioned the Kemnerton land. I have receivedonlIy two o r t hree l et ters from people concernedabout this location at Kemnerton. I hadhundreds about the aluminium smelter.

Mr Bradshaw: There are a lot less peoplearound Kemerton.

Mr PARKER: That is why we are moving itthere. One letter claimed that at some stage acommitment had been made that it would notbe at Kemnerton. I could not recall having saidthat. in the heat of the moment I thought thatperhaps I had. I therefore got my staff' to gothrough all the Hansards and Press clippings ofthe time. That was a couple of years ago. They

2900

[Thursday, 18 June 1987) 20

were looking to see what I had said, and therewas no reference to my having said that. Thatconfirmed my recollection that I did not be-lieve that was ever said.

That is not to say it will become an industrialarea; I simply do not know. As the member forMitchell said a moment ago, that will be on acase-by-case basis. There will be an opportunityfor the smelter and this plant to be there andwhether anything else will go there will have tobe examined at the time in the normal way. Ido not think there is any Holy Grail one way orthe other about it. It is industrial land; it is notsuitable for agriculture.

Mr Blaikie interjected.

Mr PARKER: It will not be residential, cer-tainly not in this buffer zone. I agree with theDeputy Leader of the Opposition that any mis-takes, without trying to apportion blame Orcriticism, were not just about the siting of theplant but also in relation to other authoritiesthat allowed the building of residences close tothe plant. Certainly that is a mistake that hope-fully we have learnt enough not to repeat.There will not be any residential areasimmediately adjacent to this site, as there areat Austral ind.

Mr Blaikie: A problem which will occurdown the track will be the abattoirs andpiggeries.--once you have established the plantand if an alumina smelter gets going, the fluor-osks will almost automatically close them down.

Mr PARKER: This plant will not have anyaffect on the piggery. The smelter will have animpact. The Government has offered to pur-chase those properties, but the owner does notwish to sell.

Mr Blaikie: He is probably hanging out for ahigher price.

Mr PARKER: They all do. It was veryinteresting that when we wanted to purchaseproperties for the smelter, people could notpossibly sell their land-they had some vitallyimportant use for it-but on the other hand ifthe Government had been prepared to paythem double, they might have reconsideredtheir position. When the Government shelvedthe smelter, there suddenly was a queue ofpeople at the office wanting to sell their landbefore the offer was withdrawn. One of thereasons we have all this land is that we boughtall this property at a time when people thoughtthat there was not going to be a smelter built onthe land and they wanted to sell it to us-

Mr Blaikie: They probably did not knowwhether you were using your Midland abattoirsvalues or your Fremantle Gas values.

Mr PARKER: As in both those cases we didit on a proper basis of valuation, which meantthat we refused to pay exorbitant amounts ofmoney for the land, and we were subjected tosome criticism for that. I accept that that ispart of the process.

1 thank the Opposition for its cooperation inthe passage of this legislation. It is beingpushed through very speedily. Having spentth ree yea rs i n O pposi ti on. I k now how easy it isto refuse to cooperate or how tempting it is touse the opportunity to get stuck into theGovernment. 1 believe that the Opposition isplaying a very positive role in the developmentof the State by cooperating with the Govern-ment on this matter.

I also thank the member for Mitchell. HeIkept the matter of this shifting of the plantunder review during a period when frankly Iwas not keen to consider it myself. It did notseem appropriate, I thought the Australind sitewas the only option. The member for Mitchellcan take the credit for putting the Governmentin the frame of mind to consider this change. Ithink his contribution is a major part of thisachievement.

Mr Utaikie: You have not answered my ques-tion in relation to the EPA.

Mr PARKER: The level of the environmen-tal review and the period during which itshould open is very much a matter for the EPA,not for me. Personally, I have quite strongviews on it because everything that is to beknown about this plant is known and, as theDeputy Leader of the Opposition said, therewas an exhaustive review in respect of it.Everything there is to know about Kemerton isknown, because that was subject to an exhaus-tive review a couple of years ago. I cannot seeany reason for the period that the memberspoke of. I will not make that decision; the EPAwill make it.

When I went down to Bunbury after the an-nouncement of this move and I met with MrJohansson and his very large committee, I feltvery proud, as a member of this Government,of the faith which that group had in the EPA,and which they felt had been justified. Theywere very complimentary about the EPA andhave subsequently written to the Governmentabout it. I might add I cannot take responsi-bility for that because it is in the province ofmy colleague, the Minister for Conservation

2901

2902 [ASSEMBLY)

and Land Management. I think the EPA is ex-cellent, the legislation is excellent, and theofficers are excellent. I have every confidencethe EPA will make the right decision. The resi-dents in that area can have every confidencethat, as we have done in this instance, we willbe sensitive to the EPA and the things it bringsforward.

Mr Blaikie: I accept that the Government ofthe day will make the decision, as long as youallow the EPA sufficient time.

Mr PARKER: That is up to the EPA. I be-lieve that one could almost make the decisiontomorrow because of all the information whichis known, but I accept the EPA has to make itsawn decision about the time involved. Time isof the essence, as we have all been saying aboutthis legislation, and I hope that the EPA willchoose to make the decision in a lesser periodthan that, but it will be the EPA's decision. Ihave, and I know the local residents have.every confidence that the EPA will make thecorrect decision.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Commi ace, erc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third time, on motion by Mr

Parker (Minister for Minerals and Energy), andtransmitted to the Council.

VALUATION OF LAND AMENDMENTBILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 16 June.MR MENSAROS (Floreat) [ 12.48 am]: The

fairly innocuous and unrecognisable title of thisBill as far as the purpose of the Bill goes doesnot really tell the true story, which is that thisBill is nothing but a trick by the Government topull the carpet from underneath the feet of theOpposition and to claim kudos for remedyingan inequitable and unjust situation. The situ-ation is that if a building of a comparativelyhumble value is built on what became a highvalue block, such as on a river shore or anocean beach, the gross rental value of thatproperty ought to be a minimum of five percent of the capital value of the block uponwhich it is situated.

That was the inequity with local governmentrates which was partly remedied when legis-lation was introduced to allow local authoritiesto appl y fo r a n exem pt ion; and then, i f t hey gotthat, and if in turn some of the ratepayers ap-plied for individual exemptions-they couldonly be accommodated if it was a privatedwelling with an owner-occupier on the prop-city-the five per cent minimum provisionneed not h ave, applied.

But nothing was done for water-relatedcharges which, other than for domestic water.are all based on property values. If an oldbuilding was on a block which had once been aremote bush land block at the time the buildingwas erected but had become valuable as devel-opment spread, it attracted a very high sewer-age rate because sewerage rates are calculatedon gross rental value, so it would be calculatedon five percent of that then very valuable land.

In order to remedy this I issued a statementthat I would achieve a solution by introducinga private member's Bill. The Minister forWater Resources immediately issued a returnstatement saying that he had been thinking ofdoing this all along and would introduce a Billto remedy the situation. However, I wasquicker off the mark and introduced my pri-vate member's Bill. I made my second readingspeech on the Bill, and then it was accorded thefate of most private member's Bills of resting inpeace at the bottom of the Notice Paper.

My introducing my Bill so quickly must haveangered the Government. which did not wantany kudos to go to the Opposition. What theGovernment did is something that happens inSouth Australia, according to my counterpartin that State, and perhaps the Governmentlearnt from the South Australian situation. TheGovernment introduced a Bill amendinganother Act, which in this case it was able to dovery conveniently and achieve virtually theprecise aim of my own Bill. The Governmentunder our Standing Orders was aware it couldnot introduce a Bill to amend a certain Actwhen an earlier Bill had been introduced to dothe same thing in the same session. To makedoubly sure of success, the Governmentintroduced its Bill in the Legislative Council,ai'hough that made little difference as itultimately had to come here.

Let me explain what the result of my Billwould have been and what the result of theGovernment's Bill will be. My Bill would haveresulted in all value-based water-relatedcharges-and only water-related charges-be-ing exempt from this minimum five per cent of

2902

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J190

block value. In other words, if a building ofhumble value were on a block, which was veryexpensive, the actual rental value of the prop-erty on the land was to be the value fetched inthe estimation of the Valuer General, and thefive per cent of block value would not apply.

On the other hand, the Water Authority Actsays that the gross rental value applies as thebasis of valuation according to the Valuation ofLand Act, and that Act defines the gross rentalvalue and indicates that it cannot be less thanfive per cent of an assessed value. Assessedvalue is defined as the percentage value of thecapital of the unimproved property which is setfrom time to time by the Minister, and that isnow set at five per cent. The Government Billsimply repeals this pant of the definition ofgross rental value which says that it must be aminimum of five per cent. If the Bill were tostop here, that five per cent would apply toevery property and to every charge, not just towater-related charges; it would apply to all localgovernment charges and any other chargebased on property value.

However, the Government's Bill goes a stepfurther and says that it will not only apply todomestic properties, but also to non-domesticproperties-for instance, small businesses-theexemption rule applies only if the building onthe block is at least 33'/h per cent of the value ofthe block. If a block were vacant and valued at$100 000, any properly on it would have to bevalued at more than $33 333 for the rule toapply. That relates only to non-residentialproperties, such as rental business properties,and (his creates gross inequities.

If the value of the block is $500 000 and thebuilding is valued at $155 000, it is slightlymore than one third of the value of the blockand so the ruling would apply. The actualrental value could be, say. $200 a week, whichis $10 400 gross rental value per annum. But ifthe property is worth only $145 000 and therent is still $200 a week, the rental value wouldbe $25 000. which is five per cent of the blockvalue of $500 000.

So the difference between the Government'sBill and my private member's Bill is, firstly.that the Government's Bill applies to all ratesbased on property value, not only water-relatedrates;, and secondly, the Government's Bill alIodomestic properties and non-domestic proper-ties only if the value of the building is morethan one-third of the unimproved block value;this of course excludes some businesses. Thesecond reading speech did not explain why this

should be so. I tried to figure it out but couldcome to no logical explanation why this one-third value was considered appropriate.

We support the Bill but stress that this exer-cise is one very important and good example ofthe need for an Opposition and of the proof ofthe efficiency and success of this Opposition.Through our own endeavours of announcingand then introducing a private member's Bill,we have achieved an enlightened amendmentto the existing legislation and we have providedassistance to people who are in need of assist-ance. We have achieved this by our own ac-tions, albeit in a roundabout way by forcing theGovernment to introduce a Bill in order for itto be able to claim the kudos for this assistance.

MR PEARCE (Armada le-Leader of theHouse) 1 1.00 am): It is late and I do not want to.argue with the member. I appreciate his sup-port of the Bill. To assume what is almost tan-tamount to a conspiracy and to reach the pointthat the Government has been forced into thismajor victory by the Opposi t on on the basis ofits making this slight amendment I think is todraw a very long bow. However, I am happy totake the point that great minds think alike.

Mr Laurance: Th is is a first. We could not getto first base with the previous Minister on thesechanges.

Mr PEARCE: Maybe it takes a while to getwhere we want to go, but we are there now, solet us be grateful.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee, etc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third lime, on motion by Mr

Pearce (Leader of the House). and transmittedto the Council.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS DUTYAMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 16 June.MR MeeKINNON (Murdoch- Leader of

the Opposition) [1.04 am]: This Bill wasintroduced as a result of the Commonwealth'sdecision to introduce financial institutionsduty in the Australian Capital Territory.

2903

2904 [ASSEMBLYI

The Opposition does not oppose the legis-lation. However. I have two questions. Howmuch will the State actually lose in a full yearas a consequence of the legislation? TheTreasurer said that the effect of these measureson revenue will be insignificant, but he did notspecify how insignificant. I would appreciateknowing the amount.

What will be the rate of FID to apply in theACT as a consequence of this legislation? Whatis the rate being introduced in the NorthernTerritory?

The Opposition has pleasure in supportingthe Bill.

MR PEARCE (Armadale-Leader of theHouse) [ 1.05 am]J: I do not know the answer tothese questions at the moment. It is difficult forme to discover exactly what the rate offinancial institutions duty will be in the Terri-tory. I realise that a person should not have topay FID twice-once in a State and once in aTerritory.

I appreciate the point being made by theLeader of the Opposition that, where there is adifferential in the FIDs, there will always be atemptation for an individual to order his affairsso that FID is paid in the State or in the Terri-tory where it is lodged. I will find out theamount of duty later.

it is impossible for the Treasury Departmentto assess what the impact will be on revenue asa result of the legislation. I do not believe wecould assess the amount of revenue we aregaining which might otherwise be paid in theNorthern Territory. However, based on the ex-perience in (he other States, the Treasury be-lieves it will not he a great loss to it. I am happyto ask the Treasury to advise the Leader of theOpposition what the amount might be in thefirst year-

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Commit tee. etc.

Bill passed through Committee without de-bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by MrPearce (Leader of the House). and transmittedto the Council.

SHEEP LICE ERADICATION FUND BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 21 May.

MR TUBBY (Greenough) [1.10 am]: TheOpposition in general supports this Bill. It isvery important so far as the sheep and woolindustry is concerned, but I regret that we aredebating this important Bill at such a late hour.I intend to briefly run through the history ofthe attempts to eradicate lice in the sheep andwool indlustr.

Lice have been a problem within the industryfor approximately 80 years, and methods oftreatment have been in practice forapproximately 50 years while legislative con-trols have been in place for a little more than40 years. The initial treatment of like was acomplicated process; it involved the sheep be-ing mustered four weeks after shearing pro-grammes, and in the early stages they had to beforced through a plunge dip, approximatelyhalf a metre wide and 20 metres long. Thesheep were manhandled into one end of the dipand they walked out through steps at the otherend into the draining pens.

Because of the need to muster the sheep aftershearing, the effort involved in this process wasa problem as far as the wool industry was con-cerned. In those days powdered dips were usedwith an arsenical base; that is why it wasnecessary to wait four weeks after shearing be-fo re dipping-to ensure that any cutsassociated with shearing had time to heal andthere was no risk of poisoning from the arsenicin the dip.

In the early 1950s shower dipping wasintroduced, which made the job easier. Initiallyit was still necessary to wait approximately fourweeks after shearing before the sheep could bedipped, because the arsenic-based dips werestill in use. Later other types of chemical dipscame on the market and the farmers were ableto dip the sheep immediately after shearing.However, the sheep had to be dipped within areasonable time of shearing because once thewool began to grow it was difficult for theshower dips to penetrate the wool and give ef-fective control.

During that period of legislative controldipping was compulsory: following the dippingprocess a statutory declaration had to be filledout indicating the date and the number ofsheep that had been dipped. This declarationwas given to the local authority which kept arecord of dipping in the district and endeav-

2904

[Thursday, 1S June 1987J190

oured to keep an eye on those who tried toevade their legal responsibility to dip theirsheep within four weeks of shearing.

In later years the highly -concentrated pour-on dips enabled the farmer to treat the sheep intheir pens immediately off the shears. Enor-mous savings have been made as far as labouris concerned because it is not necessary toremuster the sheep. Also, no damage occursthrough the shearing cuts. If correctly carriedout, this process can lead to 100 per cent con-trol. The pour-on dips can be used at any stageof the 12 months' growth of wool on the sheep,and is equally effective at any stage. The dipcan be used at any time up to the full woolstage and, if applied correctly down the middleof the back, it travels along the wool follicles.over the skin of the sheep, destroying all lice.The residual effect of the chemical will alsodestroy the larvae of the lice as they hatch.

With the new methods developed, the WoolTesting Authority has been able to identifywool affected with lice and, through thebranding process, it is able to trace the affectedflocks, via its inspectors, back to the Source Ofcontamination. with these methods Of Control,it is no longer necessary or compulsory to dipsheep. In fact, it has been discouraged becauseif they are correctly treated they are free of licefor as long as they are free from contaminationby other sheep- Once a property has been prop-erly treated and is free of lice, there is nodanger to those sheep unless they come in con-tact with other infected sheep. As a result ofthis treatment, which has been in operation fora number of years. it has not been necessary togo to the expense of treating many flocks forlice for a considerable period.

The emphasis now is placed on eradication.and it has been proved, using the new chemi-cals. that eradication is possible. Dr AlecWilliams of the Geraldton office of the Depart-ment of Agriculture set up a pilot trial in theshires surrounding Geraldton with the aim oftotal eradication. This has been achieved in thearea and, as a result, the Shires of Greenoughand Irwin have now been declared lice free:and two other shires in the Geraldton region.Chapman Valley and Northampton, will bedeclared lice free in the near future. This is aresult of community cooperation both inidentification of lice-infested flocks and also byhaving community musters. These were necess-ary in some cases, particularly in theNorthampton shire which has many coastallimestone areas inaccessible to horses andmotorbikes for mustering. Members of the

community got together and had somethinglike a picnic drive-they formed a humnanchain to comb these areas and carry out a com-plete muster on those propenies. As a resultsome oF these very difficult areas are now lice-free.

Following the very successful trials in theGeraldion area it is now recommended throughthe Department of Agriculture that this schemebe implemented on a State-wide basis. It isclaimed that if it can work on a shire by shirebasis in a fairly close area-such as the area Ihave referred to which has a large number ofholdings with many sheep and includes hobbyfarms-it can work in other areas because thetrial area is typical of most sheep running dis-tricts in Western Australia.

This proposal has the full support of the Pas-toralists and Graziers Association and theWestern Australian Farmers Federation. Thissupport was not easy to obtain and only afterextensive debate in those organisations didthey decide to support this scheme. Manypeople said it would not work or could notwork, but they have finally been convincedthrough the actions of Dr Alec Williams ofGeraldton. He now has their full cooperation inthis endeavour to eradicate lice from the entirewool industry in Western Australia.

Lice and their control cost the WesternAustralian sheep and wool industryapproximately $20 million a year. If lice can beeradicated, which is now achievable, the indus-try will be saved a considerable sum of money.

This Bill is set up to levy woolgrowers. andwoolgrowers producing three or more bales arementioned specifically in the Bill. The amountof levy is not excessive. The maximumindicated is a sum of $75 per grower. The an-ticipated figure was more like $45 or $50 pergrower to finance this scheme,which will em-ploy contract inspectors to work in cooperationwith the Department of Agriculture. These in-spectors will go out to inspect the flocks, super-vise treatment, and make sure of the completeeradication of lice.

The levy will be collected by the tax office.The supervision of the scheme will be throughthe offices of the Department of Agriculture,thus considerably reducing overhead costs inthe employment of these field officers.

Some people have suggested that the levyshould apply below three bales. There is quite alot of support for this proposal. Some growershave even suggested that the levy should godown to one bale. That would bring many more

2905

2906 [ASSEMBLY]

gmowers into the scheme. The cost is not excess-ive, and it would mean overall, because of' thegreater number of smallholdings and hobbyfarms involved, that the levy on each growercould be reduced.

It is debatable how far to go in this direction.To go down to the ultimate of those peoplewith pet lambs in their backyards would beridiculous, because they will probably produce$20-worth of wool and pay a levy of $45.

Mr Blaikie: It could be $75.Mr TUBBY: It could be. but we hope it will

not get up to that figure.Mr Blaikie: If it were a pet lamb and they

were paying $75. you could guarantee theeradication of lice.

Mr TUBBY: That may be the case: however.I do not think members of the sheep and woolindustry would like to deprive families of thelove of their pet lamb. We know how dear theyare to children.

MrTrenorden: As long as it not a lousy lamb!Mr TUBBY: As the member says, so long as

it is not a lousy lamb. This can be a problem; itwill probably be the most difficult area tosupervise as far as eradication is concerned.

I believe the smallest container of chemicalcosts about $120. This will make it very diffi-cult for smaller properties to have access tomethods of control. They may have to cooper-ate with other growers. I doubt if we will havecooperation from the chemical suppliers to div-ide the chemical into smaller amounts so that itis more accessible to hobby farmers and peoplewith their beloved pet lambs. It is in our owninterests to see that these suppliers sell theirchemicals. We do not want to put them out ofbusiness.

This Bill should be supported. If we achievein Western Australia our aim of the total eradi-cation of lice, it will be of tremendous benefitto the sheep and wool industries as Tar as costsof chemical and the employment of labour areconcerned. If we can eliminate the use ofanother chemical it will be a good thing for ourindustry and the health and welfare of peopleinvolved not only in the wool industry but alsoin our community as a whole.

With those remarks I indicate our supportfor this Bill. It will be given a period of fairtrial, considering that its sunset clause providesfor a period of five years. I hope that withinthat period there will be sufficient encourage-ment. if the programme has not been

completed by then, to extend it another coupleof years if the total eradication of lice in West-ern Australia is in sight.

MR HOUSE (Katanning-Roe) [1.28 am]: Asthe Minister has just yawned twice in the lastminute. I will endeavour not to keep him forany great length of time.

This Bill has been ably outlined by the mem-ber for Greenough. He has given the Housegreat detail about the reason for a Dill such asthis. However, I am sure members will havenoticed some amendments in my name on theNotice Paper which I intend to move at theCommittee stage.

To my knowledge, the first time we had a Billto raise a levy from farmers in WesternAustralia it was directed at a particular sectionof eradication. That was the skeleton weedlevy, which was passed some 10 or so years ago.The farmers in this State were in general agree-ment that that money should be raised by thegrain growers to help in the eradication of skel-eton weed. The debates which took place inthis House at that time are very interesting,because clearly there was no doubt in the mem-bers' minds that this money would help toeradicate skeleton weed before it ever gotstarted in Western Australia. The fact of thematter is that we now have more skeleton weedin Western Australia than we ever had before.However, the fund has probably helped to keepthat spread at a very low rate, therefore it couldbe said to have done its job.

The point I am trying to make is that some-times when one sets out on a course one doesnot always end up with the result oneenvisaged. This Bill is different from anyothers, apart from the skeleton weed Bill, con-cerned with Western Australian agriculture. Iagree that tremendous savings are to be made ifit works. If the levy will help to set up a systemto save the woolgrowers of this State a con-siderable amount of money. it will be seen to beof great benefit. Perhaps it will, but it is an areawhich has been traditionally handled in the pastby Government resources through the Depart-ment of' Agriculture. To the best of my knowl-edge, in the past that department has always pro-vided the funds which have been directedtowards solving problems such as this.

I am a little concerned that there has been ashift of emphasis in this regard; in other words,perhaps the State is totally abdicating its re-sponsibility to a very important industry and isputting a direct onus back on the people withinthat industry. It is all very well to say that there

2906

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]190

will be some great benefits from it. but if weapply that user-pays principle to the eradi-cation of sheep lice in Western Australia, wecan also apply it to many other areas and per-haps open up a Pandora's box that we mightnot wish to tackle.

I am not trying to duck the issue of self-support by the industry but I am pointing outthat there are other areas of industry that arefunded directly by the Government which getconsiderable benefits without having a great in-put themselves. I am very concerned that overa period it might be that the department's ex-penditure in the area of lice eradication willcome down and the funding from this revenuesource will be used as a substitute in thoseareas currently and traditionally funded by theGovernment. The amendment I intend tomove in the Committee stage will, I hope, en-sure that that does not happen.

The department now spends something like$ 500 000 a year in the area of sheep lice erad i-cation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There istoo much background chatter on my right. Thevoice of the member for Katanning-Roe is theonly one I want to hear.

Mr HOUSE: I estimate that in WesternAustralia there are about I 1000 clips of overthree bales, and if we are talking about $40 perclip~just to take a figure-that is about half thehighest statutory amount nominated in thisBill-we will raise something like $450 000, orabout as much as now is being put in by thedepartment. I am very keen to make sure thatthere is no diminution in the department'sfunds and that all the dollars raised from thewoolelips of this State, every one of them, is anadditional source of funding towards helpingthe eradication of sheep lice. If that is the caseand the growers receive a guarantee that thatwill be the case, there will be no objection fromthe woolgrowers in this State to the Bill. But ifthat is not the case and the Government cannotand will not guarantee that that will happen-and it can be guaranteed by accepting theamendments that I intend to move so that wecan be absolutely certain-I think there will bea lot of grower backlash about the fact that wewill be raising the money virtually to put intogeneral revenue. I do not think they would ac-cept that at all.

There is no question that we have beentreating sheep that do not have lice, andtreating them with a very costly chemical; sofrom a cost point of view there is a great saving

to be made by the growers. If we can prove theydo not need to spend that money. the smallamount of money tbey can contribute will bereturned to them tenfold, not only in one yearbut over a number of years.

I am sure the original Sheep Lice EradicationCommittee examined other means of raisingthese funds, and having decided that the fundsshould be raised by imposing a wool levy onpeople who produce three bales of wool ormore, they must have decided that althoughthis is a problem of sheep and not of wool itwould not be practical to raise the levy in anyother way. Perhaps the Minister would com-ment on that because I can foresee some prob-lems with the raising of this money; forexample, with hobby farmers and with peoplewho produce a lesser number of bales. I can seeproblems also with farmers who have twoshearings a year-and many do; they have anautumn and a spring clip-but sell that clipunder different brands. They will have to paytwice for the same property. I wonder if' there isa way around that. I cannot see it at the mo-ment but I imagine the committee hasexamined that closely and has advised the Min-ister how it will work. I am sure he will com-ment on that when he sums up later this morn-ing.

I also make the point that it seems to mefrom reading some of the minutes of the SheepLice Eradication Committee meetings that thegreat emphasis will be on extra staff. In otherwords, this fund will provide vehicles and stafffor people to run around the countrysidechecking sheep flocks.

Mr Blaikie: Who are the members of thateradication committee?

Mr HOUSE: That is an interesting question.Currently there are six members from the De-partment of Agriculture, four from the WesternAustralian Farmers Federation, four from thePastoralists and Graziers Association, and twofrom the Australian Wool Testing Authority.

The important thing about this Bill, to whichI will refer again during the Committee stage, isthat this committee will continue only in anadvisory capacity after this Bill is passed; it willnot have any other function. Therefore myamendments to this Bill seek to put some per-manence in the committee, not in its membersbut rather in the distribution of its authority tocontribute from those grower organisations.

The point I was making is that extra staff andvehicles running around the countryside do notreally mean that the growers will get the service

2907

2908 [ASSEMBLY]

they think they are going to get. The staff mightcall at a farm when nobody is home; they mightbe shown a percentage of the sheep on thatfarm. I do not think it has been spelt out justexactly what their functions will be. Will thestaff require farmers to muster all or a percent-age of their stock? That is a function that thecommittee, when it is formed, could possiblytake a part in and have some say in directingthe staff in their duties.

It is also interesting that a letter to MrChidgzcy written by the Department ofAgriculture and signed by Mr Armstrong dur-ing the initial stages of setting u p this com-mittee indicated that there were some queriesraised as to just how the committee wouldwork. Concerns were expressed about the inputfrom the department and about the staff andstaffing levels. Those are the things I wish toclear up by moving the amendments in theCommittee stage so that we can make surethose questions do not arise on an annual basis.

I also point out that despite what has beensaid by some people, the Pastoralists and Graz-iers Association at its annual conference lastyear moved a motion against this plan. TheWestern Australian Farmers Federationsupported the plan but the PGA was actuallyagainst it. It may well be that the PGA haschanged its mind since then, but its attitudelast year does indicate the concern of its mem-bers about how the committee would work.

l am concerned about some areas of the Statewith regard to this plan. There will be a greatdeal of trouble in making this plan work in thewetter areas. We still have a problem in thesheep breeding area with itch mite and most ofthe dips we use to control lice also have a verydefinite effect on itch mite. If we arc going toremove those dips from the market, perhapsthere will be a flare-up in the incidence of itchmite; we will have to tackle that problem whenwe come to it.

I support the Bill because I think it is apositive move, and the people who haveworked so hard to bring it to this stage deserveto be congratulated. A lot or work and efforthas been put into ensuring that this positivestep lakes place. I also support the presence of asunset clause because it will give us an oppor-tunity to review the Bill's functions in fiveyears' time. We will also have an opportunityto see whether the committee is working andwhether the plan to eradicate sheep lice isprogressing positively. I hope members willagree to and support the amendments I willmove in the Committee stage.

MR WIESE (Narrogin) [1.42 am]: I do notintend to dwell too long on this subject, but Iwould like to refer to a few areas which havenot been touched on. Lice have been a problemfor the wool growing industry for as long aspeople have been running sheep in Australia.Millions of dollars have been spent on theeradication of lice each year for a long time. Asthe member for Greenough indicated, we havereached the stage where we have chemicalswhich make the control of lice easier and morepractical. The change from the arsenic plungedips to pour on chemical dips was a great tech-nological leap forward for farmers in the con-trol of lice.

It appears from some recent fairlyexperimental work that we may be able to de-tect lice infestations with more ease and cer-tainty, and I will touch on that later. To get tothe stage we are at today we have had strongsupport from the Department of Agricultureand woolgrowers all over Western Australia,grower organisations, and the Australian WoolTesting Authority. That body believes we arenow in a situation where we can set up a liceeradication scheme, and a campaign committeehas been established for that purpose. Whenand if this Bill is passed it will set about thetask of eradicating lice from WesternAustralian sheep flocks. Because of the supportthat has been given we have to give our backingto this Bill and the efforts of the committee.

I would like to sound a few warning notesbefore we go down the course because we areprobably running a bit ahead of where weshould be. Many doubts have been expressed-and I will refer to some of them tonight-as towhether we are in a position to go ahead withabsolute certainty that the campaign has achance of working.

The first note of warning is that this proposalwill adopt a course of action which is based onlimited experimental work. The member forGreenough referred to that. The work is unfin-ished, and it has been carried out in theGeraldion area. While the results to date areencouraging, they are far from conclusive. Theyrepresent a couple of years' work done in thatarea as part of a five-year programme to eradi-cate lice. For that reason we have to take theresults of the work with a degree of caution. Itmust be borne in mind also that the work hasbeen done in the Geraldton area and not in thegreat southern where the majority of sheep inthis State are run, It is a very different climatewith much more sunshine, as we are oftenremindled by people who say that Geraldton is

2908

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 20

our sunshine city. There is also a different den-sity of sheep population, and I wonder whetherthe results of the work done there arc appli-cable to the areas of the south west where themajority of our sheep are. It is much wetterthere for much longer, and the density of sheepnumbers is greater.

Mr Blaikie: I think lice in Geraldton wouldhave to hang on because of the wind, and in thesouth because of the rain.

Mr WIESE: Thai is right; it is a matter ofwhether they can fly or swim. For that reasonthere must be serious doubts whether we canapply the results of the programrme aroundGeraldton to a programme for the whole of theState. If it were not for the fact that work wasdone in the Kojonup area prior to that whichwas done in Geraldion by farmers in theKojonup Shire under the direction of a farmercommittee with departmental help and inspec-tors giving support. I would be inclined to saythat this lice eradication committee and thisBill were premature. The Kojonup work wasencouraging enough to make it appear thatwith a strong local farmer committee and sup-port one would probably be able to reduce licenumbers to a minimum. That is as far as Iwould go at this stage because the Kojonupwork was not taken to completion, andalthough lice numbers were kept to a minimumthey were not eradicated and now there areregular and serious outbreaks of lice.

That is the warning I issue arising from thedifferent climatic conditions and the fact thatlimited field work has been done with limitedsuccess at this stage.

Another area of worry to me is that up tonow lice control has been based on farmersreporting infestations-their own and those onneighbouring properties-and departmentalinspectors picking up infestations throughphysical inspections of sheep passing throughsaleyards all over the State. It is fairly difficultto find out what percentage of outbreaks aredetected by this method, but I understand 70per cent to 75 per cent of lice outbreaks aredetected by present methods.

The member for Greenough touched onanother method of detecting lice, and I want torefer to the system of lice detection developedby the Australian Wool Testing Authority. Ittests core samples of all wool which presentlygoes through its testing houses.

As I understand the process, the AWTA doesa series of tests for the wool trade, and one isfor vegetable matter. As wool goes through the

test, the fibre is dissolved and one is left withthe vegetable remnants. A magnified image isprojected onto a screen and the operator candetect the presence of the remains of lice. Thatis the test we will rely on to go ahead with thisscheme. For this scheme to be successful it isessential that as many infested flocks aspotected. The figures I have at present are thatthe authority's test for lice appears to bedetecting up to 8 1 per cent of lice, and that isonly if all lines of wool are tested.

If every second line of wool is tested theresult drops to a 56 per cent detection rate.That is far from acceptable. One has to look atthose two figures-SI per cent for the newmethod of testing upon which this new schemewill be based versus somewhere around 70 to75 per cent for the old scheme. I wonderwhether there is a great difference in the suc-cess rate of detection and whether it justifiesgoing down a course that will cost as much asthis unproven lice eradication scheme.

The other warning I sound about the AWTAtest is that at this stage it is based onexperimental and limited field work. At themoment only 150 flocks have been tested dur-ing experimental tests, Of those 1 50 flocksthere have only been 700 actual testsperformed. That is a small number of tests andthe field work is l imited, based on experimentalwork performed in New Zealand.

We are setting out on a lice eradicationscheme based on limited and far from conclus-

ive work. I sound a caution. To work properly,the scheme will need to be based on farmersceasing their present methods of controllinglice. That means that farmers will have to stopdipping or using any other form of lice control.They will have to stop doing the things theyhave been doing for the last 40 or 50 years tocontrol lice in our flocks all over Australia. Theonly factor that has enabled our wool industryto su rvi ve and p rospe r to date is t he d ippi ng fo6rlice control. That will have to be stopped forthis scheme to work successfully.

The farmers who have been successfullysurviving lice-free by conscientiously dippingand treating their sheep in times when theyhave been surrounded by lice-infested flock-l1can vouch for that because I have been in thatsituation-will now be asked to stop doing thatso we arc able to detect lice on the flocks ofthose who are either not dipping properly or atall, All Los farmers are being asked to puttheir livelihood at risk to enable a few who areescaping the present system to be detected.

2909

2910 [ASSEMBLY]

When those affected flocks do become obvi-Gus and are detected, what will we do? We willtreat them initially with a long wool treatmentwhich involves spray dipping with doublestrength Grenade dip which will enable thefarmer to get through to his shearing. Aftershearing, he will have to dip them with thechemicals the present growers have used tocontrol lice over a number of years. In the pro-cess of doing this, the conscientious grower willhave his flock put at risk of being infested bythose who ha ve not been doing the job.

At present approximately 8O per cent ofgrowers in Western Australia are treating theirsheep for lice and 20 per cent are not. Manygrowers are asking why they should risk theirlivelihood because 20 per cent are notcontrolling their lice. Those growers are happyto spend I15c per head to ensure their sheepremain lice-free and to ensure their futureyears income- The strength of feeling can begauged by the fact that even in the Geraldtonarea after two years. 20 per cent of growers arestill dipping their sheep. Obviously, they arenot convinced that the lice eradication schemein their area will work with total success.

There are many areas of doubt. They are thedoubts expressed by me and the member forKatanning-Roc. We doubt this scheme issoundly based. I have sounded a warning to theindustry and the House that we are rusing intoa programme based on what I call some veryscratchy basic research and information. Iunderstand the desire of growers to be rid oflice and to save that 15Sc per head. We all wantto do that. But I would like to see the proposalmore soundly based, with more detailed, prac-tical work, in a wider variety of climatic con-ditions.

There are two other areas I wish to brieflycomment on. I refer to the clause to do with theapplication of the fund and the wide scopegiven to the Minister for spending it. I refer toclause 5 (1) (c) which says "any other costsapproved by the Minister". It is far too wide.The amendmenL proposed by the member forKatanning-Roe will help cover that situation.Another clause refers to the cost ofadministering the Act. My worry is that thisclause would allow the Treasury to bill the fundfor its costs of gathering the money on behalf ofthe Sheep Lice Eradication Committee. It hasnot been done before but the State TaxationDepartment is examining a fie-for-servicescheme. It is essential that the Minister gives usan unequivocal assurance that for the life ofthis Bill-the next five years-there will be no

introduction of such a change. If he cannot, itwould have a significant effect on the amountof levy to be charged.

My other area of worry is the method ofobtaining the names of growers to be leviedand the level of grower delivery at which thenecessity to notify comes in. We must avoidthe imposition of yet another costly, time-con-sumning job on dealers, which covers not justthe maj or wool b rak ing fi rms b ut al so t he m an ysmall wool buyers around the country who pur-chase butts and bags of wool and bulk classthem in their stores. They do a great service tothe industry. There needs to be a change whichwill make the job easier for those dealers tosupply the names and addresses of growers. Inote with some satisfaction that the Ministerhas an amendment on the Notice Paper thatdoes go down the way to providing a solutionto that problem.

One of the problems with this scheme is thatnone of the wool shorn from sheep for liveexport will be tested. It is terrific if all thosesheep do go on the boat and are exported live.It has happened-and it will undoubtedly hap-pen-that some sheep are rejected. I would likethe Minister to assure me there will be somemechanism whereby, before those sheep goback into the flocks, they will be treated forlice. It will not be able to be done as a pour-on.It will have to be done as a proper spraydipping process because the sheep will be welland truly past the one or two days within whichpour-on dips have to be carried out.

I have also been informed that only thegrowers' top lines will be tested. I would like anassurance from the Minister that this will notbe the case. The experimental work done atpresent shows that unless all fleece lines aretested and a detection rate of 81 per cent isachieved, it will not be possible to detect theinfested flocks which should be picked up.

I am concerned about another problem: Withmost lines of wool there is a time lapse betweenshearing and testing of the wool of two to sixweeks. It can take that long after shearing be-fore wool is tested at the AWTA. and I do notdoubt there is another time lapse betweentesting and notification of a lice infection toinspectors in the bush. In that period, whichcould range from six to eight weeks, many ofthe sheep will have passed onto the market andunder our normal selling system could bespread throughout the State. I would like anassurance from the Minister that a method willbe set in train by which it will be possible totrace where the lousy sheep have been sold.

2910

[Thursday. 18 June 1987J191

These sheep could be distributed to manygrowers over a wide area of the State and becapable of infesting many other flocks.

It is essential that this problem be dealt withand a mechanism established to keep track ofthese sheep from the shearing proce-ss to thetime an inspector is notified of an infestation.It will not be easy to set up such a mechanismbecause lice can be spread from one lousy flockto a dozen others scattered throughout theState. It is not easy from a physical inspectionto detect lousy sheep off the shears, and if alousy flock goes through the saleyardundetected it could infest many others and putthe eradication programme back a long way.

l have outlined some of the problems withthe Bill and, More importantly, some of theproblems with the basic proposal. The Bill issound but I have doubts about the basic pro-posal. Nobody in the industry is opposed togetting rid of lice from the sheep flocks inWestern Australia. We want to wipe them outforever, if possible: it is an admirable aim andwould have the full support of industry if wewere sure it would work. Many people in theindustry are questioning, I believe quite rightly,whether the basis on which this campaign isfounded is sound. We have support from theWestern Australian Farmers Federation andthe P and G, so we must give this Bill oursupport, albeit qualified support.

It cannot be emphasised too much how im-portant it is to establish strong grower com-mittees in each shire or district to oversee thiscampaign. These grower committees will be thekey to whether or not this scheme will work.They will need full departmental support,which I am sure will be forthcoming. Most ofall, these committees will need 100 per centgrower support and cooperation because with-out that, the whole exercise will be futile-agreat waste of time, effort and money. That isthe real problem: the prospect of eradicatinglice, which I believe is around the corner, willbe put back years if the proposed eradicationscheme does not succeed. It has to work and Ihope the Minister will give me and the industrysome assurance that we shall be able to make itwork.

MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) 1 2.08 amj: Like themember for Narrogin, who gave qualified sup-port to the legislation. I question how theGovernment will make this legislation work. Itis very interesting for the Government to intro-duce legislation such as this but I query howeffective it will be. One of my constituents. TedHouse, wrote to me after I had sent him a copy

of the Bill and the Minister's second readingspeech. He made a number of pertinent com-ments, including the following-

There is an Act on the Statute Bookwhich clearly states, that any personowning lousy sheep, is totally responsiblefor ridding those sheep of lice. It is not acommunity responsibility. It is wholly andsolely ~a personal responsibility. The Agri-cultural Department are duty bound to seethat eradication is carried out on proper-ties so infected. It is quite evident that theyhave not been doing their job properly andefficiently, hence the community fundingidea.

I agree with those comments.Mr Grill: If you do that, just oppose the Bill.Mr BLAIKIE: I intend to make My contri-

bution to this debate.Mr Grill: Don't be a hypocrite. Oppose the

Bill if that is what you really think.Mr BLAIKIE: I do not know what the Minis-

ter is carrying on about. My constituent wasquite right when he said that it is evident thatthe Department of Agriculture has not beendoing its job properly and efficiently and hencethe community funding idea.

I acknowledge the need for a lice eradicationprogramme but I ask the Minister to explainhow it will work and why he expects to getanother $500 000 from growers.

Mr Grill: I do not want anything: the indus-try wants it.

Mr BLAI KI E: I point out to the Minister thatthe only reason it is necessary is that he hasstarved the Department of Agriculture of suf-ficient funds to employ enough inspectors tocarry out inspectorial duties, to ensure that liceinfected properties are identified and properlytreated. That is the basic reason,

Mr Grill: Are you saying there are fewer in-spectors under this Government than underyours?

Mr BLAIKIE: Yes, I am.Mr Grill: That is not true.Mr BLAIKIE: This is one of the difficulties

the Government faces in introducing this Billwhich will ensure that industry pays for its owninspectorial services.

It would be interesting if the Governmentexpected the trade union movement to pay forGovernment inspectors to look at trade unionaffairs. But it does not do that.

2911

2912 [ASSEMBLY]

I want to make it clear there is a need toeradicate lice. I am firmly of the view that it isthe responsibility of the grower to carry thatout. Those farmers who have lice in their sheepindicate the level of their ability and manage-ment. Farmers with lice in their flocks do nothave high levels of management. They are gen-erally the poorer type of farmers. The same canbe said of a pastoralist on a cattle station. Thelevel of management of these people can beseen by looking at the number of stock they selloff. Any pastoralist who sells off a high percent-age of bulls in comparison with the stock ofother pastoralists is not managing, musteringand then castrating bulls. It is the same withlice on sheep properties. It is an indication ofthe level of management.

I have always believed that growers receivinglow returns due to lousy wool should beinduced to carry out further action. Somegrowers will carry on and act irresponsiblytowards the rest of the community. That is whythere is a definite need for an inspectorial role.The Department of Agriculture has beenstarved of stock inspectors. It has not been ableto carry out the duties it should have beencarrying out. The industry now, through theGovernment. is asking the farmers to pay formore inspectors to be put into the field.

The member for Narrogin carefully pointedout that some 80 per cent of sheep growershave been identified as having sheep free oflice. They have carr ied out good managementPractices, but they will pay for the other 15 percent who have not been carrying out these prac-tices properly.

Not very many years ago the Department ofAgriculture inspectors attended sales andvisited properties. If any farmer was found tohave lousy sheep, the property wasquarantined, and the stock could not be moveduntil those sheep had been shorn and dippedand a clearance approved by the stock inspec-tor.

Those were the old-fashioned days. At thattime we had almost got on top of the lice prob-lem. But the system was relaxed and the prob-lem has manifested itself again. It all goes backto the level of activity in the field and thefarmer being able to ensure that proper man-agement techniques are carried out.

Mr Lightfoot: I do not think the problem isas bad as all that. It is not on our place.

Mr BLAIKIE: Obviously the member has ahigh level of management. He is one of the veryefficient 80 per cent.

Mr Lightfoot: It must be all in the south west.Mr BLAIKIE: The Minister would know

about that.One of the major difficulties we experienced

some years ago concerned the types of dipwhich had'to be used. They were arsenical dips:dreadful things. Sheep were plunged and had tobe dipped absolutely, or there were specialtypes of spray dips. Circumstances have nowchanged, and different techniques can beadopted with the new types of dip. Although 10years ago the level of lice control was at a farhigher standard than it is now, it should be fareasier to achieve a higher level of control as aresult of the easier and more advantageous dipspresently available.

Mr Lightfoot: Jackaroos never liked goingthrough the plunge dips.

Mr BLAIKIE: They sure did not. That wasalways the initiation for the new classer!'

A series of letters came to me over this Bill. Iwill only quote from one which came from oneof my constituents, Trevor Dennis ofKarridale. He said he would like to add a num-ber of pertinent points to a growing list of prob-lems which will need to be overcome. Hesays-

(1) The wool production losses areaccrued by individual inefficientfarmers, not West Australian woolgrowers as a whole.

That is the basis of the argument I am advanc-ing in this debate. I believe it is quite import-ant.

Mr D. L. Smith: What steps did he suggest?Mr BLAIKIE: He went on to suggest this-

(2) Eradication of sheep lice on a statewide basis is a futile exercise when thevast pastoral leases are considered.

(3) A tax of 8% is currently taken fromevery kilogram of wool sold inAustralia. We do receive a %6 of thattax back several years later. A part ofthat % could be diverted to cover thecosts of sheep lice eradication.

Trevor Dennis has indicated a positive sourceof funding to raise $500 000 if the Governmentis to proceed with a taxing measure againstwool growers. I do not know what arrange-ments the Minister can make with his Com-monwealth counterpart. but there is an oppor-tunity there to collect on every kilogram ofwool sold, irrespective of where it came from.Growers would contribute on an equitablebasis.

2912

[Thursday, 18 June 1987]191

In the Bill currently bcfore the House themethod of funding is not fair and equitable.While the amount of money to be raised islimited to $75 for growers who produce threebales or more, it is inequitable because on theone hand a person who produces one balemakes no contribution whatsoever. whcreassomeone producing 400 bales of wool pays$400. The converse argument can be advanced.

The point Trevor Dennis makes is veryvalid. The suggestion is not to increase the per-centage of levy, but surely some way could befound, through the WA Farmers Federation orthe Pastoralists and Graziers Association andthe various people on the wool corporationrepresenting this State and its Federal body, tosiphon off the same sort of finance we aretalking about today. If that were done therewould be no need for this legislation.

That would then fund the committee we aretalking about without the need for legislationbecause it would be done on a cooperativebasis between the Western Australian Ministerand his counterparts across the country. This isvery important because what might beachieved in Western Australia could highlight anew dimension for a total pmogramme forAustralia.

Mr House: How many other things do youthink ought to come out of that wool levy?

Mr BLAIKIE: I am simply talking about thesheep lice eradication programme. I believe thesuccess of that programme itself will be a futurebeneficiary.

Mr House: That levy specifically was to shoreup the wool market. Do you think they coulduse it for other things? Aren't you creating aprecedent?

Mr BLAIKIE: I agree with the points raisedby the member for Katanning-Roe. I am con-cerned about that, but precedents have alreadybeen created in the cattle industry with the tu-berculosis and brucellosis campaign.

Mr House: Are they grower-funded?Mr BLAIKIE: Growers make a contribution

through their respective schemes. Sheep lice isa national problem. I do not question that, andin spite of creating a precedent, and providedthe grower bodies in this State accept the factthat there is a problem and recognise the needto do something about it. the proposal byTrevor Dennis is a far more equitable way ofraising those amounts of money in order tomeet the $500000 required than the one cur-rently before the House.(92)

Mr D. L. Smith: How do they fund the eradi-cation programme? By the States?

Mr BLAIKIE: I cannot answer that.

Mr House: I am not too keen about touchingthat eight per cent levy.

Mr BLAIKIE: Neither am 1, although I shud-der to say it. There is provision in the Bill for alevy of $75 on all growers. That is breaking newground.

Mr D. L. Smith: If you ask the FederalGovernment to take that money for this pur-pose, they might want to spend it on somethingelse.

Mr BLAIKIE: If the State does not believethat the problem has a sufficiently high priorityfor that to happen, that is the State's decision.If it is the State's decision, one would questionthe reason for the legislation now before theParliament. I assure the House that I am veryconcerned. Even recommending that thismoney should be taken out, the alternative is tobring in a system of payment. That will beinequitable and will be hotly argued about forthe rest of the legislation's life.

Mr Troy: Shouldn't the growers ask that it bedone that way?

Mr BLAIKIE: They did, yet another growerindicated to me a completely different view.Trevor Denis went on to say in effect that thoseproducers with less than three bales of woolwill be subsidised by those with more thanthree. That is a valid point but as Dennispointed out there are many hobby farmers andsmall producers who sell wool privately andoften this cannot be traced. It is my view andthe view of many people who have raised thismatter with me that hobby farmers and smallproducers are the people who exacerbate thesheep lice problem more than any other groupin the farming community. They do so not withany degree of malice but because they do notunderstand what the lice are and what they do.

The Bill appears to be an ill-conceived at-tempt by the Government to put the onus onthe owners for services which in the past werefree of charge. That point is made lime andtime again by people who have spoken withme. They say that the growers are being askedto pay for services that were previously paid forby the Government and should be the Govern-ment's responsibility. Does this now mean thatin all other areas of inspectorial services theGovernment will expect the representative in-dustry to make a significant contribution?

2913

2914 [ASSEMBLY]

In the Committee stage I will seek somefurther comment from the Minister. However,I raise one matter in relation to clause 5 of theBill. This clause relates to the application of thefund and costs approved by the Minister.

Mr House: My amendment will fix that up.You won't have to worry.

Mr BLAIKIE: I am not sure I will supportthe amendments of the member for Katanning-Roe because they will put in place a committeeas such. I am not sure that will improve theproblem-, it may only add to the woes I havealready outlined. I want the Minister to indi-cate the expenses he believes he will have toapprove. I look forward to the Minister's re-sponse.

MR GRILL (Esperance-Dundas-Ministerfor Agriculture) [2.28 am): I thank all membersfor their support or the Bill in principle, eventhough some of that support was fairly wellqualified.

All of the members who have spoken have alot more experience of sheep dipping and liceeradication than I do. but I probably do notneed to have any experience of such matters.This Bill does not deal with all of the variousmechanisms which will be provided in respectof eradicating sheep lice. I remind membersthat the Bill only deals with the means bywhich funding will be raised to bring about aprogramme of lice eradication. Quite a numberof the matters that have been raised are reallynot covered in the Bill at all. The last speakerindicated that the Bill was just an ill-conceivedattempt by the Government to place furtherimposts on growers-

Mr Blaikie: On charges that previously wereavailable free of charge.

Mr GRILL: I do not know when in history.but pmobably a long time ago.

The efficiency of industries in Australia willnot be brought about by teams of inspectors orpolicemen rushing around the countryside forc-ing people to abide by regulations. To a largedegree I would have thought that the philos-ophy of the Opposition parties was that sheuser pays and those people who will benefitfrom the measure being introduced must payfor it. That has always been their philosophy, asI understood it, although it seems to have beenrather departed from tonight.

This Dill represents the agreement of indus-try and the views of industry as to how thisproblem should be tackled. It has the over-whelming support of the industry and industryorganisations.

It is all very well to quote the odd farmerhere or there who does not agree with thesemeasures, but the facts are that the industryorganisations have indicated to the Depart-ment of Agriculture that they Support thesemeasures and want them adopted.

Mr Wiese: Probably 80 per cent or the indus-try has no idea this is coming up.

Mr GRILL: Whether or not that is the case,the fact is that the industry organisations verystrongly support the Bill. If the member wantsto oppose it he should not be hypocritical butsimply oppose it and let the industry judgehim, He will not oppose it. The member madea negative contribution to the debate and hisviews reflected badly on the Department ofAgriculture and the various industry organis-ations.

The Bill satisfies the objects of the variousindustry organisations, and I commend it tothe House.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In CommittfeeThe Deputy Chairman of Committees (Dr

Lawrence) in the Chair: Mr Grill (Minister forAgriculture) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses I and 2 put and passed.Clause 3: Interpretation-Mr HOUSE: I move an amendment-

Page 2. after line 3-To insert the fol-lowing-

,.Committee" means the Sheep LiceEradication Advisory Committee es-tablished by section 4,

If this amendment is not passed, my otheramendments down to clause 1 2 will becomemeaningless and will virtually drop off the No-tice Paper.

This amendment is an important part of thesystem I am trying to establish. I make it veryclear to the Minister that I do not oppose thesetting up of the fund or the fact that we aregoing to raise a levy. I also do not oppose theprinciple that we are trying to eradicate sheeplice in Western Australia. However. I do op-pose the taking of $500 000 a year from wool-growers and allowing the Minister and his de-partment to spend it in any way they see fit, asis provided for in this Bill. As pointed out bythe member for Vasse, clause 5 contains thewords "any other costs approved by the Minis-ter".

2914

[Thursday, l8 June l987J191

I cannot see how any member could voteagainst this amendment because it simply seeksto protect the money raised from woolgrowersby allowing them to have their own committeeto oversee the spending of that money. Theamendment does not hogtie the Minister in anyway. It simply seeks to have established a com-mittee-admittedly with a majority of wool-growers, with some departmental people.

Itlis all very well for the Minister to say thatthe industry wants this legislation. I do notdeny that. Nevertheless, as legislators we have aresponsibility to go back to these people andsay, "Yes, we have approved a Bill that willallow us to take up to $75 a year from you, butwe have also built into the Bill certain safe-guards to ensure that your money is not spenton anything other than the eradication of sheeplice, and we have done this very simply byestablishing a committee of substance on whichmembers of the industry will be represented."

The Sheep Lice Eradication Committee isalready set up and -working. so we are not goingto set up another QUANGO. This amendmentwill merely give it some real purpose. As I said,this and the later amendments do not hogtiethe Minister; he would not lose control of whathe is wanting to do. However, he will be giventhe opportunity to receive suggestions from thecommittee and he should be able to take noticeof what its members are trying to do.

The vast majority of woolgrowers out therewould like to think that the Parliament wasprotecting their funds which are being raisedfrom them under this legislation. This amend-ment will make sure that the department andthe Government will not use the fund as a rev-enue raising exercise where the funds can bespent anywhere, but only for the eradication ofsheep lice. We are wanting to make certain thatthe funds are spent where they should be, so Iask members to accept the amendment.

Mr GRILL: The Government does not ac-cept the amendment. We already have a SheepLice Eradication Committee in fact, this Bill isa result of the deliberations of that committee.Whether the member for Katanning-Roe wantsto assert otherwise or not, what he is seeking todo-probably with good motive-is to estab-lish another QUANGO. The Government isendeavouring to remove from the Statutebooks as many QUANGOS as possible. Theindustry does not want to set up anotherQUANGO, and I am certainly not going to dis-agree.

The amendments on the Notice Paper underthe name of the member for Katanning-Roehave been referred to the grower organisations,and they have indicated in clear terms that theydo not want a statutory committee. They aremore than happy with the committee presentlybeing established and they like the flexibilityand informality of that committee. They do notwant another QUANGO: they do not wantmore red tape: they do not want more bureauc-racy. They want to operate in the way theyhave been operating in the past, and that iswithout the statutory impediments and inflexi-bility that this sort of amendment would buildin.

The amendment is not supported.

Mr TUBBY: The Opposition does not sup-port the amendment, for the reasons outlinedby the Minister for Agriculture.

Mr HOUSE: I am disappointed with the Lib-eral Party's stand on this matter. We are legis-lators. The members of the industry, with allthe goodwill in the world, are not in theposition to accept responsibility for the legis-lation we pass. We are, we must be, and wealways will be. We cannot be like puppets on astring. We must show initiative and pmotect thewoolgrowers with this legislation.

I am rather inexperienced in these matters,but I do not think that the National Party isattempting to set up a statutory committee, assuggested by the Minister. I understand that astatutory committee has absolute control ofand responsibility for its funding. That is notwhat we have suggested for the proposed com-mittee. In that context, it is certainly not aQUANGO.

Mr WIESE: I believe that, in proposing to setup this committee, the industry would havesome control over the way the lice eradicationscheme would run and over the funding of thatscheme. I believe that is important. This legis-lation allows for the spending of $500 000 ofwoolgrowers' money.

The Minister said that the committeeproposed in the legislation will be representa-tive of and is desired by the growers. Despitethat, I believe that growers do not support thescheme because the majority of growers haveno idea that the scheme is being set up, letalone that they will be levied up to $75 to fundit. I believe it is very important that they begiven control of the scheme so that they havesome say in how the funds are spent. That iswhat they will get if we pass this amendment.

2915

29l6 [ASSEM BLY)

The carnal tee to be set up will compriseeight representatives from the Government andseven representatives from the industry. Thegrowers will therefore not have any controlover the scheme.

Mr BLAIKIE: I appreciate the arguments ad-vanced by the member for Katanning-Roe andthe member for Narrogin. However, as themember for Greenough said, the Liberal Partyis not prepared to support the amendment. TheMinister has indicated that a committee will beestablished.

Later in this debate the Liberal Party willmove an amendment relating to costs approvedby the Minister. At least under our amendmentthe funds will be provided for the eradicationand prevention of sheep lice and for the cost ofadministering the legislation.

We believe the Minister should not have anoverall prerogative. We believe our amend-ment is a safeguard to preventing the Ministersyphoning funds off on matters not in theinterests of the industry. We believe that ismore important than establishing a committee.

I agree with the Minister that all the amend-ment will do is establish another QUANGO. Ibelieve our amendment will achieve the sameresult without going to that trouble.

Aiuemdment put and a division taken with thefollowing result-

Mr CowanMr House

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BertramMr BlaikieMr BradshawMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr BurkettMrCashMrCourtMr DonovanMr EvansDr GallopMr GraydenMr GrillMr HassellMrs HendersonMr HodgeMr Laurance

AyesMr SchellMr Trenorden

Ayes 4M! WieseMr Stephens

Noes 38Mr LewisMr LightfootMr MacKinnonMr MarlboroughMr MensarosMr ParkerMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P.1J. SmithMr ThompsonMr TroyMr TubbyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WattMr WilliamsMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PainsNoes

Mr TaylorMr Carr

Amendment thus negatived.Clause put and passed.Clause 4 put and passed.Clause 5: Application or the Fund-M r T U BBY: I move an amendmen t-

Page 3. lin e 6-To delete pa ragraph (c).We believe this part of the clause is completelyunnecessary; it will give too much power to theMinister and will go beyond the purpose of thisBill. The safeguards are covered in the remain-der of the cl ause.

Mr HOUSE: The National Party will supportthe deletion of these words unless the Ministerputs forward a reasonable argument why weshould not do so. When I moved my a mend-ment to insert a new clause, I thought the pointwould have been taken about the need for othercosts to be approved. The Minister tried toconvince us that it was not necessary to acceptmy amendments, there was no need for it andeverything was rosy. Yet, he now wants to in-elude a provision allowing for "any other costsapproved by the Minister".

Mr GRILL: The Government does not sup-port this amendment, It is a very hasty amend-ment brought forward at the last moment. Isuspect that the Opposition parties are playinggames at this stage, trying to outdo each otherone way or another. The department whichdrafted this Bill is saying that some flexibility isneeded because there is always an exception tothe rule with regard to some costs.

Mr Blaikie: What would you imagine theyare likely to be?

Mr GRILL: I cannot imagine what they willbe but invariably a farmer or farm'ing groupcomes to the Minister or the Department ofAgriculture with a request for payment of coststhat do not exactly fit within the rules. If theamendment is agreed to and I receive such arequest in the future, I will tell that person thatthe members of the Liberal Party and NationalParty took away my discretion when the Billwent through Committee.

If members opposite want to limit the dis-cretion of the Minister and the Department ofAgriculture, they should do so. They will havethe opportunity in the upper House but I donot think they want to do this, they are playinggames.

Mr BLAIKIE: I take exception to the way theMinister has responded tonight. I assure theMinister and the Committee that I am certainlynot responsible for this debate taking place at3.00 am on the day Parliament is expected to

2916

[Thursday, 18 June 19871 21

rise. It is obviously a Government decision, itcertainly is not mine. The Leader of the Houseshould tell his Minister to pull his head in whenhe complains about this Bill being debated atthree o'clock in the morning.

The member for Greenough has indicatedthai the Opposition does not support the refer-ence to "any other costs approved by the Min-ister'. The member for Katanning-Roe hasasked the Minister for an explanation. I do notknow what the member for Katanning-Roethought of the Minister's response but Iregarded it as very thin on the ground. I remindthe Minister that his track record in relation tothe public purse is pretty miserable-I will notgo into full debate about the sale of the Mid-land saleyard-and it is no wonder that theParliament will not give the Minister an opencheque book in relation to this Bill unless hegives a satisfactory explanation.

I want to say again that by way of interjec-tion when the Minister was giving his expla-nation. I asked the Minister what those othercosts were that he may require at some laterstage. The Minister said, "I do not know. Itcould be anything. Who is going to know?" Thecommittee which drafted this put it in becauseit thought it was a good idea. Our responsibilityis to the people who make the contributions, toensure that those contributions are appropri-ately spent and go towards the purpose for whichthey are intended-sheep lice eradication.

Mr House: That is the speech I just made.

Mr BLAIKIE: Yes, and I agree with it. TheMinister has not satisfied me. and I believe theamendment that has been moved should beagreed to.

Mr EVANS: The Minister can point to anumber of allegations to substantiate his argu-ment, because there have been cases, such asthe potato industry trust fund and researchlevy, the grain research levy, the banana indus-try trust fund and two of the fruit industry trustfunds, which were the subject of approaches bycontributors, members of those industries, whosought to have the use of those funds for mat-ters other than those specifically stated. Therewere occasions when the requests could be met,but there were other occasions-and I amthinking of the potato industry, where some-th ing exceed ing $ 500 000 was requi red-whenthe request could not be met. So the edge ofdiscretion that the Minister is seeking is per-

fecily valid, and 1 am sure it would be appreci-ated by the members who will be contributingto this fund.

Mr WIESE: l am happy to note that the Min-ister woke up a couple of minutes ago. I assurethe Minister we are not playing games. I havebeen sitting around for two weeks, wanting todebate this Sheep Lice Eradication Fund Bill.That is how long it has been on the NoticePaper and that is how long we have beenwaiting, and it has been put off. Now we get itat three o'clock in the morning. Now that theMinister is awake, I raised at least haif a dozenissues during debate tonight, and the Ministersat there with a disdainful look on his face, andhas not bothered to answer my queries. I wouldhave thought that even if he did not believethat the industry should get the answers, atleast he would be polite enough to give theanswe rs to t his Cham be r.

One of the questions that I believe is verycritical and deserves an answer is whether theTreasury is going to charge the lice eradicationfund a fee for collecting this money. It wasalluded to in the reports of the advisory com-mittee. but the Minister did not mrention this atany stage of his speech. The Minister also didnot mention whether he believes that growercommittees should be set up to be part of thislice eradication fund. There has also been nomention of the fee that the Australian WoolTresting Authority is going to charge the eradi-cation fund for carrying out the tests. I believemembers in the Chamber deserve to receive ananswer to those questions.

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

Mr BLAIKIE: The Chamber is witnessingtonight the disdain of this Minister in refusingto at least answer the reasonable questionsasked by the member for Narrogin. and I cer-tainly hope the grower organisations becomeaware of how the Chamber and its membershave been treated.

Mr Gordon Hill: This Bill was put forwardby the grower organisations. The admin-istration will be very much in the bands ofthose grower organisations.

Mr Pearce: Someone should tell the new boythat he cannot ask that sort of question in thecourse of a move to remove certain words. Hecan raise that in the second reading or the thirdread ing.

Mr BLAIKIE: He can raise it during theCommittee debate, and the Minister knows it.

2917

2918 [ASSEM BLY]

Mr Stephens: The Minister does not needprotection. Let him get up and answer it him-self.

Mr Pearce: He has already answered it.Amendment put and a divisiom taken with the

following resul t-Ayes I8

Mr Blaikie Mr LightfootMr Cash Mr MacKinnonMr Court Mr McnsarosMr Cowan Mr StephensMrGrayden Mr ThompsonMr Hassell Mr TubbyMr House Mr WattMr Laurance Mr WieseMr Lewis Mr Williams

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BertramMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr BurkettMr DonovanMr EvansDr GallopMr GrillMrs HendersonMr Hodge

AyesMr ClarkoMr SpriggsMr SchellMr CraneMr Trenorden

Noes 23Mr MarlboroughMr ParkerMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P, J. SmithMrTroyMrs WatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PairsNoes

Mr Tom JonesMr ThomnasM r TaylorMr BridgeMr Cart

Amendment thus negatived.Clause put and passedi.Clause 6 put and passed.Clause 7: Application of Financial

Administration and Audit Act 1985-Mr BLAIKIE: Does this clause require the

provisions of this Bill to be reported on annu-ally?

Mr G RI LL Yes, it does.Clause put and passed.Clause 8: Liability of wool grower to pay con-

tributions-Mr BLAIKIE: This clause provides that any

woolgrower who delivers in a financial yearcommencing from 1986-87 three or more balesof wool to a dealer in the financial year nextfollowing will pay a contribution to the fund. Ihave received indications from various peoplein the industry that if the legislation proceedsand a levy is struck, all wool producers shouldpay a levy. A number of producers in my elec-torate produce less than three bale lots, and Iconcur with comments made to me that many

producers who produce less than three bale lotsare among the worst offenders with respect tosheep lice.

When the Bill was being formulated, why didthe Government not decide to impose the levyon all woolgrowers and not just thoseproducing three or more bale lots? Were thislevy to apply to all wool producers includingthose producing less than three bale lots, morefunds would have been collected.

Mr GRILL: When I replied to the secondreading debate 1 said it was very important tounderstand the reason for this Bill, and thereason for the Bill is to provide for the collectionof contributions. The Bill does not deal with themechanics by which eradication of sheep licewillI take place; that will happen under the StockDiseases (Regulations) Act. I think some mem-bers-opposite are a little confused about this.

Just because people or organisationsproducing less than three bale lots of wool donot contribute to the fund does not mean thattheir flocks will not be inspected and be subjectto the various tests. Thai is a separate question.This Bill deals with contributions.

If that point is clear, we can deal with whythere is a dividing line between peopleprod uc in g fewe r t h an th ree ba les and bei ng notrequired to contribute and those who producemore than three bales and being required tocontribute. It comes down to the efficacy ofadministration and the costs of policing,inspecting, and collecting funds.

Mr Blaikie: The collection of funds would bemade simpler because these people deal di-reedly through dealers, so they will be readilyidentified on their books.

Mr GRILL: In some cases they might beidentified, but not in all cases, I am told. Whenthe committee, the grower organisations, andthe Department of Agriculture considered thismatter they decided that to endeavour to col-lect the funds from growers producing less thanthree bales was just not worth the candle.

Mr Blaikie: When I met the grower orgainis-at ions I was told that they would have includedthis but they thought the Parliament wouldhave thrown it out. Would the Minister con-sider moving an amendment in the other place?

Mr GRILL: That is most unlikely, becausewe are running up against a time limit with thisBill; we want to have it in place by I July. If ithas to be sent back to Parliamentary Counselfor redrafting. we might not meet that deadline.it might be possible to move an amendment in

2918

(Thursday, 18 June 19871 21

the other place, but in any case there will bereal practical difficulties in collecting contri-butions from growers who produce less thanthree bales of wool. I was not involved in thediscussions, but the recommendation was thatthe cut-off line be the three bales. I would notlike to interfere with that. If the member wouldlike to give me some discretion there, I couldprobably vary it from time to time.

Mr Blaikie: I think you have that further on.Mr WIESE: I take issue with the Minister's

comment that this Bill is wholly for thecollecting of funds. I have no argument withthat because it is a Bill to provide a sheep liceeradication fund. But the Minister hasneglected to say-by design or for some otherreason, and I will give him the benefit of thedoubt-that unless these funds are collected.there will be no sheep lice eradication cam-paign. This Bill is the key to our having a sheeplice eradication campaign. Without the Bill,there will be no such campaign.

Clause put and passed.Clause 9 put and passed.Clause 10: Returns to be furnished-Mr GRILL: I do not intend to move the

amendment in my name on the Notice Paper.If I moved the amendment tonight it wouldmean that an amended Bill would have to beprinted and this legislation would be delayed . Itwill therefore be amended when it goes to theother place.

Clause put and passed.Clause 11 put and passed.Clause 12: Powers of Commissioner of State

Taxation-Mr HOUSE: I move the following amend-

ment-Page 5, lines 9 to Il[-To delete all

words after "Taxation".I believe that over the year we have passed toomuch legislation giving the Commissioner ofState Taxation powers that he is interpreting fartoo freely. This amendment seeks to safeguardpeople by requiring the Commissioner of StateTaxation to produce a written warrant before heis allowed onto property or access to records.The areas in which he can operate are becomingtoo wide. I believe we should be protecting therights of people.

Mr TUBBY: The Liberal Party supports theamendment moved by the National Party, forthe reasons outlined by the member forKatanning-Roc.

Mr GRILL: The Government does not sup-port the amendment. I believe the member forKatanning-Roe is dealing in semantics. Whathe proposes is to differentiate between "desig-nating" and "written warrants". I cannot seemuch difference. If it required a justice of thepeace to issue a warrant, it may be different. Inthe final analysis, the amendment does notmean anything.

Mr HOUSE: I believe this amendment is ex-tremely important. The penalty for an offenceagainst this Act is $2 000, a very severe penaltyby today's standards. We need to make sure,therefore, that people's rights are protected.

Amendment put and a division taken with thefollowing result-

Mr BlaikieMr CashMr CourtMr CowanMrGraydenMr HassellMr HouseMr LauranceMr Lewis

Dr AlexanderMrs BeggsMr BryceMr Brian BurkeMr BurkettMr DonovanMr EvansDr GallopMr GrillMrs HendersonMr Hodge

AyesMr ClarkoMr SpriggsMr SchellMr CraneMr RushtonM r TrenordenMr Mensaros

Ayes 17Mr LightfootMr MacKinnonMr StephensMr ThompsonMr TubbyMr WatMr WieseMr Williams

Noes 22Mr MarlboroughMr ParkerMr PearceMr ReadMr D. L. SmithMr P. i. SmithMrTroyMrsWatkinsDr WatsonMr WilsonMrs Buchanan

PairsNoes

Mr Tom JonesMr ThomasMr TaylorMr BnidgeMr Peter DowdingMr CarrMr Bertram

(7Wlnm

rerfkt

Amendment thus negatived.

Clause put and passed.

Clauses 13 to 15 put and passed.

Title put and passed.

Report

Bill reported, without amendment, and thereport adopted.

2919

2920 [ASSEMBLY]

Third ReadingMR GRILL (Esperanc-Dundas-Minister

for Agriculture) [3.31 am]: I move-That the Bill be now read a third time.

MR WIESE (Narrogin) (3.32 am]: I do notintend to delay the House very long, but onceagain I want to tr to see whether I can getsome answers from the Minister for Agricultureto questions I believe should have beenanswered during the preceding debate. Thesequestions should have been answered not onlyfor the benefit of members, but also for the ben-efit of the growers who will be footing the bill forthe funds when this Bill goes throughParliament.

I return to the comments I made initially. Iwas referred to as a "new boy in the House" atone stage during the debate. 1 readily admitthat, but being a new boy has its advantages inthat one has not acquired the rudeness or arro-gance that we have seen during this debatefrom the Minister for Agriculture. I am amazedat the way this matter has been treated. If thatis the way things are done, so be it. Perhaps Iwill learn to behave in the same fashion.

A question raised by the Minister's ownSheep Lice Eradication Committee is very im-portant. Will the Treasury actually raise a levyagainst this fund to pay for the cost of collec-tion? I will quote from the minutes of thatmeeting-

Mr Grill: Don't even think about it. Youquote from the Bill. You quote the exact clausewhich raises that particular matter.

Mr WIESE: It is time the growers were givenan answer to this because it is a Crucial matter.We have not been given any answer to it by theMinister so far. Another question of which nomention has been made in the House to date is:What will happen after the first two years, dur-ing which time the total cost of the tests will bemet by the Wool Research Council, which ismaking $ 180 000 per annum available for thispurpose? That money is available in the firsttwo years of this fund's operation, but what willhappen after those two years? What will hap-pen in years 3. 4, and 5? That answer is notavailable.

Mr Grill: Where does it say that in the Bill?Mr WIESE: It is not in the Bill, yet it is

crucial to the funding arrangements which weAre tring to set up tonight. An amount of$360 000 will be available in the next twoyears, but that sum will not be available forsubsequent years. It will have to be met out ofthe levy that will be raised. No mention of that

has been made by the Minister. These two fac-tars which I have mentioned are crucial andrelate to the level at which the levy will be set.The Minister has not mentioned that at all dur-ing this debate. I believe this House and thegrowers deserve an answer to that question.

The Minister completely ignored the point Iraised during the second reading of the Bill,which related to the setting up of the lice eradi-cation campaign. Without funding, there willbe no lice eradication campaign. The Ministercompletely ignored that and did not answer anyof the questions raised during the debate. Like-wise the Minister completely ignored my pointin respect of the live export of sheep andwhether the wool those sheep are carrying willbe tested. My information is that it will not,and I believe that if it is not and those sheep donot go onto the boat and are subsequentlyreturned to the farm, the whole of the fund andthe work that is being done to eradicate sheeplice will be put at risk. The Minister has notaddressed that question.

The Minister also completely ignored thepoint I raised that the whole basis on whichthis fund is being set up is that there is anability to detect 8 1 per cent of the lice infes-tation, if all the lines are tested. I have beentold that it is not intended to lest all the lines. Ihave tried to get a statement from the Ministerto the effect that all the lines will be tested. Ifthat is not done, and this Bill is passed to set upthe fund to embark on a lice eradication cam-paign. and-as the Department of Agriculturehas advised-only every second line is tested,only 56 per cent of lice will be detected. Thatpercentage is worse than the one which existsunder the present system.

This is probably where we should stop thisdebate. I could raise many other questions, butin view of the hour the Minister should beasked to answer some of those questons and letus get on with the business of the day.

This Bill is of great importance to the sheepindustry. The way we have been treatedtonight,!I wonder whether the Minister is detcr-mined to make this thing work, because with-out his absolute and complete support, withouta selling job to all the growers, it will not. Noselling has been done, because 80 per cent ofthe growers are not aware of the Bill. The suc-cess of this campaign will depend upon lO0 percent cooperation from the growers. It will de-pend absolutely on the setting up of growercommittees, and to do that the Minister, thedepartment, and the lice eradication committee

2920

(Thursday, 18 June 1987J]92

will have to do an extremely good selling job inthe next month or so, because if the Dill ispassed it will start to operate from I July.

The Minister's attitude is not the right one toget growers on his side and supporting thisproject. If he does not have the growers' sup-port we might as well forget everything we havebeen talking about.

MR GRILL (Esperance-Dundas-Ministerfor Agriculture) [3.42 am]: The member forNarrogin has admitted that he is a new boyhere. That is no: meant in any derogatorysense. Let me say in as kindly a fashion as I canthat the member for Narrogin has a lot to learn.All the matters he has raised for which he hasdemanded answers are not covered by this Bill.1 have said it three times and I will say it again:When he reflects upon the speech he has made,he will come back and say that the Ministerwas right.

Several members interjected.Mr GRILL: It will take a long time, but

finally that is what he will do.Mr Burkett: The day before yesterday two

leading growers came to see me in my office.They were happy with the Bill. Do you thinkthe man is a dill?

Opposition members: Yes.Several members interjected.Mr GRILL: It will not be today, it will not be

tomorrow, it may not be next week or the weekafter, but finally the penny will drop and oneday the member for Narrogin will come up tome and say, 'Mr Minister, you were right. Allthose matters I was raising that night were notgermane, they were not covered by that Bill. Iwas talking a lot of nonsense."

I am trying to put this to the member asnicely as possible. None of the questions he hasraised has anything to do with this Bill.

Opposition members: You do not know theanswers.

Mr GRILL: It is not as though I do not wantto answer them. They can be answered but theyshould not be answered tonight:. they are notrelevant. People listening to this debate andnoting the heavy weather the Opposition hasmade of it will find it hard to believe that thisBill came to the Parliament having beendrafted virtually by a committee of growerswhich has the complete support of the growers'organisations.

Mr Wiese: It is not a committee of growers:,the majority of people are in the departmentand it does not have farmer support.

Mr GRILL: I have told the member oncealready. One day the penny will drop. This Billhas the complete support of industry associ-ations. It has come to this Parliament withtheir endorsement in the fervent hope that itwill go through without amendment. I hopethat will happen today.

Question put arid passed.Bill read a third time and transmitted to the

Council.

SUPPLY DILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 28 May.MR LAURANCE (Gascoyne- Deputy

Leader of the Opposition) [3.46 am]: I havebeen surprisingly cooperative during the pass-Age of the last two or three Bills in the earlyhours of today. I now want to change all thatand hand out a couple of brickbats.

On the last evening of the last session latelast year I gave afew Ministers marks out of 10.I singled out two for special treatment. Sixmonths later neither has improved his score. Atth at stage I sa id t hat t he M in ister for Tra nsportdeserved two out of I0. 1 had to give him twoonly because I thought he was worth one morethan the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices, who scored one out of 10.

They have not improved. The reason I give abrickbat to the Minister for Transport againtonight is that he has had the opportunity inthe past few weeks to indicate that he is pre-pared to give an answer on the taxi car Bill. It isa private member's Bill which I introduced andgave h im t ime to work outI h is response. I i stedit far discussion last week.

M r G rill i interjected.Mr LAURANCE: Do not worry about that.

He was supporting the homosexuals and I wassupporting the taxi drivers, and they knew thedifference.

Several members interjected.Mr LAURANCE: We have been through all

that where the Minister misled the House andsaid that it was not listed for debate last week.His colleague had to point out that that was notthe case.

Mr Troy: You chose to have five privatemembers' Bills debated before it: you cannotdeny that. Look in Hansard.

Mr LAURANCE: It was put down last weekfor discussion, as the Minister's colleagueindicated.

2921

2922 [ASSEMBLY]

Several members interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! We have alreadybeen going for some considerable time. Thatmay well be all right for certain people whoseem to be able to come and go in shifts. It isnot all right for the staff who cannot come andgo in shifts but must keep going. Let us have alittle thought for those people who have beengoing for the full period of this sitting. Let usget this debate over in an amicable way. Thesooner that happens the sooner we will gohome.

Mr LAURANCE: Thank you, Mr Speaker.The fact of the matter is that my Bill was notdebated last week because the Leader of theHouse insisted that a private member's motionfrom the Government side be debated first. itwent on for a long time-in fact, until the con-clusion of that day's sitting.

What was the motion about? It was about theGovernment trying to blast the Liberal Party'svery successful tax policy for the Federal elec-tion. The Government did not get very far.Instead of dealing with the taxi drivers' prob-lems, the Government preferred to spend itstime trying to blast the Federal Opposition'stax policy out of the water-rather than worryabout matters of importance to this State.

I was able to tell the taxi drivers yesterdaythat the Government could have dealt with thisprivate member's Bill this week. In fact I hadan assurance that every effort would be madeto deal with it this week. Of course, we are notgoing to deal with it. We could have dealt withit tonight. The Government has still time tobring it on.

Mr Pearce: For he-aven's sake! After all thatcarry on about sheep lice, if we had cooper-ation from your side to get through the businessexpeditiously, we might have brought it on.

Mr LAURANCE: The Government hastaken the time of the Parliament to deal with aprivate member's Bill on homosexuality, but itrefuses to deal with the Bill about taxi drivens.It is a simple matter of providing them withsome protection. The Minister, on the steps ofParliament House yesterday, indicated that hewould find some support for the measure. Hecan deal with this matter in September if helikes, but the people who are injured throughviolent attacks against taxi drivers betweennow and then will have their blood on hishands. The session is now collapsing and he haschosen not to deal with it. Let that be on hisrecord. For that he gets two out of 10.

I turn to the biggest failure in the BurkeGovernment, the Minister for Police andEmergency Services. He struggles to get one outof 10. 1 like to keep things positive. I wish togive some facts to the House about this Minis-ter and the way he answers his letters. I have afew examples of those letters to read to theHouse. I have never known a Minister of theCrown to abuse his position as much as thisMinister does when responding to correspon-dence.

I refer to a letter written by that Minister toone of my constituents some months ago.When the taxi Bill was brought before the Par-liament, a proprietor of a taxi company inCarnarvon wrote to the Minister and said hethought the Bill had some merit and he askedfor the Minister's support.

The Minister for Police and Emergency Ser-vi ces wrote back to h im. H e gave h imr the back-ground to the matter and said-

The Private Members Bill to which yourefer cuts across my views and those of theComm issioner of Pol ice , .. I

I am quite prepared to accept that. It con-tinues-

..in so far as the quest ion of the properfunction of Police is concerned and, in myview, is an ill-conceived political stunt.

This Bill was drafted in consultation with thetaxi indtrtry. It was never an ill-conceived pol-itical stunt. Even if the Minister thought it,there was no point in his writing it on a minis-terial letterhead and sending it to a constituentwho obviously indicated his support of the Bill,because that is what he wrote to the Ministerabout. The Minister could not even send acourteous reply.

Mr Burkett: He could have written back andsaid, 'You are a real nice guy and everyone'sfriend in the Parliament."

Mr LAURANCE: Sure. The bloke who wrotethe letter should have been able to say, "Gee,he might not be able to support the Bill but atleast he is a good bloke, that Minister for Policeand Emergency Services." Now he reckons heis Richard Cranium. He is right.

Mr Brian Burke: That is a not a discourteousreply.

Mr LAURANCE: Yes, it is. Every letter thisMinister writes is in the same mould. If mem-bers have not heard about the other letters Iwould be very surprised. I have not receivedone letter from this Minister that was cour-teous. It is not as though there are odd

2922

[Thursday, I8 June 19871 22

examples. Some of his letters have been so em-barrassing that I have not been able to sendthem to my constituents who made the originalcomplaint. It is not because I do not wantpeople to know what he is like and how shame-ful he is. but because of his status of a Ministerof the Crown, he should not belittle that personin that way.

I wrote to the Minister recently about thetransfer being considered by the Governmentof the police heavy haulage section to the De-partment of Transport. That has caused someanxiety around the State, and various peoplehave written to the Opposition and asked whyit is happening. I wrote a courteous letter to theMinister for Police and Emergency Services-Ihave never written a discourteous letter to himor any other Minister, and every response Ihave had from him has been discourteous.When I wrote to him about the police heavyhaulage section the Minister replied as fol-lows-

I acknowledge receipt of your letter ofMarch 11, 1987, concerning the PoliceHeavy Haulage Section.

The Burke Government is constantlyreviewing the performance by its agenci esof the various functions which they under-take. This action is necessary to ensurethat public sector efficiency is maximisedand from the taxpayer's point of view, is awelcome departure from the neglect of pre-vious administrations, of which you were amember.

I wrote back to those people and said the re-sponse from the Minister was so inappropriatethat it could not be forwarded to them. It wasnot only inappropriate, it was childish and im-mature. I bet the Premier has never written ona Premier's letterhead a disgraceful letter likethat. Not one Minister opposite-althoughthey do not usually agree with my paint ofview-has been discourteous. There is notanother Minister in the House who has writtena letter like that.

Mr Brian Burke: I have sent you one or twothat are worse than that.

Mr LAURANCE: The Premier, as theLeader of the Government, should not standfor it. This bloke does not deserve to have a jobif he is going to write letters like that. It doesnot worry me that he wants to be a RichardCranium.

Mr Brian Burke: You are carrying on asthough it is worrying you to death.

Mr LAURANCE: It worries me that theMinister cannot write a courteous letter. Theonly people who should be upset are theGovernment and the people who made the ori-ginal inquiry. The first example I gave mem-bers was the reply to a constituent about thetaxi drivers' Bill, which was an ill-conceivedpolitical stunt.

Mr Brian Burke: The member for Cottesloe,on his letterheads, talks about the Moscow con-nection and all sorts of things.

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister in his letterto me talked about previous administrations.None of the Premier's Ministers have everwritten about previous administrations. I neverwrote a letter while I was a Minister saying thatit was the stupid Tonkin Government thatcaused the problem. His letters get worse.*The next example is a letter written to my

colleague, the shadow Minister for Police andEmergency Services. After the major drug bustin the Shark Bay region of my electorate sametime ago, my colleague and I wrote to a numberof Federal and State Ministers. In every caseexcept the Minister for Police and EmergencyServices, all Ministers courteously replied andtold us what was being done in order to takecare of the situation in a better manner in thefuture. We did not hear from him and wethought he had forgotten about it. We wrote tohim in March 1986.

In April 1987 he sent a reply-a year later!Everybody else had replied courteously, butthis Minister, one year later, sent a letter to mycolleague of which the final paragraph reads-

You will of course be aware of the vastlysuperior performance of the presentgovernment in the provision of manpowerand equipment for the Police, over that ofthe previous Liberal governments whoseneglect in this regard left a void which hadto be filled.

*The Minister gets one point out of 10. That is adiscourteous letter, not only immature andchildish like his others, but a year late. It tookone year for the Minister to write that discour-teous, childish letter. What was he doing withit? Did he write one word every day? The M in-ister for Police and Emergency Services is ab-solutely immature and wet behind the ears.

Then came the classic. This is a handwrittenletter written to mec on 20 May 1987 by a per-son who has had a number of pieces of corre-spondence from several of the Ministers op-posite. All of them have responded courteously.The chap was not happy with the result he

2923

2924 [ASSEMBLY)

received so he decided to write to the GovernorGenera!, and then he wrote to the Queen. Letme tell members what happened. In his letterto me of 20 May 1987 he said in part-

I wrote 10 the Queen after hearing fromthe Governor General, and I received heranswer today.

Further on the letter says-I told you that I wrote the Minister for

Police, Hill on the 14th Jan and have stillnot received his answer.

Mr Cash: The Governor General has replied.and the Queen has replied.

Mr LAURANCE: The letter continued-Would you tell him from me ..

That is, would I tell the Minister for Police andEmergency Services. The letter continues-

... that he could learn a few mannersfrom the Queen and the Governor Generalwho answered me within two or threeweeks.

This letter was written to me on 20 May. Theconstituent wrote to the Minister for Police andEmergency Services on 14 January. We havehad January. February, March. April. and May.Four months later the man has not evenreceived an acknowledgment from the Ministerfor Police and Emergency Services, but threeweeks after he wrote to the Queen he received acourteous reply from the Queen.

Mr Bryce: How many hundred constituentshave you got?

Mr LAURANCE: Actually he does not hap-pen to be a constituent of mine.

Mr Bryce: HeI sounds as though he is one ofyour few constituents-

Mr LAURANCE: No, he is not-Mr Parker: I have a bloke who writes to me

with his musical compositions, and he alsosends them to the Queen, and the GovernorGeneral.

Mr LAURANCE: And does the Minister forMinerals and Energy write nasty letters to himon ministerial letterhead? I bet he does not.

Mr Parker- No.Mr Brian Burke: The complaint was that he

did not get a letter.Mr LAURANCE: But when he does it might

be like the one about the drug haul at SharkBay; it might be a year late; but I know what itwill be like because every one of his letters isthe same-it will be discourteous. What sort ofMinister is this who cannot write a courteous

letter, who obviously cannot get on top of hisportfolio, and who takes a year to respond to aletter, in most cases? By comparison, we have aman who has written to the Queen andreceived a response three weeks later.

Mr Parker: He might have decided not torespond. After a while, with the sort of peoplewho write to the Governor General or theQueen. one decides not to respond at all be-cause they are mad.

Mr LAURANCE: The Minister for Policeand Emergency Services can tell me if that isthe case. Has he given up writing to people?

Mr Bryce: This is the Liberal Party at itsbest. Look at the research the Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition has done for the speech! Justdig it out.

Mr LAURANCE: I can give members Plentyof other examples but I thought the one aboutthe Queen was such a classic that I did not needto go any further. That is the sort of tripe thisMinister is dishing up. This bloke is-I wasgoing to say "Quick Draw McGraw"-when hetakes a year to respond to one of the letters.There would never have been a more imma-ture, childish person to hold the position of aMinister of the Crown, and those letters provethat point.

MR HASSELL (Cottesloc) [4.06 am]: MrSpeaker-

Mr Bryce: What about the Moscow con nec-tion? Let us hear about that.

Mr Burkett: Introducing varicose veins!Mr Parker: It would be interesting to hear a

debate between the member who has just fin-ished speaking and the member who is about tostart on the last comment in the member forCot tesloe's newsletter.

The SPEAKER: Order! It is obvious thatthere are matters of great importance to theState to be discussed because that is why we arehere at four o'clock in the morning, and it isobvious that one of those matters is about to bediscussed because the member for Cottesloehas just asked for my call and I have given it tohim. I am quite desperate to listen to what hehas to say.

Mr HASSELL: Perhaps the member forScarborough, who interjected with a smartremark as I rose to my feet, would be interestedto learn that yesterday it was ascertained fromthe Fremantle Hospital that the waiting periodfor general surgery, which includes varicoseveins operations, is not less than 10 weeks.

2924

[Thursday, I& June 1987J192

Mr Gordon Hill: Are you saying MrCastleden is lying?

Mr HASSELL: I will tell members about MrCastleden, if they wish.

Mr Bryce: Is he a member of the LaborParty?

Mr HASSELL: I will tell members that hisstatement which was flourished in this Houseby the Premier was a very carefully wordedstatement which said, "There is no long queueof patients under my supervision or direct careat Fremantle Hospital." That, of course, wasabsolutely true. There was no long queue ofpatients under the care of Mr Castleden atFremantle Hospital because Mr Castleden isnot a regular doctor at Fremantle Hospital.

Mr Bryce: So what?

Mr HASSELL: He is not a regular providerof consultative services, and therefore he doesnot have a long waiting list.

Mr Bryce: That is the point we have beentrying to make for days.

Mr HASSELL: But the point is that while MrCastleden does not have a long waiting list atFremantle Hospital. the waiting list for generalsurgery, which includes elective surgery, is 10weeks.

Mr Burkett: What is the waiting list forvascular surgery at Fremantle Hospital at thistime?

Mr HASSELL: The waiting list for varicoseveins operations, which is pant of the category ofgeneral surgery-

The SPEAKER: Order! For the benefit of allmembers, and probably because some of us arefairly tired and may have forgotten some of ourStanding Orders, I will read out Standing OrderNo 125 so that members might bear it in mindduring the rest of this debate. I quote as fol-lows-

No Member shall allude to any debate ofthe same Session, upon a question or Billnot being then under discussion except bythe indulgence of the House for personalexplanations.

That Standing Order is quite clear to me and Ishould think it is quite clear to the member forCottesloe, so I ask that he very quickly draw toa conclusion his present remarks and move onto his next subject.

Mr HASSELL: I understand the Standing Or-der and in fact tonight looked at the precedentsconcerned with the Standing Order, and I haveno intention of rerunning the debate we havealready had.

Mr Brian Burke: You were caught out tryingto blackguard someone, and you can't take it.

Mr HASSELL: If the Premier is going to con-tinue to debate the issue, Mr Speaker, thenperhaps you will let me do so also.

The SPEAKER: I will not allow anyone to dothat.

Mr HASSELL: I have here a letter I receivedfrom a person who wrote to me about problemshis wife had in getting medical care, and Iquote as follows-

My wife had to have an urgent operationfor a "hip-replacement" and as she wasvirtually crippled, but had to wait up to 2years for a public hospital bed. I elected togo "Private" and had the operation carriedout at -KALLEEVA PRIVATE HOSPI-TAL" at a formidable cost which entailedusing up my life's savings.

Imagine the agony my wife had to sufferwhen they found 4 (four) cysts in her hipjoint when they performed the operationplus the pre-operative and post-operativepain caused a hears attack which requireda further weeks stay in the Hospital.

I would imagine that many people in ourage group will succombe to their ailmentsbefore a bed in a Government Hospitalbecomes available.

I have protested to both State and Com-monwealth Health authorities about thelong waiting lists for supposed elective sur-gery and suggested that medicare makeavailable the funds it would have to pay ifthe patient was hospitalised in a publichospital to offset the cost of private hospi-talisation, and enclosed you will find ananswer from the Commonwealth that thereis such provision under Medicare.

This man is pointing out that, under Medicare,if the Stale wishes to it can provide the moneywhich would have to be paid for patients inpublic hospital beds to enable private hospitalbeds to be used for public patients. This man'swife had to have this hip operation. He wroteto the Commonwealth authorities, and theywrote back and said that they could not do

2925

2926 ASSEM BLY]

anything about his problem. I will now read outthe letter from the Commonwealth Departmentor Health-

There is provision under these arrange-ments whereby State health authoritiesmay negotiate with private hospitals totreat Medicare patients as you suggest.

The matters of the availability of publichospital beds, including waiting lists, arethe responsibility of the State Govern-ment.

Here is a man who has been through this ter-rible wailing list procedure with his wire andwho had to give up his life savings. He is aveterans affairs pensioner.

Mr Bryce: You are dishonest.

Mr HASSELL: The Deputy Premier refusesto understand, because it does not suit his pol-itical convenience, that all the major publichospitals have waiting lists for elective surgery,and it is within his Government's power toreduce those waiting lists; but his Governmenthas not taken up the option to do that becauseof its obsessional dislike of the private sectorand because of its commitment to Medicare.

This veterans affairs pensioner, whom I havenever met and who lives in Beaconsfield, wentont to sy in his letter-

So I ask the question WHY IS NOTTHIS PROVISION USED TO ERADI-CATE THE LONG WAITING LIST?

I have talked to the specialists involvedin my wife's case (Mr Bell OrthopaedicSurgeon) and "Mr Peake" (HeartSpecialist) and they both say that thesystem is UN FAIR and they both advocatethe private hospitals can cope withMedicare patients but the Governmentrefuses to listen to common sense and willnot subsidise medicare patients in privatehospitals.

He added a PS to his letter, which reads asfollows-

I even had to pay for the "implant"which would have been free under"Medicare" if there had been a bed avail-able in a public hospital. And it would ap-pear that each state has different benefitsunder "Medicare" and that W.A. residentsare the worst off of all states.

I would have thought that in a "Nationalscheme'" such as medicare that the samebenefits apply to ALL AUSTRALIANS.

I have written to our state health auth-ori ty (M r Taylor) b ut ha ve recei ved no re-ply in detail.

Hie also says in his letter-You may use my name and this letter if

you wish to pursue the matter.My point is that we have waiting lists in thepublic hospitals. I have already said that it hasbeen ascertained, as late as yesterday, that thewaiting list for general surgery at the FremantleHospital is 10 weeks.

Mr Pearce: How did you ascertain that?Mr HASSELL: Never mind that. If the

Leader of the House wants to dispute what Isay I will give him an opportunity to explainwhy my question on notice 1378 today was notanswered by the Minister for Health. Twentyfour hours notice was given to answer somevery straightforward questions aboutFremantle Hospital. I happen to know that theanswers to that question were prepared anddespatched to the Ministers office yesterday,but the question was not answered. Instead 1was given an answer which said, "I will advisethe honourable member of the answer to thisquestion in writing." I bet it will be advised inwriting! There is no guarantee it will beanswered in full because none of these awk-ward questions is answered like that. When theGovernment is under pressure and there is adebate and the Government wants to table let-ters in th-e House from a hospital or from aman who is on holidays at Rottnest it can getanything in a matter of hours. But when itComes to answering a question on 24 hours'notice when the answers do not suit the politi-cal convenience of the Government theanswers are not given.

The fact is we have substantial waiting listsin the State's public hospitals. Over a period ofmonths the Minister for Health has refused toanswer question after question about thosewaiting lists and to provide information whichis available in the hospitals. It is an interestingcontrast because some Ministers answer ques-tions. They do not always like the answers theyare giving, or for the information to becomepublic. One is the Minister for Transport, whoanswers questions in a straightforward way,and another is the Minister for Minerals andEnergy.

Mr Pearce: Those poor blokes will be introuble at the next Cabinet meeting.

Mr HASSELL: No doubt they will be becausetheir straightforwardness and honesty, even inmoments of inconvenience, and their apparent

2926

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 22

commitment to some form of parliamentaryaccountability is inconsistent with the style ofthis Government.

The Minister for Health has been asked aseries of questions, not only by me, but also bythe shadow Minister for Health, about thewaiting limes in hospitals, and he has dodgedthe issue every time. He has come up with allsorts of answers like the one he gave to me. Irefer now to question 871 of 19 May to theMinister for Health which followed up a seriesof questions asked by the member for Murray-Wellington, I asked-

(1) What are the categories of treatmentregarded as "elective" in each of.-(a) Royal Penth Hospital;(b) Queen Elizabeth If Medical

Centre;,(c) Fremantle Hospital-,(d) King Edward Memorial Hospital;(e) Princess Margaret Hospital?

(2) What is the normal or average waitingtime for such surgery in each suchcategory at each said hospital?

The answer was as follows-()So-called "elective" cases form part of

the workload of all specialities in hos-pitals.The term 'elective" is used in respectof patients who do not require im-mediate admission and treatment.

(2) No such categories exist. Each case isindividually assessed on the basis ofits clinical urgency.

That is a non-answer, and was intended to be.It was intended to avoid the issue. Yet wheninquiries were made of all the teaching hospi-tals-the major hospitals I referred to-it es-tablished conclusively there are waiting listsand that the times for elective surgery are pre-dictable. The waiting times are not determinedby the doctor with whom the patient is dealingbut by the nature of the surgery required, andyet the Minister claims that he cannot give chatinformation. Once again it is known that infor-mat ion was provided from at least one of thosehospitals to the Minister's office which pr-cisely answered the question, but the Ministerwould not provide the information.

It is clear the Government is in trouble overwaiting lists and has tried to suppress the infor-mation and avoid accountability. That hasbeen highlighted by events revealed in the Par-liament this week. Let there be no mistake;

what has been brought out is a very accuratepicture of a very serious situation. The publicsimply do not believe that the present system isacceptable. They do not believe that somepeople should get preferential medical treat-ment when there are thousands of peoplewaiting in queues. It is wrong in every possiblesense of the word.

MR LEWIS (East Melville) [4.27 am]: Itmay be something of a coincidence that we arenow in the dying hours of this session and I amabout to make some remarks and observationson the Select Committee's report into the saleof the Midland abattoir. This Governmentdeliberately misled this House previously onthis matter. As an example I refer to what MvrPearce, the Leader of the House, said here onTuesday, 25 November 1986 when he said thatif it was the desire of the Opposition to find-time to debate the Committee's report, timewould be found. That is what Mr Pearce said.

Mr Pearce: But we did not sit.Mr LEWIS: Then on Wednesday, 26

November-

Point of OrderMr BRIAN BURKE: It is not traditional for

members to refer to other members by theirnames as was the case on this occasion whenthe member for East Melville said, -MrPearce" this and "Mr Pearce" that, It is thethin edge of the wedge. With the Opposition inits present condition I am sure that before toolong it will be using expletives to refer to us,and that is not very nice.

The SPEAKER: The member has quiteclearly contravened Standing Order 130 whichhe is very much aware of, and in my view hedeliberately did that. Irrespective of how hefeels about Standing Orders, they are there fora good reason. Each one is as important as theothers; none is less important and should notbe considered so by the member.

Mr LEWIS: Do you wish me to withdraw,Mr Speaker?

The SPEAKER: No.

Debate ResumedMr LEWIS: I also remind the House that on

26 November 1986 the Leader of the Housesaid that the House would be given an oppor-tunity to debate the report.

in a report in the Sunday Times of 30November, the Premier said that the Parlia-ment was told the report would be debatedwhen the Legislative Assembly sat again,

2927

2928 ASSEM BLYI

probably before Christmas. What happened?Nothiiog happened. The Government broke itsword.

Mr Pearce: You have had every privatemembers' day to raise this matter.

Mr LEWIS: The undertaking was given bythe Government that it would present the re-port to Parliament and have it debated.

Mr Court: I think the member for Mitchellhas a speech Comning on .

Mr LEWIS: I think so, too. The Governmentbroke its word about debating this matter. Whydid it break its word? It was too cowardly todebate it. There was too much of a smellaround about the whole matter.

Mrs Beggs: We are frightened of you, mate.Mr LEWIS: I know that. The Government

Presented the report to Parliament at 5.27 amon the Saturday, the morning that Parliamentrose.

Mr Brian Burke: You can't complain today;,you got on at 4.30 am.

Mr LEWIS: The Government may think thishumorous. That committee sat for five months.It met on 32 occasions and issued 219 pages ofreport. However, the report was not broughtbefore the Parliament for debate because theGovernment was afraid of what was in it. Per-haps it did not present it to Parliament earlierbecause the recommendations of the com-mittee revealed that it had lost and the Govern-ment did not want to open old wounds by de-bating it in this place.

This Government is in contempt of Parlia-mnent. The Government which put in place theSelect Committee to inquire into the sale of theabattoir negotiated and finalised the deal onthat site. Even the Chairman of the SelectCommittee was absoilely disgusted with thataction. I ask the member for Mitchell to denythat that was the case.

Mr Bryce: Did Ric New pay for your electioncampaign?

Mr LEWIS: That is an inane comment forthe Minister to make.

The Government is embarrassed that 1 haveraised this matter. It is attempting to suggestthat I should have raised it hitherto. It was theGovernment's responsibility to bring it into thisHouse for debate.

Let us consider the abattoir deal. I will gothrough it chapter and Verse. The sale wasarranged in secret because it was election time.However the Government was sprung and had

to make a premature announcement about it.The conduct of the Minister and his adviserwas appalling. They raced around the placehelter-skelter trying to cover their tracks and todampen down the matter. They attempted toinfluence witnesses before the Select Corn-mittee.

The committee was weighted with Govern-ment members who constantly tried to concealevidence by attempting to hide behind the cloakof closed sessions, not because the witnessesasked that that should happen, but because Gov-ernment members were afraid that people mighthave something to disclose and the committeewanted to gag the Press.

On top of that, the Go~ernment insulted thisParliament by presenting the report to it at5.27 am on the last day of the session, after ithad promised there would be time to debate it.The Government reneged on its undertaking toallow the matter to be debated. The whole mat-ter was a Burke shambles.

Mr Brian Burke: You have had 30 hoursavailable to you in which you could havedebated it.

Mr LEWIS: If I had not been close to whatwas happening, I would have considered thewhole thing unbelievable. There was evidenceof shonkie deals with a company thatpatron ised the Government. That Property wasvaluable. It belonged rightly to the people ofWestern Australia. It was sold primarily in anattempt to spike a supporter of the LiberalParty. The Minister for Agriculture alluded tothat in a speech he made. I ask any memberopposite to tell me whether, if Mr Ric New hadcontributed to the Curtin fund, this matterwould have proceeded. The answer is no.

As I said, the property was owned by thepeople of Western Australia and it wasd isposed of by i nsi der t rad in g and sec ret deal s

Mr Bryce: I'll bet you have been praetisingthis speech.

Mr LEWIS: Yes. The property was sold athalf its true price.

Point of OrderMr HASSELL: Mr Speaker, in the past you

have referred to interjections enlivening the de-bate. Earlier this evening you asked for the de-bate to be orderly. By no stretch of the imagin-ation could it be said that the member for EastMeville is getting a fair go. There is an endlessbarrage of irrelevant and unrelated interjec-

2928

[Thursday, I8iJune 19871 92

lions, and cross-Chamber talk by members ofthe Government party. I ask you. Mr Speaker,to give this member a fair go.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: While the points madeby the member for Cottesloe are normallyvalid, it is true that on this occasion the mem-ber for East Melville is berating the Govern-ment in a loud and very aggressive way. Whileit is true that intcrjections are disorderly-

Mr MacKinnon: You often berate the Oppo-sition in a loud and aggressive way.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I have nevercomplained about the interject ions.

Mr Court: Your behaviour has been childishduring this debate.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I do not think so. If themember for East Melville wants to shout soloudly at the Government, he should expect tohave the odd interjection.

Withdrawal of RemarkMr LEWIS: The Minister for Police and

Emergency Services said that I was telling liesand I ask him to withdraw.

Mr GORDON HILL: I withdraw my com-ment that the member is telling lies andsubstitute it with the word "mendacious". Iwithdraw my remark.

Point of Order ResumedThe SPEAKER: It is a very difficult time of

the day for us all. I think I heard a couple ofinterjections which implied that I might not beacting fairly.

I do not want to take strong exception tothose interjections because it is fairly late in theday, and I am not going to do that. I point outthat this matter has already been addressedearlier in this session on no fewer than twooccasions. Subsequent to the last occasion, anumber of members from the Opposition havebeen to see me and have indicated their happi-ness.

I find it difficult, therefore, that on everyoccasion that a member of the Opposition feelsaggrieved he implies that I am in some wayunfair. I am beginning to get a little upset aboutit, but I am still calm and will try to remain sofor the balance of this sitting. I hope that mem-bers will let me.

Mr HASSELL: Mr Speaker I do not knowwhether you are referring to anything I said inraising the point of order. If the burden of yourremarks was that you believed I commented onyour unfairness, I advise that that is certainly

not what I said or what I intended. I did saythat I did not think the speaker on his feet wasgetting a fair go from the House. I was notreferring to anything you were doing. MrSpeaker.

The SPEAKER: I accept that. It was in factthat comment from the member for Coltesloeand a further comment from the DeputyLeader of the Opposition that made me thinkthat way.

Debate Resumed

Mr LEWIS: I reiterate that the prop~rty wasowned by the people of Western Australia andit was sold for only half its value-a value thatwas arrived at by one of Perth's most respectedvaluers. The value was determined without theongoing contingency of the saleyards. In otherwords, when the value was determined it wasvalued as a greenfield property with existingfacilities not to remain, and not with theongoing contingency of the saleyards. Thatvalue was $9 15 000.

The Government disposed of the propertyfor $450 000 with $ 100 000-worth of chattelswhich effectively made the value of the rawland $ 350 000. 1 contend that the Governmentliterally gave this property away.

The property was under the control of theWestern Australian Meat Commission; how-ever it was sold without any reference to thecommission. The commission which wascontrolling the saleyards did not know theproperty had been sold.

The Minister suddenly realised that to re-instate the saleyards would cost another 310million. He hastily went back to the drawingboard and put in place a contingency thatwould give the State the ability to continue theoperation of the saleyards. At the eleventh houra six-year lease was written into the contract.

The property was soid at the time of thechange to the Government Executive. A direc-tive was given by a senior member of the De-partment of the Premier and the Cabinet, byvirtue of a nudge and a wink, to the WesternAustralian Development Corporation.

The property was sold with undue haste andwithout any caveat of conditions of use. It wasalso sold, without the calling of tenders or thecalling for any registration of interest, to aninside dealer in a secret deal at a heavilydiscounted price.

2929

2930 [ASSEM BLYJ

The incredible thing was that the principalnegotiator of the sale of the property, a prop-erty that was sold at half the recommendedprice, was a long-term friend and business as-sociate of the purchaser.

The person who dealt on behalf of theWADC was, at the time of this deal beingconsummiated, having thousands of dollars-worth of repairs carried out to his boat whichwas sitting in the boatyard belonging to thepurchaser.

The two people who did the deal went toextreme lVngths to try to convince the SelectCommittee that they were at arm's length. Infact, they were close business associates. I be-lieve that both those persons perjured them-selves before that committee.

If ever there were a strong case of substantialevidence of collusion it was to do with the twoplayers involved in this sale. The credentials ofboth persons involved in this sale leave a lot tobe desired. They both have questionable back-grounds.

1 was so concerned that I sought advice andinformally spoke to she other members of theSelect Committee and advised them that I be-lieved the police should be called in to investi-gate.

Mr Bryce: Boring!Mr LEWIS- I will repeat that for the benefit

of the Deputy Premier. I was so concerned thatI sought advice and informally spoke to mem-bers of the Select Committee on the basis ofcalling in the police to investigate. My advicefell on deaf ears.

I asked, and indeed the committee formallyasked, for funds to be set aside to allow thecommittee to do its job properly. The com-mittee asked for $ 10 000 for research assist-ance for the Standing Committee. It wasrefused. The whole thing 'has been a rort, acover-up and a bad deal by the Government; itwas aided and abetted by a bent and biasedmajority membership of a Standing Committeeof this Parliament.

Withdrawal of RemarkThe SPEAKER: Order! I warn the member

not to stretch my tolerance like that again. Iwill say nothing more but I expect the memberfor East Melville to take the appropriate actionas soon as he gets to his feet and to do it prop-erly.

Mr LEWIS: Yes, Mr Speaker. I withdraw andapologise.

Debate Resumed

Mr LEWIS: It was recommended that thesite be sold and it was sold at half the price,$450 000 for 2 5 hectares of pri me lan d i n M id-land.

The incredible thing was that this propertygene rates a profit on the saleyard side of morethan $200 000 a year. If that were capitalised ata 15 per cent rate, the value of the salcyardalone would represent $1.3 million. What hasthe Government done? What is the bottomline? That whale parcel or land was sold for$450 000. Mr Ellett from Pilsley Investmentssays that he does not require the saleyard forhis brickworks, he requires it for a buffer zone.I ask the House: If he only needs it as a bufferzone, why did the Government Sell that part tohim? It could have given Mr Ellett the land forhis brickworks, retained the saleyard, and notbe faced with a bill five or six years later ofmore than $100000 to lease it back. In sixyears' time the Government will have to leaseback that land for another nine years-theMinister has not been brave enough to informthe Parliament or the public at what price. Ithas bcen suggested that on today's values it willcost the Government $120 000 a year to leaseback a saleyard it should never have sold. Thatis like my giving my motor car, which I useevery day of the week, to my neighbour andthen asking him every day whether I can hire itback. That i s what t he Govern ment has d one.

It was a dumb deal and it was done withcollusion, the Government had something tohide and that is why it did not bring this reportforward. The Opposition believes that; the ru-ral community of Western Australia believes it,the business community believes it; and thepublic of Western Australia believe it.

Two investigative journalists in Australiawere intrigued by the goings on;, one is AnthonyMcAdam, whose credits range far and wide,and the other is Professor Patrick O'Brien.These two journalists have written a bookcalled Burke's Shambles. Members will beinterested to know what this means. The defi-nition of 'burke" in the The Concise OxfordDictionary is "Avoid, smother, hush up,suppress." The definition of shambles is"Butcher's slaughterhouse, scene of carnage."Burke's shambles-how apt; the Governmentcover-u p of the M idl[and abatto irs.

2930

[Thursday, 18 June 19871 93

I will read some of the conclusions at the endof this book-

I . That the Midland abattoir andsalcyards site was sold without tenderfor a price considerably below its mar-ket value.

2. That political rather than commercialconsiderations were uppermost in thegovernment's thinking in pushing thesale through, as Dans virtually admit-ted in the Council.

3. That the submission, prepared on be-half of Ellett's 'company', and thebasis for the government's decision tosell to Ellett, contained false claimsabout vital matter.

4. That WADC's role raises manyserious questions about its effective-ness, usefulness and independence.

5. That the sale document of 15 Aprilwas, arguably, illegal, given that theMinister for Agriculture did not havethe authority to sell the land at thattime and, furthermore, the legal pro-cedures involving the Governor-inExecutive Council deserves furtherscrutiny, which is not to suggest orimply in any way that the Governorhimself behaved improperly.

6. That the Minister for Agriculture,Julian Grill, made several statementsto Parliament relating to central issuesin the abattoir sale which may havebeen misleading, most notably in re-gard to the valuations which bad beenmade of the site.

7. That the government secured no bind-ing guarantees from the purchaser asto the future of the salcyards and thusjeopardised a major public asset. Mid-land being the only central saleyard inthe state. The replacement cost (to becarried by the taxpayer) has beenestimated at $30 million and couldrun as high as $100 million if onetakes into account the possibility offuture cost blow-outs and the need foradequate infrastructural support (i.e.roads, rail and effluent disposal facili-ties).

8. That the stock-selling side of the in-dustry was not consulted before thesale and their wishes effectivelyignored, even though the livelihoodsof thousands of country people mightbe affected.

9. That contrary to the Government'sclaims that a new brickworks wouldcreate jobs, all the expert evidencesuggests the opposite (for example theCABR report and the evidence of MrMcKenzie ofGHD Dwyer).

10. That a public servant, Paul Regan, ad-visor to the Minister for Agriculture.on several occasions contacted keywitnesses and potential witnesses tothe two Parliamentary committees ina manner often perceived as'threatening'.

11. That the Assembly Committee en-quiry into the sale was unsatisfactoryand the manner in which its MajorityReport was compiled was possibly inconflict with Parliamentary StandingOrders.

12. That not all witnesses who could havegiven vital evidence were called beforethe Legislative Assembly Committee.

13. That transcripts of in camera evidencegiven to the Assembly Committeewere ordered to be destroyed, a cir-cumstance which raises serious ques-tions about the handling of evidencegiven before Parlimentary com-mittees.

14. That Ellett and Ryan did not, on theevidence of the Assembly MinorityReport, give the Parliamentary com-mittees the full details of their centralrelationship in open hearing.

Points of OrderMr BRYCE: I know that my interest is

shared by everybody else in the House. Wewould like the member for East Melville toshare with the rest of us the documents fromwhich he has just been quoting. He has beenobscure about the source. We would appreciatean opportunity, since we have had to listen, tolook at the documents when the member hasfinished his comments.

Mr WATT: The Standing Orders wereamended recently. I think Standing Order No.231A provides that only a Minister can berequired to table documents. There is no pro-vision in the Standing Orders for any othermember to be required to.

Mr Parker: He is requesting, not requiring.Mr BRYCE: The interjection from the Min-

ister for Minerals and Energy is precisely thepoint. Far be it from me to suggest any sort ofcompulsion. You, Sir, read to this House acouple of days ago the latest Standing Order

2931

2932 ASSEMBLY]

pertaining to this issue, and that is preciselywhy I asked the member for East Melville. Iemphasise the word "asked". It is a matter ofcourtesy for members to be asked to tabledocuments.

Several members interjected.Mr Laurance: Old smokey!An Opposition member: Go home, billiard

ball!The SPEAKER: I do not think the interjec-

tions help. Was that a reference to mue?Mr Bryce: No-one as young and fit as you

could be mistaken for old smokey.The SPEAKER: This can only be a request.

May I take the opportunity of advising themember for East Melville that he is at liberty atthe conclusion of his speech to lay those docu-ments on the Table of the House for the bal-ance of this sitting if he so desires.

Debate ResumedMr LEWIS: I will continue-

1 5. That the Government of WAdemonstrated serious disregard forParliament and for the users of thesaleyards by not securing formalguarantees for the salcyards, byfinalising the sale white the AssemblyCommittee was still sitting and by notnotifying the government-organisedliaison cornmittee of i nterested particsof the sale and its true likelyconsequences.

16. That the Government put the Parlia-mentary system in jeopardy bydenigrating the upper House of Parlia-ment and its role as set out in theConstitution of Western Australia.

1 7. That the Government compounded itsabysmal record of secrecy bydeliberately ensuring that no debateon the Assembly Report could takeplace, in spite of -repeated assurancesby government ministers to the con-trary.

1 8. That if the way the government hasconducted itself in the Midland abat-toir affair is any reflection of its widertrusteeship of the public interest thenfair and open Parliamentary govern-ment in Western Australia is at risk.

The minority report found very similarly tomost of those things, particularly as to thestrong suspicion of collusion between the twoprincipal people who negotiated the sale.Nothing was done about it, notwithstandingwhat was requested to be done.

Concerning what I have read, as I have said,this book is to be published in the near future.It is called, Burke's Shambles, and I wouldcommend members of the Government to readit; they may learn something.

This whole matter of the sale of the MidlandAbattoirs brings no credit to the Governmentor to this Parliament. I still believe thereshould be a judicial inquiry into its sale,thereby clearing up any innuendo about col-lusion between the principal players in the deal.It is a sorry matter and I am not proud to be aparty to it.

Point of OrderMr BRYCE: Is it now ippropriate for me to

ask the member for East Melville to show thegumption, guts and substance to table thepapers? We would like some indication ofwhether he will shrink back into the blueleather.

Several members interjected.Mr Laurance: You should stand up if you

want to raise a point of order.The SPEAKER: You should not do that

when we are taking points of order. It is for meto decide. The member for East Melville has anopportunity, if he wants to take advantage of itbefore I call on the next member, to lay thosedocuments on the Table of the House.

M r LEWIS: No.Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! If we cannot have a

bit of order I may just as well go home. Youcould probably all follow me.

Several members interjected.

Debate ResumedMR STEPHENS (Stirling) [5.05 am]: I

realise that the hour is late, but I had no inten-tion of trying to speak over that noise. I will tryto keep my remarks brief. If everybody keepsqu iet we w ill get th rough it m ore qu ic kly.

I am glad the Minister for Transport is here,it is unfortunate that the Minister responsiblefor "Albany Tomorrow" and the South WestDevelopment Authority is not in the House. Inthe latest edition of Farmers weekly there is anarticle on Albany's future being in jeopardy. itis a very serious issue. For two or three years agreat fight ran to preserve Albany as a sailingcentre. I know time flies quickly, but within thelast 12 months those of us who have an interestin Albany, certainly the woolgrowers in the re-gion, thought the matter had been resolved. We

2932

[Thursday, I8 June 1987) 23

thought that freight rates on rail and sea wouldbe separated. This article on Albany's positionappeared in the paper. It deals with Albany'sposition as a wool handling port, and it reads-

In negotiations with the Australia toEurope Shipping Conference on June 5and 6. it was agreed that the cost ofcentralising wool to shipping ports fromoutports. such as Albany. would no longerbe included within the freight rate andwould be charged directly to growers' ac-counts.

Mr Tiny: The Minister for Regional Devel-opment has already taken some action.

Mr STEPHENS: I am very pleased to hearthat, because it is important not only for theregion of Albany but for woolgrowers generally.If wool handling is centralised, or if shipping iscentralised in Fremantle, they do not have thefacilities to handle the wool. Additional facili-ties would be required and we know who will payfor them. It will be the growerand no-one else.

I am not being critical of the Government. Iknow it has assisted in the past. I am raisingthis issue to bring it before the committee, andI hope for some assistance to retain Albany as awool handling centre.

Mr Troy: The process has been initiated.

Mr D. L. Smith: It is important; I am glad ithas been raised.

Mr STEPHENS: A less fortunate matter thatI wish to bring to the attention of the House-and it is a matter about which I have spoken onseveral occasions over the last couple of years.and a matter about which I have had communi-cation with thc Premier-is the question of theproblems in the Albany Town Council. I havecalled for a standing committee and also for aselect committee, but without success. TheGovernment has not been prepared to take thematter up; I suppose I should really aim thebarb at the Minister for Local Government.who has direct responsibility for the matter.

There is a problem in Albany, and I urge theGovernment to give serious consideration toholding an inquiry. Some time ago there was aconsultant's report from J. P. Young and As-sociates into the administration of the Town ofAlbany. That report cost the taxpayers some$20 000. The report was never released to theratepayers, but I did quote from it in the Houselast year, and it was quite obvious there weremany weaknesses in the adminstration of the

council. I believe that the reason the councildid not release the report to the public was thatit reflected upon senior administrative staff.

Mr Brian Burke: It is a bit of a personalbattle down there.

Mr STEPHENS: That is pant of it, but it ismore than that. The problem is there, and thereis no question that it is affecting the town. TheMinister has said that I should give him somehard evidence, and he will act on it. At onestage of the game down there we had the townclerk being overpaid for six months. He admit-ted in open council that he was overpaid. How-ever, after a series of questions in this House,the Minister told me that the town clerk waspaid appropriate to the award. That investi-gation was certainly nothing more than a white-wash.

Mr Brian Burke: The town clerk might havebeen mistaken.

Mr STEPHENS: I cannot imagine that, be-cause subsequently the town council carried amotion which in effect retrospectivelyvalidated the overpayment.

Mr Pearce: You ask us to keep off the backsof local government, yet when you have a prob-lem, you ask us to do something.

Mr STEPHENS: Yes, because when there isa problem, it has to be resolved, and when thecouncil has not been shown to be capable ofresolving it-

Mr Brian Burke: I sent a senior officer. LesSmith, down to Albany. and we went throughthe matter in every way, and it is a whole tur-moil of personalities and history, and there isnot much hard evidence about anything.

Mr STEPHENS: It was said, "Convince LesSmith, and you have convinced me," and Ibelieve that Les Smith was convinced. I thinkthe Premier would find that difficult to refute.

Mr Brian Burke: That is not what he told me.

Mr STEPHENS: If the Premier would allowme to continue to develop what I have to saywithout interruption, I will finish quickly andhe will be able to go home to mother muchsooner.

Two points are raised: Either theinvestigating officer misled the Minister or theinvestigating officer was misled by theadministration in Albany: or alternatively, itraises the very serious question of the impar-tiality of the department in protecting what wasgoing on down there.

2933

2934 [ASSEMBLY]

I would like to raise now what I believe to bea very serious matter, of which I have made theMinister aware. To be fair to him, he has nothad the opportunity to investigate it and comeback to me with a response. The matter con-cerns the circumstances surmounding the dis-missal of the finance officer. I have two affi-davits on the matter, and I am happy to para-phrase them and quote from one or the other,but I would seek leave of the House to havethese affidavits incorporated in Hiansard sothat it can never be said that in paraphrasing orjust quoting from them, I was being exceed-ingly selective.

The SPEAKER: I find myself in a difficultposition because I have discussed this matteralready with the member and indicated to himthat I felt this was an appropriate course ofaction. However. i am told that this would con-travene our Star ding Orders because we reallydo not know what is in those documents. Ithink under the circumstances I am going tohave to ask the member to read them. I knowthat is different from what we discussed.

Mr STEPHENS: My intention was to savetime, and also by 'taving them incorporated, Iwould hold myself free from any accusationthat I was being selective.

Mr Brian Burke: Why not quote selectively,and then table them?

The SPEAKER: Could we handle it this way:The member might paraphrase them and passthem over to the Government, and the Minis-ter might consider tabling them.

Mr STEPHENS: What I will do, in the spiritof compromise, is read one and just make a fewquotes from the other, which really supportsthe first one. ItI states-

Tuesday. 11.00 am received instructionsfrom Peter Madigan to prepare a set ofaccounts andi projections for the balance ofthe year, in conjunction with GarryBrown, the leisure centre manager.

Tuesday pm about 7, the accounts werefinished and were typed the following daya.m. Wednesday, Peter Madigan cameback with the accounts as typed, and saidthat he could not use the account(S 136 000.00 deficit) as it would not beaccepted that an account of about$ tOO 000.00 deficit would do.

Since Peter Madigan had virtually beenmy mentor since I came and since he alsowas the committee officer for thepool/leisure centre, I understood it that heknew better the situation than I did (I did

the accountants projection) so I changedth e n umbe r to $ 100 000.00 by i ncreasi ngthe income.

The centre manager agreed with myn umrbers. AIt hough I repo rt on paper to thetown clerk, all my instructions have beenreceived from Peter Madigan.

I was called to a meeting at It .00 am onThursday, consisting of the town clerk,deputy town clerk, director of works andtechnical services, the centre manager andmyself.

It was pointed out by the town clerk thatI had not informed him of the large deficitof the centre before, ts a financial officer Ishould have done so. Se:veral other itemswere discussed.

On Monday night 4/4.30 pm. I had theopportunity (difficult with B.L.) to talkwith Brian Leigh. And it came out that onhis enquiring~ that the numbers werechanged on iiistruction by the deputy townclerk. I showed him my work papers (nowretained by the town clerk) and he agreedwith what I saw. He immediately hurriedupstairs to Ian Hill and closed the door tohis office. I left ten minutes later, and theywere still in the office.

Thursday 10.00 am. I was called to IanHill's office (present Brian Leigh). A taperecorder was put on the table and I wasasked to go through what I had talked withBrian Leigh about the night before. Onfinishing the questions and answer sessionthe town clerk said that he now was fullyconvinced that he had been misled andthat I had falsified the report, and that Ishould think seriously about my position.

I then asked if I should think right now,and he said no.

I was sent out and about half an hourlater cal led i n a nd tolId that I was d ism issedbecause of misconduct.

(Earlier in the year)--

1 . In retrospect-when I previouslymentioned to Peter Madigan that Ithought that the swimming pool wasnot going so well, I was told not toworry that this was looked after byPeter Madigan.

2. There has been a switch-all my re-ports and instructions (except a few)have been through Peter Madigan

2934

(Thursday. l8 June 19871 23

dispite the paper which shows myreporting to the town clerk-the townclerk rarely has time!

In effect that means that the finance officercarried out instructions to reduce the deficitfrom $ 136 000 to $ 100 000. He did that andthen was dismissed for gross misconduct forcarrying out orders. I think that is reprehen-sible and really should be investigated.

Mr Parker Where did the $36 000 go?Mr STEPHENS: It did not go anywhere-it

was a projection.Mr Parker It was the projection of a future

budget? That is a bit different.Mr STEPHENS: Admittedly, but he carried

out, in consultation with the leisure centremanagement, what was a reasonable expect-ation. When he was told that was not accept-able they increased the income figure by$36 000 and just assumed they would get theextra income. However, it was a manipulationof the figures which was carried out under in-structions, and he was dismissed for it.

The other affidavit from the former managerof the leisure and aquatic centre is a far longerdocument, and I will not read all of it, but itdoes show continuing incompetence in the op-erat ions down there and it also verifies some ofthe comments made in the first affidavit whichI have just read in full. The second affidavitstates, inter alia-

When Georg and I were working on thefinancial report in February, 1987, PeterMadigan told Georg Jansen in mypresence, to make sure that the estimatesdid not exceed a $100 000 deficit.

So they were being told in effect to manipulateit there. Further on that officer said-

I mentioned at the Community PlanningCommittee meeting that I thought the poolwas too cold ... Because I brought up thisissue at this meeting, Peter Madigan andBrian Leigh called me to a meeting andlaid my job on the line. From this point onuntil my resignation I underwent consider-able mental harassment from both officers.I believe that was done in the hope that Iwould resigni.

The affidavit further stated-On the Thursday prior to the special

Community Planning Committee meetingregarding the Centre budget blow out,Brian Leigh called me into his office andgave me the option of resigning or beingfired. I resigned.

The tenor of the document is such that I be-lieve that once the incompetence was found theofficer, although not responsible for it, wasforced to carry the can.

I believe there are two situations involvedwhich are serious and really should beinvestigated. I am bringing it to the attention ofthe Parliament now and I hope that the Minis-ter will at last take some action. However, I amnot particularly encouraged because of his pastperformance.

Mr D, L. Smith: When did those declarationscome into existence?

Mr STEPHENS: They are signed but notdated, but it is within about the last threemonths. There is an indication in these docu-ments of mismanagement, and I believe thatthe people who were not responsible for themismanagement have been forced to carry theburden and are now no longer with the towncouncil. But, as though that is not bad enough,I believe the problems are continuing,

Mr Parker. Why do you think the memberfor Albany did not take this matter up? it is inhis electorate.

Mr STEPHENS: I know it is in his electorate,but he has chosen not to get involved. That ishis position.

Mr Watt: That is not right at all.Mr Brian Burke: The member for Albany

said you are not telling the truth.Mr Watt: No, I did not.Mr Brian Burke: You said what the member

for Stirling said was not right.Mr Watt He said I had chosen not to be

involved. I have never been appmoached aboutit.

Mr STEPHENS: I am sorry, but he was ap-proached.

Mr Watt: I have never been approached.Mr STEPHENS: Let me set the record

straight, although I am running out of time. Ifirst became involved in the matter about 2'/2years ago when a constituent in the Town ofAlbany came to me with his problems and toldme he had been to see the member for Albanyabout six weeks before but that he had donenothing.

M r Watt: You are talIki ng about two d ifferentissues.

Mr STEPHENS: No, the whole thing is acontinuing saga. The member for Albany maynot have been approached on this particularmatter, but the reason for that is that when he

2935

2936 [ASSEMBLY)

was first approached he chose not to becomeinvolved. He refused to get involved, and thisis all part of the same saga.

Mr Lightfoot: That is all he is saying; that hehas never been approached on this.

Mr Brian Burke: You cannot both be tellingthe truth.

Mr STEPHENS: I asked questions earlierthis evening with respect to a 14-page docu-ment that was sent by the Local GovernmentDepartment to the Town of Albany, and theMinister has confirmed that a 15-page budgetcritique was sent down there. A I 5-page budgetcritique would indicate that there are seri .ousdeficiencies in that budget but worse than that,I have been told quite categorically by a coun-cillor of the Town of Albany that these criti-cisms have never been tabled and the council-lors have never been made aware of the prob-lems: yet that letter was sent down there on 25September 1986.

During the period of time that they wereoperating without a finance officer, in order tocompensate the senior officers who werecarrying the extra workload occasioned becausethere was no finance officer, the town councilgranted those Officers an ex gratia payment ofsome $9 000 between three or four officers.The Minister refused to agree to the ex gratiapayment being paid, but they manipulatedaround it and finished up paying that $9 000-odd anyway. In addition to that, the deputytown clerk was given $4 000 additional to hissalary because of the added burden of his du-ties.

I mentioned a I 5-page critique on thebudget. In addition to that, the council had acontract with accountants to do the audit, andthat contract was for $5 500 provided thebooks were ready to be audited and required noextra work. The work has been carried out andthe town council has been given a Bill for$17000, $5 500 as per the contract and$1 1 500 to get the books into a suitable con-dition to be audited.

So in effect the ratepayers of the Town ofAlbany are now being called upon to pay a$9 000 ex gratia payment, $4 000 extra to thedeputy town clerk, and $11 500 extra to theaccounting firm to bring the books up to astandard suitable for audit.

Mr Parker: Would it not be a good idea toamalgamate the town and the shire?

Mr STEPHENS: It has nothing to do withthe town and the shire. Do not try to distractme. The ratepayers of Albany have been called

upon to meet approximately $25 000, yet theystill do not have any reasonable records kept.Furthermore, the decision to pay those extraamounts of money to senior council staff wasmade after that 15-page critique was received.The information was apparently suppressed orkept from the council. Had the councillors beenmade aware of it their decision to grant thisextra money-which is, after all, the rate-payers' money-would not have been made.

It is another example of the problems in theTown of Albany. They may have qualifiedprivileges but they are not prepared to take therisk because there are threats of libel action. Imade a truthful statement about the town clerkin the Albany newspaper. I went on record assaying that the town clerk had deliberately mis-led the Town of Albany with reference to usingthe wrong valuations. He claimed that the townhad been given approval for the Valuer Gen-eral's depantment and the Local GovernmentDepartment, and the Minister in this Houseindicated that no such approval had beengiven.

Mr Parker: But you were not in a privilegedposition.

Mr STEPHENS: I was in a position of privi-lege because it was a matter of public interest.Notwithstanding that, the town clerk issued aletter threatening to sue me for libel. Is theMinister a lawyer? I had the benefit of a verycapable lawyer. Perhaps members on the otherside of the House might know him. Hec is JamesMcCusker.

Mr Parker: James is the father.Mr STEPHENS: Sorry, I mean Malcolm. No

further action has been taken against me. Iraise that matter to indicate how they are verykeen to throw out these libel threats to suppresscriticism down there. Because of that, I think itis incumbent on this Government to carry outa full inquiry, be it by Standing Committee orSelect Committee, that gives the people whoare prepared to give evidence privilege andprotection. It is something that has been goingon for years and it will not go away. Over theyears, the town council has proved itselfcapable of resolving the situation. In theinterests of that town it is essential that some-thing be done.

Personally, there is nothing in it for me. I donot represent the town. I am a ratepayer and Ihave lived in that town since 1934. 1 have aninterest in the town being well run.

Mr Brian Burke: You have a long memoryand you bear a good grudge.

2936

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J193

Mr STEPHENS: This has nothing to do withmy bearing a grudge. I have no personal axe togrind other than to see justice done.

Mr Brian Burke: That is a laudable thing.

Mr STEPHENS: Okay, that is what I amchasing. One of these days the Minister, poss-ibly with the support of the Premier. maychoose to do something about it.!I rest my case.1 assure the Government the problem inAlbany will not go away. It cannot close its eyesto it, and the sooner it does something about it,the sooner the matter will be resolved and thetown can get on to the right course.

The SPEAKER: Before I give the memberfor Albany the call, I take the opportunity ofsaying that prior to the member for Stirlingmaking his speech 1 did give him a commit-ment in respect of those documents, and Iapologise for the inconvenience caused duringhis speech.

MR WATT (Albany) (5.35 am): I wish toexplain my position after allegations made bythe member for Stirling. The reason I deniedhaving been approached was that I was refer-ring specifically to the matter that was the sub-ject dealt with in those affidavits from whichhe quoted. With respect to the administrationof the Albany Town Council, it is true thatsome two-and-a-half years ago I met with someformer town councillors and spent a long timewith them, during which they went through arange of things. There was very l ittle they coulddemonstrate to me where the Local Govern-ment Act had been breached.

I put it to them that if it was necessary totake a formal complaint to the Minister, theywould need to demonstrate that such a breachhad occurred. They undertook to get the infor-mation for me. I have discussed it with theMinister for Local Government. as has themember for Stirling. I know that many otherpeople in the community have discussed it withboth h im and the Premtier and that the Premnierundertook certain inquiries on behalf of thosepeople.

1 gave a firm undertaking to the people con-cerned that I would be perfectly willing to ar-range a deputation to the Premier or the Minis-ter for Local Government if they would

provide the necessary details, and I would behappy to lead that deputation in order to seethat any malpractice-

M r Stephen s: Because of yo ur past i nput theyrefused-

Mr WATT: The member can call it whateverhe likes. H-e is a smart alec. He is involved asmuch as anyone else in the personality conflict.

Mr Stephens interjected.Mr WATT: Of course he is, blind Freddy can

see that. I have given an undertaking to lead adeputation.

M r Stephens: You ducked the issue.Mr WATT: The member should not say I

ducked the issue. The member is talking a lotof nonsense. I told those people I was preparedto lead a deputation. The ball was in theircourt. They never came back to me with thefirm information I asked them to obtain, so ifthey think I am indifferent I would say thatthey are indifferent as well.

MR BLAIKIE (Vasse) 15.38 am): There arethree matters I wish to raise. They are matters Iregard as being of some consequence and ap-propriate to be discussed during this oppor-tunity for private members.

My first matter relates to the question of lawand order as it concerns me and certain of myconstituents in relation to staffing by the policein my electorate. The Minister for Police andEmergency Services has already receivedcommunicatons from the Chamber of Com-merce in DunSborough, and the shire councilhas received communications from me.

There has been a fairly significant move ofpeople into the south west. It has been reportedthat people in the south west fear that hooli-gans who used to invade Rottniest Island overthe long weekends, now head to the south west.The report said that Margaret River wasflooded by some 20 000 people over Easter.There were petrol bombings, there were shots,and people were stoned. The telephone ranghot at the local police station as complaintsfrom terrified people poured in abouthooliganism, noise, and drunkenness.

The situation was described in the localnewspaper as follows-

Police arrested I17 and issued 30summonses-but they were so out-numbered they just couldn't seize dozensmore who should have been picked up.

On Saturday night, police were abusedwherever they went-cans and rocks werehurled at their vehicles.

2937

2938 [ASSEMBLY]

Petrol bombs were thrown at the oldmill building and police went to two break-ins. three traffic accidents, and two inci-dents involving firearms.

One youth was arrested for allegedlyurinating on a police car with the officerinside.

Around 700 people crammed into thetavern which was closed at 10.30 pm bypolice before drunks got out of hand.

Police were called out to a caravanpark-where about 1 200 people hadcamped-after complaints of reckless driv-ing.

One popular inlet had about 500 peoplecamped in the car park.

In one of the firearm incidents, a manwas shot at near the local tip and in theother, a woman who had been thrown outof a caravan park early Friday morning.started shooting at Wilyabrup.

The eight officers worked 12-hour shiftsand one officer claimed 14 hours' over-time.

There is a real feeling in the south west that thehooliganism that used to pervade Rottnest hasmoved south.

I have indicated what happened in relationto Margaret River. A similar, major concern isalso felt in Dunsborough. The shire councilwmote to the Minister raising its concern in re-spect of the lack of staff and the need for a full-time police presence in the Dunsborough-Yallingup region. The letter read in part as fol-lows-

However, this procedure does not ap-pear to be of any assistance to the residentsof Dunsborough or Yallingup because ofthe unavailability of manpower at theBusselton Police Station during the hoursof 11.00 pm onwards and calls which arethen relayed to the Bunbury Station arenot acted upon until the next day.

It should be clearly understood that thisexpression of concern is in no way, an ex-pression of dissatisfaction with the existinghigh standard and efficient operation ofthe current work force, but with the lack ofmanpower resources at particular times.

The real concern in the community is the lackof police presence and adequate manpower.Since 1980 the Busselton police station has hada total staffing level of I I officers, and thatlevel has remained the same to the presenttime. However in the same period there has

been a significant increase in the population ofthe total area, and this increases concern evenfurther. The Minister's department could showhim statistics which show how the work levelhas increased, but the important point is thatfor significant periods during these limes ofhigh visitor activity the Busselton area is leftunattended when officers attend to matters inthe Dunsborougb-Yallingup area. Alternativelywhen officers attend to their duties and calls inthe Busselton area, the Dunsborough-Yallinguparea simply does not have any officers at all.Therefore the Minister has been requested tomeet with the local community and more im-portantly to have on the works programme forthis year the commencement of a police stationwhich will give a full-time police presence in theYallingup-Dunsborough area. Already a com-mitment has been made for a full-time policepresence at Augusta, and I compliment the Min-ister for that. However the Dunsborougb-Yallingup area is facing matters of seriousconcern.

The second matter I raise relates to a petitionI tabled in the House yesterday in respect ofReserve No A 1720 at King's Park. That is thereserve on which Bernies hamburger bar is situ-ated. I have previously expressed my concernat the activities of the Western Australian De-velopment Corporation in relation to that areaof land. I will not canvass all those matters.

Mr Parker Do you still hold the view thatBernies should be classified by the NationalTrust?

Mr BLAIKIE: I did not say that was myview; I simply tabled a letter writen by Briga-dier John Roberts, who at that stage was thePresident of the National Trust, to the familycommending them and supporting them intheir endeavours to have it classified by theNational Trust. I simply tabled John Roberts'letter. I support John Roberts; I think he is anoutstanding person.

The latest development in respect of theongoing saga of Bernies hamburger bar relatesto workers from the Water Authority who sawthe proprietor yesterday and said they wantedto inspect the water pipe going through hisproperty. Their purpose was to assess howmuch it would cost to move it from one end ofthe property to the other, so that they couldknow what to charge the new owner. Thetragedy is that Mel Hardwick is trying tooperate a business while workmen from theWater Authority appear to know more aboutwhat is going on than he does. The workersfrom the Water Authority said that they were

2938

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J193

directed to assess the costs of moving thismajor pipeline so that they would know whatprice to charge the new owner. From thattime yesterday until now, Mr Hardwick has notlearnt any more than what the workmen toldhim.

Mr Court: The Government is out to gethim.

Mr BLAIKIE: I think it is quite obvious.Mr Parker interjected.Mr BLAIKIE: If it is the Minister's objective

to make rational use of the Government'sassets, he should have the courtesy to tell thefellow what is going to happen.

Mr Parker: He could read it in the Press.Mr BLAIKIE: It has not been in the Press

from the Minister's office or his department.None of the Government officers or employeeshave indicated what will happen withHardwick's lease. If the Minister is going totake the lease from the fellow, he should havethe courtesy to write to him and tell him. if theMinister is not going to take the lease from him,for goodness sake tell h im. However there wereWater Authority workers at Bernies yesterdaymorning assessing the costs to the new owner.That is not the way to do business. It is down-ight despicable, and there should be a degree ofdecency where the Minister is obliged at least totell the fellow what he is going to do.

Mr Pearce interjected.Mr BLAIKIE: I am not saying the property

has been disposed of.I am saying there are workers on site who are

assessing the costs for the new owner. This fel-low is trying to run his business but does notknow whether he has a lease.

The next point I raise relates to the pastoralindustry and the Emanuel and ALCCQ leases.It is interesting to see what has happened in thethree or four years since the Government pur-chased the Emanuel leases. Part of that pur-chase price was $6 million from the Common-wealth for restructuring the leases providedthat part of the land was made available to theAboriginal people. The Government in an-nouncing the purchase of the Emanuel leasessaid it intended to resume the ALCCO leases.At the time the Opposition was very critical ofExim's ability to perform in a managementsense. It is now a very sad fact that Exim hasperformed very poorly, and its involvement inthe Kimberley is regarded as a sorry and sordidstory.

Mr Parker: By whom? That is not true. If youtalk to the president of the Pastoralists andGraziers Association he will tell you the op-posite, as would the president of the pastoralgroup in the Farmers Federation.

Mr BLAIKIE: Has the Minister bothered totalk to pastoralists in the Kirmberley?

Mr Parker: Yes. They will tell you the op-posite, too.

Mr BLAIKIE: Name one.

M r Brian Burke: Max Cameron is one.Mr BLAIKIE: He is not a Kimberley pastor-

a list.Mr Brian Burke: HeI is the president of the

PGA.Mr BLAIKIE: One of the tragedies of Exim's

involvement is that the Government may wellwish to impose corporate management struc-tures, but when they are run with a St George'sTerrace mentality they are doomed to failure,and in this case it has failed. It would be theunderstatement of the year to say that Exim'sinvolvement in the Kimberley has been a mostunhappy event.

The Government announced this year itwould legislate to take the pastoral leases awayfrom ALCCO. It indicated one of the reasonsfor doing this, among many, was the company'slack of performance with the brucellosis andtuberculosis eradication programme. That ac-tion by the Government caused widespreadconcern. One of the concerns raised was thatwhatever faults and warts the company had italso had an action against the Government be-fore the courts, and that had been going on forsome time. The Government was not preparedto let the company have its say in court; itwanted to use the force of Parliament to carryout its will rather than let the courts decide.

Mr Pearce: The company did not want to goto court; it was delaying the whole matter.

Mr Court: It did not have any choice. Youtook them to court. Are you saying it was tryingto delay the legal proceedings?

Mr Pearce: Exactly.

Mr Brian Burke: A lot of people try to dothat when they do not have a strong case.

Mr Court: The Premier is accusing them ofdelaying proceedings.

Mr Brian Burke: I am saying a lot of peopletry to delay hearings when they do not have astrong case.

2939

2940 [ASSEM BLYJ

Mr BLAIKIE: Does the Premier believeALCCO was delaying the passage of the casethrough the courts?

Mr Brian Burke: I thought they were cer-tainly trying to hold up the hearing.

Mr BLAIKIE: That may be the Govern-ment's view. If I had been on the Governmentbenches. I would have expedited whatever pro-cess there was in the courts.

The Government made public statementsthat it would legislate to deny the company thatright. That action precipitated a great deal ofdiscussion between the various farmer groupsand pastoralists in pastoral areas. I had an op-portunity a couple of weeks ago to go with themember for Nedlands and meet 31 first hand anumber of pastoralists in the Kimberley. andwe had a look at the ALCCO leases. There is nodoubt in my mind, and I have alreadyexpressed this view to the company, that theALCCO leases were in a very poor state ofmanagement.

One of the things that came out in discussionwith the pastoralists. who were also mostunimpressed, was their concern at the legislat-ive action which might be taken. The reason somany of them expressed concern was they feltthat if the Government took action againstALCCO in Parliament. future Governmentscould do it whenever they wished. That was agenuine fear expressed by the pastoralists.

A series of matters were raised while we werethere, and I want to detail some of the concernwhich was expressed. One of the unpre-cedented things ALCCO did was that it tookout advertisements in all the newspapers inWestern Australia pleading its defence as towhy the Government should not legislate. Howcorrect the company's case or the Govern-ment's case was I do not know because I amnot aware of the full details. However, I believethe Government should have negotiated more.

Mr Wilson: The Government is negotiating.

Mr BLAIKIE: It is now. The Governmenthas proceeded and negotiated. Whether itdrove AICCO to the conference table or itcame reluctantly or otherwise, it is there andnegotiations are taking place. The Ministerdoes not tell us much in this House.

Mr Wilson: I do not want you to prejudicethose negotiations.

Mr BLAIKIE: I do not intend to. The Minis-ter must be fair, none of my actions hasprejudiced anything.

Mr Wilson: I will give you that credit, but Iwill not give it to the member for Nedlands.

Mr BLAtKlE: I have been very conscious ofthe sensitive situation that both the Govern-ment and the company may have found them-selves in. Notwithstanding that, the Minister'spredecessors should have got back to the nego-tiating table earlier. If the company was notprepared to negotiate and get involved in theBTEC programnme and deal with the leases, itwas time to comne back to the Parliament andsay that the Government was dealing with arogue company which refused to negotiate. I donot believe every attempt was made to nego-tiate.

Mr Wilson: Every attempt is being made onthe basis of a proposal which has been put for-ward by the Leader of the National Party andthe PGA.

Mr Court: What are you implying about myinvolvement?

Mr Wilson: I know about your inflammatorystatements.

Mr Court: Don't make allegations if you arenot prepared to say what you mean.

Mr BLAIKIE: There are a number of othermatters that I want to raise. However, I want tofirst of all emphasise that, although the nego-tiations are taking place now, it is a tragedythat they were not hurried up a couple of yearsago. I suggest that the reason they were nothurried up was because of the CommonwealthGovernment's commitment to provide land forAboriginal people by way of a $6 million grant.The Government intended purchasing theEmanuel leases, resuming the ALCCO, leases.and then leasing part of them to Aborigines,thereby fulfilling its obligation to the Common-wealth for Aboriginal land. I cannot find anyother reason for the Ministers predecessors be-ing so tardy. The record will advise us whathappened in due course.

The trip to the north was very revealing tome. I am relating 10 the House tonight whathappened on that trip because 1 believe theMinister should be aware of a point of viewfrom this side of the House about what webelieve is happening in the Kimberley in re-lation to the ALCCO and Emanuel leases.Without question, there is widespread concernabout the management of the ALCCO leases.However, there is wider concern that thecompany is not performing as it should be inrelation to the brucellosis and tuberculosis pro-grammies.

Mr Wilson: That is our greatest concern also.

2940

jThursday. 18 June 1987]194

Mr BLAIKIE: The Government initiallypmoposed to have Western Australian LivestockHoldings play either a management ora consult-ant role in resuming the ALCCO leases. TheGovernment should have put the fear of thedevil into the pastoralists. It might well have gotaway with it if it had nol said that WA LivestockHoldings would be used on a managerial basis.

That brings me to another point, the totalrejection of Exim Corporation and its perform-ance and involvement in the pastoral industryand particularly in the Emanuel leases.

Mr Parker: That is not true.

Mr BLAIKIE: I am giving this House a veryfair and honest account of the circumstances asI saw them. If the circumstances are differentin the eyes of the Minister, so be it.

Mr Parker: It is not the view of any otherperson who has communicated with me.

Mr BLAIKIE: If the circumstances are differ-ent in the Minister's eyes, he can tell us aboutit. However, for the first time in this Parlia-ment, somebody is prepared to make ajudgment of what is happening in theKimberley.

Because of its isolation, it is difficult formembers to get there. I can assure the Ministerthat the advice the Minister receives is only theadvice that is transmitted to him and it maynot be what is presently going on there.

Mr Parker That is not true. I was up there.

Mr BLAIKIE: He was there the morning wewere there. There has always been widespreadconcern in the industry about its inability tocommunicate, even with its own organisations.It saw certain things that were happening whichconcerned the industry but it was not able toget a message through.

We asked the Government whether there hadbeen any moves to sell Meda Station. We mayhave worded the question wrongly and directedit to the wrong Minister because the answer wegot was that the sale was not on. However,when we were in the Kimberley we were told anumber of times that Meda Station was undersome form of option for sale to a Peter Murray.Apparently the option ran out on the Tuesdayor Wednesday after we were there. Either theParliament has been sold a bum steer or all ofthe pastoralists in the Kimberley area were solda bum steer. I believe that either we did not askthe question properly or we were not told thefacts.

There is concern about Aboriginal groupsgaining more land in the Fitzroy Valley. I thinkthat, irrespective of making racist comments,pastoralists are concerned that if excisions aremade in the way they are intended to be made,they will isolate many pastoral properties. itshould be recognised that there should be someform of provision for Aboriginal people. I-ow-ever, there is a clear concern that ad hocgranting of excisions and claims will causetrouble in the industry, particularly in theFitzroy Valley.

Future Governments, whether they areLabor or Liberal, should ensure that allleaseholders meet their obligations as far as isreasonably possible allowing for the prevailingcircumstances. The Government, though,should have regard for such things as weatherconditions and stock prices at the time. Itshould also ensure that the obligations are metby Aboriginal leaseholders as well. They arealso Western Australians. They are not specialpeople deserving of special privileges.

If there is to be a restructuring of the proper-ties in the Kimberley it has to be done with theknowledge and input of the local people be-cause what is happening now has already beenrejected by the pastoralists in the area.

MR BRIAN BURKCE (Balga-Treasurer)(6.09 am]: I thank members for their contri-bution to this debate. Without answering theindividual points raised, they will be judged ontheir merits, It is late and I will not delay theHouse any longer except to say that the pointsraised have been noted.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee, etc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third time, on motion by Mr Brian

Burke (Treasurer), and transmitted to theCouncil.

TREASURER'S ADVANCEAUTHORIZATION BILL

Second ReadingDebate resumed from 20 May.MR iacKINNON (Murdoch-Leader of

the Opposition) [6. 12 amJ: It is necessary for asum of money to be provided as an advance to

2941

2942 [ASSEMBLY]

enable the Treasurer to pay unforeseen ex-penses or to make advances to authorities, asnecessary. These advances or payments arethen charged against the Consolidated RevenueFund or the General Loan Fund, when they areeventually finalised later in the year.

The actual process changed along with theintroduction of the Financial Administrationand Audit Act. The main point to note is that.under Ihe new system, the advance is an auth-orisation, as opposed to the previous practiceof actually appropriating money.

In 1985-86, under the old system, $145million was appropriated for advances. In1986-87, the figure was $150 million author-ised under the new system. For 1987-88. theTreasurer is seeking approval for $175 million.That is $25 million or 17 per cent higher thanlast year.

The previous accounting arrangementswhich have operated for many years are notstrictly covered by parliamentary authoris-ation, a matter commented on by the AuditorGeneral. The changed arrangements will rectifythat position.

The Opposition has pleasure in supportingthe Bill.

MR BRIAN BURKE (Balga-Treasurer)16.14 am): I thank the Opposition for its sup-port of the Bill.

Question put and passed.Sill read a second time.

In Coinmitteec. etc.Bill passed through Committee without de-

bate, reported without amendment, and the re-port adopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third time, on motion by Mr Brian

Burke (Treasurer). and transmitted to theCouncil.

LAND AMENDMENT BILLIntroduction and First Reading

Bill introduced, on motion by Mr Wilson(Minister for Lands), and read a first time.

Second ReadingMR WILSON (Nollamara-Minister for

Lands) 16.1 7 am]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

The question of affording pastoralists a moresecure tenure than that currently prevailing-all pastoral leases are due to expire on 30 June

201 5-has been a topic for discussion over aperiod of years, both within the pastoral indus-try and in Government.

It became obvious to this Government thatthere was a need to review and overhaul thepresent leasehold system together with a closelook at existing lease conditions and the rightsof pastoral lessees.

The last comprehensive amendments to theLand Act involving the term of pastoral leaseswas in 1963 when, following a committee ofinquiry's report and recommendations toGovernment, all leases, at that time due to ex-pire on 31 December 1982. were extended to30 June 2015.

Industry representatives have pointed outthat as the date of lease expiry approaches, thediminishing term inhibits the continuing devel-opment of the pastoral lease and impacts onthe ability to obtain advances from banks andfinancial institutions. Investment in stationproperties would not be made if the remainingterm of the lease were of insufficient durationto recoup that expendliture.

Towards the end of 1984 the Premier helddiscussions with representatives of the industryfrom which emanated a request that a workingparty be established to develop the termsunder, and the method by which, continuous orinfinite term leases might be granted. Prior tothose discussions the Government had alreadycollated a great deal of information on tenuresystems in other States and New Zealand.

In 1983, a senior officer of the PastoralBoard was sent by the then Minister forLands--on. Ken Mclver-to some of theeastern States where pastoral lease tenuresexisted. The Government was, by that time,convinced that there was a need to examine thequestion overall, not only tenure itself, but alsothe attendant conditions and requirementsimposed under the existing pastoral leasesystem.

In February 1985. the Governmentappointed the pastoral tenure study groupunder the chairmanship of Mr Max Cameron,the President of the Pastoralists and GraziersAssociation. The group comprised representa-tives of the pastoral industry, banking interestsand Government.

The final report of the study group waspublished in February 1986. and circulated forpublic discussion. From that total process, theGovernment has agreed to introduce this legis-

2942

(Thursday, 18 June 1987] 94

lation which will go a long way towardsremedying many of the deficiencies pastoralistsperceive in the existing Act.

The amount of Crown land occupied by pas-toral leases is approximately 95.5 million hec-tares or about 37 per cent of the total area ofthe State. There are some 530 leases includinga number of small areas in the South-WestLand Division and which are not "stauion"properties in the accepted pastoral sense. TheJennings Report of 1979 on the pastoral indus-try quoted 427 station businesses within theindustry. These figures' ilustrate the import-ance of the industry to the economy of theState.

Turning to the specific provisions of this Bill.I will explain the salient features. Fundamentalto the whole of the changes proposed is thatrelating to the lease term.

As indicated earlier, all current pastoralleases in the State are due to expire on 30 June2015. and this Bill provides for a continuous orinfinite term lease to replace those in cases ap-proved by the Minister.

The Bill requires lessees to make applicationfor a continuous form of lease within aprescribed period of time, but, preserves thelessees' option of retaining the existing form oflease where it is decided not to apply. It isenvisaged that the majority of leases will beconvented to a perpetual form but there will beinstances where the existing fixed term to 30June 2015 will remain. At this point I anticipatethat most of these will be in the South-West Land Division in predominantly agricul-tural areas or in close proximity to farmingland as distinct from pastoral regions.

The second very important change from thepresent Land Act provisions relates to leaseforfeiture. The Land Act provides for forfeitureof any type of lease for non-compliance withconditions. This ultimate penalty is notconfined to pastoral leases: other forms ofCrown lease are subject to general forfeitureprovisions for breach of conditions.

This Bill will replace forfeiture of a pastorallease with a method of resumption with com-pensation to the pastoralist based on the valueof the lease for pastoral purposes less theamount of outstanding rentals, coupled withthe cost of implementing necessary rangelandrestoration works or repairing or renewing im-provements. which deficiencies led to the re-sumption for the breach of lease conditions.This is a major departure from the long-stand-ing lease forfeiture penalty-

A third area of substantial change concernsstocking of pastoral leases. The existing Statuterequires a pastoralist to stock and keep stockedhis lease in accordance with numbers--eithersheep or cattle, or a combination of both-directed by the Pastoral Board. This require-ment will be completely removed so that thereis no obligation upon a lessee to depasture anyminimum number of animals on his lease. Hemay leave it bare of stock.

Conversely, there will continue to be a limi-tation on the maximum number of stock thatmay be placed on a lease with the PastoralBoard and the Commissioner of Soil Conser-vation having the central role in takingmeasures to prevent degradation and degener-ation of the rangeland by excessive grazingpractices.

The Commissioner of Soil Conservation willbe empowered to issue soil conservation no-tices and otherwise direct requirements in re-spect of stocking the land comprised in thelease. Lessees will no longer be required to sub-mit plans of proposed development for Pas-toral Board approval each five years, but theprovision to carry out improvements such asfencing, waters, yards, etc., and maintainingthose improvements in good condition, will re-main. The Pastoral Board will regulate theseconditions.

The 1963 Land Act amendments, referred toearlier, reduced the period between lease rentalreappraisements from 1 5 years to 10 years. In1982 further amending provisions allowed forrent reviews to be effected at intervals of sevenyears.

The last of these dates from I July 1984.

This Bill proposes that the period betweenrent reassessments be now four years with thefirst review under the new system occurring onI July 1990. The right of appeal within threemonths of a periodical rental reappraisement isto be maintained. Currently, the total annualrental paid on all pastoral leases in the Stateapproximates $495 000.

Composition of the Pastoral Board will beincreased under this measure. There currentlyare five members on this board, including thechairman. The pastoral industry is representedby two members while the remaining two areGovernment officers, one of whom is the Di-rector of Agriculture ex officio. It is intended toexpand the complement of the board by theaddition of another pastoral industry represen-

2943

2944 [ASSEMBLY]

tative plus a Government officer with expertisein the field of wildlife conservation or landmanagement.

The board will then total seven members,including the chairman. While it is not necess-ary to legislate to appoint a full-time chairman,it is relevant to record that it is intended, as anappropriate policy and administrative decision,to discontinue the practice of using the servicesof a pant-time chairman of the board, given theimportance of the pastoral industry to the Stateand the need to ensure its continued role as avaluable contributor to the rural economy. Afull-time chairman can best fill this position onthe Pastoral Board.

The Bill provides the right to pastoralists todevelop areas of their leases for crop, fodder orhorticultural production to enhance thecarrying capability of the land. Any proposaltowards these forms of development must bepreceded by the consent of the Commissionerof Soil Conservation who will act in consul-tation with the Pastoral Board. This will safe-guard against any possibility that clearing andcultivation required will have adverse effectson the natural vegetation, and will ensure thatfragile rangelands are not disturbed.

Pastoral lessees will also have the ability toprovide facilities and amenities for tourists ontheir leases subject to specifications and limi-tations set by the Minister. This provisionwould not allow large-scale development fortourist purposes; such a venture would entailthe issue of a separate and distinct special leaserequiring the land to be surrendered from thepastoral lease and granted under entirely differ-ent conditions.

A provision is included in the Bill to conveypower to the Minister to purchase any pastorallease. This will allow the Minister to facilitatereconstruction of small leases, for example, adda non-viable unit to an existing marginal prop-erty to assist viability, or. remove uneconomicor units of little or no pastoral value from theindustry. There also would be scope to obtainleases by purchase for future reservation suchas public purposes, industrial development.etc.

A further power available to the Ministerproposed under this legislation is the right tolodge a land use notice against any land thesubject of a pastoral lease that may be requiredin the future for other than pastoral purposes.

This would preserve the area for the futureuse envisaged, such as a national park, conser-vation area. etc.. and prevent or curtail pastoral

development that would have otherwisedetracted from the ultimate land use. Fragilecoastal areas held under pastoral lease areexamples of the possible application of land usenotices. Monetary penalties are stipulated fornon-compliance with a prohibition imposedunder a land use notice.

The final provisions in this Bill set down theprocedures to be adopted for registration in theTitles Office of the new lease conditions estab-lished by this legislation.

It is the view of the Government that theseamendments and new pastoral lease conditionswill largely alleviate the anxiety many pastoral-ists have expressed when discussing the futureof their industry. The continuous lease tenurewill engender more confidence in those who areprepared to invest in the development of pas-toral enterprises in the State.

I apologise for presenting the Bill at this stagebut the Government was concerned aboutintroducing this Sill and taking it to the secondreading in this session, with the intention ofallowing it to lie over for debate in the springsession in order that there should be full con-sideration of the measures it contains by thecommunity at large and the public.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ONDELEGATED LEGISLATION

Council's Further MessageFurther message from the Council received

anid read notifying that it had agreed to theamendments made by the Assembly, subject toa further amendment.

LEGISLATIVE REVIEW AND ADVISORYCOMMITTEE REPEAL BILL

Receipt and First ReadingBill received from the Council; and, on mo-

tion by Mr Pearce (Leader of the House). read afirst time.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY STAFF

Mr Alan Harding: Retirement

THE SPEAKER (Mr Barnett): Before I callon the Leader of the House I take this oppor-tunity of advising members in respect of AlanHarding, who most members will know is anattendant at the front door of ParliamentHouse. Hejoined the staff of Parliament House

2944

(Thursday, lS June 1987J)94

on 23 February 1970 and was appointed aprincipal attendant on 5 January 1976. He willretire during the recess on 10 July this year.

Prior to joining the staff of ParliamentHouse he was cmployed by the GovernmentPrinting Office from I1I May 1961 to 21February 1970. He is an ex-serviceman and isthe State Assistant Secretary of the Korea andSouth East Asia Forces Association.'-

As a mark of respect for his work he wasappointed a Justice of the Peace in 1980 andhas been a very valuable officer of this Parlia-ment House.

Members: Hear, hear!The SPEAKER: He is at present very heavily

involved in Freemasonry and is at the momentproceeding through the chairs, something hewas unable to do earlier as a result of the job hehas been doing for us. We are pleased that he isprogressing through those chairs now. I am suremembers will join with me in expressing their

most sincere thanks and appreciation for hisservices both to the staff and to all members ofParliament House during the long period hehas been with us.

Members: Hear, hear!

(Applause.]

ADJOURNMENT OF THlE HOUSE:SPECIAL

On motion by Mr Pearce (Leader of theHouse) resolved-

That the House at its rising adjourn untila date and time to be fixed by Mr Speaker.

House adjourned at 6.32 amn (Friday)

t93)

2945

2946 [ASSEMBLY]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

WATER AUTHORITYBeen vup Depot: Manning

1239. Mr MENSAROS, to the Minister forWater Resources:(1) Is it a fact that the Western Australian

Water Authority's Beenyup depot-calling itself part of the MetropolitanWater Authority-is unmanned forthe full day at least every secondFriday?

(2) Which were the days during the pastyear when this depot was not manned?

(3) Is this situation the result of thereduced working hours when it wasdecided to allow Metropolitan WaterAuthority workers to work nine daysduring a fortnight for severalpromised trade-offs?

(4) Is it not a fact that with the originalarrangement it was envisaged that de-spite the nine-day fortnight the fort-nightly day off would not be taken byall workers simultaneously but in ros-ter, so that working places are not lefttotally unmanned?

(5) What consideration led to changingthe original arrangements?

(6) What are the trade-offs still benefitingthe Water Authority of WesternAustralia and, indirectly, the public?

Mr BRIDGE replied:(1) Yes. It is considered that cu rrent oper-

ations no longer require the Beenyupdepot to be attended every secondFriday. Inquiries are directed to theBalcatta depot or the service centre inthe case of an emergency.

(2) Answered in (1).(3) Yes.

(4) A roster system ensures that allworkers are not off simultaneously,although some workplaces may be un-attended. However, emergency andplanned work services are provided bythe nearest attended depot-Balcatta.

(5) The Beenyup-Balcatta arrangementshave not altered.

(6) No afternoon tea breaks:

employees are now paid by direct de-posit to bank account instead of cash.as was previously the case;the longer working day allows forproportionally less of the week lost instant-up and finish times at the depots;generally speaking, the incidence oftravelling and showering in the auth-ority's time has been markedlyreduced.These trade-offs have resulted ingreater efficiency and reducedoperating costs.

POLICERadar Guns: Faults

1300. Dr WATSON. to the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services:(1) Do a number of speedgun radar units

used by the police in WesternAustralia have a history of fault callsdue to spurious readings?

(2) On how many occasions has equip-ment fault been detected when unitshave been brought in for testing andrepair?

(3) Is it possible for units to be returnedto police patrol duty without adequatetesting and repair?

(4) Is there a series of speedgun unitswhich are prone to a seeminglyuntraceable spurious reading fault?

(5) What consideration has been and isbeing given to motorists who chal-lenge readings produced by this equip-ment?

(6) To enable innocent drivers to takesteps to claim restitution and/or com-pensation when faults become known.will he consider making provisions onfuture infringement notices and affi-davits which show the serial numberof the radar gun?

(7) Will he consider having unreliablespeedgun units removed from service?

Mr CORDON HI LL replied:(1) Yes. However, when this becomes evi-

dent the use of the radar gun isdiscontinued and it is serviced.

(2) Information is not readily available tothe police.

(3) No.(4) Yes.

2946

[Thursday, IS June 1987])94

(5) Departmental inquiry is implemented.(6) No. Radar units are tested when set up

at a location and again after last usebefore removal from that location. Iffound faulty, all infringement noticesissued at that location are cancelled.

(7) There are no unreliable units in ser-vice. However, if a unit becomes un-serviceable, it is examined by theMain Roads Department and on itsrecommendation is removed from ser-vice permanently.

RURAL ADJUSTMENT AND FINANCECORPORATION

Assistance: Distributions1302. Mr HOUSE, to the Minister for

Agriculture:(1) How much of the money available for.-

rural aid has been approved so far in1986-87 by the Rural Adjustment andFinance Corporation for-(a) drought relief:,(b) rural adjustment schemes;(c) special carry-on finance;(d) household support;(e) interest rate relief schemes?

(2) How much has been paid to successfulapplicants?

(3) What are the projected amounts thatwill be approved and paid by 30 June1987?

Mr GRILL replied:I will advise the member in writing indue course.

COMMUNITY SERVICESAdoptions: Foster Homnes

1311. Mr CASH, to the Minister representingthe Minister for Community Services:(1) Can the Minister indicate why there

are insufficient foster homes availablefor the relatively small number ofbabies relinquished for adoption inthis State?

(2) Does the Minister intend to activelyrecruit more foster parents?

(3) How many children in foster care inWestern Australia have been victimsof abuse-physical, sexual, or en-vironmental-by the caregiver duringthe past three years?

(4) (a) Following the review of the daycare regulations. will any changesto existing regulations be notifiedto those affected in the industry;

(b) if yes, how will this occur?

(5) (a) Current child-care journals fire-quently note the need for a"'multidisciplinary approach" tochild care; does the Minister sub-scribe to this philosophy;

(b) if yes, how does the Minister en-visage that this approach can beachieved in Western Australia?

Mr WILSON replied:

(1) Pre-adoptive fostering is highlyspecialised child care demanding par-ticular selection criteria which hasresulted in insufficient suitable appli-cants.

(2) Yes.

(3) Statistical information about childrenin foster care who are victims of abuseby their caregiver are not routinelycollected in this State. It is antici-pated. however, that such informationwill be pant of the Department forCommunity Services basic statisticalinformation system which will beimplemented in 1988. In addition, thenext revision of the State-wide statisti-cal information system conducted bythe ministerial consultative committeeon child abuse-ACCCA-will in-clude a category of abuse by substitutecaregivers.

(4) (a) Yes:

(b) new regulations will be circulatedto all licensed child-care serviceswell in advance of the date of im-plementation.

(5) (a) Yes;

(b) regulations provide for peoplefrom a range of disciplines rel-evant to child-care to work inchild-care services. Managementcommittees or licensees of child-care services determine the com-position of staff teams to meet theneeds of children at the particularservice.

2947

2948 [ASSEMBLY]

JUSTICES ACTSection 172: Inquiry

1313. Mr CASH, to the Minister representingthe Attorney General:(I) Is the Attorney prepared to consider

an immediate inquiry into the oper-ation of section 172 of the Justices Actand for appropriate steps to he madeto remedy those abuses and anomaliesrespecting orders made under this sec-tion?

(2) Would the Attorney consider that as afirst step it would be appropriate forthe Family Court Act to be amendedto permit respondents to apply to theFamily Court to overturn an ordergranted in the Court of Petty Sessionswhere such an order conflicts with apriororder of the Family Court?

(3) If yes. when will such amendments beforthcoming?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

JUSTICES ACTSection 172:- Inquiry'

1314. Mr CASH. to the Minister representingthe Attorney General:(1) Has the Attorney General's attention

been drawn to reports in the Press re-cently relating to the operation of Sec-tion 172 of the Justices Act?

(2) Is the Attoney General aware of injus-tices arising out of the granting ofrestraining orders in Courts of PettySessions pursuant to the Justices Act?

(3) If yes. what action does the AttorneyGeneral propose to alleviate this situ-ation?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

FAMILY COURTRestraining Orders

1315. Mr CASH, to the Minister representingthe Attorney General:

1I) Is the Attorney General aware that theFamily Law Practitioners Associationof Western Australia has reportcd thatrestraining orders requiring a husbandto leave or keep away from the matri-

monial home are made as a matter ofcourse, usually without any notice be-ing given to the husband that an orderis being sought against him?

(2) Is the Attorney General aware that inthe Family Court orders are rarely, ifever, made requiring a party to leavethe matrimonial home where thatparty has been given notice of the or-der being sought against him?

(3) Does the Attorney General think thatin all but the most exceptional cases itis inappropriate that a person beexcluded from occupation of his ownhome without prior notice of such anapplication being made?

(4) Is the Attorney aware that the oper-ation of' such orders has prevented theparty so restrained from carrying on abusiness from the matrimonial homeand from collecting clothing and per-sonal possessions from the home, andhas also placed in doubt the right ofthat person to attend at the home forthe purposes of exercising access tochildren?

(5) What action does the Attorney Gen-eral propose to take to alleviate theproblems raised above?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

FAMILY COURTRestraining Orders

1316. Mr CASH, to the Minister representingthe Attorney General:(1) Is the Attorney General aware that

restraining orders are served byofficers of the Western AustraliaPolice Force but that delays of twoweeks and longer are being experi-enced in having such orders served?

(2) Does the Attorney General think thatif the orders are of such exceptionalurgency as to be granted in the ab-sence of one party, arrangementsought to be made for the service ofsuch orders as a matter of extreme ur-gency?

(3) If yes to (1) and (2) above, what actiondoes the Attorney General propose totake to assist persons involved in suchsituations?

2948

[Thursday, 18 June I1987j]94

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:

The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

FAMILY COURT

Restraining Orders

1317. Mr CASH to the Minister representingthe Attorney General:

(1) Is the Attorney General aware that or-ders have been made which conflictwith the operation of prior ordersmade in the Family Court concerningoccupation of the home and access tochildren?

(2) Is the Attorney General aware of thedifficulties and delays experienced bypersons named in restraining orders inmaking urgent application to the courtto set aside the operation of such anorder, even in cases where the initialorder was made without notice to thatperson?

(3) If yes to (1) and (2), what action doesthe Attorney General propose to taketo alleviate this situation?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:

The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

MOTOR VEHICLES: TOWING

Mobijack: Introduction

1321. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:

(1) Has he been approached by the Pro-fessional Transport Drivers Associ-ation to form a committee to inquireinto allegations of reduced safety stan-dards caused by the introduction of arelatively new innovation to thetowing industry and sometimes re-ferred to as a 'mobijack"'?

(2) Does he intend to form such a com-mittee?

(3) If no. why not?

MrGORDON HILL replied:

The member will be advised in writingin due course.

CRIMEBank Holdups: Statistics

1322. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Policeand(I)

Emergency Services:How many bank holdups have oc-curred on a monthly basis since July1986?

(2) How many of these bank holdupsinvolved armed gunmen?

(3) How many persons have been chargedwith offences relating to these bankholdups?

(4) How many persons have beenconvicted of offences relating to thesebank holdups and what has been theaverage prison sentence imposed?

(5) How many persons involved in thesebank holdups were-(a) armed or believed to be armed;(b) on parole:(c) on bail;(d) escapees from legal custody;(c) convicted of previous offiences?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:The member will be advised in writingin due course.

WESTRAILSafety Glasses: Purchases

1323. Mr CASH, to the MinisterTransport:

for

(1) Is it Westrail policy or Governmentpolicy to give preference to WesternAustralian manufacturers where prac-ticable?

(2) If yes, has Westrail purchased safetyglasses manufactured in WesternAustralia in the past, and is it continu-ing to purchase Western Australianmade safety glasses?

(3) Are the Western Australian madesafety glasses cost effective whencompared with similar safety glassesfrom interstate and overseas sources?

(4) Is Westrail currently using safetyglasses manufactured in WesternAustralia or from elsewhere, and if so.why?

Mr TRQY replied:The member will be advised inwriting.

2949

2950 [ASSEMBLY]

FIRE STATIONPerth: Catering Service

1326. Mr CASH. to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:(1) Who provides the catering service for

the Perth Fire Station?(2) Does it involve a contract, and if so, is

the contract subject to tender?(3) If yes. when was the contract awarded,

and when does it expire?

Mr GORDON HILL replied:(1) Dee Logistic Services Pty Ltd on a fee-

for-management basis.

(2) Yes-not tendered.

(3) 5 January 1984. and either party maywithdraw at any time by giving 90days' notice to the other party.

H EALTHAlcohol Consumption: Public Places

1351. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services:(1) Has he received a letter from the Shire

of Carnarvon which outlines the coun-cil's concern at the increasing problemof consumption of alcohol in publicplaces?

(2) Is he also aware that the Carnarvonpolice have advised the shire councilthat recent amendments to the LiquorAct have made the task of the policein controlling the drinking of alcoholin public places difficult?

(3) Is the Government reviewing theLiquor Act in order to make the job ofcontrolling this problem more effec-jive?

M r GOR DON H ILL repl ied:

The member will be advised in writingin due course.

DAIRYING

Mlilk Distribution: Changes

1354. Mr MacKINNON. to the Minister forAgriculture:

(1) To whom wasment entitledDistribution",

distributed the docu-"Metropolitan Milkwhich mentioned

proposed changes to both milk ven-dors and milk distributors, and refer-encedisk 17/17A?

(2) Was it distributed to any milk ven-dors?

(3) If not, why not?

(4) What is the document's purpose andintention?

Mr GRI LL replied:

(1) to (4) As mentioned in response toquestion 837, the Dairy IndustryAuthority has commissioned a com-prehensive study into metropolitanmilk distribution and has circulatedthis study to the dairy companies, ven-dors, and milk distributors for com-ment.

The authority informed me that thedocument referred to outlines some ofthe options to emerge from that ex ten-sive study. They impact directly ontothe distribution and marketing of allprod ucts-i nclud ing those declaredand not declared for the purposes ofthe Dairy Industry Act-of the majorlocal dairy companies which aretransported and sold by authority li-censees.

The matters covered by the documentwere of immediate concern toBrownes and Masters and, as the firststep in the consultation process, theauthority has sought their views. Indue course, the authority will consultwith vendors and milk distributors be-fore finalising any recommendationsfor changes to Government regulationof the milk distribution and vendingsector.

Also. I have recently written person-ally to all milk vendors and distribu-tors informing them, among otherthings, that the authority is reviewingcurrent legislation and regulations toensure that existing Government in-volvement is not hindering the ad-justment of the household vendingand distribution sector to its changingtrading environment. I have indicatedmy support for this sensible and con-structivc undertaking.

2950

[Thursday, 18BJune 19871 95

WESTRAlLEinplovmnn: Age Limit

1360. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forTransport:(1) Will he advise whether there is an

upper age limit which applies to per-sons seeking employment withWestrail?

(2) What is the age at which prospectiveemployees are considered unsuitable?

(3) If such a restriction applies, will headvise what job categories this limitapplies to?

Mr TROY replied:The member will be advised inwriting.

EDGELL BIRDSEYE PTY LTDManjirnup Cannery Purchase: Buy-back

Agreement1362. Mr WATT, to the Minister for Industry

and Technology:(1) Would he advise details of the buy-

back agreement granted by the StateGovernment to Edgell Birdseye PlyLtd in respect of the sale of theManjimup Cannery?

(2) (a) Kas there been any change to thebuy-back agreement since it wasnegotiated,

(b) if so, how has it changed?(3) (a) Is there any likelihood that the

Government will be catted on tohonour the agreement;

(b) if so, under what circumstances?Mr BRYCE replied:(1) to (3) The Government never actually

entered into a binding agreement withEdgell-Birdseye to repurchase assets ofthe Manjimup cannery. I arrived at anunderstanding with the company thatan agreement would be concluded torepurchase specified assets which hadbeen sold to Edgell by the ManjimupCanning Co-operative Company Ltdif Edgell was prevented from proceed-ing with its vegetable processing proj-ect. Causes of prevention were speci-fied as-

lack of an adequate water supply;lack of required local governmentconstruction approvals;

19)

lack of required approvals for dis-posal of effluent.

However, the understanding alsoprovided that the agreement wouldonly apply for a period of one year andthat it would lapse upon either com-mencement of construction of a watersupply for the works or commence-ment of the works itself.Construction of the water supply be-gan before an agreement was framed.Therefore, there was no purpose to beserved by proceeding with a formalagreement.

HOSPITALAlbany Regional: Nursing Establishment

1363. Mr WATT, to the Minister for Health:(1) Following my representations to him,

twice by letter and in parliamentarydebate, about staffing levels at theAlbany Regional Hospital. has hemade a decision to restore the nursingestablishment to its previous level of162 as reported in the Albany Adver-tiser recently?

(2) Has his decision been accuratelyreported?

(3) When will I be formally advised inresponse to my representations?

Mr TAYLOR replied:I will advise the member the answer tothis question in writing.

MINISTER FOR AGRICULTUREStaff

1364. Mr CRANE. to the Minister forAgriculture:(1) (a) What area of office space in the

Grain Pool Building was occupiedby the Minister for Agricultureand his staff for the years-(i) 1982;

(i i) 1984;(iii) 1987;

(b) what is the area occupied by himat present:,

(c) what are the respective rentalcosts?

(2) (a) How many staff were employed inthe Minister for Agriculture'soffice in-

2951

2952 [ASSEMBLY]

(i) 1982;(ii) 1984:

(iii) 1987:(b) what were the classifications of

the staff and their respective du-ties

(c) how many of the staff were publicservants, and how many were oncontract?

(3) (a) What was the cost of maintainingthe office and staff for the Minis-ter for Agriculture for the yearsended 30 June 1982 and 1984;

(b) what is the anticipated cost ofmaintaining the office and stafffor the year ending 30 June 1987?

Mr GRILL replied:I have recently written to the memberadvising him that I will convey thisinformation to him once it is col-lected.

HEALTHAIDS Prevention: Television Prngrainine

1365. Mr MENSAROS. to the Minister forEducation:(1) Is he aware that a recent Australian

Broadcasting Corporation televisionprogramme of the series called"Behind the News" showed graphi-cally illustrated presentations on howto avoid AIDS when having homosex-ual intercourse?

(2) Will similar type exercises be carriedout in schools under the programmeof health or other education to avoidAIDS?

(3) Will the programme mentioned in (1)in a videotape form pant of the K-t0syllabus or in other educational distri-

* bution?(4) Does he agree that programmes as

mentioned in (1) are suitable for pri-mary school children?

(5) What other films and exercises areused with the K-10 syllabus which

* could be interpreted to be promotingor at least tacitly approving homosex-ual practices?

Mr PEARCE replied:(1) The "Behind the News" ABC

presentation on AIDS was screenedduring term I school holidays.

The feature programme indicated theat risk groups in terms of thetransmission of the AIDS virus. Thepresentation format was line-stickfigure-drawinps. The only mentionof homosexual activity is in relationto: "Some men have sexual inter-course with other men. They are ahigh risk group." The programme inno way pmomotes homosexuality as anacceptable alternative to hetemosexualrelationships.

(2) No.

(3) No.

(4) The programme has been used insome schools with the fullendorsement of the parents con-cerned. Principals, staff, and parentcommittees are now well placed topreview such programmes and decidewhether they are appropriate for andmeet the needs of their students.

(5) None.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: EAST PI LBARASHIRE COUNCIL

Capricorn Comnmunityv Cent re: Funding

1366. Mr LAURANCE, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Sport andRecreation:

(1) Has the Minister received a requestfor funding from the Shire of EastPilbara for the Capricorn CommunityCentre to be constructed at Newman?

(2) What is the current status of this pro-posal, and does the Government in-tend to support it financially?

(3) Can the Minister provide details?

Mr WILSON replied:

(I) Yes.

(2) The project is one of 74 applicationssubmitted by local governmentauthorities and currently being con-sidered under the community sportingand recreation facilities fund.

(3) Answered by (2).

2952

[Thursday. 1S June 1987] 95

LOCAL GOVERNMENTWest Pilbara Shire Council: Revaluations

1367. Mr LAURANCE, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:(1) Is the Minister aware that all towns in

the West Pilbara Shire have been re-cently revalued?

(2) Is the Minister also aware of the enor-mous discrepancies that have oc-curred in this revaluation betweensimilar mining towns in this shire-i.e., Paraburdoo has increased 44.5per cent and Pannawonica 130.1 percent?

(3) Can the Minister give any explanationfor these variations?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:

The member will be advised direct, inwriting, as soon as possible.

ENERGYElectricity Charges: Golf Clubs

1368. Mr BRADSHAW, to the Minister forMinerals and Energy:(1) Are golf clubs charged commercial

rates for their electricity?(2) If so. has consideration been given to

charging domestic rates for theseclubs?

(3) If not, why not?Mr PARKER replied:

(1) Golf Clubs are charged the generalnon-domestic rates which apply tobusinesses, other sporting clubs, andother non-domestic electricity users.

(2) No.(3) The domestic tariff is designed for a

domestic electricity consumption pat-tern. Golf Clubs do not conform tothis pattern.

LANDReserve No 16400: Mining Application

1369. Mr BRADSHAW. to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:(1) Is he aware an application to mine has

been made in relation to Reserve No16400 near the town of Kwolyin?

(2) If so, does he oppose the application?(3) If not, why not?Mr HODGE replied:(1) No.(2) and (3) Not applicable.

TECHNOLOGY PARK

Rental: Income1370. Mr COURT, to the Minister for

Industry and Technology:(1) What monthly rental income has the

Government received from the Tech-nology Park since its inception untilJune 1987?

(2) What rental income has been con-firmed for 1987-88?

Mr BRYCE replied:

(I) July-1985August- 1985September- 1985October- 3985November-I 985December-I 985January- 1936February- 1986March- 1986April-I 986May-1986June- 1986July- 1986August-1986September- 1986October- 3986Novembr-I 986

December-1986January- 1987February- 1937March-1937April- 1987May-l987

(2) Rental income for 1987-388current leases $355 833.24.

8143 7632 09043683 1105 5204 9693 3279 0392 7494025

19 895108665 154

60301240958833982

3065235 143

1699129 44426364

based on

2953

2954 [ASSEMBLY]

CHEMICALS: POLYCHLORINATEDBIPHENYLS

Incinerator:- Siting

1371. Mr COURT. to the Minister forHealth:

(i) Since I cannot find the answer to ques-lion 189 of 1987 in his speech, nowthat the Federal Member forKalgoorlie has expressed his oppo-sition to the siting of a PCB wastedisposal plant at Koolyanobbing. willhe reconsider this proposal?

(2) Will he support the establishment of anatural hazardous waste managementfacility in an appropriate environmen-tal and geographic location in WesternAustralia?

M r TAYLOR repl ied:

I will advise the member the answer tothis question in writing.

MULTICULTURAL AND ETHNICAFFAIRS

Macedonian United Society: Concern

1372. Mr THOMPSON. to the Minister forMulticultural and Ethnic Affairs:

(1) Did he recently receive a deputationfrom the Macedonian United Society?

(2) Did the representatives of theMacedon ian United Society expressconcern about mounting tension be-tween some members of their com-munity and individuals from anotherethnic community in Perth?

(3) Was concern expressed by the rep-resentatives of the MacedonianUnited Society 'of inflammatorystatements which had been made bythe consul of a foreign country?

(4) Did he undertake to respond to theMacedonian United Society inwriting?

(5) Has he responded, and if so what wasthe date of his letter?

(6) If not, when will he reply?

Mr GORDON H ILL replied:

The member will be advised in writingin due course.

PACIEXPOGovernment Support

1373. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forTransport:

When can I expect a response to ques-tion 304 of 1987 which was referredby the Premier to him on 7 April1987?

M rTROY replied:In answer to question 304. theGovernment did support the Paciexpoby arranging consultants to aid the or-ganisers in identifying potentialexhibitors.

PLANNING DEVELOPMENTMandurah: Proposals

1374. Mr MacKINNON. to the Minister forThe South West:(1) What proposals, if any, does the

Governmdnt have before it for the de-velopment of the Mandurab land ad-jacent to the Peninsula Hotel whichwas previously the subject of WesternAustralian Development Corporationinvolvement?

(2) When is it considered that this devel-opment will proceed?

(3) What are the impediments to the de-velopment proceeding in the near fu-ture?

Mr GRILL replied:I will advise the member in writing indue course.

EDUCATION: PRIMARY SCHOOLCanning Vale: Future

1375. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forEducation:(1) Has he now met with parents at Can-

ning Vale Primary School to discussthe future of their school?

(2) If so, what commitments did he givethe parents with respect to the futureof the school?

(3) As a result of the meeting, has he de-cided to extend the life of the schoolon its present site?

(4) If so, for how much longer will theschool be allowed to remain operatingon its present site?

2954

[Thursday. 1S June l987J]95

M r P EA RCE repl ied:

(I) Yes.

(2) To consider several proposals put for-ward by the parents for the retentionof the school.

(3) and (4) 1 am still examining the mat-ter.

BUILDING MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY

Emnployees: WorkerC Compensation

1376. Mr MacKINNON. to the Minister forWorks and Services:

Would he detail under the categoriesof salaries and wages the number ofBuilding Management Authority em-pioyees as at 31 May 1987 on-

(a) workers' compensation;,

(b) light duties?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:Salaries Wages

(a) Workers'sation

(b) Light duties

cornpen-9 393 5

WATER AUTHORITY

Enploees:- Workers' Compensation

1377. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forWater Resources:

Would he detail under the categoriesof salaries and wages the number ofWater Authority employees as at 31May 1987 on-

(a) workers' compensation;,

(b) light duties?

Mr BRIDGE replied:

(a) Salaried officers, three;,wages employees, 6 1,

(b) the authority does not provide perma-nent light duty employment for any ofits employees. However, it does pro-vide temporary alternative restrictedduties as part of its rehabilitation pro-gramme. There are currently live sal-aried officers and seven wages em-ployees performing restricted dutiesunder this programme.

HEALTH: MEDICAL PRACTITIONERM~r Bill Cast/eden: Consultancy Contract

1378. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forHearth:(1) What are the precise provisions of the

consultancy contract between the sur-geon, Mr Bill Castleden, and theFremantle Hospital in relation to hisrole as consultant at Fremantle Hospi-tal in April and May?

(2) Prior to his operation on the formerMinister for Health in May, when didMr Bill Castleden last operate atFremantle Hospital?

(3) When did Mr Bill Castleden last carryout a varicose vein operation atFremantie Hospital?

(4) If he says that Mr Bill Castleden didnot make a special arrangement withFremantle Hospital to carry out thevaricose vein operation on the formerMinister for Health, that arrangementhaving been made with the medicalregistrar or the registrar, how does hesay the operation was arranged?

(5) (a) Does he deny that Mr Castledenhas not had a regular operatingday at Fremantle Hospital be-cause he has not regularlyoperated or consulted at that hos-pital;

(b,) if so, what does he say is theposition?

(6) How many people were awaiting elec-tive surgery at Fremantle HospitalIn-(a) March;,(b) April;(c) M ay?

(7) Of the elective varicose vein oper-ations carried out at Fremantle Hospi-tal in March, April, and May, whatpercentage were conducted byspecialist vascular surgeons?

(8) As the former Minister for Health hassaid in public on a couple of occasionsduring recent days that he was led tothe private room to which he wasassigned, and the regi st rar ofFremantle Hospital in his letter usedby the Premier has said that the roomarrangement was made after the sur-gery was complete, what is the correctstory, and how can it be established?

2955

2956 ASSEM BLY]

MrTAYLOR replied:I will advise the member the answer tothis question in writing.

WATER AUTHORITYBoard Members:- Appomnments

1379. Mr MENSAROS, to the Minister forWater Resources:

Who are the chairman and membersof the Water Authority of WesternAustralia and under what subsectionof section I12 of the Water AuthorityAct were they respectively appointed?

Mr BRIDGE replied:The Chairman and members of theBoard of the Water Authority are asfol lows-

Chairman-R. M. Hiliman-sec-tions II(1)(d) and It1(2)Members

K. J. Kelsall-sectionI l(l)(a)

R-. J. Glover-secuionI Il(l)(b)

E. M. Murphy-sectionI l(lXc)

J. A. Ash-section I 1(I Xd)J. M. Hodgson-section

I Il(I )d)T. J. Perroti-section

I l(l Xd)H. G. Sheehan-section

I l(])(d)

DECISION MAKERS LUNCHEONSGuest Speakers

1380. Mr MacKINNON. to the Premier:(1) Who have been guest speakers at the

decision makers luncheons to date thisyear?

(2) Who is it planned to have addressingthese luncheons for the balance of thisyear?

(3) How does the Government justify theFederal Treasurer addressing such aluncheon during the Current electioncampaign period?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) The guest speakers at the Decision

Makers Luncheons this year havebeen Mr Nobby Clark of the National

Australia Bank and Mr Robert J.White of the Westpac Banking Cor-poration.

(2) Future speakers are Sir RoderickCarnegie, President of the BusinessCouncil of Australia-, Mr BryanKelman of CSR; Mr Kevan Gosper ofthe Shell Company of Australia; MsEve Mahiab of the Mablab Group;,and Lord Al ister McAlpine.

(3) The speaker scheduled for the 27 JuneDML, Mr Bernie Frasr. Secretary tothe Commonwealth Treasury. felt itwas inappropriate to make publiccomment during an election campaignand subsequently withdrew from theluncheon.The popularity of the DMLs is suchthat when the Federal Treasurer madearrangements to travel to Perth it wasdecided to arrange a replacementluncheon for 19 June.Over 700 applications for luncheonseats were made, and unfortunatelynot all of these could beaccommodated.

HOSPITALSComputers: Patient Care Systemn

1381. Mr MacKINNON. to the Minister forHealth:(1) Is the Government planning to install

in hospitals in Western Australia anew computer system called thepatient care system?

(2) What is the purpose of the installationof the system?

(3) Who is responsible for its installation?(4) What cost is involved in the instal-

lation of the system for-(a) hardware;(b) software?

Mr TAYLOR replied:I will advise the member the answer tothis question in writing.

ENERGYSolar Energy Research Institute: Assets

1382. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forMinerals and Energy:(1) What is the value of funds held by the

Solar Energy Research Institute at thecurrent time?

2956

[Thursday, 18 June 1987J 95

(2) Since 31 December 1986, have anygrants been made by other agencies ofGovernment for which he is respon-sible to assist in alterniative energy re-search?

(3) If so. to whom were these grants madeand by whom were they made?

Mr PARKER replied:(1) SERIWA has surplus funds on hand at

present of approximately $140 000. Itis intended that these moneys will beapplied to support on-going projectsand to help fund new energy research.

(2) No new grants have been made in1987 for alternative energy researchby agencies for which I am respon-sible.

(3) Not applicable.

COMMUNITY SERVICESChild Core Regulations Review

1383. Mr MacKINNON, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for CommunityServices:(1) Has the Minister now received a re-

port from the child care regulationsreview consultative committee?

(2) If so, when was the report received?(3) Will the report be made public?(4) If so, when?(5) When will the Minister make any de-

cisions as a consequence of therecommendations made in that re-port?

Mr WILSON replied:(1) Yes.(2) 29 May 1987.(3) To be determined.(4) Not applicable.(5) After full consideration of the report's

recommendations.

EDUCATIONMinor Works: Allocations

1384. Mr MacKINNON, to the Minister forEducation:

What amount of funds were allocatedfor minor works in the metropolitansouth west district in total for theyears end ing-(a) 30 June 1983;

(b) 3Oiune 1984:(c) 3OJune 1985:(d) 3OJune 1986;(e) 3OJune 1987?

Mr PEARCE replied:The information requested is notreadily available at present and theLeader of the Opposition will be re-plied to by letter.

EDUCATIONMinor Works: Allocations

1385. Mr MacKINNON. to the Minister forEducation:

What amount of funds were allocatedfor minor works in the metropolitansouth east district in total for the yearsending-(a) 3O June 1983;(b) 3Oiune 1984;(c) 3OiJune 1985;(d) 3O June 1986;(e) 3OiJune 1987?

Mr PEARCE replied:The information requested isreadily available at present, andLeader of the Opposition will beplied to by letter.

notthere-

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

"BUNBURY 2000"Success

222. Mr WATT, to the Minister for TheSouth West:(1) Has the Minister seen a newspaper re-

port which quotes the director of theSouth West Development Authority,Dr Manea, saying in respect of the"Bunbury 2000" scheme, "We set outto create an alternative capital toPerth but to date we have failed

miserably"?(2) As the Minister and other Govern-

ment members have consistently saidin this House, during the 1986 elec-tion campaign and on many other oc-casions, that 'Bunbury 2000" hasbeen an outstanding success and isworking well, will he advise who is

2957

2958 [ASSEMBLY]

correct-the director of the SouthWest Development Authority or theMinister'.

Mr GRILL replied:(1) and (2) Yes. I have read the article.

Although I have not spoken to theChairman of the South West Develop-ment Authority. I understand what hewas trying to get at. He is one of thosesuper patriots of the type we get inWestern Australia. Ray Finlayson isanother example: he believes thatKalgoorlie is not only the capital ofWestern Australia, but also the capitalof Australia, and it could be the centreof the universe. In Bunbury ErnestManea takes an equally vehementview that Bunbury is the capital of theworld and everything should be inBunbury. Both men are close friendsof mine. but sometimes they run awaywith themselves a fraction.Ernest Manea spoke just before I didat a seminar yesterday in Bunbury.and unfortunately I was not present tohear all his remarks. The remarks hemade are taken a little out of contextand the Opposition must be tongue-in-check about them. If Ernest Maneawcrc asked he would say quite franklythat in his view the 'Bunbury 2000"project has been a tremendous suc-cess. He has said that on a number ofoccasions, and no doubt members willhave heard him.Yesterday he quoted figures relating tothe growth of Bunbury. the south westgenerally. and Perth. The populationin Bunbury has grown at the rate of2.92 per cent over the last year or two.whereas the population of Perth hasgrown at the rate of 2.09 per cent.Clearly, Bunbury is growing at a muchfaster rate than Perth.in terms of employment growth forcountry areas in Western Australia,the figures indicate that Bunbury isgrowing about 50.per cent faster thanother comparable centres. In terms ofpopulation Bunbury is growing at afast rate, and other areas within thesouth west under my jurisdiction aregmowing at a particularly fast rate. Irefer to Mandurah. for example, sowell represented by the member forMandurah-as he will no doubt tell

people ad nauseam on any occasion hegets an opportunity-which is grow-ing very quickly. The south west gen-erally is growing at a very fast rate byany standards, especially if one judgesthe growth of population in non-urbancentres in Australia generally. Alsoemployment growth in the south westis going ahead at a very attractive rate.

MR CHARLES COPEMANStat ement: Action

223. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister forMinerals and Energy:(1) Has the Minister or his ministerial

colleague, the Minister for Labour.Productivity and Employment.proceeded with any action against MrCharles Copemnan for his reported

-statement last week?(2) If so, who will meet the costs of any

such action?Mr PARKER replied:(I) Yes.(2) I am quite confident

Copenian will pay.that Mr

TECHNICAL AND FURTHEREDUCATION

Printing Trades: Relocation224. Mr COURT. to the Minister for Labour,

Productivity and Employment:(1) Why is it taking so long for the

Government to finalise the relocationof the Perth Technical College print-ing trade facilities from the St.George's Terrace site, considering thatthe Government advised in 1985 thatthe premises would have to be vacatediniJanuary 1987?

(2) Is the Minister aware of concernwithin the industry, both from theunion and employees, that theGovernment may decide upon a fa-cility not suitable for the training ofpeople in this important industry?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:(1) and (2) A number of issues have been

raised in relation to the location of aproposed printing trade school, whichhave been the subject of discussionsbetween the unions, employers, theMinister for Education with his re-sponsibility for TAFE, and my Minis-

2958

[Thursday, I8 June 1987] 25

try with its responsibility for indus-trial training and my responsibility forindustrial relations. That is tied intothe questions about the likely role ofthe State Printing Division andwhether there would be access to newequipment, particularly high tech-nology equipment, in the event of theState Printing Division beingsubstantially upgraded in those areas.A number of areas were beingaddressed over a period of time, butthat is not to say that this delay hasbeen inordinate, nor has it causedproblems in the sense that the presentfacility will remain until other ar-rangements are made.However, it is important that weshould provide a good resource, butthat the Government's expenditureshould be as economical and as appro-priate to the changing needs of thatindustry as possible, and those issuesare the basis of the care which we havebeen taking to finalise this decision.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTAlbany Town Council: Letter

225. Mr STEPHENS. to the Minister forLocal Government:(1) On or about 7 October 1986, did the

Department of Local Governmentsend a letter of about 14 pages to theAlbany Town Council, outliningweaknesses and faults in the books ofthat councilI?

(2) Is he aware that this letter was notbrought to the attention of council-Iors?

(3) If (2) is correct, does he approve ofsuch secrecy?

(4) Will he table the letter referred to?Mr CARR replied:(1) By letters dated 25 September I1986

the Department of Local Governmentbrought to the attention of the townclerk and the mayor a 15-page budgetcritique prepared within the depart-ment on the budget documents of theTown of Albany for the 1986-87Financial year.

(2) 1 am not aware whether that infor-mation was brought to the attention ofcouncillors.

(3) 1 would have thought it appropriatefor such information to be tabled at ameeting of council.

(4) I believe it would be appropriate atthis time to allow the opportunity forthe relevant papers to be tabled atcouncil, if this has not been done, be-fore consideration is given to takingthat action in this House.

LOCAL GOVERNMENTCockburn City Council: Survey

226. Mr MENSAROS. to the Minister forParliamentary and Electoral Reform:(1) Is he aware that the City of Cockburn

is undertaking a survey of residents inits own local government area toidentify the need for home care sup-port such as meals-on-wheels?

(2) Is he aware that in an endeavour toreduce the cost of the survey, the StateEle ,ctoral Department was approachedto provide computer print-outs of allresidents in the district who are agedover 65 years, the target group for thatsurvey?

(3) Is he further aware that the City ofCockburn is being charged $510 bythe State Electoral Department, whichthe council will reluctantly pay in viewof the importance it places on the sur-vey?

(4) Will he consider cancelling this chargein view of the important communityservices the survey aims to achieve?I want to add that in case anyonethinks that I am interfering in anotherelectorate, I did not want to reject therequest which came to me via a sena-tor from Western Australia and notfrom an individual constituent.

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) to (4) l am very impressed that, on the

one hand, the third conservativemember of this Parliament shouldshow such humanitarian interest andconcern about this sort of matter. Ireceived the question from the mem-ber for Mt Lawley on the NoticePaper, and received the same questionfrom that arch conservative and de-fender of privilege in the LegislativeCouncil, Hon. Norman Moore, andnow I have received the question froma third source here towards the end of

2959

2960 [ASSEMBLY]

this session. I am impressed that athird conservative politician shouldshow such concern about thishumanitarian issue.I say to the member for Ploreat. as Iindicated to the member for MtLawley and to Hon. Norman Moore inanother place, that I thank him fordrawing this matter to my attention. Ihave called for the papers, and I amgoing to review that response from theState Electoral Department.

UNION MEMBERSHIPEi pee: Dismissal

227. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forLabour, Productivity and Employment:(1) Has the Minister been advised by his

department about the implications forWestern Australia-as reported in themagazine Opporiunily. issued by theCommissioner for Equal Oppor-tunity-of a Victorian case in whichan employer was required to pay sig-nificant damages by reason ofdismissing an employee because herefused to join the AmalgamatedMetal Workers Union?

(2) Has the Minister taken any action inrelation to the industrial relations im-plications of this matter in WesternAustralia?

(3)(4)

If so. what action has he taken?Does the Minister's department act oncomplaint to uphold the provisions ofthe Western Australian industrial re-lations law which prohibits discrimi-nation against an employee on thegrounds of union or non-union mem-bership?

(5) If so, has the Minister reversed a pre-vious directive from his predecessorthat the Government would not up-hold the law in relation to non-unionmembership?

(6) What action is taken by the Ministeror his department when a complaint islodged on the grounds of discrimi-nation because of non-membership ofa union?

Mr PETER DOWDING replied:(I)I to (6) In view of the length of the ques-

tion and the barbs contained particu-larly in the fifth element of the ques-tion, I think the member should put it

on notice and I will give him ananswer. However, so that he does notthink that some of those issues cannotbe addressed, I will say that I havereceived advice about the Victoriandecision. It is some time since I readthe decision. I asked for advice assoon as I was aware through the Pressof the decision having been handeddown, and not after it appeared in amagazine. The advice in broad termswas to the effect that the decision wasso particular in its facts and in relationto the wording of the law that it wouldnot have general implications in West-ern Australia. In view of that advice, Iasked the Ornte of Industrial Re-lations if it could put it on the agendafor one of its research jobs down thetrack, and no doubt when time per-mits one of its officers will give itsome attention.The practice in Western Australia isthat when complaints are made to theinspectorate. those complaints areinvestigated, and the action that is ad-vised can be taken. On the occasionswhen complaints have been madeunder pant 6A of the Industrial Re-lations Act, those complaints havebeen investigated.I will answer the rest of the member'squestion in due course, but we haverepeatedly made it clear that part 6Adoes not work the way it was intendedto work. It provides a whole range ofcomplexities because of the inter-relationship betwecn Federal andState award provisions, and it isdirected in the wrong way. It does notprovide for people to opt out of unionmembership for conscientious beliefs.What it does is simply try to weakenthe activities of all the people involvedin the union movement throughoutthe work force.I emphasise what has been repeatedlysaid about pant 6A, that if it were ef-fective it would attack the weakerareas of the union movement ini theindustrial system and would not affectthose areas where there is a disciplinewithin the union movement. Theclassic example of that is when it wasintroduced into the building industry,the building industry flaunted therhetoric of the Opposition when in

2960

[Thursday, 18 June 1987] 26

Government by demonstrating up anddown St George's Terrace with bigsigns. "No ticket: no stan".The truth is that so long as the LiberalParty has a philosophy which is notabout improving industrial relationsand is not about getting on with thebusiness of recognising the importantand responsible role of unions in theworkplace, members opposite willfeed those people in the communitywho wish to inflate the relationshipbetween unions and employers intoone of aggression. As long as we hearmembers opposite never addressingthe hundreds of occasions when theinvolvement of the union movementin the workplace has been beneficialfor the workers and for the com-munity at large-to hear the Oppo-sition repeatedly go to the lowest com-mon denominator, the worst case, anddrag that out as though that should behung around the neck of the unionmovement and ignore the responsibleaspects of the union movement-wewill just have difficulties moving for-ward as this side of the House believeswe should move forward to a moreproductive Australia.

DEFENCEHMAS "Stirling ". Opposition policy

228. Mr MARLBOROUGH, to the Ministerfor Defence Liaison:

Is the State Government concernedabout the lack of reference to theHMAS Stirling naval base and thetwo-ocean defence policy by the Fed-eral Opposition parties?

Mr BRYCE replied:The State Government is indeed veryconcerned, as every WesternAustralian should be concerned, as weapproach the Federal elections, nowthat the defence policies of the Oppo-sition parties in the national Parlia-ment have been released, because it isnow apparent for all of us to see thatthe national Liberal Party and the twoor three versions of the National Par-ties simply do not accept the decisionsthat have been made by the HawkeGovernment to locate a submarinefleet of the Australian Navy on thewest coast. To read their policies,

which I now have had the opportunityto do, is to discover that they con-veniently forget any reference to theHMAS Stirling naval base and thetwo-ocean defence policy.This State was excluded and its de-fence needs ignored for the best pantof the 40 years that followed the sec-ond World War. We now have a stun-ning Western Australian as thenational Minister for Defence who, inthe space of two short years, hasachieved a veritable miracle in turningaround-the thinking and the commit-ment of the national defence bureauc-racy and the national Government'spolicy so that they both embrace thetwo-ocean defence commitment.We are now facing a national election,and the truth is that Mr Sinclair hasrepeatedly refused to commit his pol-itical party to the two-ocean defencepolicy. Even more staggering is that inrecent times, old Joh, the villain of thepiece, has come out with his own de-fence policy and said that Australia asa nation does not need submarines-the very basis of the redeployment ofnaval strength to Western Australia.We have been told by the old lunaticfrom Queensland that this countrydoes not need submarines. His policywould not only abandon the provisionof them but also would see to it thatno submarine fleet was based on theWestern Australian coast.Mr White, the national Liberal Partydefence spokesman, has just releasedthe Liberal Party's defence policyand-surprise, surprise-it containsno reference to the HMAS Stirlingnaval base or a commitment to West-ern Australia.This is a prime opportunity to remindall Western Australians that on I IJuly they have a first-class opportunityto send the message well and trulyback to the east coast by registering avote of protest against the LiberalParty and National Party candidatesfor Western Australian House of Rep-resentatives and Senate seats by givingthem the thumbs-down because theyhave said that on this very importantissue Western Australia does notcount or that they can afford to ignoreWestern Australia again.

2961

2962 [ASSEMBLY]

I have issued this challenge to theLeader of the National Party before,and now issue the challenge to theLeader of the Liberal Party: See if youcannot do your darnedest to screw acommitment for and on behalf ofWestern Australia out of the myriadpeople who control your national or-ganisations to aenise the defence andstrategic significance of the WesternAustralian coast.

HORTICULTUREPotato Crops

229. Mr STEPHENS. to the Minister forAgriculture:(1) Has the Minister seen reports in the

Press recently that potato growers inthis State will be forced to dig in theirpotato crops?

(2) Is this correct?(3) If so, to what extent will this be

necessary?(4) What are the circumstances, sur-

rounding the need for th is move?Mr GRILL replied:(1) to (4) 1 have seen the reports, and they

are true. About 2 000 ton nes of po-tatoes will be ploughed back into theearth this year. There appears to havebeen an overproduction of about6000 tonnes all up. which indicatesthat there has probably been anoverestimation of demand for po-tatoes this year, or that the crops havebeen more productive than normal be-cause of better growing conditions.Normally that is not a problem be-cause we could easily export excesspotatoes to the Eastern States, wherethey would sell., Unfortunately theState has been hit by the potato cystnematode, a particularly bad diseasefor potatoes, and because of this theother States have quarantined us. Aswe cannot export our surplus to theEastern States now and because we donot want to see second-grade potatoeson the local market, it was decided toplough in part of the crop.For some few weeks a campaign hasbeen running to deregulate the wholeof the potato industry in this State.Although this Government is commit-ted to deregulating perhaps two-thirds

of the industry-the processing andexporting sides of it-it was decidedthat the ware potato market, the dom-estic potato market, should not bederegulated at ibis stage and that theboard should continue with its func-tions but becomc more a marketingboard than a production board. TheGovernment has a neutral philosophyon the Potato Marketing Board. Itadopts the same stance as it did on theold Lamb Marketing Board-we sup-port it as long as it is supported by theindustry.Some potatoes have been coming infrom the Eastern States, for tworeasons. The first is that some weeksago the potatoes co m ing from t he l ocalImarket were not of an acceptable stan-dard; but more recently some of thewholesalers and some of the retailersalso have decided that, in support ofthe campaign for further deregulationin the industry, they would bring loadsof potatoes in from the Eastern States.That is up to them; they have everyright to do that. I am not going tointerfere.

BREADDeliveries

230. Mr CRANE. to the Minister for Labour,Productivity and Employment:(1) Further to my inquiries regarding

amendments to the Bread Act, in replyto which the Minister advised that theGovernment was looking at amend-ments to the Act to reduce the timeallowed for deliveries from the metro-politan area, is the Minister aware thatto have delivery restricted from 4.00am to 6.00 pm Monday to Saturdaywill not help most country bakers whoare within easy reach of the metropoli-tan area within these time constraints?As an example, the Lancelin baker iswithin two hours of Perth and hasalready suffered in that he has had toclose his business and release his em-ployees. one of whom migrated fromMauritius specifically to work in thatarea.

(2) Will the Minister take a serious lookat this problem with a view toeffectively protecting country bakersfrom continued intrusion by multi-

2962

[Thursday, I8 June 19871 26

national takeovers and imposing re-strictions which will be necessaryimmediately, such as restricting deliv-ery to local carriers, which will reducethe amount of bread being dumpedonto small country stores?

PETER DOWDING replied:and (2) We are having further dis-cussions on this issue, and I wouldwelcome comments from members ofthe Opposition parties. It is imposs-ible to provide a system which willgive utter protection against compe-tition for every shop, baker, or indus-try. In any case. I do not believe it tobe desirable.No restriction is placed on deliveryhours which would affect the Lancelinsituation, so the baker is thereforeoperating in a commercial environ-ment. The remarkable thing about thebread industry is that, despite the

suggestion that the multinationalswould take over the industry, morebread shops and bakeries have openedduring the last two years than haveopened for some considerable time.That has come about throughincreased specialisation by smallerbakeries.

This issue is not easily addressed, so Iwould welcome comment from mem-bers opposite in an endeavour to finda solution. The Country Bakers As-sociation sought a delivery time of5.00 am, and the metropolitan bakerssought a delivery time of 3.00 am. TheGovernment decided on a compro-mise of 4.00 am. That received generalacceptance, but in recent times a num-ber of people have sought a delay inthe legislation in order to put furtherrepresentations to me, and I will re-ceive those representations.

Mr(1)

2963