(22 October, 1957.1 27

metropolitan area. But now it is neces-sary to wait a couple of generations untilthe forests grow again.

On the farming properties with timbergrowing on them, the farmers, if they canmake a few hundred or a few thousandpounds from royalties, are not much con-cerned about the timber position in 50Years' time; but our natural heritage hasbeen sacrificed for them. Bit by bit it wrnldisappear and that will be the end of it.

Mr. Court: But when they sell that tim-ber they are relieving the State forests ofsomething.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Thatis so, but when it is gone It is gone forever.

Mr. Court: But that is part of yourforestry plan.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: No,the plan is for perpetual forests on a ro-tational basis.

Mr. Court: That is for your State forests,but as you cut these private lands, twothings are achieved-one, you save thedemand on the State forests; and two,these lands come into agricultural pro-duction.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Yes.We are making the best of a bad job; butit is criminal that the land was ever per-mitted to be used for other than forestrypurposes because sooner or later it will beentirely lost to forestry; and there areother areas which are eminently suitablefor the various forms of agriculture. itis obvious that so much farming land isbeing retained in its timbered conditionthat it is a better timber proposition thana farming proposition.

Mr. Court: Not necessarily. There areother reasons why a farmer keeps some ofhis land timbered.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: yes, alittle for protection and for firewood, fenc-ing and a few things like that, but that isnot what I am discussing.

Mr. Court: He often has to bide histime for capital to develop the property.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Overa period of from 50 to 100 years?

Mr. Court: They are exceptional cases.The MINISTER FOR HOUS8ING: No,

they are not. Because of this discussion, Iwill approach the Forests Department tosee whether we can get some fair samplesin order to show the hon. member whatI mean.

Mr. Roberts: When you mentioned abouttransposing privately owned areas, In theforest areas, from an aerial photographyou will not be able to tell the areas ofbushland that have been developed forpasture purposes. A lot of undergrowth hasbeen cleared from beneath the trees.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: It isobvious the member for Bunbury has neverseen an aerial photograph. It is almostPossible to count the number of leaves on a.tree.

Mr. Roberts: You will not see the pastureland underneath the trees.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Yes,without any difficulty.

Mr. Wild: Will the Minister have a lookat the proposition I put up to him aboutgravel in the Armadale district, becausethe remarks he made tonight, I am sure,do not apply to that district. There isother gravel there which is of a very lowgrade.

The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Anundertaking was given by the Conserva-tor of Forests, although it is not his jab,to indicate many places where gravelcould be obtained; and he has done thatvery thing for quite a number of localauthorities.

Mr. Wild: if you get him to point out-The MINISTER FOR HOUSING: Would

the hon. member make his approachesother than during this debate?

Vote put and passed.Vote-Forests, £347,409-agreed to.Progress reported.

House adjourned at 10.26 p.m.

Irqinlatiucr (ihinucitTuesday, 22nd October, 1957.

CONTENTS.

Question: Railways, details of revenue,etc., Fremantie-Kalgoorle and EasternStates.......... ......... ....

Bills: fl1ush Fires Act Amendment, 8r.Marketing of Potatoes Act Amendment,

Sr. .. . .. .. ..Chiropodists, report-.. ..Local Government, report .. ..Church of England School Lands Act

Amendment, Corn., reportRoman Catholic Vieariate of the Kim-

berleys Property, 2r., Coin., report .Supply (No. 2), £18,000,000, 2r., Corn.,

reportInspection of Machinery Act Amend-

ment, 1r. .. .. ..Betting Control Act Continuance, 2r.,

Corn., report ... .. ... ..Public Service, Corn., reportJunior Farmers' Movement Act Amend-

ment, 2r., Corn., report ... ..Companies Act Amendment, 2r. -.Licensing Act Amendment (No.1), Zr..Optometrists Act Amendment, 2r., Corn.,

report................... ...

2W82380

23S023302M8

2380

2=8

2380

2388

28832391

239123982401

2403

The PRESIDENT took the Chair at 4.30p.m., and read prayers.

2379

2380 [COUNCIL. 1

QUESTION.

RAILWAYS.Details of Revenue, etc., Fremantle-

Kalgoorlie and Eastern States.

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON asked the Ministerfor Railways:

(1) What would be the income and ex-penditure in respect of railway operationfrom Fremantle to Kalgoorlie on each ofthe following sections for the years endedthe 30th June, 1955. 1956, 1957-

(a) Section Fremantle to Northam;(b) Section Northam to Merredini;(c) Section Merredin to Kalgoorlie?

4 2.) What proportion of total railway-traffic passes between Western Australiaand the Eastern States?

*The MINISTER replied;,

1954-55 1055-56. 1950-57.

(1) Fremantle . Nortitam(suburban excepted)

Earning .... 2,388,514 2,385,553 2,695,147Expehilture _,1,809,797 2,034,693 2,385,780

Eat Nartham* Eec-redin:-

Earnings$ 927,765 989,353 1,097.899Expenditure . 867,611 1,002,285 1,003,678

Mlerredln - Kambalis(Merredin excluded)Earning,3 1,146,266 1,255,885 1,238,0317Ex penditure 1,414.01 11,655,071 1,830,843

(2) Journeys 49% -45% .89%Tonnage 1340% 1-77% 1-01%

BILLS (2)-THIRD READING.1. Bush Fires Act Amendment.

Returned to the Assembly with anamendment.

2, Marketing of Potatoes Act Amend-ment,

Returned to the Assembly withamendments.

BILLS (2)-REPORT.

1. Chiropodists.2, Local Government.

Adopted.

BILL-CHURCH OF ENGLAND SCHOOLLANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

in Committee.

Hion. W. R. Hall in the Chair; the Min-ister for Railways in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 to 3-agreed to.

Clause 4-Section 5 repealed and re-enacted with amendments.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Imove an amenldment-

That the word "moneys" in line 30,page 2. be struck out and the words"proceeds, moneys, rents, Issues andprofits" inserted in. lieu.

It was promised in another place that thisamendment would be inserted.

Amendment put and passed.

on motions by the Minister for Railways,clause further consequentially amended

Striking out the word "moneys" inline 32, page 2, and inserting thewords "proceeds, moneys, rents, issues,profits and interest" in lieu:

striking out the word "moneys" inline 10, page 6, and inserting thewords "proceeds, moneys, rents, issues,profits and interest" in lieu;

striking out the word "moneys" inline 14, page 6, and inserting thewords "proceeds, moneys, rents, issues,profits and interest" in lieu.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.Clause 5, Title-agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.

BILL-ROMAN CATHOLIC VICARIATEOF THE KIMWBERLEYS PROPERTY.

Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 17th October.

HON. C. H. SIMPSON (Midland) 14.45):My object in securing the adjournmentof the debate wvas simply to give membersan opportunity to look at this BiDl in caseany of them might wish to comment onit. The measure seems to be perfectlystraight -forward, its purpose being to dealwith the administration of the propertybelonging to the Roman Catholic church.I have no objection to the Bill and sup-port the second reading.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee.

Bill passed through Committee withoutdebate, reported without amendment andthe report adopted.

BILL-SUPPLY (No. 2). f£1.00,000.Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 17th October.

THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS (Hon.H. C. Strickland-North-in reply) [4.49]:There were some queries raised by Mr.Simpson and Dr. Hislop and I shall dealwith them now. Mr. Simpson criticised theGovernment, stating that expenditure inthe metropolitan area was being under-taken at the expense of the country areas.

Ron. L. A. Logan: Are you replying tothe debate?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Yes.I-on, L. A. Logan: I secured the adjourn-

ment of the debate, Mr. President. and Idid not hear you call the Order of the Day.

:2M

[22 October, 1957.] 38

The PRESIDENT: I called Order of theDay No. 7 and the minister rose in reply.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Per-haps when we are considering Clause 2Mr. Logan could make any remarks hewishes to make. Mr. Simpson assertedthat the Government was spending far toomuch money in the metropolitan area, tothe detriment of country districts. Thatstatement should not be allowed to passunchallenged, because the Government hasnever neglected the country areas, and Ipropose to read some figures of expendi-ture on various items that will illustratethat the policy of the Government is todistribute its expenditure as evenly aspossible, and to see that country areas gettheir fair share.

In 1956-57, the amount of money receiv-ed for petrol tax funds was £6,031,987.Of that sum, £5,255,813, or 87.8 per cent.,was spent on country roads.

Hon. Sir Charles Lathamn: You could nothelp it. The Federal Act provided for that.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:There has been criticism in connectionwith the Narrows bridge.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: You carriedout the requirements of the Act.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: No:more than was laid down under the Act.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham., You cannotspend it in the metropolitan area.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: IPropose to show that although the Act doesprovide for percentages to be spent in cer-tain areas, that-percentage has been ex-ceeded in country areas, so far as mainroads funds are concerned, and that thecity has not received the proportion whichit could fairly claim under the Act. How-ever. it has not suffered in that respect,because there are other funds available forcity roads. Of the amount collected,£5,25,813 was spent on country roads and£132,320. or only 12.2 per cent. was spentin the metropolitan area. Of that amount,£427,310 was spent on the Narrows bridgeworks.

Hon. C. H. Simpson: How much?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Theamrount was £421,310 from the 1956-57 mainroads petrol moneys. Of the 1957-58 petroltax payments. £432,000 win be aflocatedto the Narrows bridge and £31,000 to theduplication of Canning bridge. In 1956-5?,£108,786 has been spent on the Albany har-bour, and £33,000 has been allocated thisyear for the completion of No. 2 berth.Last year. C50,000 was spent on Geraidtonharbour in providing a special fenderingsystem. Provision has been made this yearfor £9,000 to be spent on removal of a via-duct and breakwater repairs at.oeraldton,and £12,500 for the completion of fishingboat berth. etc. An amount of £83,000 has

been set aside this year for jetty improve-ments and dredging at Bunbury, and£82,000 is being provided for additions andimprovements to North-West jetties.

The expenditure on the comprehensivewater supply scheme-including Common-wealth subsidy-was £1,033,138 In 1956-57,and the expenditure proposed for this yearIs £1.120,000. The 1956-57 expenditure onoldfields water supply was £305,993, and

in 1957-58 it will be £380,500. The amountspent on buildings was £107,172 and£138,302 on engineering during 1956-57 inthe North-West district. The Kimberleyswere also allocated £300,000 for this pur-pose in 1957-58. Last year, £383,325 wasspent on country water .supplies and£235,432 on country drainage and irriga-tion. Of this last amount, £167,51i wasspent on Wellington Damn and £258,000will be used this year on raising the dam.During 1957-58, £355,000 will he spent onthe Cunderdin-Minnivale main, and£468,000 on the Narrogin-Katanning- main.

Other water supply expenditure in-cludes £58,000 on the Yorkrakine spurand £62,000 on a main southward fromMerredin to the West Narembeen tank,£20,000 at Kwolyin, and £18,000 on theSouth Doodlakine and South Tammin ex-tensions. An amount of £318,500 has beenprovided for enlargements, renovationsand improvements etc., to the Goldfieldswater supply. The amount of £237,000has been set aside for country townswater supplies, the main expenditure be-ing Lake Grace £:50,000: Albany £37,000and Oeraldton £303,000. An amount of£60,000 will be spent on the Collie mainchannel enlargement.

The State Electricity Commission hasspent enormous sums of money in coun-try areas. The first unit of the Bunburypower station has been brought into opera-tion and the construction of the next two30,000 kilowatt sets is proceeding satis-factorily. A considerable amount of rail-way loan fund expenditure Is in countryareas. We know that there are very largesums of railway expenditure in countryareas, particularly on track rehabilitation.There are many other examples whichcould be quoted.

If time allowed and figures could bethoroughly examined, it would be foundthat the assertion of Mr. Simpson is notcorrect and that the expenditure in thecity has not been to the detriment ofcountry areas. Mr. Simpson also wantedto know how the amount of £1,000,000deficit in railway finances might bebrought about in this financial year. it isestimated that on top of depreciation,amounting to more than Ell million andinterest approaching £2,250,000, thebalance of the amount will be made upof the difference between revenue .andoperating, expenses.-

2381

2382 [COUNCIL.]

Hon. C. H. Simpson: Are not interestand depreciation higher than in previousyears?I

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Yes,according to the amount of loan fundsexpended and the value of the new plantto be put into operation. I would expectthem to be somewhat higher this year.The exact amounts have not yet beenchecked1 but for the 12 months endedJune, 1957, the depreciation came to£1,335,457 and the interest bill was£.2,118,719. So, as the hon, member said,these amounts will be higher in the currentfinancial year because the loan fundshave been increased by some £4,000,000and a lot of new plant has been broughtinto use, and this will necessarily raisethe depreciation account. The balance willbe the difference between revenue andoperating expenditure. Members will ap-preciate this point because the railwaysare operating on 1953 freights but with1957 costs. The gap, therefore, Is somewhatlarge.

Members will recall that Dr. Hislopsought some information In connectionwith the north switch road from the Nar-rows bridge. It will be remembered thathe raised the samne matter in his addressin September, 1958. and it was then pointedout in reply that the development of theswitch road across the city, connecting theNarrows with the proposed Yahichep high-way and the north-western suburbs wouldbe the second stage of development afterthe bridge over the Narrows was built, Inthe first stage it is expected to intercepta large proportion of the city-bound traf-fic from the Narrows and Mounts Bay-rd.in the large parking area to be providedon the foreshore reclamation.

With a view to ascertaining the prob-able traffic demand on the western switchroad and obtaining figures for its rate ofgrowth, the Main Roads Department hasthis year undertaken a continuous trafficcount on the Canning Highway and anorigin and destination survey for the city,the results of which are now beinganalysed. The results of this analysis willindicate the degree of urgency for theconstruction of the switch road. The hon.member has been misinformed as to a re-vised alignment of the switch road. Theplans now being prepared in the MainRoads Department still adhere substan-tially to the alignment recommended inthe Stephenson plan along the line ofGeorge-st.

Again, Dr. Hislop was Informed in Sep-tember, 1958, that when considering thealternatives of the George-st. and Mill-gan-st. alignments for the western switchroad, it was necessary to be clear as tothe functions of this road, The switch roadis part of an Inner ring or girdle roadcomprising Riverside Drive, the switchroad and an improved Roe-st.: and itsfunction is to permit traffic to flow freely

around the city centre without having topass through the more congested streetsof the centre.

Thus it must be provided with a dequateentry and exit points, properly designedas to traffic capacity, but not so manythat the free flow of traffic is too muchimpeded. It must also bound the commer-cial and business centre of the city on thewest and must connect readily with theproposed Yanchep highway and the north-western suburbs. For these reasons theproposed Milllgan-st. line is not satisfac-tory.

Traffic studies have been made in res-pect to peak hour movement generatedbetween the city centre and the varioussuburbs, and these will be amplified whenthe origin and destination analysis iscompleted. The preliminary figures ob-tained show very clearly that the westernswitch road cannot be taken across thecity without grade separations; andonce this requirement is accepted, it isclear that the Millllgan-st. line will requireresumptions at least as costly as those onthe George-st. line, to say nothing ofthe increased construction costs due tothe greater length of the Yanchep high-way.

The further point should be made thatbecause of the round levels, satisfactorygrade separation for a highway on theMilligan-st. line can be obtained only byprovision of much steeper grades betweenHay-st. and Murray-st. than are accept-able for a major road of this type. Inshort, comprehensive consideration hasbeen given already to the alternative Mill!-gan-st. line, and it has been consideredmuch less satisfactory than the proporedGeorge-st. line.

The Government has not changed itsmind in regard to the provision of thewestern switch road and a route to thenorth-western suburbs. As indicated, ithas proceeded further with traffic engin-eering surveys directed toward an eco-nomic design and a programming of theproject. A great deal of preliminary workhas also been done on the drawing boardin respect of the geometric design of thestructures required.

Before* the scheme can be implemented,it is necessary to obtain the City Council'sconcurrence and agreement as to its re-sponsibility and financial share in the pro-ject. In the technical stages of planning,there is co-operation between officers ofthe City Council and of the Main RoadsDepartment. I think what I have saidwill answer the query that the hon. mem-ber raised.

Question put and passed.Bi11 read a6 second time.

17n Committtee.Bill Passed through Committee without

debate, reported without' amendment andthe report adopted.

2382

[22 October, 1957.)

BILL-INSPECTION OF MACHINERYACT AMENDMENT.

Received from the Assembly and reada first time.

BILL-BETTING CONTROL ACTCONTINUANCE.Second Reading.

Debate resumed from the 17th October.

BON. L. A. LOGAN (Midland) [5.103:As one who supported the measure inthe first place. I feel it incumbent on meto say something on this Bill, which seeksto take away the time limit and make thelegislation permanent. When the Billwas first introduced, I expressed the opin-ion that upon the personnel of the boardwould depend the success of starting-pricebookmaking operations. Up to the pres-ent I have had no cause to change myopinion, and I still believe that the func-tions of the board are principally con-cerned with ensuring that starting-pricebookmaking Is a. success.

We have been told that all is not well,and that certain things are happeningwithin the board or among the book-makers themselves. I do not intend tomake that same accusation, because I havenot any knowledge that such is the posi-tion. The suggestion has also been madethat about four operators control start-ing-price bookmaking. In this connectionI would say that probably four operatorscontrol the greatest amount of money: butbecause they control the finance, it doesnot necessarily mean that other peopleare dummnying for them. It must be re-membered that small operators outback,who are not financial enough to carry allthe burden themselves, naturally lay offwith another bookmaker.

So we have the position that a book-maker who operates, perhaps, in one ofour larger country towns, will ring up an-other bookmaker in the town and lay offwith him. If the second bookmaker thinksit looks red hot, and he cannot carry it,he will lay the bet off with one of thelarger operators in the city. This sort ofthing went on before starting-price book-making was made legal.

In Geraldton we used to have some-thing like 20 touts or operators aroundthe back alleyways. Sometimes they tooka risk themselves--not very often-andthat was when the poor old punter, if hehad a win, got caught, because the fellowcould not pay him. But as there wasnothing legal about the transaction hecould not collect. In turn, the majorityof these s.p. operators used to pay what-ever they collected into the pocket of thelarger operators in the town; and thosefellows, if they did not have sufficientfinance to carry the baby, laid off withthe bigger man in the city.

That isa the reason why the businesscamne back to the four big operators here;and I think that will continue to happenuntil such time as the operators in boththe country towns and the city build upsufficient reserves to carry their own risks.If they do that they will be able-but notaltogether-to keep away from the bigmen.

To me it seems unfortunate that thesmaller men in the country have for thepurpose of getting information, to lay offto a certain extent with the operators Inthe city. Unless they do pass a certainamount of business through to the bigoperators, the information which they re-quire for the conduct of their businessesis not forthcoming.

I know one operator who, for 12 maonths,kept laying off with a city bookmaker;and he found that he was not gettinganywhere. 'He decided, therefore, to takea risk and to carry all the money thatwas laid with him. He finished up welland truly in front: but had he had a badrun at that time he could have finishedup on the wrong side of the ledger.* Dr. Hislop said that he is satisfied thatgambling is inherent not only in Austra,-lians but also in many other people ofthe World. I do not think many peoplerealise just how much gambling goes onthroughout this State, let alone the restof Australia. If one likes to snoop arounddifferent places and different organisa-tions one will realise, the same as I havedone, that the amount of betting carriedon in Western Australia is colossal.

It occurs throughout all walks of life,among all types, and with many differentforms of gambling. So by bringing s.p.bookmaking into the open. I think wehave done a good job. in saying that, Ido not want it to be thought that I amwholeheartedly behind s.p. bookmaking. Ibelieve-and I said this at the time thelegislation was introduced-that otherthan telephone betting, we could stop allforms of s.p. bookmaking.

I know it has been said that that isimpossible. But had the Government ofthe day, or any Governent, been willingto tackle the problem; and had it beenwilling to gaol the scouts and touts-those who were taking the burden off theshoulders of the big shots who were work-ing behind doors and who were not gameto come out in the open-it would nothave been long before we would haveforced the big operators to accept the risksthemselves. By that means, they wouldhave had to take the risk of going behindbars or going out of existence.

However, the difficulty is in regard totelephone betting. Because the postal de-partment comes under the control of theCommonwealth Government, the Govern-ment of Western Australia has no controlover it; and I would say that at least50 per cent. of the s.p. betting carried on

2384 COUNCIL.]

tioday Is done per Medium of the -tele-phone.- Of 'course, the difficulty is howto control' it

There is one aspect of-s.p. betting aboutwhich I am not very happy; and I referto the functions of Tates Press. This orga-nisation has the blessing 6f the board.. andit is the source of information in regardto starting prices for all races: its infor-mation is disseminated throughout all thebookmakers in Western Australia. How-ever, the small man has to pay the sameprice as the big man for this Infornation;and in my opinion, that is wrong.Even the smallest bookmaker cannot gethis information from any source otherthan through Tates Press; and for thatservice he has to pay at least £28 to £00per month.

Hon. H. K. Watson: What wkLs the posi-tion before the Act came into operation?

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: Tates Press operatedthen: that organisation has always dis-seminated the information throughoutWestern Australia. However, I do not knowwhat the bookmakers paid for the infor-mation in those days. Today It costs thesmall bookmaker £28 to £30 a month . Notlong ago three or four of the smaller book-makers bucked about this proposition andrefused to pay £7 or £8 a week for theinformation which they were getting, andthey obtained it from other bookmakersin their area, who, In their turn, wereobtaining it from rates. But the three orfour men involved almost lost their Ii-cences: so it looks as though the organisa-tion is a pretty strong one.

I had to go to the three bookmakers con-cerned and warn them that if they werefound giving this information to the otherbookmakers in their area they would runthe risk of losing their licenees also. I didnot ask which bookmaker was giving in-formation, because I thought that waswrong; but I 'warned them what was likelyto happen. I do not know who owns or con-trols the organisation. But it Is certainly abig business; and in my opinion, itscharges, for the information given , arerather high.

It was suggested in an editorial In thismorning's issue of "The West Australian"that the amount of tax paid by book-makers is not sufficient. The writer, in hiswisdom, contended that the s.p. bookmak-ers should pay 131 per cent., the same asis paid by the totalisator people. If oneanalyses that statement one realises justhow ridiculous it is.

The Minister for Railways: Totalisatorpeople do not have to pay any rent.

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: it was a silly state-ment coming from a leader writer of theleading paper in Western Australia. Howcould these people pay 13J per cent. ontheir gross revenue before they even startedto pay tax? These bookmakers are run-fling businesses: and to say that they

could pay 131 per cent. on their gross turn-over is just'too silly. These' newspaperpeople ought to be realistic about things.

We have all read reports regarding thetotalisator system. Mr. Stratton made areport in regard to it; and there was oneremark I would like to mention. He saidthat if people want to bet, they should goto the courses to do it. How does he ex-pest anybody outside a radius of 20 milesfrom the course, to be able to go to thecourse to bet? Then in the next breathhe says that totalisators should be in-stalled. He cannot expect people to go tothe course to do their betting if totalisatorsare built outside the course. I am afraidthe thinking of people like that is ratherstrange. He also said in his report thatthe prospect of s.p. betting carrying onwas not very bright.

I also noticed, in the report of a Vic-torian committee, that the same thing wassaid. The statement was-

The survival there seems doubtful.1 would like to know on whose authoritythat statement was made, That was in-formation given to the Government, andit seemed to me that the writer was tread-ing on rather dangerous ground, Peoplesaying such things should give furtherconsideration to their statements.

Recently, when I was in South Australia,I was the guest of a local race club, andone of the committee men lectured meabout the evils of s&p. bookmaking. Hetried to tell me that it would not last. Butthe fact that it failed in South Australiais no reason why it should fail here. Hadthat South Australian committeeman seenthe conditions that obtained in thisState prior to the passing of this Act, Ithink he would have agreed that the onlything to do was to take the action thatwe took in an endeavour to clean up someof the anomalies that existed. I will goso far as to say that in Geraldton condi-tions are 100 per cent, better than theywere before.

Hion. G. E. Jeffery: They are 1,000 percent, better.

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: They are 100 percent, better; and we have to keep thingsthat way. I told the bookmakers them-selves, at the luncheon to which I wasinvited, that the position rested withthem; and It was up to them if theywanted bookmaking to remain legal. Theresponsibility is theirs to do the jobproperly.

At the same time, the Betting ControlBoard also has a responsibility. lImmedi-ately the board starts any shenaniganindividual bookmakers are inclined to tryto do the same thing. I only hope thatthe board will continue to hold the samestrong views it has had up to now.

One or two suggestions have been madethat the position is not all that it mightbe. I will go so far as to say that there

296t ,

[22 October, 1957.] 38

are one or two things about which I amnot satisfied. I will not go into any detailbecause I do not know the facts; but Igive a warning to the board, and to thes.p. bookmakers, that if they do not keepthe game clean they will not get my voteto continue the legislation alter a certainperiod.

In Committee I intend to support anamendment which will have the effect ofbringing this legislation before Parliamentat a future date. That will be a warningto the board, and to the s~p. bookmakers,that if they do not keep the game cleanthe matter of legalised bookmaking canbe brought up for discussion. With thoseremarks I support the second reading.

THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS(Hon. H. C. Strickland-North-In reply)[5.28]:- I think Mr. Logan's remarks werevery pertinent, and they certainly coveredthe situation as it exists today. I1 agreewith very much of what he said. Mr.Murray, in his speech, referred to mystatement that the operations of the Acthad been most successful; and that therewas not the slightest doubt that from allangles a continuance of the legislationwill mean betting will be kept under thestrictest vigilance and control.

He said that my statement was not inaccordance with his views. However, whenI said that everybody appeared to -besatisfied, 1 had not heard the opinion ofthe hon. member; and I shall now qualifythe statement by saying that at least Mr.Murray, and "The West Australian," aretwo who do not agree with it. The hon.member raised considerable doubt aboutthe correctness of the statement, but gaveno reason for his doubt.

As everyone knows, one of the Primereasbns for creating the Betting ControlAct Was to eliminate the unsavoury Sys-tem of illegal street and shop bettingwhich was increasing over the years, andwhich was carried on in shops, hotels,streets, lanes, parks, etc., with little orno restraint regarding young persona, orthose in a drunken condition. No one cantruthfully say that betting control hasnot practically eliminated that disgracefulstate of affairs.

With regard to Prosecutions it Is not tobe wondered at that in the first year ofbetting control, following years of un-controlled betting, a comparatively largenumber of persons who were forbiddenby the Act to bet or enter betting premiseswould endeavour to do so. It is just aslogical to conclude that later, when con-trol was properly established, there wouldbe a lesser number of persons attemptingto breach the Act.

It is to the credit of the licensed book-makers themselves, as well as the vigilanceof the police and the control exercised

by the board that the provisions of theAct have been so well adhered to. it isvery much to the advantage of book-makers that they conduct their premisesas they are required to do.

Through his inspection of various pre-mises Mr. Murray doubted the genuine-ness of the reduction in the number ofoffences. Which premises has he visitedand what was the nature of the offenceshe allegedly saw committed? He did notassist the administration by bringing suchmatters to their notice, which he couldhave done confidentially.

It is a Practical impossibility for thepolice to see every breach of the BettingControl Act that is committed, any morethan they can be present to see everybreach of the Traffic Act or the LicensingAct or the Criminal Code or any otherAct. Mr. Murray acknowledged that the'bookmakers co-operated in policing theAct in the - early .period of the Act'shistory.

He went on to make the astoundingstatement' tbiat because the number of.prosecutiobs were considerably lowered in.the second year of operations--un-doubtedly because of the successful con-trol and conduct of betting premises--thiswas due to t 'hose who are entrusted withthe control of prosecutions having de-veloped a feeling that conditions are muchthe same as when illegal betting was rife,in the State and thereby were notinterested.

How ban it reasonably be alleged thatconditions are the same as formerly? Ob-viously they are not; and, again, whatgrounds are there for saying that thosein authority are not Interested? Mr. Mur-ray has merely expressed his opinion, buthe has not given any reasons to supportit. I suggest that the facts prove thecontrary.

It is not surprising to find the greaternumber of prosecutions are of Juvenilesor under-age persons. Before the Act,betting in premises, and obstruction oftraffic in thoroughfares aggravated by bet-ting were the offences committed. Under'the Act, betting is lawful1 but certainclasses of persons are prohibited from en-tering betting premises. The largest classof these consists of under-age persons.Obviously a proportion of that class whowere used to betting previously wouldendeavour to continue even when the Actforbade them, until it became obvious thatit would not pay to pursue their attempts.Hence the proportionately large numberof charges against juveniles in the firstyear compared with the second year.

The assertion of Mr. Murray that wherethe juvenile remains on premises or betson premises, the bookmaker is equallyliable to prosecution, could easily be mis-construed. In some eases they could be

2385

(COUNCIL.)

equally liable, but in possibly the majorityof oases the bookmaker would not beliable.

A person under 21 commits an offenceif he bets or tries to obtain a. bet inregistered premises. A bookmaker, how-ever, commits an offence if he knowinglybets with a person apparently under 21years of age, or permits a person under21 years to enter his premises. In thefirst case, the only qualification is thatthe person is in fact under 21 years. Ifm such a case the person was so obviouslyunder age the bookmaker or his employeewould be equally liable In so far as hecould not plead that the lad appearedto be 21 years of age.

in cases where it would be difficult todecide whether a person was under orover 21-and there are many from 18to 21 who by reason of their physique andthe nature of their employment, especi-ally if dressed in working clothes, areIn that category-a bookmaker or his em-ployees would not be liable. The law Isreasonable In that regard. The youthwho looks 21 years of age, but Is not,knows that he is committing an offencein such circumstances; whereas the book-maker or his employee-perhaps in well-patronised premises and during a busyperiod-has to guess whether a particdilarperson is under or over 21 years. Simi-lar provisions are contained in the Li-censing Act, but a licensee or his servantIs not prosecuted on every occasion whena person who is under 21 is supplied withliquor; only, in fact, when the latter Isapparently under 21 years of age.

It was explained by Mr. Murray howpolice obtain prosecutions. He is em-phatic that it is not the result of policevisits to betting premises. In that regard,he can Just as emphatically be disagreedwith, in most cases. In the metropolitanarea the plainclothes police frequentlyvisit betting premises and in the countrysuch duty is carried out by uniformedpolice.

it is obvious again that some offencesare committed when the police are notin the vicinity, for they cannot alwaysbe watching betting premises. At suchtimes, if Juveniles enter betting premisesand attempt to make bets and they arediscovered by the vigilance of the book-maker, it is to the bookmaker's creditthat he co-operates with the police andassists in maintaining the law.

Is he not also justified In disclosing anoffence committed by another person onhis premises, rather than allow it to con-tinue and take the risk of being chargedwith being a party to the same offence,especially when, as well as being subjectto a monetary penalty, he may. place hislicpnce in Jeopardy? The board has powerunder Regulation 58 to suspend or cancela. licence if the conduct thereof Justifiestha~t course being taken.

it was further stated by Mr. Murray-It is well known that the majority

of prosecutions against juveniles re-sulted from information given bybookmakers to the police.

He did not state by whom it is well known.But although the reference to police

and bookmakers appears to be made ina spirit of reflection on them, the hon.member pointed out that, "That was notso bad." What was bad, he said, wasthat a youth had a winning bet in regis-tered betting premises and before he hadtime to collect his winnings, the policewere informed. it was not the bookmakerwho had accepted the bet and who hadinformed the police who was charged, butthe youth in question.

If there is any fault to find in thatstatement it Is with the police failing intheir duty by not prosecuting the book-maker as well as the youth. However, ifthe youth was not apparently under 21years of age and the bookmaker did notknowingly bet with an under-aged person,then the bookmaker did not commit anoffence and the police were not remiss intheir duty.

Hon. H. K. Watson: Did the youth goto the police station at Roe-st. to reportthe fact that he had committed the of -fence?

The MINISTER FMR RAILWAYS: Ihave not got the details. The hon. mem-ber proceeded to say-

When he was convicted of thecharge his solicitor endeavoured toget a refund of the stake; but be-cause there is no provision in the Actfor that to be done and because thebet was illegal, the court did not orderthe refund of the stake. The moneywas not handed over to the Crown:it remained in the bookmaker'spocket.

If this is a factual case, the solicitorfor the defendent did not sufficiently pur-sue his client's interests. Even withoutthe authority of the court, had he quotedin court, or acted Independently under,Regulation 113 there would not have beenany complaint. The regulation states,-

No bookmaker shall refuse or ne-glect to repay to the bettor immedi-ately on demand any money receivedby the bookmaker in connection withany bet which is made contrary tothe Act or regulations,

There was, in fact, no cause for corn-alaint. The solicitor was at fault; not thelaw.

The hon. member wound up his refer-ence to Juveniles by stating-

These are the types of thing that goon under this legislation, The state-ment of the Minister or the Govern-ment that everything is working wellIs very much open to doubt, very muchindeed.

[22 October, 1957.] 2387

The hon. member has given one exampleonly of his cause for complaint and thatis shown to be a complete wash-out; hencemy statement is not disproved.

The hun. member raised what he termedanother "serious matter"-that of theestablishment of betting premises alongsidehotels. He made it clear that the Govern-went did not give any undertaking thatbookmakers' premises would not be estab-lished alongside hotels. He instanced amember of the Government who quotedthe report of the Commissioner of Policeof another State.

That report gives no specific indicationas to whether betting premises are near to,or far from hotels. It may, however, bededuced therefrom that betting Premiseswere so far from hotels that it would notbe practicable to patronise both places andthat hotels were deserted for the bettingpremises; whereas prior to the advent ofbetting premises, the same Persons spenttheir time in the hotels drinking, especiallyon Saturday afternoons. The State anddistrict referred to are not disclosed.

There is only one other State of thiscontinent where registered or licensedbetting premises were ever established-that is South Australia. I understand thatin that State when premises were firstestablished they were placed at somedistance from hotels. This resulted inconsiderable illegal betting being carriedon in or near hotels. To overcome thisdifficulty additional licences were grantedfor premises near the hotels which eventu-ally resulted in chaos. Eventually alllicences for betting premises in that Statewere withdrawn with the exception ofthose at Port Pixie, where I believe, sevenlicensed premises are still in existence.

Had a policy been adopted here to theextent of keeping betting premises andhotels sufficiently far apart to prevent theclientele of one from frequenting theother, I doubt whether the implementationof the Act would have been practicable;and if it had, its success would have beenmore doubtful. Unquestionably, illegalbetting would have developed in the vicinityof hotels.

The main reason for doubting its prac-ticability is that to have set up bettingpremises sufficiently far from hotels toprevent patronage to both, very few, ifany, of the former could have been grantedin the cities of Perth and Fremantle, andat such country centres as Kalgoorlie,Boulder, Bunbury, Collie, Albany. Northam,Norseman, Geraldton. and Perhaps otherplaces.

Hon. G. Bennetts: Some licences weregranted next to hotels, and others wererefused.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Thatis so. Such a decision would have doomedthe Act before it started.

Whilst liquor drinking and betting areaccepted in the community it would beimpossible to keep them apart to any greatextent. No attempt is made to do so onracecourses. The prohibitions containedin the Act and regulations regarding liquorin betting premises, provided they continueto be strongly enforced, are sufficlent toensure that no danger will arise from theproximity of some betting premises tohotels. Their positions range from beingside by side to a distance of two milesapart.

The next question raised by Mr. Murraywas as to the use of "dummnying.' If theboard can obtain sufficient proof at anytime that a registered premises bookmakeror racecourse bookmaker is "dumimying"another licence whether on-course or off-course, I have no doubt it will immediatelycancel that bookmaker's licence. Somecases have been suspected and have beeninvestigated by the police, but no proofhas been available to support a charge, orfor the board to take action. The boardcannot take such a serious course as tocancel a licence merely on suspicion. Itwould be interesting to know how the hon.member convinces himself that there wasa large number of shops registered purelyand simply as dummies of bookmakersoperating other registered premises.

In answer to parliamentary questions.the board disclosed that 57 licences werevoluntarily surrendered and four were can-celled in a period of two years. In thisregard the hon. member stated-

An examination of the position ofsome of those 57 operators who volun-tarily surrendered their licences indi-cates that a large number were doingreasonably well. They were not situ-ated in places where there was nobusiness as a result of which they said,"We are not going to carry on becauseit does not pay." They were in quitereasonably good business undertakingsbut they voluntarily surrendered theirlicences for an exorbitant sum forgoodwill-the goodwill of the business.

As it has not been officially disclosedwho the bookmakers were; where theyoperated: and how well they were doing,it is difficult to accept the statement.

The board legally has no power to con-trol payment for goodwill, but it has beenmade quite clear to all concerned that itwill take whatever indirect means areavailable to Prevent trafficking in licencesor other improper Practices.

As an example, a few months ago theboard strongly suspected that a licenseewas a dummy for another person. 'Thelicensee desired to "dispose of his business."The chairman of the board made a thor-ough investigation of his financial books.which were kept by a public accountant.They created a grave suspicion in thechairman's mind, but proof sufficient to

2388 COUNCIL.]

prefer a charge was not available. How-ever, that, with confidential informationobtained-which could not be used to sup-pose a case-resulted in the prevention ofan undercover amount of £3,000 or morebeing paid for the benefit of the personwho was believed to be the true ownerof the business.

Two other cases recently occurred wherethe consideration for the purchase of re-tiring bookmakers' business chattels wasreduced by approximately £250 and £600respectively by reason of the board's super-vision.

When the hon. member makes the fol-lowing statement-

I venture to suggest that nine-tenthsof those who voluntarily surrenderedtheir licences in this last year sur-rendered at the behest of one or otherof four people and that a dummy hasgone into every shop under the classi-fication for no other purpose than todivert the suggestion raised last yearand to give a better spread to the in-come of those operators.

I suggest he is going beyond the boundsof reason and fair play without giving anatom of proof of its correctness. I say that,because it is a direct reflection on theboard as well as on four un-namned persons.

He expressed the thought that the boardcould call for applications for bookmakersto operate Premises which had been pre-vidusly surrendered. The board bas noauth6rity to call for applications for ]I-c~nces; nor can it demand that particularpremises he appropriated to betting pur-poses or a particular tenant. The pro-cedure followed is a sensible one and giveseffect to the primary purpose of the Act.

His further remarks on the point appearto suggest that the board should grantlicences for particular premises to a personwithout his possessing the right to occupythem. The idea Is ludicrous; but there isone feature about the occupation of prem-ises for betting which is scandalous to adegree-that is the, extortionate demandsmade by landlords for rental. In mostcases when it becomes known that prem-ises are required for betting, the rentalsdemanded are as much as four or fivetimes greater than could he obtained inrespect of any other kind of business.

Hon. A. R. Jones: Don't you think theywould be offered?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Notalways.

Ron. A. R. Jones: I think that the book-makers might offer a good bit,

The 1VINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:There could be some of those; but theboard points out that it knows that wherethe premises are registered the rentals arerather high-in fact they are very highIn some cases. I have not the details, butI have heard of complaints; and I under-stand there are some bookmakers who

have gone out of business because theycould not meet both the rentals and theoverheads attached to the business, andthe tax. I understand that there were oneor two in the suburbs who went out forthat reason.

The hon. member's reference to paymentof £60,000 for goodwill after a year's opera-tions is regarded by the Betting ControlBoard as just plain nonsense. This lastshot was at the board itself. I feel cer-tain that he cannot be serious when hesuggests that the board can function with-out any paid staff because it does not pro-secute. Apparently he considers there isnothing else to do, and is not aware thatthe board deals with on-course as well asoff-course bookmakers' lcences and em-ployees (including transfer), the latternumbering over 1,000; and betting dis-putes between bookmakers and bettors:fixes the starting-price of horses at allrace meetings; and attends to correspond-ence and to the many relevant duties inthe administration of an Act, includingthe keeping of essential records.

It is considered that the Act is admin-istered in an economical manner and thatthe board is not over-staffed. The state-ment that the staff nelti~r toil nor spinand that their jobs are sinecures can onlybe attributed to a lack of knowledge ofthe true position.

During the busiest part of the year-that is, prior to the annual renewal oflicences-the secretary and his staff haveworked. many nights and also week-ends.At other timnes they are able to carry outtheir duties in the normal hours.

The five members of the staff are thesecretary, starting -price officer-whosework is mostly carried out on racecourses-record clerk (male), senior typist, andreceptionist-typist. If the work could bedone with less staff the chairman wouldnot hesitate to recommend accordingly. Itis considered that the board's activitiesare carried out on economical lines.

In regard to the question of the boardnot prosecuting and the hon. member'sreference to its not indicating to the policewhere a Prosecution is desirable or neces-sary, it is pointed out that the board hasno investigation officer, and as it was in-tended from the beginning that the policeWould supervise betting shops so far asthe penal provisions of the Act are con-cerned, the remarks of the hon. memberare misplaced.

Notwithstanding that arrangement, thefull-time members of the board visit asmany betting premises as practicable oninspection. It would be quite out of placefor the Police, after they had prepared abrief for prosecution, to submit it to theboard to decide whether or not there wasa ease to answer. The police decide suchmaitters for themselves; and if the. issueis an intricate one which necessitates legaladvice, they obtain it from the Crown Law

2388

[22 October. 1957.] 38

Department. To say that the board couldnot care less about its duties and func-tions is- a mis-statement. I think thepoints raised have been adequatelycovered, and I feel that I can only sayagain that the conditions under whichbetting is now carried on are a vast im-provement on those which obtained underIllegal betting as we knew it for manyyears. If all sections of the communitydo not agree with legal betting, I feelthat all will agree that the present systemis a vast improvement on conditions thatprevailed before the measure was passed.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee.Honi.W. It. Hall in the Chair: the Min-

ister for Railways in charge of the Bill.Clause 1-agreed to.

Clause 2-Section 35 amended:Honi. J. MURRAY: First let me apolo-

gise~ to the Committee for not havingplaced my amendment on the noticepaper. I anticipated that other memberswould have something to say on themeasure, and therefore did not expect itto reach the Committee stage today.Without further reply to the Minister'sremarks, I move an amendment-

That all words after the word".,words" in line 4, page 2, be struckout and the words "'fifty-seven' inline 3 the words 'sixty'" be insertedin lieu.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Ihope the Committee will not agree to theamendment, which has as its objective thelimitation of the legislation. Its accept-ance would mean that the Act would haveto be brought before Parliament again in1900.

H-7on. A. F. Griffith: What Is wrong withthat?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Theonly thing wrong with it Is that Parlia-ment can unnecessarily consider legisla-tion. Where a measure Is of a temporarycharacter, it is usual to impose a limita-tion on its operation in order that it maybe reconsidered by Parliament from timeto time. Such legislation might no longerbe required after a certain period.

I admit that In the legislation underconsideration there are some loose endsthat require tying up. but I feel that thereis no good reason to insist that it bebrought back to Parliament periodically.Should conditions deteriorate or circum-stances alter, and it be found that thelegislation is not living up to the reputa-tion it has earned itseif over the last twoyears, any member could at any time havefurther consideration given to It eitherby way of an amending Bill or a motion.

Hon. Sir CHARLES.- LATHAM: I, amone of those who are ashamed that this.legislation is on the statute book. It isone of the most unf~Lr measures of whichI know. It taxes people who are weakin their intellect. Money raised for thebenefit of this State should be raised from,all of us, but under this Bill it is raisedfrom a section of the community. Becausemen have a weakness for betting and at-tempt to get money from some sourceother than by earning it. Parliament haslegislated in this way; but I am ashamedto think that we raise revenue in such amanner.

The Minister made a lengthy speech inreply to the debate-a much longer onethan he delivered in introducing the meas-ure. He said that the police would super-vise the legislation. As a matter of fact,there has been laxity with regard to policecontrol in this State in two directions;and nobody here will deny what I amsaying.

For instance, the Licensing Act has notbeen implemented correctly by the policein years gone by. in that regard, no-body will say I am not speaking the truth.I often wondered why licensing was notcontrolled as it should have been by thePolice Force.

The second practice that was not pro-perly controlled was the illicit gamblingthat took place before this measure waspassed. It was a well-organised systemof revenue collection. The fines amountedto £200 per week and gradually rose to£400 per week and then £800 per week,as reference to the Press of those dayswill show.

Hon. L. A. Logan: Where was it col-lected from?

Hon. Sir CHAR-LES LATHAM: Mostlyfrom the metropolitan area, I would think.

Hon. L. A. Logan: More from theGeraldton district than anywhere else.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: It wasspread all over the State, but the weekl3collections were constant.

The Minister for Railways: They didnot prosecute people on the racecourse.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: Race-course betting was legal at one time andthere is doubt whether that particularlegislation was ever repealed.

The Minister for Railways: Do you eon-aider people who bet to be weak?

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I do notgo to racecourses to bet but to see theraces, meet congenial people and join inthe excitement.

Hon. E. M. Davies: What about thefashion parade?

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: Suchthings probably fascinated the bon. mem-ber in his younger days. I believe manyfamilies suffer through the husbands'

2389

[COUNCIL.]

betting. I hope the measure will havea short life and that the Government ofthe day, when the legislation ceases, willdeal with the matter properly.

Hon. J. MURRAY: I thought the rea-sons for the amendment were obvious. TheMinister harped on the fact that any pri-vate member could introduce a Bill toamend the legislation-

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: What chancewould such a Bill have?

Ron, J. MURRAY: None, in view ofthe Government's majority in anotherplace. If the legislation Is made perman-ent we can only amend it, and not repealit, so I think it should not be continuedbeyond 1960. I am not satisfied with theMinister's statement that Section 13 ofthe Act gives the board and the policesufficient power to obtain evidence to pre-vent dummying in regard to registeredpremises, because the Practice continues.Either they cannot get the evidence orthey do not want it. I am not satisfiedthat the board is all it is cracked up tobe, or that the Act Is sound; and I wantthe legislation brought up for review,periodically, so that bath the board andthe bookmakers will know they are onprobation.

Ron. A. R. JONES; I feel that to con-tinue the legislation to 1960 is to give ittoo long a life. It was agreed that theAct should be given two years' trial, sothat it could be repealed at the end ofthat time, if necessary. I do not say itshould be repealed, but I am not satisfiedthat all is well. I do not think any privatemember would be successful with a, meas-ure to amend the Act, and I feel that wewould be up against monetary strengthif we sought to repeal it in the future.I think the Act should be extended to12 months only; and then, as has beensaid, those concerned would know theywere still on probation. At the end of thattime members like Mr. Murray, who havea greeter understanding of the businessthan I have, might be able to moveamendments that would be of considerableadvantage. I support the amendment.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Iam surprised at the remarks of SirCharles Latham and Mr. Murray. I re-peat that any member could bring downa Bill to -amend the Act, or could bringany matter to notice, by way of motion,or through other avenues. The remarksof Sir Charles Lathamn and Mr. Murray.as I interpret them, were to the effectthat no private member would have anysuccess in raising the question during thelife or the present Government. CouldMr. Murray's reference to "no longer than1960" be taken as meaning that werethere a change of Government the legisla-tion would be thrown out?

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: N9).

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Iwas only asking; and I wondered whythere should be any suspicion that thepresent Government would not stand upto its responsibilities. I hope the Commit-tee will not agree to the amendment.

Hon. L.. C. DIVER: Early in my par-liamentary experience I learnt that allexperimental legislation should have acontinuance provision, and I am surprisedthat the Minister should try to gainpolitical kudos out of this. in the lightof the Betting Control Board's commentson how hard it was to determine whetherthere had been improper practices, I thinkthe Act should be reviewed in 1960; andif that is agreed to, we will have oppor-tunity then of doing whatever may benecessary. The betting monopoly that isbeing created could have tremendouspolitical repercussions in another place,and this Chamber should retain for alltime the right to review this legislation.

Hon. A. F. GRIFFTH: I was one ofthose who opposed the placing of thismeasure on the statute book; and, al-though I agree that the Act has resultedin a more satisfactory state of affairsthan existed previously, I think it shouldbe presented to Parliament every coupleof years for review, at all events for someyears to come. One measure that wasdeliberated on repeatedly by Parliamentfor a number of years before it becamepermanent was the charities legislation.The present and previous Governmentsintroduced Ells which brought that legis-lation before Parliament for debate onnumerous occasions.

Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 7.30 p.mn.

Hon. A. F. GRIFFTH: When using theword "charities" I referred to the Lot-teries Act introduced in about 1932 or1933. The Government of the day broughtdown amending Bills to give that Actfurther life. In 1950 or 1951 it was con-tinued for three years; and last year. orthe year before, this legislation was madepermanent. So after nearly 20 years ofoperation a Bill that became an Act with-out any doubtful ramifications receivedtreatment each year by Parliament andwas concluded on a satisfactory basis.

There is no reason why this Act shouldnot be looked at again irn 1960. It isunfair for the Minister for Railways tosay that the words, "and no longer" sug-gest that a Government would not intro-duce continuing legislation. Practicallyevery Bill that comes before us and whichdeals with a limitation of time carrieswith it the words "and no longer."

The Minister for Railways: I just in-quired.

Hon. A. F. GRIFrFIT: The inquiry wasunwarranted. Nobody need have anyfear, least of all the people employed inthe industry, if Parliament is able to look

[22 October. 1957.)

at this matter again in 1960. The Minis-ter for Railways said that a private mem-ber in doing so would depend entirely onthe attitude of the Government of theday. I support the amendment.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: ThePoint I wished to make was that if a pri-vate member introduced a Bill to amendthe Act it would be brought to the noticeof the Government.

Amendment put and passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Title-agreed to.Bill reported with an amendment.

BILL-PUBLIC SERVICE.In Committee.

Hon. W. R. Hall In the Chair; the Min-ister for Railways in charge of the Bill.

Clause 1--Short title and citation:H-on. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an

amendment-That after the word "Australia" In

line 5, page 2, the words "Division2.-The Public Service Commissioner"be inserted.

This is a critical amendment becauseit deals with the principle of substitut-ing a single commissioner for the boardof three proposed in the Bill, and allottinghim the duties outlined in the South Aus-tralian Act. This was fully explained byMr. Jones and myself. He would havebehind him a board consisting of part-timne members who would act as a boardof appeal in regard to classifications, re-classifications, allowances, interpretationsand anomalies.

Though this varies in principle from theproposed Bill, it does not affect themachinery that governs the relations ofthe members of the Public Service andthe administrative head in regard to pro-tecting their rights and privileges. itmerely seeks to continue a -system thathas, in the main, proved satisfactory, withprovision for a board in which is vestedcertain duties, and which will be just asefficient and more economical and satis-factory so far as the members of theCivil Service Association are concerned.

A single commissioner would be morelikely to adopt a consistent line in ad-ministering his department. He is calledon to deal with certain aspects of em-ployment of a hody of public servants,but his is not as responsible a job as thatof, say, the Director of Education who,as a single director, administers a depart-ment that employs over 6.000 teachers.

It would be better for the Governmentof the day to have a single commissionerto deal with when critical situations arisethan to have a board of three whichmight prove difficult. A single commis-sioner would be more co-operative, and-the great variety of questions that would

arise would not impinge on public policy.The rights and privileges of those con-cerned would be protected, and I thinkit would be an improvement on the sys-tem proposed in the Bill.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: ThisIs the vital amendment which, if ac-cepted, will upset the whole principle inthe Bill. It seeks to replace the threecommissioners provided for in the Billwith one commissioner. For this reasonI oppose the amendment. The reason thatthe Government has suggested a board ofthree is that the Plublic Service has grownconsiderably, and each year the dutiesof the Public Service Commissionerare becoming increasingly complicated.There are various awards, and there aredepartments which are being extended.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: That has beengoing on for a long while.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:We as a Government wonder if there isjustification for the growth of some ofthese departments. We feel that a singlecommissioner cannot adequately cope withthe duties now required of him.

Hion. A. F. Griffith: Reconcile that withthe Railways Commission,

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Thatis a different proposition altogether. Thesecommissioners will deal with one function;,that is the function of wages and condi-tions. Th*e Railways Commission dealtwith these things, plus purchasing, andother matters.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: The respon-sibility is greater with the railways.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:Whereas the Railways Commission hadsome interference from different Govern-ments, In this case the Government willlook to the Public Service Board for guid-ance, The Public Service Commissionerhas the job of recommending to Govern-ments what the salaries of a number ofGovernment officers will be, includingmagistrates and Judges.

Hon. C. H. Simpson: Judges do notcome into it.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: TheGovernment considers that the job is be-yond the capacity of one man, and it isnot possible for him to do Justice to theamount of work now thrust on to thePublic Service Commissioner's office. Forthose reasons we say that three commis-sioners can do a far better job becausethey can divide their functions andspecialise on certain parts of the respon-sibilities. I oppose the amendment.

Hon. A. R. JONES: I amn going to sup-Port the amendment. Quite apart fromthe fact that I feel three commissionerscannot work satisfactorily together,- Ithink it is a big step indeed for us toconsider that all of a sudden one manfinds the job is too much for him and

2392 COUNCIL.)

that he has to have the call 'of two othermen, We must not forget that the com-missioner has a staff, and his secretarymay have an assistant-secretary, etc.Whatever work the commissioner is calledupon to do, it does not mean that- he hasto undertake it personally. If he wantsextra staff to attend to detail and to make-reports for his official analysis, it i com-petent for him to ask for that extra staff.

It is ridiculous to ask me to accept the,line of argument that the Job has, all. ofa sudden, become too big for the commis-sioner to do, particularly as he has beenidoing it for many years. The number ofcivil servants under his jurisdiction hasnot grown to any great extent during the,last few years. It is only about 4,500 now,and I venture to say that about 10 yearsago it would have been about 3,500. Weare being asked to thrust something on thepublic which to my mind would not work.We have had one illustration of what hashappened with three commissioners. Ithink the proposal put forward by Mr,Simpson is worthy of consideration, andI ask members to support the amendmnent.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Itis hard to reconcile the views of memberson this occasion with those expressedwhen we increased the number of the com-missioners of the Rural and IndustriesBank. I have no recollection of the sameargument being advanced on that occasion.That Bill was agreed to by this Chamberand was thought to be a good thing by thosewho spoke to it. The number of commis-sioners of the Rural and Industries Bankhas been increased on two occasions forthe reason that the amount of work be-came too great for the existing commis-sioners of the bank.

We believe the same thing applies inrelation to the Public Service Commis-sioner. We consider it is preferable tospread the responsibilities into certainspheres, after which the chairman of theboard would decide what would happenand what would not happen. I appeal tothe Committee to take the points of viewof the Government and the Civil ServiceAssociation into consideration.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I might have con-sidered this Bill if the chairman had hadsome overriding rights, or if assistantcommissioners had been appointed. I thinkthe same mistake-from a reading of thereport-is being made here as caused thetrouble in the railways. We are beingasked to appoint three commissioners withequal authority: therefore if there' is'aclash of personalities, two members canvote against the third even though he bethe chairman. If there is going to be aboard of this sort at all, there must besomeone with more power than the others.

Hon. C. H. SIM]PSON:. I think the Min-ister enumerated some of the duties of thecommissioners and included the duties ofjudges and others.

The Minister -for Railways:. Recoin-mendations for salary.

Ron, C.. H. SIIMPSON4: I' do not think'they apply, because Clause 8 says definitelythat the Act does not apply to tbe Gov-ernor, judges, Ministers of the Crown, andso on; it gives a list of those to whom theAct does not apply.

In regard to the statement that theservice might grow, actually it has grownvery little over the years. I should saythat with the appointment of three com-missioners, there might be a tendency forit to grow to a greater extent than in thepast, because one of the commissionerswould be there to represent the interestsof the Civil Service Association.

In- regard to the appointment of threecommissioners, there is quite a differenceof opinion in the association. The rulingbody controls a considerable number ofpeople, some of whom are in the metro-politan area and others stationed in differ-ent parts of the State; and it is difficultat an annual meeting to get more than afew to attend. it can be said that probablya very small percentage of the total numberactually attend that meeting and vote onthe motions decided.

I do not think there can be any questionof the matter of economy. With the sug-gested set-up, there would probably bethree officers and three office staffs; andthere would be a necessity for secretaries,typists and so on. There would also be atendency to duplicate decisions; and therecould easily be a possibility of men notagreeing, particularly if they happened tobe an awkward type: and this would maketrouble inside the administration. If thereis any dissension among those who controla body, it soon filters down through thatbody, with a very bad effect.

On the score of economy and efficiency,I should say that a single commissionerwould be preferable to a board of three.A single commissioner works quite effect-ively in South Australia with its biggerpopulation and probably a larger body ofCivil servants. The duties which a com-missioner in this State is called upon toperform could be carried out with perhapsan advisory board at the back of him to laydown matters of policy and to be there asa board of appeal in case any decisionsmade by the commissioner are appealedagainst. I submit that the idea of a singlecommissioner in place of a board cf threeis very desirable.

Ron. A. F. GRIFFTH: The Ministermentioned the Rural and Industries BankBill, which provided for five commissioners.I have had a look at Mansard: and, as Isaid by interjection, the Minister did notuse the same arguments then as now. Weincreased the number of the Rural &Industries Bank commissioners for thespecific purpose quoted in the Minister'sspeech-that Mr. By-field, the Treasury

2392

(22 October. 1957.]

representative, and the chairman were dueto retire. The Minister said it would bean undesirable state of affairs to leave thebank with one experienced man on theboard and he asked the House to add afurther two commissioners.

That was entirely different from whatwas contained in the question dealing withthe Public Service Commissioner. ThePublic Service Commissioner has aL differ-ent form of duty to carry out from thatundertaken by the commissioners of theR. and 1. Bank. They have to be personsversed in banking and commerce. I do notthink the example stands up to the Min-ister's argument.

THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:There is no argument about similar cir-cumstances. One knows that banking hasnothing to with the Public Service. Theimportant point then was that this Cham-ber did not criticise the addition of thetwo.

Hon. A. F. Griffith: Yes, it did.The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: The

bank commission was enlarged from threeto five. If the Government then put for-ward the submission that it was necessaryto increase the commission because therewould be only one member of the three-man commission left with experience,there is all the .more reason now whythere should be three new members be-cause not one of them will have had ex-perience as a commissioner.

H-on. A. F. Griffith: Where will you getthe three members from?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Itwill be an entirely new commission. I wantto correct any misunderstanding that Mr.Simpson may have if he thinks that I amof the opinion that judges come under thismeasure. I know they do not. All Govern-ments refer requests from judges, magis-trates or heads of departments who do notcome under the Act, to the Public Ser-vice Commissioner for guidance in connec-tion with variations in salary. That hasalways been so. I feel that the Committeeshould agree to the Bill as it stands.

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes ... . .. .. 14Noes .. . . .. 10

Majority for .... 4

Ayes.Hon. J. Cunningham Hon. 0. C. MacKinnonHon. L. C. Diver Hon. R. C, MattlekeHon, A. F. Giriffth Han. J. MurrayHon. J. Q. Hislop Hon. H. L. RocheHon. A. R, Jones Hon. 0. H. SimpsonHon. Sir Chas. Latham Hon. H. K. WatsonHon. L. A. Logan H~on. F. D. W111mott

(Tefler.JNoes,

Hon. 0. Beninetts Hon. F. R. H. LaveryHon. E. M. Davies Hon. H. C. StricklandMon. J. J, Garrigan Hon. WV. F. willeseeRon. E. Mi. Heenan Mon. F1. j. S. wiseHona. 0. E. Jeffery Hon. R. P. Hutchison

(Teller.)

Pairs.Ayes. Noes.

Hon. J. Mi. Thomson Hon. G. FraserHon. N. E. Baxter Son. J. D. Teaban

Amendment thus passed; the clause, asamended, agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 6.-agreed to.

Clause 7-Interpretations:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-

met-That in line 6, page 5, the following

definition be inserted:-"Commissioner" means the Pub-

lic Service Commissioner for thetime being in office under this Act.

This is consequential.The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: in

view of the Committee's decision on theprevious amendment, this one becomesnecessary.

Amendment put and passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 11-agreed to.

Clause 12-Offices on the board:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-

ment-That before the words "The offices"

in line 21, page 8, the words "sub-ject to the provisions of Section thir-teen of this Act" be inserted.

Section 13 is the subject of a proposednew clause which appears at the end ofthe amendments on the notice paper. Thisnew clause provides for a fourth, part-time, member to be appointed to coverthe position where the commissioner hasmade a decision, and to avoid the possibilityof the commissioner himself forming partof the tribunal to listen to an appealagainst a decision he has made.

Amendment put and passed.

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move anamendment-

That the word "elected" in line 32,page 8, be struck out, and the word"selected" inserted in lieu.

In suggesting this alteration, we havein mind the system that now applies tothe State Electricity Commission wherethe body concerned in this case-the Pub-lic Service-submits a panel of threenames to the Government which choosesone to be the selected member.

Inthe opinion of many, an elected mem-ber is the most desirable one to have torepresent, the association; he may bethe most popular and get the most votes.But in the opinion of a large body of theassociation, or in the opinion of the C3oy-ermnent, another representative would bemore suitable for the job. As it seems tobe in the interests of both employees andthe Government to have the best manavailable, and as this system has proved to

2394 COUNCIL.]

be quite successful with the ElectricityCommission. I hope the Committee willagree to the amendment.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Ihope the Committee will not agree to thisamendment. Surely the association hasthe right to elect the person to representit.

Hon. C. H. Simpson: It has the rightto elect three.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: No.If we strike out the word "elected" andinsert in lieu the word "selected," who willdo the selecting?

Hon. C. H. Simpson: The Government.The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:

Surely it is fair and reasonable that weshould leave it to the Public Service As-sociation to elect its own representative.I hope the hon. member will not pressthis amendment.

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I think thischange is rather important. Even thePremier admitted that the most popularman is not necessarily the best man fora particular job; and so I think theamendment is most desirable. Having theexample of the State Electricity Commis-sion before us, I think we should adhereto the same system.

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes ..Noes ..

Majority for ..

Ayes.

HOn. J. CunninghamHon. L. C. DiverRon. A. F. GriffithHon. Sir Chias. LathamHon. L. A. LoganEon. 0. MacKinnonHOD. R. C. Mattiske

NoesEon. 0. BennettsHon. E. MA. DaviesHOn. J. J. GarriganHon, E. MA. HeenanHon. R. F. Hutchison

PairsAyes.

Hon. J. MA. ThomsonHon. N. E. Baxter

Hon.Hon.HOn.Hon.Eon.Hon.

13.... .... .... 10

J. MurrayH. L. Roche0. H. SimpsonH. K. WatsonF. fl. WiflmottA. R. Jones

(T'eller.)

Hon. 0. E1. JefferyHon. H. C. StricklandHon. W. F. WilleseeHOn. F. J. S. WiseHon. F. R. H. Lavery

(Teller.J

Noes.Hon. 0. FraserHon. 3. D. Teahant

Amendment thus passed; the clause, asamended, agreed to.

Clause 13-Appointments to offices:HOn. C. H. SIMPSON: The four amend-

ments I have on the notice paper are allconsequential on the decision just made.I move an amendment-

That the word "elected" in line 20,page 9. be struck out, and the word"selected" inserted in lieu.

Amendment put and passed.

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move anamendment-

That the word "elected" in line 23.page 9, be struck out and the word"selected" inserted in lieu.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Iwould like the hon. member to explainthe difference between election and selec-tion by secret ballot.

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I do not thinkthere would be any material difference.The association Is asked to submit a panelof three names; and presumably the threemen would figure in the ballot, and fromthat ballot one would be chosen. As faras I can see. nothing is laid down in re-gard to the procedure by which the selec-tion will be made.

Anienftment put and passed.

On motions by Hon. C. H. Simpson,clause further amended by-

Striking out all words after theword "notice" in line 32, down to andincluding the word "appointment" inline 34, page 9, and inserting thewords "of the names of three personswho are members of the Association"in lieu:

striking out all words after theword "allow" in line 37 down to andincluding the word "office" in line 39,page 9, and inserting the words ".thenames of three persons are so noti-fled to the Minister he shall selectone of such Persons to be appointedto the office" In lieu:

striking out all words after theword "notified" in line 2 down to andincluding the word "office" in line 5,page 10.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.Clause 14-agreed to.

Clause 15-Terms of tenure of office ofmembers of the Board:

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-ment-

That the word "elected" in line 18,page 10, be struck out and the word"selected" inserted in lieu.

Amendment put and passed: the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16-Termination of term of officebefore expiration:

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-ment-

That the word "elected" In line 25,page 10. be struck out and the word"selected" inserted in lieu.

Amendment put and Passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

2394

[22 October. 1957.139

Clause 17-Deputies for members:On motions by Hon. C. H. Simpson, clause

amended by-Striking out the word "elected" in

line 37, page 11, and inserting the word"selected" in lieu;,

striking out the word "elected" inline 3, page 12, and inserting the word"selected" in lieu;

striking out the word "elected" inline 4. Page 12. and inserting the word"selected" in lieu;

striking out the words "an elected"in line 12, page 12, and inserting thewards "a selected" in lieu.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.Clause 18--agreed to.

Clause 19--Salaries of members:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-

ment-That the word "elected" in line 27,

page 13, be struck out, and the word"iselected"~ inserted in lieu.

Amendment put and passed; the clause.as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 20 to 25-greed to.

Clause 26--Quorum:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-

nient-That the word "elected" in line 15,

page 16, be struck out and the word".selected" inserted in lieu-

Amendment put and passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27-Determination of questionsby the Hoard:

Hon. C. Hr. SIMPSON: I move an amend-ment-

That the word "election" in line 30,page 17, be struck out and the word"selection" inserted in lieu.

Amendment put and passed; the clause,as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 28 to 39--agreed to.

Clause 40-Jurisdiction of Board to hearand determine appeals and applicationsrelating to classifications and reclassifica-tions:

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-nient-

That the word "elected" in line 17,page 31, be struck out and the word"selected" inserted In lieu.

Amendment put and passed.Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an amend-

ment-That Subelause (10) on pages 34 and

35 be struck out.This provision applies to appeals and

applications relating to classifications andreclassifications. It lays down hard and

fast that an appellant must be a memberof the Civil Service Association. I wouldrefer to the wording of this clause. Itis discrimination between those who areactually members of the association andthose who are not, It was explained atthe second reading stage that nearly allthe 4,300 in the Public Service are mem-bers of the association and their dues arededucted from their pay. Some of the43 not in this category have not mnadeprovision for deductions to be made, butstill contribute their dues. There are afew who have not joined the association,for what reason we do not know. Thisclause makes it clear that if oneis a member of the association and is fin-ancial, he has full rights of appeal.Otherwise he has not.

Hon. F. R. H. Lavery: Would that applyto a temporary employee?

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I do not knowhow It applies, I do not think so; but Iwould not be sure. The point is that wesay that this provision should apply to all;and that those who are not Included inthe -association-and there are very fewof them, and they presumably have theirreasons for not joining-should not be ex-cluded from rights of appeal.

Hon. F. H. R. LAVERY: The reasonfor my interjection is that I know of aperson who has been a temporary em-ployee for nine Years. He is a memberof the association but cannot appealagainst an appointment to a permanentposition. I wonder whether this clausecovers that. The man I refer to is inthe Health Department. At one period,when he was single, two men with a periodof service longer than his received per-manent appointments, and now he Islooking for such an appointment. itcould not be said that he was actuallytemporary after having been employed fornine years. He is a member of the asso-ciation, which says it can do nothing be-cause he is not a permanent officer.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Icannot answer the hon. member's ques-tion. There must be some reason why theofficer concerned is not appointed to thepermanent staff. Without the details, Igan not able to reply to the point raised.

The principle in the clause is that onlymembers of the association are entitledto appeals. I do not see anything wrongwith that. Surely if a person receivesthe benefits derived from the activities ofan association, he should contribute toit!

Hon. C. H. Simpson: It is compulsoryunionism.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: I donot want to give that illustration of com-pulsory unionism which I could give; butto secure the benifits of any organisation-whether it be political, professional or

2395

2396 [COUNCIL.]

industrial-one has to be a financial mem-ber, and should be. There are always afew in most walks of life, however, whowill take all and contribute nothing.

Hon. C. H1. Simpson: Only about onehalf of one per cent. are involved in thisinstance.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS:Then why worry about it?

Hon. C. H. Simpson: Why worry aboutexcluding them?

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Theassociation is entitled to some respect. Itdoes all the work to obtain good condi-tions, concessions and a standard ofwages. These things have been gainedthrough the association; and that appliesto other organisations-even the Farmers'Union. Surely to goodness if a manwants to appeal against the appointmentof a financial member to a position, heshould belong to the association! Shoulda person who deliberately refuses to con-tribute to the association on some per-sonal ground be entitled to the benefitsof the association? I do not think so.

Amendmentwith the follov

AyesNoes

Hon.Hon.Hon.non.Hon.Hon.Ron.

L. C. fliveiA. F. OrinJ. 0. H1i10A. R. JoneSir Chas.IL. A. Logo:0. C. Mac!

Hon. a. BennetiHon. J. J. GnrriHon. E. M. fleerMon. R. F. MuteHon. 0. E. Jeffes

some trivial punishment or some promotionor a refusal of transfer, or a transfer fromone district to another, or one job toanother, a legal practitioner should becalled in to advise the board, which shouldknow best.

The appeal board should know what itis about. The Public Service Commissionershould know what he is about in the firstplace. But there are certain rights ofappeal; and surely we should not turn thePublic Service Commissioner's office into,a court to which the legal profession arecalled. Members of the association feelthat when they have a genuine appeal theyshould not be forced to engage counselbecause the other fellow does so. Supposean officer is appointed to a certain positionby the Public Service Commissioner andother officers appeal against the appoint-ment. If the appellants engaged counsel,the appointee would be forced to do thesame or else suffer a disadvantage. It is*not fair to members of the association toallow one to have an advantage, particu-larly the aggrieved one.

put nd diisio taen Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: There seems to beput nd dli~ln tken an anomaly inasmuch as in one part of:ving result:- the measure an employee can engage the

.................14 services of a legal practioner to plead his... 1 case. It could be that for him the other

- part is just as important as the one in,fajority for .... 4 which he is allowed to appeal. This divi-

- sion applies to applications in respect ofAyes, classifications, reclassifications, allowances,r Hon. R. C. Mattiske interpretations and anomalies. In this heth Hon. J.,Murray is not allowed the right of appeal: Yet it

P Hon. c. H. Rio is available to him on the question of dis-Lathan, non. H. K. Watson missal or punishment. In the scheme asn Hon. F. D. Willnmott envisaged he can, appeal against the corn-Kiton Hon. (Teller.)ha missioner's decision, to a part-time board

NoesTler) appointed for that purpose. If he felt hecould not present his case, the amendment

Hs on, P. R. H. Lavery would giv i h ih ohv tpegan Hon. H. C. Strickland sete lye h oiitherigttav t ean Hon. w.. F. Willesee sne yaslctrbison

Ayes.Hon. J. M. ThomsonHon. N. E. Barter

Pails.

Hron. P. J. S. WiseHon. E. M. Davies

(Telle".)

Noes.Hon. G. FraserHon. J. D. 'reahan

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes ..Noes ..

8.... .... .... 1 6

Amendment thus passed.Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move an

amendment-That the word "not" in line 7, page

35, be struck out.Not all appellants are skilled in presentinga case; and if they feel they have a caseand are not capable of submitting it asthey would like to do, the argument isthat they should be able to engage a legalpractitioner to do it for them.

The MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Theobject of the provision is that if a manwere able to engage legal assistance hewould have an advantage over another em-ployee. The word "not" was included atthe request of the association. It is hardlyright that in regard to appeals against

Majority against ..

Hon. J.Hon. L.Ron. L.Hon. B.

non.Hon.Hon.Hon.Eon.Ron.Hon.Hon.

Ayes.Cunningham0. DiverA. LoganC. Mattiske

NoeiG. BennettsE. M. DaviesJ. J. GlarriganA. F. GriffithB. M. Heenan3. G. HislopR. F.' HtchisonlG. E. Jeffs"y

PairAyes.

Hon. J. M. ThomsonHon. N. E. Baster

8

Hon. J. MurrayNon. H1. L. RoocheHon. C. H. SimpsonHon. P. D. Wiflmott

(Tellier.)a.

Hon. A. R. JonesHon. Sir Chas. Latam~Hon. 0. MacKinnonHon. H. C. StricklandBon. R. K. WatsonHon. W. P. WilleseeHon. F. J. S. WiseHon. F. Rt. H. Lavery

(Teller.)

Noes.Hon. a. Fraserno., J. D. Teahan

Amendment thus negatived.

2396

[22 Octobier. 1957.] 2397

Clause, 'as previously amended, put andpassed.

Cla uses 41 to 65-agreed to.Clause 68--Service required of notice of

Punishment on officer concerned:Hon. C. H. SIMPSONl: I move an amend-

ment-That Subelause (5) in lines 25 to

34, page 65, be struck out.This amendment is consequential on one

agreed to in a different clause.Amendment put and passed; the clause,

as amended, agreed to.Clauses 67 to 89-agreed to.New clause:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: I move-

That the following be inserted tostand as Clause 13:-

(1) If the Public Service Com-missioner is appointed as a mem-ber of the Hoard (whether asChairman or as an appointedmember) the Governor shall iap-point a person as a fourth mem-ber of the Board.

(2) The Public Service Com-missioner shall not sit on theBoard on the hearing of any ap-peal under section forty or sec-tion fifty-two of this Act againsta decision given by himself buton the hearing of every such ap-peal the Board shall be consti-tuted of the two members otherthan the Public Service Commis-sioner and the fourth memberappointed under this section.

(3) If the Public Service Com-missioner is Chairman of theBoard the fourth member shallsit as Chairman on the hearingof the said appeals, and if thePublic Service Commissioner isan ordinary member of the Boardthe fourth member shall sit as anordinary member on the hearingof those appeals.

(4) The fourth member of theBoard shall not act as a memberexcept as provided in this section.

This applies to the fourth member ofthe board acting as a member of the part-time board where the Public Service Com-missioner has given a decision and therehas been an appeal against that decision.It means that the case will be submittedto an entirely fresh tribunal. This newclause provides the machinery for thatpurpose.

The MIINISTER FOR RAILWAYS: Thisnew clause is consequential on one movedearlier and is therefore necessary.

New clause put and passed.

New division:Hon. C. H. SIMPSON:.I move-

That after the word "appropriated"in line 4, page 20, the following newdivision be inserted:-

Division 2.-The Public ServiceCommissioner.

33. (1) The Governor mayfrom time to time appoint aPublic Service Commissioner.

(2) The Commissioner shallhave the powers and authorities,and shall discharge and exercisethe duties and functions by thisAct vested in or imposed or con-ferred upon him.

New division put and passed.Schedule, Title-agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.

BILL-JUNIOR FARMERS' MOVEMENTACT AMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

HON. F. R. H. LAVERY (West) [9.22]in moving the second reading said: Theprincipal Act, which was passed in1955, has as its object the sponsoring andencouragement among youth of the studyof agriculture and farming, an appre-ciation of rural life, education and theethics of good citizenship. As members areaware the movement is a very solid one.consisting of a large number of clubs withgood membership.

The Act provides for the appointment ofan advisory council of 11 persons, one ofwhom shall be a nominee of the Instituteof Agricultural Science. This institute isan Australian one and in actual fact therepresentative on the council is nominatedby the Institute of Agriculture at the Uni-versity of Western Australia. The Billseeks, therefore, to make sure that thenomination can be made by the Instituteof Agriculture.

The second amendment provides thatany councillor, or deputy councillor whois a public servant shall not forfeit anyof the rights he possesses as a public ser-vant. The Agricultural Department andthe Education Department each has arepresentative on the council. The Agri-cultural Department's nominee is actingas chief executive officer of the body. Thisposition is not a Public Service one and itis desired that any occupant of the posi-tion. who Is a public servant, shall notjeopardise any of his rights.

The third amendment provides that anyoffiei's appointed by the council shall notcome under the provisions of the PublicService Act, but shall be entitled to theleave and superannuation rights enjoyedby the Public Service. I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

2398 [COUNCIL.]

HON. A. R. JONES (Midland) [9.25]: 1 Willesee when he introduced the measure.want to say a few brief words on theamendments contained in this Bill. Theyare very necessary and have been askedfor by the Junior Farmers' Movement.There is, however, a further amendmentwhich the Junior Farmers' Movement sug-gested, and to which it would like con-sideration to be given. The amendment towhich I refer is not included in the Bill,and you, Mr. President, would thereforeno doubt rule it out of order. Nevertheless.I would like to mention it so that con-sideration might be given to this aspectwhen the matter again arises.

The Junior Farmers' Movement is not inany way controlled by the Government; itis responsible for its own affairs; and it isstrange, therefore, to find that Section 8should read as follows:-

The Minister may from time to timeissue directions relating to the pur-poses of this Act to the council eithergenerally or in respect of any parti-cular matter and the council shallgive effect to directions so issued.

That clause is redundant and should berepealed to enable the Junior Farmers'Movement to have complete control of itsaffairs. I mention this matter in passingso that consideration might be given to itin future.

THE MINISTER FOR RAILWAYS(Hon. H. C. Strickland-North) [9.27]:As the provision to which Mr. Joneshas referred is not contained in the Billbefore the House I do not think it wouldbe possible to do anything about it underthis measure. I suggest, however, that thehon. member consult with the Minister forAgriculture, because he may have somenotification in respect of the informationwhich the hon. member seeks. I1 have nothad the information forwarded to me, andthe hon. member in charge of the Bill hasnot got it on his file either. I think itwould require a new Bill to alter the Act inthe manner suggested by Mr. Jones.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee.Bill passed through Committee without

debate, reported without amendment, andthe report adopted.

BILL-COMPANIES ACT AMENDMENT.

Second Reading.Debate resumed from the 15th October.

HON. H. K. WATSON (Metropolitan)[9.30]: 1 have studied this Bill carefully:and without saying I agree with every oneof its provisions, I intend to support thesecond reading. The Hill contains quite anumber of amendments to the principalAct; and all of its contents were compre-hensibly and lucidly explained by Mr.

It Is not necessary, therefore, for me to,traverse the various amendments whichare proposed.

Our Companies Act Is one of the largest.and one of the Most important on thestatute book. Our Act was Proclaimed In.1947. Unfortunately, it was based uponthe 1929 Act of the United Kingdom.which, by 1947, was beginning to creakto such an extent that in 1948 the Parlia-ment of the United Kingdom completelyrevised it. Therefore, when our CompaniesAct really came into force it was in quite.a few respects Out of date, and containedquite a few anomalies which were rectifiedby the United Kingdom Act of 1948.

This Bill Proposes to remove some ofthose anomalies. There are quite a fewin the Act, as Mr. Willesee mentioned. TheProvision with relation to advertisementsupon the Petition by a company in con-nection with a reduction of its capital isambiguous in much the same way as in theAssociations Incorporations Act, withwhich we dealt a week or so ago.

There is also ambiguity with respect tothe disqualification of certain Persons asliquidators. If anyone should. be dis-qualified as a, liquidator by a company Isuppose it is the promoter. Yet of all per-sons who are disqualified at the moment.the Promoter is one who Is not.

In connection with Private companies,there is also an anomaly. Private com-panies do not have to lodge balance sheetsin Western Australia; but if a foreigncompany is required to register in anotherState. and by the law Of that State tolodge its balance sheet, it is also requiredto lodge its balance sheet in WesternAustralia if it carries on business here.

Proprietary companies In some of theEastern States lodge balance sheets there,but they do so in a sealed envelope. OurAct does not make provision for lodgingthem in a sealed envelope, with the resultthat although the balance sheet is notavailable in the State where the companyis registered, it is available here. Whilstthat anomaly may perhaps increase thetourist traffic to this State, I think it isone that should be rectified.

There is another Point in regard towhich there is a definite weakness in ourAct. It is in respect of the provisionsrelating to redeemable Preference shares.The Provisions of our Act were copied fromthe United Kingdom Act of 1929. In 1948it was found that that section from whichit was copied was really unintelligible, andit has since been redrafted.

Also, in relation to the alteration of thememorandum of association of a company,the general Position Is that in the main thememorandum of a company cannot bealtered in any of its principal respects. Inthe United Kingdom it may be altered in

(22 October, 1957.1 29

-respect of matters which are governed by'the articles, or can be governed by thearticles by a special resolution.

There is no such provision in our Act,'with the result that in a case such as votes-of mnembers--the voting rights of memberswhich we ordinarily find under articles-which can be altered from time to time-ifthe provision for voting rights happens Tobe in a memorandum and the companydesires to alter its provisions, even.although every member is in favour of-altering the Provisions it cannot be done.and the only solution is to wind up thecompany. That seems to be a drastic-remedy to achieve a very ordinary internaldesire of the members of the company.

The Bill proposes to change a long-,established practice of fixing the fees byAct of Parliament. It seeks to discardthat practice and in future to fix fees byregulation. To my mind, that is a retro-igrade step. At the moment Section409 of the principal Act provides that thefees, as fixed in the schedule to the Act,'may be varied by regulation, but they shallnot be increased by regulation.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Who fixes the-fees? Is it Crown Law?

Hon. H. K. WATSON: At the momentthey are fixed under the schedule to theAct; and Section 409 says the fees ascontained in the schedule to the Act may'be varied, but not increased except by Actof Parliament. I feel that it would beunwise for Parliament to depart from theprinciple which is contained in the Act atthe moment; and which, to my mind, is agood one. The fees, which are not alteredwith frequency, should be specified in theAct-

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Does theCrown Law take the authority to makethese alterations?

Hon. H. K. WATSON: It is by regulationin this Bill. The Bill also proposes todouble all the existing penalties in theparent Act. If one refers to the scheduleof the Bill, It will be found that there arethree pages of alterations. Daily penaltiesare being increased from £5 to £10. andother penalties are being Increased from£100 to £200, and so on. It does seem tome that the penalties which are already inthe Act-and they are legion-are suffici-ent. The company secretary and the com-pany direetor are liable for a penalty ofsome description In almost every step theytake.

Therefore, notwithstanding the changein money values since 1947, 1 feel we shouldhesitate before we double the penalties asproposed in this Bill. I venture to suggestthat if it were a question of the IndustrialArbitration Act and the penalties which itcontains, we would probably find the Gov-ernment being not quite so ready to bringdown an amending Bill to double all thepenalties. On the contrary, If my memory

serves me rightly, it was only last year thatwe had a Bill presented to us to either re-duce the penalties or cancel them alto-gether. When the Bill goes into Committee,we should look at the question of thesepenalties.

The Bill proposes also to vary the amountof preferential claims with respect towages and salaries, having regard to thechange in money values. I do not see anyserious objection to that; but there is apoint in connection with preferentialclaims which is a new idea so far asWestern Australia is concerned. It isproposed to make holiday pay a prefer-ential claim.

There is a decision of our ArbitrationCourt which explains that holidays andholiday pay are something entirely differ-ent from salary. A man has a right to hissalary at the end of each week, but aholiday is something which is essentiallygiven to him in order that he might re-fresh himself in mind and body, and itdoes not accrue until the end of the year.It is something to which he has not aright to the same extent as he has to asalary. Seeing we are dealing with therights of creditors with a company inliquidation-and in nine cases out of tenI suppose it would be an insolvent companywhich would involve a sacrifice by creWi-tors--I would suggest to the member incharge of the Bill that he might haveanother look at that particular point andconsider whether it would be advisable todelete that provision from the Bill.

With respect to receivers and managers.the existing provisions of the Act, whichwere copied largely from the United King-dom legislation of 1929, have been broughtup to date and tightened up by copyingthe provisions of the United Kingdom Actof 1948.

The outstanding provision of the Bilirelates to unit trusts; and, as Mr. Wille-see explained when moving the secondreading, unit trusts-which I found whenI was in England in 1934 were then Quitean established institution in that country-have in recent years become popular inAustralia. They have a particular appealbecause they provide the small investorwith the age-old advantage of spreadinghis investment and not having to put allhis eggs in one basket.

A man with a substantial amount ofcapital-say £1 .000-can probably invest£100 in each of 10 companies: but a manwho has £50 or even £100 to investfinds it is not practical politics to lookaround for 10 companies in which to in-vest his money. But by subscribing tomembership in what are known as unittrusts, he can obtain a unit which repre-sents a proportionate share in 10, 20, 50or 100 public companies.

With the development of unit trusts, ithas been considered necessary to see thatthe ordinary conditions of the Companies

2399

2400 COUNCIL.)

Act relating to the publication of pro-spectuses and the prohibition of sharehawking should apply with equal forceto such trusts.

While on the question of share hawking,although share hawking from house tohouse, by personal canvassing, Is pro-hibited with respect to shares in any com-pany, and it is proposed by the Bill toprohibit such activities in respect to sharesin unit trusts, no such provision is in-cluded in the Building Societies Act withrespect to shares in building societies. Isuggest to the Minister that this omis-sion is a matter to which the Goverrnentmight give its atteniton, because the evilof share hawking on a house-to-housebasis applies no less to shares in buildingsocieties than to shares in public com-panies or unit trusts. I merely mentionthat in passing.

The Bill proposes that every fixed trust,as these companies are known, should lodgewith the Registrar of Companies, annually,a list of all its members. Whilst with re-spect to a limited company it may benecessary or desirable that a list of themembers of the company should be lodgedeach year with the Companies Office, Ifind it difficult to see any justification,for requiring the members of those fixedtrusts to have their names listed andregistered at the court. Alter all, they arenot direct shareholders in the company.The shareholders of the company are still-shown, if that information is wanted forcredit or other purposes.. But here thereis simply a group of persons pooling theirmoney to buy shares in companies.

It seems to me that if the trustees ofa fixed trust have to lodge with the Com-panies Office the names of the manythousands of persons who hold units inthe trust, they would, by so doing, pro-vide a good mailing list for any cheapiackcompany promoter; there would be a readymade mailing list on which anyone witha proposition not so good, could work.because it would be a mailing list of many-thousands of small people who might besusceptible to plausible propaganda. Inaddition I imagine that the lodging of theannual return at the Companies Office.Would entail a considerable amount ofwork for the management of the trust.

Hon. W. F. Willesee: Would the man-lagement have to lodge the return withthe Taxation Department?

Hon. H. K. WATSON:- I doubt it. Thedepartment has in this State the formA.D. which relates to dividends, althoughthe completion of that form is not requiredto the same extent as it used to be. Itis not required at all In the other States,-but for some reason or other it is in West-ern Australia.

Hon. W. F. Willesee: -I wondered how.the Taxation Department. would check thedividends.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: The unit trustswould probably have to lodge the return:or alternatively each member would re-ceive a notice which he would attach tohis income tax return. There has recentlybeen an income tax case on the questionof whether the capital profits that thefixed trusts make are taxable in the handsof the unit holders. It has been held thatthey are not a taxable profit but a capitalone right through.

Another provision in the Bill seeks toremove a pretty harsh provision with re-spect to registered auditors and liquidatorswho do not carry out their duties with theefficiency and integrity required by theAct. Under the Act a person is not per-mitted to act as a company auditor ora company liquidator unless he is regi-stered; and provision is contained In theAct that In cases of neglect or derelic-tion of duty, the Registrar of Companiesmay cancel the registration of the auditoror liquidator.

At the moment this Is the only powerhe has, so no matter how trifling the of-fence, If the registrar feels it warrantssome punishment, the only thing he is per-mitted to do is to cancel the registrationof the practitioner, which is rather drastic.The Bill proposes to alleviate this positionby giving the registrar power to cancel orsuspend the registration, or to fine theptactitioner up to £100; or he may penalisehim by both a fine and suspension.

Hon. L. C. Diver: That is the auditor?Hon. H. K WATSON: Yes.Hon. L. C. Diver:. How about secretaries

and trustees?Hon. H. K. WATSON: No, this deals

with auditors and liquidators. They arethe ones who have to be registered.

Hon. L. C. Diver: Do they have to bequalified?

H-on. H. X. WATSON: Yes. In thatregard, the proposal in the Bill is a movein the right direction, but on this matterI feel, as on every other question, thatwhere a man's livelihood is at stake or a.penalty is involved, his livelihood or thegeneral penalty should not be exclusivelyin the hands of one man but that thereshould be a right of appeal.

In this instance I consider there shouldbe a right of appeal to the court. If theprovision for appeal were included in theBill it would be futile for the person con-cerned, if he had been punished fairly andjustly, to appeal, but on the other handif he felt he had been unduly punished,that right of appeal would be available tohim. I think that is fair. The Bill Is essen-tially a Committee measure. I support thesecond reading.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

2400

(22 October, 1957.1 20

DBILL-LICENSING ACT AMENDMENT(No. 1).

Second Reading.Debate resumed from the 15th October.

HON. R. C. MATTISKE (Metropolitan)(9.58]: The Bill has a twofold purpose-firstly, to relax the restrictions of the Actas they apply to railway refreshmentrooms to permit them to serve liquor totravellers on railway road buses; andsecondly, to provide for hotel sites In-new housing areas.

In connection with the former purpose,the Bill goes a little. too far in that it notonly provides the machinery by which rail-way road bus passengers may obtain re-freshment in a manner applicable to rail-way travellers, but it also varies an im-portant principle inasmuch as it seeks toprovide that any person, whether he be abona fide traveller or not, may be per-mitted to obtain liquor at railway refresh-ment rooms during restricted periods oftrading.

These railway refreshment rooms payno licences; they pay no taxation; andin general terms they do not have to com-Ply with the very many restrictions placedon hotelkeepers under the Licensing Act.Therefore I feel that It is quite wrong topermit them to serve liquor to any oneat all during the restricted periods oftrading provided under the Act.

The second point in the Bill, concern-Ing the provision of hotel sites in newhousing areas, is quite a reasonable one.But here again I think that the provisionneeds a little tidying up. in that it wouldbe possible, if the Bill were passed in itspresent form, for the State Housing Com-mission, or some other State Instrumen-tality, not only to provide for a hotelsite in the new subdivision, but also toestablish and conduct a hotel on thatsite. I feel that this principle, too, iswrong; and in order to cover both thosematters, I have prepared two amendmentswhich will be dealt with at the appropri-ate time.

At present we have on the notice papertwo other Bills dealing with the LicensingAct; and apparently these have beenkept at the bottom of the notice paperso that the committee, which is at presentinvestigating all the aspects of this im-portant legislation, may be able to considerthem and perhaps make some recom-mendations embodying the provisions inthose two Bills.

I feel that this measure also should bedealt with in that manner; and thereforeI hope that the Minister will see fit toplace it at the bottom of the notice paperso that we will not have to give it furtherconsideration until after the findings ofthe committee have been placed before us.

HON. L. A. LOGAN (Midland) [10.3]:Like Mr. Mattiske, I believe that thethree Bills before us, all of a minornature, should be dealt with after thecommittee investigating the Licensing Acthas submitted its investigations to theGovernment. Two of these Bills have beenintroduced by private members, and theother one has been introduced by theGovernment.

One of the private member's Bills dealswith the obtaining of two bottles fromclubs on Sundays; and the other, Intro-duced by Mr. Baxter, deals with Sundaytrading in two or three hotels in the Mun-daring area. The measure we are now dis-cussing provides for the serving of liquorto bus passengers, and also the provisionof hotel sites in new housing areas.

The committee investigating the Licens-ing Act is not a select committee, but itis one composed of members of bothHouses of Parliament. I am not preparedto support any of these amendments tothe Licensing Act at present because Ithink It would be wrong In principle.These Bills should be sent to the commit-tee for its consideration and advice; andthen, when Its recommendations arebrought before the Government andthe Government decides to take any noticeof them, that would be the time for usto give consideration to them.

Just dealing briefly with this Bill, it isin my opinion an attempt to give 9 o'clockto 9 o'clock trading to railway refreshmentrooms which are now open purely for theconvenience of train passengers. In someareas, such as Watheroo, where there isno hotel nearer than 25 to 30 miles the9 o'clock to 9 o'clock trading for the re-freshment rooms would be quite suitable.

But in places such as Mullewa andYalgoo, where the hotels rely on the smallamount of business offering, 9 o'clock to9 o'clock trading on the part of the re-freshiment rooms would seriously affectthe publicans: and I am sure it wouldbe quite wrong. I believe that even nowat Yalgoo the Act is not policed as wellas it should be, and that a certain amountof trade that rightfully belongs to thelocal publican is going to the railwayrefreshment rooms.

I do not think there is much wrong withthe provisions dealing with sites for hotelsin new housing areas, provided no moreState hotels are built, and provided thesites are put up for auction by the Govern-ment. I will agree that once It was knownthat a site was to be for a hotel, and thata licence would be granted immediately, thevalue of the block would increase enor-mously; and I would say that the StateHousing Commission would make substan-tial profits on the sale of such land. How-ever. I suppose that is something we can-not overcome.

It Is my Intention to vote against allthree amendments! to the Licensing 'Actuntil such time as they are considered by

2401

(COUNCIL.)

the committee to which I have referred.and it has had an opportunity of studyingall the ramifications and presenting itsreport to Parliament.

On motion by Hon. W. RL. Hall, debateadjourned.

BILL--OPTOMETRISTS ACTAMENDMENT.Second Reading.

Debate resumed tram the 8th October.,

HON. L. A. LOGAN (Midland) [10.7]:This is a. very small Bill introduced by SirCharles Latham; and while, at first, I wasinclined to disagree with its provisions, Ifind after further consideration that it isnot as bad as I thought it was. When onestudies its provisions one finds that itstates--

Any person who not later than the30th day of June, 1958, makes appli-cation in the prescribed manner to theboard for registration under this Act,and proves to the satisfaction of theboard-

The person making application mustprove himself to the board's satisfaction;,therefore1 the final say rests with the boarditself and not with Parliament. We arenot giving an optometrist the right toPractise; all we are doing is giving to theboard the right to say whether or not aperson shall practise. Because of thatsafeguard, I think we could agree to themeasure.

A person making application must beover the age of 21 years and be of goodcharacter. The provision also requiresthat the applicant must be able to indicatethat-

being a natural born, or a naturalisedBritish subject, he has resided con-tinuously in the Commonwealth ofAustralia for not less than five yearsduring which period he has resided inWestern Australia for at least twoyears-

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: This man hasbeen here for five years.

Ron. L. A. LOGAN: It goes on-and he had, for not less than five yearsimmediately prior to his coming to theCommonwealth of Australia, been con-tinuously and bona fide engaged In thePractise of optometry, either as anoptometrist or optician; and he hasPassed a reasonable test in the workof an optometrist prescribed by theboard.

So it appears that, throughout, theboard is In control of the situation; andall we will do by passing this Bill Is toenable it to sit in judgment on thecharacter and ability of any person makingapplication to it. I do not think there Isanything wrong with the Bill, and I sup-port the second reading.

HON. W. RL. HALL (North-East) 1 10.10];I support the Bill because I can see nothingwrong with it. Some years ago we passedlegislation enabling a person who had beenin Malaya, or one of the islands, to practiseoptometry; and to my way of thinkingthat man was quite efficient in his work,arid was fully qualified. Provided a personcan pass a test prescribed by the board, Ithink he should be allowed to practise.

It seems to me that in the metropolitanarea we are particularly short of profes-sional men; and if one wants to interviewanyone connected with the medical profes-sion, an optometrist, a chiropodist, orsomebody like that, one has to make anappointment and wait for some days beforebeing attended to, &o I think It is timethat we allowed people who can pass thenecessary examinations to practise.

The public are entitled to this service;and , after all, they pay dearly for It. Aslong as a man Is efficient, can pass hisexaminations to the satisfaction of theboard, and is of good character, there isno reason why he should not be allowed topractise in this State.

If I remember rightly some medical prac-tioners who came to this country were notpermitted to practise for a certain period.They might have been highly qualified; andso I can see no reason why, if they pass allthe requirements, they should not be per-mitted to practise. Some of those whowould be affected by this Bill would befully qualified, and no doubt could passthe necessary examination. So long as theydo that they should be allowed to practise.

HON. SIR CHARLES LATHAM (Cen-tral-in reply) (10.12]: 1 am very grate-ful to those members who have seen the'Bill in its proper light, and I am sorrythat some of my friends in the House havenot been here to hear the points that havebeen made by some members.

There is no responsibility on this Houseto say whether or not a man Is qualifiedto practise. All we will be doing, by pass-ing this Bill, is to place the responsibilityon those who are qualified to determinewhether or not a man has the necessaryknowledge. That has been the usual prac-tice; and the only difference between thisand the normal method of going intopractice is that such a person has to spendtwo or three years at the university, andthe rest of his time must be spent studyingand working in a place where he can gethis practical as well as his theoreticalknowledge.

The man in question is getting on Inyears, and he has practised in Alexandriaand Cairo. I am very hopeful that theboard will agree that he is sufficientlyqualified, because there is no doubt in mymind that he is. Some of these people aremaking spectacles now, and it is far betterto let them know lust where they standinstead of allowing people without the

[22 October, 1957.) 40

practical knowledge to go into the business.I hope the House will agree to this mea-sure, Years ago there was no control ofoptometrists; in those days they wereknown as opticians. All the men practisingat that time possessed qualifications simi-lar to those held by the person intended tobe covered by this Bill. They did not havethe appliances which are in use today.

H-on. E. M. Heenan: We do not want togo back to those days.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: No. Theperson I am referring to seems to be high-ly qualified; and under the Bill, the boardwill be able to determine his qualifications.by examination. I am pleased that theGovernent members In this House havenot made this a party measure. If memberswere in a strange country, and theypossessed the same knowledge as this manI am referring to, they would not like tobe called on to Pass examinations beforebeing able to practise in their professionor calling.

Question put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Ayes .... .. _ .... .... 15

Noes .. .

Mvajoi

Ayes.

Ron. G. Bennetta BCson. J. Cunningham THHon. E. Mi. Davies HcRon. L. C. Diver HiBan. J. 3. Garrlgan HoHon. A. F. Griffith HHon. A. R. Jones HiHon. Sir Chas. Latham

Noes.

Hon. E_ M. Heenan BoHon, J, 0. Hislop III,Bon. R. F. Hutchison noHon. 0.0C. MacKinnon Hc

Question thus passed.

.ty for.... 71

in. F. R. H. Laveryon. L. A. Loganon. C. H. Simpsonon. H. C. Stricklandri. W, F. Wilieseeon. F. J. S. Wiseon. W. B. Bali

(Teller.)

na. R. C. uatuaken. H. 1K. Watsonnf. F. DL. Willmottrn. J. Murray

(Teller.)

Bill read a second time.

In Committee.Hon. L. A. Logan in the Chair; H-on.

Sir Charles Latham In charge of the Bill.Clause I-agreed to.

Clause 2-Section 34B added:Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: It is only right that

if the person concerned is to be permittedto sit for an examination to enable himto practise as an optometrist, he shouldnot only be able to make and fit spec-tacles, but also to test eyesight. It is essen-tial for him to know something about thetheory and practice of the profession, -aswell as the making of spectacles: I con-sider that he should have to satisfy morethan a reasonable test in the work of an

optometrist prescribed by the board. Heshould pass a reasonable theoretical andpractical test; in other words he shouldknow something about the training inthis profession.

It is not fair on students who haveundergone training at the University, andwho have learned the theory of the work,to allow this Person to practise and giveadvice on eyesight, to prescribe glasses,and to say whether they are correct. Heshould also have a basic understandingof the profession. I therefore move anamendment-

That alter the word "reasonable" inline 24, page 2, the words "theoreticaland practical" be Inserted.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I opposeChe amendment. The responsibility shouldbe placed on the board to determine whatt s a reasonable test. I want the board tobe satisfied.

Hon. J. G. HISLO)P: We should be real-istic about this legislation. It is not a mat-ter of being kind to one person. Here aprinciple is being introduced which couldbecome very dangerous. The amendmentasks that a test be held both in the train-ing and in the work of optometry; surelythat is a reasonable request. An opto-metrist in testing sight and making glassesmay know little of the reasons behind thework he is performing, so the request fortheoretical training Is made.

Hon. W. R. HAIL: I oppose the amend-ment for the inclusion of the 'Words"theoretical and practical." Under this,any person aspiring to be an optometristhas to go before the board to prove by ex-amination that he is qualified in theoryand practice. People practising optometrypossess the necessary appliances to testeyesight. They prescribe spectacles and thetype of lenses.

I would sooner see the word "reason-able" deleted so as to prescribe that anapplicant has only to pass a test, not a rea-sonable test, in the work of an optometrist.The board is the best judge as to whetheran applicant possesses the qualificationsof an optometrist. In the metropolitan areaand in the Goldfields towns there is ashortage of optometrists; therefore as longas a person has the necessary qualifica-tions, I am prepared to support any mea-sure to enable him to practise.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: This Billonly provides that between now and the30th June next applications may be madefor registration under the Act. After the30th June next, further legislation will berequired. It does not set aside the existingAct altogether.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: The letter front theOptometrists Board indicates that thisperson does not possess the necessaryqualifications.

2403

404[COUNCIL.]

Ron. Sir Charles Latham: Then theboard can reject him. Let the board takethe responsibility.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: It has alreadytaken the responsibility. It has refusedto permit this man to practise because hehas not the qualifications.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Nothing ofthe sort.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: This is what theletter from the registrar of the board con-tains-

This man first applied to this boardfor registration in 1952, but as he didnot possess the qualifications as setout in Rule 30 the board had no alter-native but to advise him that he couldnot be registered under the Act.

Hon. L. C. Diver: What rule is that?

Hon. J1. G, HISLOP: one of its own, Domembers not think that we must protectour own students by asking that this manshould know something about the job bothin regard to theory and practice?

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: You haven'tany confidence in the board.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I have not muchconfidence In the wording of the Bill.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham:, Or in theboard.

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I have little con-fidence in anyone attempting to introducethis sort of measure all the time whichwhittles away a standard which an attemptis being made to maintain in this State inall these ancillary services. We are onlylessening in the eyes of those who aregoing to practise in this way the value ofthe work. I am very concerned that weshould not continually introduce measuresof this kind.

Hon. Sir Charles Lathamn: I give you myword 1 will never introduce another one!

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I hope I will neversee another one of this sort introduced inthis Place. It could be a dangerous pre-cedent.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: I think there is alot of merit in the amendment. Dr. Hisloptakes the view that we are not here to con-sider the particular interest of an indiv-idual but the interest of the community;,and I think it is only right and in accord-ance with our duty to the public that weshould do what lies in our power to ensurethat People who aspire to test people's eyesand make glasses for them and chargethem fees should pass proper and adequatestandards.

I do not know anything about the occu-pation of optometry; but I do know theeye Is a most delicate part of the human

body, and that when we trust it to thekeeping of certain people it is only rightthat we should do what we can to ensurethat very high standards are maintainedby those people. We know that in the earlydays folk travelled around country dis-tricts, made tests of people's eyes, andprescribed spectacles which led to a gooddeal of suffering.

Now the profession has decent stan-dards, and people have to qualify in anadequate way. That is something thatis due to the public and especially topeople in country areas who do not knowwho's who. A man visits a town andsubjects all and sundry to tests, makesglasses, and charges them pretty high fees;and their welfare is at stake.

I do not think that the amendment willdo any harm. These people need to knowsome theory and to have a good deal ofpractical knowledge; and by inserting thewords proposed by Dr. Hislop, we will in-dicate to the board that that Is the typeof test a man should be able to pass. Wewould he failing In our duty if we didnot do something along these lines.

Ho n. L, C. DIVER: There is no pro-fessional man I admire more than theoptometrist, because I am one of thoseunfortunate people 'who were born withvery inferior eyesight. At an early ageI was taken to professional eye doctors;but it was not until I gave them awayand went to an optometrist that I couldsee a sheep in my paddock half a mileaway. So I have every reason to be grate-ful to these people, and that was beforethere were qualifications.

We have passed laws that people mustdo certain things and reach certain stan-dards, but the real acid. test comes withthe passing on of that knowledge to thepersons submitting themselves for exam-ination. We have a board which issues acertificate of worthiness- to candidateswhich it thinks fit to engage in the pro-fession. The Bill leaves the responsibilityto the board to make a determination.Surely if we insert these words we showa lack of confidence in the people chargedwith that responsibility.

Not wishing to affront that board, andhaving every confidence in It and in theoptometrists practising in Western Aus-tralia; and feeling sure that the boardwill see that the standards are notlowered. I propose to support the clauseas printed.

Hon. R. C. MA=rSKE: I am surprisedthere has been so much debate on thismatter. The purpose of the amendmentis to clarify for the benefit of the boardthe intention of Parliament that thesetwo aspects should be included In the par-ticular examination. At present the Billprovides that a man shall pass a reason-able examination. That would imply

2404

[22 October. 1957.) 40

theoretical and practical knowledge, andthe amendment simply clarifies the pasi-tion.

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes .... .... .... .. 12

Majority for .. 2

Ayes.Bon. E. Mi. DaviesMon. E. Mi. HeenanEon. J. S. HiclapBon. R. F. HutchlsonHon. 0. MacKinnonHon. H. C. hiattieke

Han. J. MurrayRon. H. C. Striclandnon. R. K. WatsonHon. W. F. Willesee'Eon. P. D. WilimottEon. A. F. Grifftb

(Teller.)

Noes.

Bon. 0. Benasits Hon. A. H. JonesRon. J. Cunningham Hon. Sir Chas, LathamEon. L. C. Diver Eon. P. R, H. LaveryRon. J. J. Garrigan Eon. F. J. $. WiseHon. 0. E. Jeffery Mon. W. R, Hall

(Teller.)

Amendment thus Passed; the clause, asamended, agreed to.

Title-agreed to,Bill reported with an amendment,

House adjourned at 10.4d p.m.

IG2roUututitw AsriubtTuesday, 22nd October, 1957.

CONTENTS.Page

Questions: Land Agents Board, capacity,ability and integrity of members ...2405

Transport, metropolitan rail and omnibusfares........... 2406

Education, (a) enrolments for highSchools .. ..... 2407

(b) accommodation, Narrogin agri-cultural high school ... - 2407

Railways, (a) overtime paid, 195"47.. 2407(b) deferment of major works and

siting of marshalling yards I..2407(c) tabling of Dumas and Brisbane

report .. .. .. -- 2407Petrol tax, State's allocation and details

of expenditure ... I.. .. 2408Drainage, metropolitan region compre-

hensive scheme .. ...2408Fences, amending legislation .. ...2408Fishing Industry, trawling at Albany 2409Trust funds, reserves .. .. ...2409H-bomb, sIgnifcance re future power

projects .. ... . 2409State Housing Commission, acquisition

of Mt. Barker lots - . .. .. 2409Native welfare, result of blood slides

from Well 40 natives 2410Members' speeches, release of Mansard

transcripts ... ... ". .. 2410Uniform building by-laws, committee's

Investigations 2410Annual Estimates, 1957-58, Cam. of Supply,

Votes and Items discussed ... 2412Dis : Education Act Amendment, Ir. 2411

inspection of Machinery Act Amend-ment, Sr. .. .. .. I. 2411

Shearers' Accommodation Act Amend-.ment, report ... .. .. .. 2411

Jetties Act Amendment, Zr., Coin.,report .. ,2411

Bush Fires Act Amendment, Council'samendment 2412

Marketing of Potatoes Act Amendment,Council's amendments .. .. 2412

Long Service Leave, 2r. .... .. 2422Juries, Council's amendments, .... I..242SGovernment Railways Act Amendment,

2r............ ......... ... 2438

The SPEAKER took the Chair at 4.30p.m., and read prayers.

QUESTIONS.

L-AND AGENTS BOARD.

Capacity, Ability and Integrity ofMembers.

Mr. JOHNSON asked the Minister forJustice:

(1) Have any complaints as to thecapacity, ability, or' integrity of any mem-ber of the Land Agents Board beenreceived?

2405