[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.]

Kegotntatiur Arnwwlbl11Tuesday, the 24th November, 1959

CONTENTS

ASSENT TO BILLS ... .. ... ..

CO NTENTS-con~inu?,d

Page3477

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE:Ale, quantities purchased ... .. .. 3477Diesel engines, faults and time lost ...3478Unemployment at Kalgoorie-

Figures for October .. .. ...3478Effect of takeover of Parkeston tranl-

shipment operations . ... .- 3478Declining numbers In mining industry 3478Provision of employment for young

people..... .................. 3478Pensioners-

Details of rents paid and rebates granted 3479Rates of pension.. .............. 8479

Narrows Bridge, siting of northern linkroad.. ....... ............. 379

Lands-Chase Syndicate, re-negotiation of agree-

ment.......... ............ 3479Civilian land settlement, implementation

of comprehensive scheme..........3479Virgin land, assistance for development,

and settlement .... I... .. 3480Under-developed farms, financial assistance 3480Dairy farm improvement scheme, financiall

assistance to farmers .. ...... 3480Crown Land-

Acreage thrown open for selection, andlocalities .... . . . 3480

Number and addresses of applicants .... 3480Holdings allotted..... ......... 3480

Betting Royal Commission, report of andpayments to commissioner..........3481C "-class hospitals, charges and rebates 3481

King's Park, Improvement of botanicalfeatures, and fauna reserve---------- 3481

Sister Eileen Dane, terms of appointment 3482

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE:Storm damage at Albany, Government

assistance to residents ......... .... 3482Special Holiday Hill, consideration regard-

ing introduction ... .. 8.. .. 482BILLS:

Entertainments Tax Act Amendment Bill,assent.... ................. 3477

Entertainments Tax Assessment ActAmendment Bill, assent .. .. 3477

Bunbury Harbour Board Act AmendmentBill, assent.. ................... 37

Town Planning and Development ActAmendment Bill (No. 3), assent .... 3477

Albany Harbour Board Act AmendmentBill, assent ... .. ... 47

Trade Associations Registration Bill- r38sr. ... ... ... ... ...13494

Corn .. - .. ... .. .. 3528Report, 3r. ._ .. .. 3.. 550

Metropoliltan Region Town PlanningScheme Bill, Council's message ... 3494

BILLS -cntinued.

State Electricity Commission Act Amend-ment Bill (No. 3), returned ... ..

Art Gallery Bill-Council's further messageContinuation of managers' conferenceConference managers' report..... ...

Metropolitan Region Improvement TaxBill, returned ....... ..

Traffic Act Amendment Bill, No. (4) re-turned ... .... .. .. ..

Builders' Registration Act AmendmentBill, returned . .. .. .

ADJOURNMENT-SPECIAL

The SPEAKER took the4.30 p.m., and read prayers.

3477

Page

3494

355034943494

3550

3550

8550

Chair at

BILLS (5)-ASSENTMessage from the Governor received and

read notifying assent to the followingHills:-

1. Entertainments Tax Act AmendmentBill.

2. Entertainments Tax Assessment ActAmendment Bill.

3. Hunbury Harbour Hoard Act Amend-ment Bill.

4. Town Planning and Development ActAmendment Bill (No. 3).

5. Albany Harbour Board Act Amend-ment Hill.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICEALE

Quantities Purchased1. Mr. GRAHAM asked the Attorney-

General:What quantities of ale were pur-chased for each of the last fiveyears respectively by-

(a) publicans;(b) registered clubs;(c) holders of gallon licenses?

Mr. WATTS replied:Quantities of ale (expressed ingallons) purchased for each of thelast five years respectively by:-

(a) Publicans General and Licences; other than (b) and (ci.-Year ended Year ended Year ended Year ended Year ended

30/6/55 30/6/56 30/6/57 30/6/58 30/6/5914,056,589 13,390.043 11,056,107 12.443,903 12,182,820

(b) Registered Clubs-Year ended Yearcended Year ended Year ended Year ended

30/0/55 30/9/56 30/9/57 30/9/58 30/9/591,247,270 1.311,087 1,306,025 1,528,840 1.610,835

(c) Holders of gallon licsene-Year ended Year ended Yea, ended Year ended Year ended

30/6/55 30/0/56 30/a/57 30/o/58 30/8/591,075,933 1,200,668 953,682 938,670 973,122

3478 ASSEAMLY.)

DIESEL ENGINESFaults and Time Lost

2. Mr. ANDREW asked the Minister forRailways:(1) Has the trouble which the depart-

merit had with diesel railwayengines been overcome?

(2) Could he give the time lost bythese engines during the last threeyears?

Mr. COURT replied:(1) As advised on the 3rd November,

1959, by the Minister for Mines inthe Legislative Council, there arethree types of diesel locomotivesin service-

S type diesel electric mainllne--48.

Y type diesel electric shun-ters-le8.

Z type diesel mechanical jettyshunters-3.

Compared with expectations basedupon diesel performances reportedby some other railway systems, theS-class diesel electric locomotivescannot be regarded as being com-pletely satisfactory. Nevertheless,the improving degree of utilisationand service being obtained is en-couraging, and the locomotives arefinancially advantageous by com-parison with steam units.The Y and Z type locomotives areentirely satisfactory.

(2) The percentage time lost to trafficduring the last three years byX-ciass and ZA-class locomotivesis as follows--

Year ended the 30th June-Percentage

1957 .... .... 28.61958 .. ... 30.11959 .. ... 27.1

The present position this year todate is 18.1 per cent.

1UNEMPLOYMVENT AT KALGOORLIEFigures for October

3. Mr. EVANS asked the Minister forIndustrial Development:(1) is he aware that the Common-

wealth Employment Service Officein Kalgoorlie had a waiting list of185 unemployed at the end ofOctober? (see Kalgoorlie Miner,the 18th November, 1959).

Effect of Takeover of ParkestonTranshipment Operations

(2) Does he agree that, with theCommonwealth Railways take-over of transhipment operations

at Parkeston, the position ofunemployment at Kalgoorlie willbe further aggravated, becausemen now transhipping for theW.A.G.R. whose homes, families,and interests are in Kalgooriewill find it extremely difficult tofind alternative local employment?

Declining Numb ers in MiningIndustry

(3) Does he further realise that as aresult of the application of thepolicy of amalgamation andmechanisation by the miningcompanies as a means of corn-batting ever-increasing costs--against a fixed price for its pro-duct-fewer opportunities foremployment exist in the miningindustry at Kalgoorlie?

Provision of Einvplevment forYoung People

(4) As It is expected that there willbe a registration of between 150and 200 school-leavers for em-ployment at the end of this year,and parents are and will continueto be concerned at the lack ofopportunities for employment foryoung people in the Kalgoorlie-Boulder area, will he, on behalfof the Government, please indi-cate what steps it proposes to taketo set up or encourage new Indus-tries suited to local conditions inKalgoorlie?

Mr. COURT replied:(1) Yes. The figure at the 31st March,

1959, was almost identical at 184.(2) No.

(3) The fixed price of gold makesmechanisation-and in some cases,amalgamation-imperative in themining industry. But for thesemeasures, the industry could bein a serious plight. it is, how-ever, interesting to note thatfigures of employment in thegoldmining industry in the east-ern fields (Kalgoorlie, Coolgardie.Southern Cross, and Norseman) ofrecent years have not greatly de-creased.

(4) The Government is always en-deavouring to establish industriesthroughout the State. Decen-tralisation is part of its policy.Also suggestions from interestedparties in Kalgoorlie -Boulder areafor the Government to examinewill receive prompt attention.

3478

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.1349

PENSIONERSDetails of Rents Paid and Rebates

Granted4. Mr. HALL asked the Minister repre-

senting the Minister for Housing:(1) Has there been an increase in rent

of houses occupied by pensioners?(2) If so. on what date was the in-

crease struck?(3) What was the amount of the rent

Increased on-(a) double unit; and(b) single unit?

(4) DId the increase In rents comeabout because of increased pen-sion rate to pensioners, fromSocial Services?

(5) Did pensioners enjoy a rebate ofrent, because of lower pensionrate received, up until the 8thOctober, 1959?

Rates of Pension(6) What was the rate of pension re-

ceived by a pensioner per fort-night up until the 8th October,1959?

(7) What is the present rate of pen-sion received by a pensioner perfortnight?

Mr.(1)(2)

ROSS HUTCHINSON replied:Yes.For country tenancies, the 2ndNovember, 1959.

<3) (a) 3s. per week.(b) is. 6d. per week.

(4) Yes.<5) In accordance with the formula of

the Commonwealth-State HousingAgreement Act, rental rebates areautomatically adjusted whenevertenants' incomes alter.

(6) £4 7s. 6d. per week.(7) £4 15s. per week.

NARROWS BRIDGE

Siting of Northern Link Road

5. Mr. KELLY asked the Premier:(1) As accepted practice in most over-

seas capitals, where applicable.main arteries are directed under-ground or tunnelled through highground, in order to obviate thenecessity of disrupting surfaceactivities, and to reduce wholesaleresumptions, will he give theHouse an assurance that thesiting of the northern link roadapproaches to the Narrows Bridgewill be thoroughly examined inthe light of experience elsewhere?

(2) As similar circumstances to thelocation of the Narrows Bridgeand Mt. Eliza exist at Pittsburg,U.S.A., where extensive tunnelling

and overways were constructed.will he obtain fullest detail be-fore making a final decision in re-gard to the northern approaches?

Mr. BRAND replied:(1) Alternative meth1ods suitable for

the construction of the switchroad will be adequately examinedbefore a decision is made.

(2) The Pittsburg situation is verydifferent from that in Perth inmany aspects, and decisions InPerth will be made on an ade-quate investigation of the localsituation, to which a comparisonwith Pittsburg conditions can con-tribute very little.

CHASE SYNDICATERe-negotiation of Agreement

6. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister forLands:(1) What stage has been reached by

the Government in putting intoeffect its declared policy if electedat the 1959 elections, in regard tothe operations of the Chase Syn-dicate at Esperance?

(2) What steps has the Governmenttaken to re-negotiate the agree-ment entered into with the ChaseSyndicate in 1956. in order thatthe public might be made awareof the position at Esperance?

Mr. B3OVELL replied:(1) Notice of default in regard to

Neridup Locations 12 and 16 isbeing issued.

(2) Negotiations were initiated im-mediately the Government as-sumed office, and are still pro-ceeding.

CIVILIAN LAND SETTLEMENTImplementation of Comprehensive Scheme

7. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister forLands:(1) What steps has the Government

taken to implement a comprehen-sive civilian land settlementscheme?

(2) If an approach has been made toobtain financial assistance fromthe Commonwealth Government,what result has been achieved?

(3) If the Commonwealth answerthrows the responsibility back onthe State to provide Its ownfinance, what action does the Gov-ernment now propose to take inorder to honour undertakingsgiven when in Opposition?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(1) to (3) As demand for Crown

land from applicants with owncapital necessary to develop it

3479

3480 [ASSEMIBLY,)

under conditional purchase con-ditions is in excess of land at pre-sent available for agriculturaldevelopment, a civilian land settle-ment scheme will be consideredwhen this demand is satisfied.

VIRGIN LANDAssistance for Development,

and Settlement8. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister for

Lands:(1) H-ow much has been spent by the

Government in financial assist-ance to approved applicants, withlimited capital, for development ofvirgin land?

(2) H-ow many settlers in this cate-gory have been assisted?

(3) In what areas has settlement beenmade?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(1) The Government has not yet made

any change in the policy of someyears' standing of granting assist-ance in cases only where thefarmer has created an equity suffi-cient to warrant assistance and isable to provide his own carry-on.The assistance rendered In thesecases is set out in the answer toanother question asked by thehonourable member today.

(2) 86.(3) Esperance: dairying, and sheep,

and wheat areas generally.

UNDER-DEVELOPED FARMSFinancial Assistance

9A. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister forLands:(1) What amount of finance has been

made available by the presentGovernment to assist existingfarmers having limited capitaland under-developed farms?

(2) Where are these properties loca-ted, and how many individualfarmers have received the assist-ance?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(1) £70,000.(2) Esperance, and dairying and other

agricultural areas. Eighty-six in-dividual farmers, including appro-vals not fully drawn.

DAIRY FARM IMPROVEMENT SCHEMEFinancial Assistance to Farmers

9fl. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister forLands:.(1) What capital assistance has the

Government given since the 1stApril, 1959 to settlers whosedairies come within the dairy farmimprovement scheme?

(2) What amount of capital was di-rected into this scheme prior tothe 1st April, 1959?

Mr, BOVELL replied:(1) £19,981.(2) £60,000.

CROWN LANDAcreage Thrown Open for Selection, and

Localities10. Mr. KELLY asked the Minister for

Lands:(1) Since he took office, what is the

total acreage of land thrown openfor selection?

(2) How many locations does thisacreage represent?

(3) In what areas is such land avail-able?

Number and Addresses ofApplicants

(4) How many applicants applied forland, and in what number foreach parcel of land thrown open?

(5) How many applicants were ofWestern Australian address?

(6) What number applied from otherStates?

Holdings Allotted(7) How many Western Australians

were successful?(8) H-ow many applicants from other

States were selected?

(2)(3)

BOVELL replied:783,468 acres.506.

District

Avon... ..Swan... ..Plantagenet ..I-ay ..Jilbadji ..Yilgarn ..EsperanceSussex ..Murray ..Wellington ..Nelson ..Ninghan ..VictoriaMelbourne ..Roe ... ..KoJonup ..Oldfleld ..Kent... ..Williams ..Fitzgerald ..NeridupLeake

Totals...

Numberof

Locations423132

61413172828

23236422171740

432

763

506

Area,(Acres)

41,25436,70332,5502,114

28,61424,87735,338

9,730277

2,5633,639

16,351161,12866,53340,55118,36878,6749,831

32,5259,694

130,5161,638

783,468

3480

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 48

Nos. (4) to (8)-(a) 754 persons applied.(b) 175 parcels were selected

without competition. AUiapplicants were from West-ern Australia.

(c) 161 scattered parcels wereallotted by the LandBoard among 453 appi-cants, averaging 2.8 appli-cants per Parcel. All appli-cants were from westernAustralia.

(d) Major Land Boards were asfollows:-

(1) Esperance Plains(May 1959): 88 par-cels, 95 applicants ofwhom 26 were fromWestern Australiaand 69 from otherStates. (58 parcelswere allotted to 17W.A. and 41 other-States' applicants).

(2) Quindalup - Metricup(Sussex): 17 parcels,33 applicants all fromWestern Australia(all parcels allotted).

(3) Esperance Plains(October 1969): 26parcels, 76 applicantsof whom 15 were fromWestern Australiaand 61 from otherStates. (all parcelsallotted: 4 to W.A.,22 to other States).

BETTING ROYAL COMMISSIONReport of and Paymnents

to CommissionerMr. J. HEGNEY asked the Premier:(1) Has the Royal Commissioner on

starting-price betting indicated tothe Government when his reportwill be completed?

(2) What is the daily or weekly rate ofemolument Paid to the commis-sioner?

(3) Does the enmolument cover salaryand expenses?

(4) What was the commencing dateof payment?

(5) What is the total payment madeto the commissioner to date?

Mr. BRAND replied:(1) The Royal Commissioner hopes to

present his report within a fort-night.

(2) Retafner-26 guineas per day.Expensges-ill guineas per day.

(3) Answered by No. (2).(4) The 13th July, 1059.(5) £3.922 16s.

"C"-CLASS HOSPITALSCharges and Rebates

12. Mr. BRADY asked the Minister forHealth:(1) Are "C"-class hospitals permitted

to charge L15 15s. per week forinmates?

(2) What fees are paid to "C"-classhospitals from-

(a) Commonwealth sources;(b) medical fund?

(3) How is balance paid by pensionerinmates where pension of £4 153.is not sufficient?

Mr. ROSS HUTCHINSON replied:(1) These are private hospitals and

there is no control over their fees.(2) No lees are paid by hospital benefit

funds to "C"-class hospitals. Theyare recouped to patients.

(a) Hospital Benefits from Com-monwealth sources are paidas follows:-

(I 8s. per day f or allqualified patients(whether insured ornot) paid through themedical Department.

(ii) additional 4s. per dayto patients insured forfund benefits of lessthan 16s. per day.

(iii) a further 8s. per day(making 20s. Per dayin all) to patients in-sured for fund bene-fits of l6s. per day ormore. This is avail-able at a cost of 9d.per week f or singlepersons or 1s. 6d. perweek for a family.

(ii) and (iii) aboveare paid throughregistered Organisa-tions.

(b) Fund Benefit: This Variesaccording to the contribu-tion rate and the rules ofthe particular fund. Fundbenefit is not payable inrespect of patients in "C"-class hospitals, except thosereceiving treatment norm-ally given in an "A"-classhospital.

(3) This is a matter between the__patient and the hospital.

KING'S PARKImprovement of Botanical Features,

and Fauna Reserve13. Mr. BRADY asked the Minister for

Lands:(1) Is the Government considering a

plan for improving the botanicalfeatures of King's Park?

3481

3482 ASSEMBLY.)

(2) If so, what stage of planning hasbeen reached?

(3) Has the King's Park Board con-sidered the possibility of creatinga fauna reserve In the King'sPark area?

Mr. BOVELL replied:(1) Yes.(2) At present under consideration by

Cabinet.(3) The King's Park Board has twice

considered the possibility of keep-ing fauna In King's Park but Is ofthe opinion the time is not yetopportune for such a venture.

SISTER EILEEN DANETerms of Appointment

14. Mr. OL.DFIELD asked the Ministerfor Health:(1) Is it a fact that Sister Eileen

Dane was invited by Matron G,.Siegele to migrate from the UnitedKingdom to take up the positionof Sister in Charge of Outpatients,Ophthalmic Clinic, at Royal PerthHospital?

(2) Was this appointment and salaryof £688 to £E701 per annum con-firmed in a letter of the 25thApril, 1958?

(3) Was Sister Dane paid a salary ofonly £590 per annum after takingup her appointment?

(4) If the answers to N~os. (1), (2)and (3) are in the affirmative, willan adjustment be made in keep-ing with the terms of the appoint-ment accepted by Sister Dane?

(5) If not, why not?

Mr. ROSS HUTCHINSON replied:(1) Miss Dane first wrote (letter dated

the 12th November, 1957) to RoyalPerth Hospital asking if there wasa vacancy as a sister or staff nursein the Ophthalmic Clinic. MatronSiegele replied offering her thepost of sister in charge of thatclinic.

(2) Yes. Under the latest award, therates are £749-775 per annum.Sister Dane is on the maximum.

(3) Sister was placed on the minimumof the salary range, viz. £688 attime of appointment. This wasqueried; and because of qualifica-tions and experience, she wasplaced on the maximum of £701retrospective to date of com-mencement of duty. The amountreferred to by the honourablemember relates to a figure afterdeductions for board and lodging,

income tax, etc. are made. Inaddition to salary, the hospital hasbeen Paying the employer's shareof sister's British superannuation,although this was not part of theoriginal arrangement with her.

(4) and (5) Answered by Nos. (2) and(3).

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

STORM DAMAGE AT ALBANYGovernment Assistance to Residents

1. Mr. HALL asked the Premier:As the storm which struck Albanyon Saturday, the 21st, November.caused extensive damage to pro-perty and goods, would he makeavailable finance to assist resi-dents so that they may rehabili-tate themselves, as some are pen-sioners and others are on lowincomes?

Mr. B3RAND replied:,I thank the honourable memberfor making a copy of his questionavailable. So far as the peoplewho are living in Commonwealth-State rental homes are concerned,the damage will be paid by theGovernment. As for any furtherdamage, I could not undertake toassist, because I should imaginethere are many incidents through-out the State in respect of which,for one reason or another, citizenscould claim similar assistance be-cause of hardship and difficultiesarising out of unforeseen circum-stances such as these.

SPECIAL HOLIDAY BILLConsideration Regarding Introduction

2. Mr. W. HEGNEY asked the Premier:Following a question which Iasked last week, has he giverconsideration to my request f 01facilities to be granted to enablethe Special Holiday Bill to beintroduced and considered by Par-liament?

Mr. BRAND replied:The matter is still receiving con-sideration, We will see what pro.gress we make.

3. Mr. W. HEGNEY asked the Premier,Following the Premier's reply t(my previous question, I would likihim to indicate whether he comegive any idea as to when con-sideration will be finalised anddecision arrived A.

Mr. BRAND replied:Tomorrow.

3482

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.] 3483

TRADE ASSOCIATIONSREGISTRATION BILL

Second ReadtnDebate resumed from the 20th November.

MR. COURT (Nedlands--Minister forIndustrial Development) [4.521: At thetime when a motion was moved giving meleave to continue my second readingspeech at a later sitting, I had Just aboutconcluded. Therefore, I will be briefthis afternoon. I entered this debate fortwo reasons: Firstly. I was a member ofthe Honorary Royal Commission that con-sidered trade practices in this State; and,secondly, I am particularly interested inthe measure as Minister for IndustrialDevelopment, because of the impact of thistype of legislation on industrial develop-ment.

So far as the findings of the HonoraryRoyal Commission are concerned, I havedealt with those in some detail. Sufficeto say that the Bill covers the majorityrecommendations of that Honorary RoyalConmmission. Therefore I propose to makeno further comment on that matter. Sofar as industrial development is concerned,I just want to make a few concluding re-marks.

I said on Friday that the existing legis-lation on the statute book had an adverseeffect on industrial development in thisState. Therefore, I think It is only rightthat I should outline to members myexperience in trying to negotiate forindustries to come to this State. Inthe main, one is dealing with a fairly hard-headed and experienced lot of business-men who know the full implications ofindustrial expansion or establishment ofindustry in Western Australia,

There are numerous questions that haveto be answered, dealing with such thingsas indigenous materials which are peculiarto a Particular industry; power supplies,and the cost of same; water supplies andtheir cost; and transportation and itscosts; and invariably these people comeround to the question regarding legislationwhich might affect them industrially. Irefer to such legislation as the IndustrialArbitration Act: any legislation which hasparticular reference to their industry; and,of course, any legislation affecting tradepractices generally.

It is significant that we can give a verygood answer to Practically every questionexcept the one dealing with legislation inregard to restrictive trade practices; andI refer to the legislation at present onthe statute book. it is no good tryingto deceive ourselves on this point; thefact remains that when we make thedetails of this legislation known to thesepeople and they study it, they are adverselyinfluenced in respect of Western Australia.

When I have had negotiations with anindustry-whether it be big or small-Ihave made it a practice to ask the princi-pals of that industry whether they will setout for mue the reason why they decidednot to come to Western Australia, if theirdecision has beepn adverse. Tn some CRAS.they are very reluctant to do this. TheyJust say, 'We have examined the Positionand the markets are not good enough."or they give several other reasons.

In other cases, through persistence, andwith a certain amount of careful approach,I have induced them to set out quitefrankly the reasons why they have notcome to our State. I have explained thatthey would be doing a service for WesternAustralia if they stated categorically thereasons that influenced them against com-ing to this State, because it would help usto examine our shortcomings and perhapsovercome them before we made anotherapproach to the same sort of industry.It might be a question of power costs,water costs, transport costs, lack of cer-tain materials, lack of markets, and so on;but it Is very disturbing to find that oneof the reasons given is the legislation thatis on the statute book.

I emphasised this point on Friday, andI want to emphasise it again: It is signi-ficant that the people who are so con-cerned about this type of legislation arePeople who normally would not have any-thing to worry about; firms which havewell-known names-reputable names;People who are known to carry on a verydesirable business in a desirable way.

Mr. Rowberry: What are they worryingabout?

Mr. COURT: As I mentioned on Friday,they are worrying about the legal uin-knowns of the existing legislation in thehands of a Government which might beupset over some particular incident; andwe know the power that is contained inthat particular legislation.

Mr. Kelly: Are those categories' replieson the fle?

Mr. COURT: In one case we have hadthe position set out in writing: but inother cases it has always been the resultof discussion, because it is a service-

Mr. W. Hegney: Do You expect us tobelieve that?

Mr. COURT: The honourable memberdoes not have to believe it.

Mr. W. Hegney: I do not.

Mr. COURT: I am making a statementwhich I know to be true, and the honour-able member does not have to believe itor accept it.

Mr. Hawke: If it is true, your own sinshave caught up with you.

Mr. COURT: When firms of repute areasked to do the State a service by settingout categorically the reasons why they

3484 [ASSEMBLY.]

decided not to come to Western Australia,I am very grateful to those who will accedeto the request; because, in many cases, wecan take action to correct the situation.The Deputy Leader of the Oppositionknows that when one is negotiating withsome of these people, there are many thingswhich have to be taken into account.There are literally dozens of questions thefirms' representatives want answered; andit is only by knowing the fundamentalreasons that brought about their decisionnot to set up in this State that one cantake positive action to correct the situation.

We must realise that in many cases-in fact, in most cases-these industriescoming to Western Australia are comingahead of the normal economic timing. TheLeader of the Opposition dealt with thataspect at some length the other day-thedifficulty of getting industries to establishhere because of the market factor-andwe as a State will have to try to deviseways and means of bringing about a situa-tion which will encourage industries tocome here ahead of the normal economictiming. It is Possible to do it if we cancome to grips with them and really get toknow the fundamental reasons that de-cided them against coming to WesternAustralia.

So I strongly support this legislation asbeing an attempt to get rid of somethingthat has been vexatious; and as being aBill designed to introduce something thatis clear-cut, and something which I thinkis in the public interest and which will notbe a deterrent to industry seeking to comehere, or to any industry that we seek tohave established in Western Australia. Isupport the Hill.

MR. FLETCHER (Fremantle) (5.1]: 1oppose the Bill.

Mr. Hawke: Hear, hear!Mr. FLETCHER: I believe the status

quo should be retained, and that we shouldadhere to the legislation which was intro-duced by the Previous Governiment. In-cidentally that legislation was supported bysome members in another place.' It isnecessary that, by legislation, we maintainProtection of our people. I spoke earlierabout plasterboard. I mentioned theracket 'associated with the plasterboardindustry; how collusive tendering was in-dulged in; and how one of the firms quotedbelow the other four: and how, on dis-covering the Position, it immediatelybrought its tender into confornity withthe others. When the officials of thatfirm were asked how this strange coinci-dence came about, they were honestenough to admit that had they not con-formed to the other quotes, they wouldhave been out of gypsum within a monthor six weeks.

As far as I can see, in relation to collu-sive tendering the proposed legislation doesnothing more than say to these firms,

"You might be fined £500'. In this morn-ing's The West Australian there is anarticle by Fred Morony, and he states thatthe registrar, in such an instance, will havewide Powers of investigation. Mr. Moronyhas this to say-

The registrar will have wide powersof investigation, if it is reported, or ifhe believes, that somebody has madea collusive tender-provided the regis-trar considers an investigation to bein the public interest. This proviso,which recognises that some collusivetenders could be in the public interest,is the keystone of this part of the Bill.

I wish to emphasise these words "pro-vided the registrar considers an investiga-tion to be in the public interest". Thisis a dangerous thing to leave to the pre-rogative of the registrar, when such a caseas the one I have mentioned is possible.Under the legislation of the previous Gov-

ernment.-and it is the existing legislation-this would be an offence, and the firmwould be liable to a penalty. By whatprovision in the Bill could a penalty beimposed? As far as I can see, under theproposed legislation all that the Govern-ment could say, to such a firm would be,"Naughty, naughty! You must not indulgein this sort of practice"; and I suspectit would not say it too loudly in case thepublic heard.

The member for Mt. Hawthorn men-tioned that the farmers were seeking aninquiry into the cost of spare parts. TheWest Australian of the 29th September,1959, had this heading, "Farmers SeekInquiry on Spare Parts." I am surprisedat the representatives of the fanning com-munity supporting such legislation as thiswhen we find that last September theywanted to have a Royal Commission intothe cost of spare parts. The newspaperreport had this to say-

A Royal Commission should be ap-pointed to inquire into the supply andprice of spare parts for agriculturalmachinery, the Australian Wheat-growers' Federation decided at itshalf-yearly conference yesterday.

Questions which should be answered,delegates said, include whether:

The supply of spare parts heldin each State was sufficient toprovide for the reasonable require-ments of farners.

The cost of Parts bore a reason-able relation to the cost of manua-facture and distribution, or themargin of profit for either manu-facturer or distributor was exces-sive.

Legislation should be introducedto ensure that farmers could buyspare parts at fair prices.

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 3485

The farmers, it would appear, havesomething in common with us in that they,according to this report, advocate pricecontrol. I commnend them for it. The re-Port goes on-

Western Australian Farmers' Unionreoresentative P. J. Forrester said hisOrganisation had received many com-plaints from farmers that spare partsfor new machinery were not available.

The union have been told that somespare parts cost about £5 to make un-der subcontract. When they were soldto farmers, however, they cost about£25.

That represents an exorbitant profit;and, Quite frankly, I do not blame thefarmers for complaining about it. But Iam concerned that the farmers' represen-tative could support such legislation asthis; because by so doing they will, ineffect, condone the perpetuation of ex-orbitant prices. I do not see anything inthe Bill to prevent the charging of suchprices. The other evening I alluded to St.George's Terrace farmers, and I includeamong the St. George's Terrace farmersthose person who would condone the sortof thing I have alluded to.

The moisture content and the sand con-tent of superphosphate were mentionedearlier. The moisture content in this pro-duct is attributable to the fact that thesuperphosphate should have been storedfor a longer period before sale. In effect,green superphosphate was being shipped tothe country areas, and the farmers werePaying freight on the difference betweenthe weight of the moist superphlosphateand what it should have been, had it beendry.

The use of silica in superphosphate wasalso mentioned. I know, through per-sonal experience, that silica is used, be-cause I worked at Cresco Fertilisers whenthe member for Guildford-Midland wassecretary of the union. When I made re-ference to the silica content, the memberfor Moore said, "Do not give me that." Idid not give him sand; Cresco Fertilisersdid. When it has been required to breakthe super down from 24 per cent, to 22per cent., I have seen barrow-loads ofsand tipped on to the conveyor belt, alongwith the superphosphate being excavatedfrom the bins; and I have seen the man,'with a piece of chalk, mark on the boardthe number of barrow-loads put in. Ineffect, what has happened Is that thefarmers have paid freight on the quantityof sand that has been railed with thesuperphosphate to the country areas.

Mr. Toms: What would farmers wantwith sand?

Mr. FLETCHER: That might be a point;it could possibly make up for some of thesoil erosion. The West Australian on Tues-day, the 29th September, stated that theprevious Government's Act should be

promptly repealed. This seems in strangecontrast to the report, in the same Paper,of the complaint made by the farmersabout the prices charged for spare parts.The West Australian on that date, in its.leader, had this to say-

Rep~eal of the Restrictive TradePractices Act should not be depend-ent on the passage of alternativelegislation.

That is telling the Government wvhat It.should do. The article continues-

Cabinet should promptly ask Par-liament to end the Act without feel-ing obliged to submit something else-however moderate it might be-inits place. A clean sweep of the legis-lation would help the Government'sindustrial drive by removing uncer-tainty from investors' minds.

Here, in effect, not the legislators of thisState, but The West Australian is tellingthe Government what it should do. Whoruns the country? Is it Parliament, orThe West Australian newspaper and theinterests it represents?

Mr. Nalder: That is what you are try-ing to do.

Mr. FLETCHER: I am not trying to doit; but I say The West Australian, andthe business interests it represents, are.This proposed legislation is probably moresatisfactory to The West Australian thanis the legislation passed by the previousGovernment. On behalf of the people Irepresent, I resent the right of The WestAustralian to tell the people of this Statewhat is best for them, Further on, theleading article says-

Western Australia has not labouredunder any noticeable injustice sincethe Act, for all practical purposes, wasput into cold storage.

I submit that our legislation has deterredsome business interests from making ex-orbitant profits. The article later hasthis to say-

If there is any loophole that needsplugging it can be attended to whenthe need is clear.

Further on-and here again is dictationto the Government-we find-

The first course open to the Gov-ernment is to recognise that the oldAct is dead and ought to be burled.

I consider It is impertinence to tell thisGovernment, or Parliament, before thelegislation is even Introduced, what to do.The article continues -

It should then examine whether anyreplacement is necessary.

In effect: To hell with the general public!Further on we fInd-

It has always been observed thatWestern Australia-industrially theweakest of the mainland States-should not try independently to sup-port trade-policing legislation that is.

386[ASSEMBLY.1

harsher than the Acts that havenation-wide application in Britain andthe United States.

The equivalent of Labour Governmentlegislation is in existence in Britain, and Inthat country which is alleged to be thebastion of private enterprise-the UnitedStates. Why remove it from our statutebook, if we are allegedly so backward in-dustrially, while it is retained in thosecountries?

I would like to know what has happenedto the Royal Commission that was soughtby the farmers. it is significant that wehave heard nothing further about it. Iwonder why the farmers accept the situa-tion in relation to the prices charged forthe parts they have to buy. They havemore in common with the general publicthan has the Government, in relation tothe prices that are charged.

We should retain our existing legisla-tion; it should not be repealed. The Billwith which we are dealing should not beimposed on our State. It has been Al-leged that our legislation has deterredthe establishment of industry. This, inmy opinion, is not so. In the last 10 years,during which I have lived in the Fremantlearea, there have been 45 large and smallfactories built in that district; and theyare all in production within half a mile ofmy home. I obtained those figures fromthe Factories Inspection Branch. Someof those organisations are Rheems, JoyceBros., International, Porters, Balm, Cock-burn Engineering, Bell's Asbestos, Brady's,Robeys, Dunlop Rubber, Wright's Paints,Saunders & Stuart, and Hardware &Wholesale Grocers. Those are just a fewof the industries that have come intoexistence there.

Mr. Cornell: Most of them were inexistence previously.

Mr. FLETCHER: The interjection is tothe effect that these industries came intoexistence prior to the period I am speak-ing of.

Mr. Cornell: Isn't that so?M~r. FLETCHER: No: they came into

existence during the regime of the HawkeLabor Government.

Mr. Cornell: Rheems were there long be-fore the Period you mentioned.

Mr. FLETCHER: I admit that Rheeznsmay have been there f or approximately10 years, but the great majority of thoseIndustries came into being during theLabor Government's term of office.

Mr. Guthrie: When did Joyce Bros. go-to Fremantle?

Mr. FLETCHER: Our legislation did notdeter those firms from starting up, and Iam happy to see them thriving and expand-ing. But that does not condone the actionof this Government in bringing downlegislation to give those firms the right

to charge prices in excess of what theycharged while the Labor Government wasin office. They were able to thrive duringthe term of the Labor Government; so whyintroduce legislation now to give them theopportunity to charge more than they arealready charging? I have no doubt thatthe same situation exists in other elec-torates, also.

Mr. Perkins:, Surely you are not suggest-ing that price control exists at present?

Mr. Hawke: Not even for bread. Yousaw to that.

Mr. Perkins: The member for Fremantleis trying to make out that price controlexists at present.

Mr. FLETCHER: There is a deterrentin the present Act, but there is no deter-rent in the proposed legislation,

Mr. Cornell: in the present Act thereis a deterrent to expansion.

Mr. FLETCHER:, No; expansion of in-dustry has been going on in that districtever since I have been there. Membersopposite should take a tour around theO'Connor district and see for themselveswhat is going on. They should ask theProprietors of those businesses how longthe factories and plant have been there.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, despite the legislation.Mr. FLETCHER: They came into exist-

ence during the currency of our legislation.Mr. Court: Most of those firms have been

in Western Australia for many years.Mr. FLETCHER: Industries have also

come into existence in other electorates,and in this regard I could mention Innaloo.I think it is in the electorate of WembleyBeaches, and the member for WembleyBeaches could substantiate what I say werehe not unfortunately absent. But, at allevents, other members have driven throughthat area and have seen both big andsmall factories starting up there. Thoseare the kinds of private enterprise towhich protection should be given, but notthe kind of protection that would beafforded by the proposed legislation,

Members opposite want to see thismeasure passed to condone the positionthat I am about to outline. Members ofthe Government may wish to see theequivalent of General Motors Holdens in-troduced to Western Australia.

Mr. Court: I would be mighty glad toknow that General Motors wanted to comehere.

Mr. FLETCHER: Yes; the Ministerwould like to see them come here anddo to our people what they have done tothe workers of the community and thepublic generally in the Eastern States.

Mr. Court: They have the highest paidwork force in Australia.

3486

[ Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 48

Mr. FLETCHER: From a capital outlayof £1,750000 they made a profit of£15,500,000 this year; and of that, only£30,000 odd was retained in Australia.

Mr, Guthrie: Those figures don't soundright.

Mr. Court: I only wish General MotorsHoldens would repeat their performance inWestern Australia.

Mr. FLETCHER: I am referring to theAnnual Journal of the University of West-ern Australia Branch, Australian LabourParty (W.A.), Vol. 2, No. 3, 1959. It shows,in part, that in the 10 years since pro-duction commenced, General Motors Rol.dens repaid the initial crdit granted bythe Commonwealth. It is astounding thatthe Commonwealth made finance availableto such an industrial giant, in order toattract it here. This Publication showsthat in the 10 years since production com-menced, G.M.H. also paid a, dividend toUnited States shareholders of more than£25,000,000, built up its assets in Australiato £70,000,000. and marked up a recordprofit last year of £15,500,000.

Mr. J. Hegney: They came here to builda people's motorcar.

Mr. Court: They came at the instigationof a Labor Prime Minister.

Mr. FLETCHER: Members know whatGeneral Motors Holdens have done sincethey came to Australia.

Mr. Court: Wouldn't you like them todo it again in Western Australia?

Mr. FLETCHER: I would not mind ifthey charged a reasonable price for theirproduct, but I would not like to see themcome here to make exorbitant profits.

Mr. Court: You should talk to theiremployees.

Mr. Roberts: Are you expounding thePolicy of the Australian Labor Party now?

Mr. FLETCHER: Naturally membersopposite do not want to hear this sort ofthing.

Mr. Hawke: The Minister for IndustrialDevelopment has his back to the petroltank.

Mr. FLETCHER: General MotorsHoldens brought no new money here.Their profits of almost £1.00,000,000 werecreated by Australian workers, Australianmoney, and Australian consumers.

Mr. Court: Are you advocating a Statemotorcar? God forbid!

Mr. Hawke: You drive one.

Mr. FLETCHER: Their profits wereexorbitant. In the last year they made aprofit of £15,500,000 after paying £;11,000,000tax: but that went on to the price of thecar. Who paid that? Every person whois driving a Holden car paid It.

Mr. Court: Do you think they wouldmake cars for fun?

Mr. FLETCHER: That was their profiton a turnover of £116,000,000. After allow-ing for sales tax approximately £1 in every£24 paid for a Hoiden car went as profit tothe manufacturer; and surely that is afantastic proportion for so large an enter-prise- Very big enterprises9 geneF-rlly makea small profit on a large turnover; but hereis a firm making a huge profit on a hugeturnover.

Mr. Perkins: What has all this to dowith the Bill?

Mr. FLETCHER: I can show what it hasto do with the Bill. The Bill would con-done that sort of Profit.

Mr. Court: I wish they would do overagain in this State what they have donein the Eastern States.

Mr. FLETCHER: Naturally. Virtuallyall the profits of General Motors Holdens.accrued to overseas shareholders. UnitedStates investors hold £1,750,000 of theordinary -shares, and their share of last'Year's profits was £15,250,000, on an orig-inal outlay of £1,750,000. That is fantastic,I am concerned about the prospect of thislegislation permitting that sort of thing on.the introduction of that kind of capitalinto Western Australia. I would rather seeour local Industry financed and Supportedby Western Australian Capital and kept incheck by the legislation introduced by theprevious Government.

Mr. Court: If General Motors or Fordscame here tomorrow and did the samething, we would welcome them with openarms.

Mr. FLETCHER: Australian share-holders have only £500,000 worth of the6 per cent. preference shares in GeneralMotors Holdens and their share of therecord profit was only £33,000, Austra-lians, who contributed roughly one quarterof the capital of General Motors Holdensreceived only £1 out of every £450 profit.while the remaining £449 went to G.M.H.

General Motors is expanding at analarming rate, and all the indications are,that this expansion will go on and moreand more of the Australian economy willcome under the control of this industrialand financial giant. General Motors Isalready too big, and each year it becomesmore and more difficult to control,

it might be asked how this relates to,the Bill. The existing legislation shouldbe retained to prevent excessive profits.being made. I do not care whetherthe present Act prevents capital of thatnature coming to Western Australia toexploit the people here as the peopleof the Eastern States have been exploited.I think the measure before us is beingheld out as a bait to attract that kindof firm to Western Australia. Theseprofits leave Australia, and I would muchsooner see local finance made available tolocal industries as in the Innaloo andO'Connor areas. If this legislation were

3487

3488(ASSEMBLY.]

agreed to, various firms and organisa-tions would be able to make unlimitedprofits.

Since this Goverrnent has been in office,we have already seen what has happenedto the State trading concerns; and what Iam concerned about is that they will sufferstill further if this Bill is agreed to. Ipoint out that in The West Australian ofthe 7th November, 1959, it was reportedthat the State Building Supplies had madea loss of £46,817, compared with a netprofit of £11,053 for the previous year.

Mr. W. A. Manning: In what year wasthat loss made?

Mr. FLETCHER: In 1958-59. Whereas,in the previous year, during the LaborGovernment's term of office, a profit wasmade.

Mr. W, A. Manning: But your Govern-ment was in office during 1958.

Mr. FLETCHER: I am pointing outwhat this Government has done to ourState in seven months.

Mr. Court: Nine months of that 12 waswhen your Government was in office.

Mr. FLETCHER: I am showing that forthe seven months this Government hasbeen in office-

Mr. W. A. Manning: That was in yourGovernment's term of office.

Mr. FLETCHER: Well, it shows whatthe honourable member's Government cando in three months.

Mr. W. Hegney: This Government will doa lot more to the State in the next sixmonths.

Mr. Lewis; The honourable member'sGovernment was responsible for three-quarters of the loss.

Mr. FLETCHER: No, the present Gov-ernment was responsible for the entire lossif, in the previous year, the Labor Govern-ment was able to make a profit of £11,000odd.

Mr. Court: The honourable memberwants to read the report that was tabledand he would not say that.

Mr. FLETCHER: The sky will be thelimit, as far as prices are concerned, ifthis legislation is passed; and the farmer,as well as the basic wage earner and thepensioner, will suffer. It is the basic wageearner that I am concerned with, includingthe trade unionists.

The Minister in charge of the Bill hassaid he will put teeth into the legislation.In today's issue of The West Australianthere is an article under the beading of"The Teeth in the New W.A. Trade Bill";but I will quote extracts from that news-paper report later. From the article itwould appear the only teeth the Bill hasare in that part which prohibits any groupof traders banding together to submit uni-form tenders.

Mr. W. Hegney: The Government willnot use anything against them; don'tworry about that!

Mr. FLETCHER: I am pretty confidentit will not; and The West Australian seemsto be of the same opinion, because thearticle it has published reads as follows:-

Apart from repealing the RestrictiveTrade Practices Act, the only teethin the Trade Associations RegistrationBill are in the part that prohibits anygroup of traders banding together tosubmit uniform tenders, goods or ser-vices.

The registrar, who would adminis-ter the proposed Act, would have littleinitiative in registering trade agree-ments and the rules of trade associa-tions.

In those spheres, it seems the Gov-ernment considers the right of thepublic to inspect agreements and otherdocuments to be sufficient deterrentto malpractice.

I can imagine a member of the generalpublic trying to read some of the agree-ments, which would be couched in legalterminology. The average person wouldbecome frustrated, because he would notbe able to understand it. The article con-tinues--

Provided an association gives all theinformation required-even if one ofits aims is to rob widows--

Mr. Lewis: You would not agree to that.

Mr. FLETCHER: Certainly I would notagree to robbing widows or the public gen-erally.

-the registrar will have no power torefuse registration.

However, if a member complainsthat an association is exceeding itsregistered rules or is acting contraryto them, the registrar will investigate.

From that I assume that if these regis-tered associations quarrelled among them-selves the registrar could intervene, butI cannot imagine his intervening on thepart of a member of the general public.The newspaper article also contains thefollowing:-

If the registrar's investigations con-firm a complaint he will report to theMinister, who will have power to in-struct the association to desist. Itwill be prosecuted if it fails to comply.

That is the only reference to a prosecu-tion that would be applied to a companyif it committed an act that was detrimentalto the association of which it was a mem-ber. However, I am concerned about thegeneral public; and as far as this Bill isconcerned, I cannot see how it will deterbig business interests from charging un-limited prices; because if this legislationis passed, prices will inevitably increase.

3488

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 38

Does the Government still believe the non-sense that is often published; namely,that any increase in wages causes in-creased prices? I am wondering whetherthe Premier was concerned about the lastincrease in the basic wage.

Mr. Rowberry: He was.

Mr, PLETCHER: I know he was! There-fore, if he was concerned about the latestincrease, why take steps to bring thislegislation into force when it is absolutelycertain to cause prices to rise again? Thatis the difference in the opinions held bymembers on each side of the House. Onthe Government side, members say if wagesare increased, price rises will automaticallyfollow. However, I maintain that pricesare increased for at least three monthsbefore any increase in wages is made.Wages are increased as a result of theprices rising in the first place. That isthe opinion of those on this side of theRouse. If this legislation is brought intoexistence, prices must rise and an in-crease mn the basic wage will follow. Suchcircumstances always create an inflation-ary effect, especially on those who havefixed incomes: such as pensioners and per-sons on superannuation.

The SPEAKER: The honourable mem-ber has another five minutes to go.

Mr. FLETCHER: The Minister in chargeof the Bill has 'Said that it will disciplineoffenders; but the existing Act permitsthat to be done now, and therefore I can-not see that there is any necessity toscrap it. The Government has put upthe excuse that the existence of the Mono-polies and Restrictive 'Trade PracticesControl Act is a. deterrent against capitalcoming into the State. If that is so, is itnot reasonable to assume that the Bill willto some extent also be a deterrent againstattracting capital? Therefore, the exist-Ing legislation should be retained, and thisBill should not be supported. Reputablefirms that are satisfied with reasonableprofits would not be deterred by the exist-ing legislation, and there is no reason whythat legislation should not remain on thestatute book. Z oppose the Bill.

MR. HEAL (West Perth) [5.40]: Neatur-ally, I rise to oppose this measure. I agreewith the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment on only one statement: namely, thatas he was a member of the Honorary RoyalCommission he was obliged to say a fewwords. I am placed in the same position.In the main, whilst the Honorary RoyalCommission was sitting, the witnesses whoappeared before it were presidents andsecretaries of associations already in exist-ence. There were other witnesses compris-ing those engaged in a certain trade whohad been refused membership of theassociation connected with that trade.Other representatives of organisationswho gave evidence apparently had sometrouble in relation to their way of living.£139]

Whilst the Leader of the Opposition wasspeaking, the Minister for Labour, whointroduced the Bill, interjected that twomembers of the Royal Commission werequite satisfied that no members of anassociation had been fined or reprimandedby the executive. However, it Was provedby the Honorary Royal Commission papersthat were laid on the Table of the Housethat there were members of associationswho had breached the rules and regula-tions of those associations, and who hadbeen fined and penalised as a result. Iwill read the report of the Honorary RoyalCommission in a few moments.

The principal witnesses who appearedbefore the Royal Commission-those whowere not granted membership of an asso-ciation-had quite a good ease. I ascer-tained, like the then member for NorthPerth, that these persons who weredesirous of entering a certain type of busi-ness were refused admission to the associa-tion connected with that particular busi-ness. I can cite the Glass Manufacturers'Association and the Venetian Blind Manu-facturers' Association. Unless a venetianblind manufacturer was a member of thatassociation, he found it most difficult-and, in fact, practically impossible-to buythe material that he required to manufac-ture venetian blinds.

To an extent, I agree with the state-ments made by members on the other sideof the H-ouse concerning free enterprise;but I am wonderng what the true defini-tion of free enterprise is. Perhaps theMinister for Labour could tell me, by inter-jection, what exactly is free enterprise.

Mr. Perkins: The honourable memberknows that none of us condoned theVenetian Blind Manufacturers' Association.None of us thought that its action wasjustified.

Mr. HEAL: I will return to my question.According to the Minister for Labour, whatis "4free enterprise"? Apparently the Min-ister cannot answer. Does the Minister forWorks know what free enterprise means?

Mr. W. Hegney: The Attorney-Generalknows; he introduced a Bill in connectionwith free enterprise three or four yearsago.

Mr. Perkins: There is nothing in theBill about free enterprise.

Mr. HEAL: I did not say there was. Letme refer to the definition of the two words,"free enterprise". In the Concise OxfordDictionary the word "free" is defined as",not in bondage to another, having per-sonal rights and social and politicalliberty". The word "enterprise" is definedas "undertaking, especially bold or diffi-cult one; courage, readiness, to engagein". If the trade associations in this Statebelieved in free enterprise-as is theirclaim-they would not place obstacles inthe way of people who desired to join the

3480

3490 [ASSEMBLY.]

associations. The Minister must agreethat some witnesses who appeared beforethe Honorary Royal commission could notobtain admission to some trade associa-tions.

Mr. Perkins: They would not complywith the rules of the association. Manyof them would not carry the requisitestock but wanted to trade on the stocksof other people.

Mr. HREAL: I admit some people wererefused membership on those grounds.Others applied to join associations, butthey were refused because they would notcomply with the rules. Let us see whatsome of these rules are. I have a copy ofa rule of one trade association before mewhich Illustrates that the association wasimposing a form of price control on itsmembers. The Minister interjected andasked the member for Fremantle whetherhe desired to revert to price control; butI point out that in many of these tradeassociations there is a form of price con-trol imposed in respect of the commoditiessold by them. If price control is to beapplied in one sphere, it should be ap-plied in all other spheres,

The Minister must agree that thesetrade associations fix their own prices. Ifa bIember were to step out of line bycharging a lower price, then he would befined or penalised. Quite a lot of evidencewas adduced before the Honorary RoyalCommission in respect of this matter. ItIs a great pity that such evidence washeld in camera and was not made knownto the public.

I refer to a rule of one of these asso-ciations, and I gather it is common tomost trade associations. It is a rule towhich I object, although many of the otherrules of trade associations are found inthe rules of trade unions or similarorganisations. I refer now to the GlassMerchants' Association; and one of itsrules states--

To regulate the glass merchandis-ing and processing business in West-ern Australia so as to endeavour toensure fair and reasonable tradingconditions for members, and in par-ticular (but without limiting thegenerality of the foregoing or of thepreceding paragraphs of this rule) tofix from time to time minimum pricesto be charged by members and to pre-scribe, regulate or prohibit discounts,concessions and allowances.

This rule was given in evidence before theHonorary Royal Commission, and it iscommon to many trade associations. Myobjection to these trade associations isthat they fix their own prices.

I asked certain witnesses who appearedbefore the Honorary Royal Commissiontheir views on price fixing within trade as-sociations, and on price fixing as applied

on a State-wide basis. I asked this ques-tion of the President of the W.A. TradeBureau, Mr. Johnston. He went to a greatdeal of trouble to tabulate the answer.

I refer to page 11 of the report of theHonorary Royal Commission, which setsout the provision applying under theQueensland Act in respect of unfair trad-ing. It states--

In respect of prices the followingare offences under this Act:-

(a) If any person whether prin-cipal or agent sells goods theprice of which has been de-termined, controlled or in-fluenced by any commercialtrust of which that person orhis principal is or has been amember; or

it) If any person whether a mem-ber or not sells goods at a6price in conformity with thedirections of a commercialtrust or of an association.

if this provision had been in the legislationof Western Australia, then all the tradeassociations here would be breaking thelaw. That Is my argument.

Mr. Perkins: What did the Unfair Trad-Ing Commissioner do in the last threeyears about these matters which you arementioning? Did he take any single stepin respect of them?

Mr. HEAL: I do not know.Mr. Perkins: The answer is that he

did not.Mr. HEAL:. I can tell the Minister where

the Unfair Trading Commissioner did takeaction. He took action In a recent case;but when the present Government cameto office, he dropped the proceedings.

Mr. Perkins: Hie did not have a com-plaint.

Mr. HEAL: I do not want to give thefirm's name. I can tell the Minister thatthe fixing of prices was put into operationby some of the trade associations in thisState. On page 14 of the report of theHonorary Royal Commission, in relationto price fixation and control, the followingis stated:-

Considerable evidence was heard onthe question of price fixation and con-trol by associations.

Whilst agreement on price fixationwas unanimous it was only so, providedthe associations had the power to bethe price fixing authority as the ex-tracts from evidence set out below,indicate-

(Transcript, page 306.)Question: Can you indicate why

you are not in favour of Govern-ment control and yet are in favourof private control in regard toprice fixation?

3490

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 3491

Witness: Yes, because firstly, westand primarily for free enter-p rise-

That is the amazing part. These wit-nesses stand primarily for free enterprise.Yet they set themselves up as a body to fixprices. I believe that under private enter-prise any trader should be permitted tosell a commodity at the price he desires.If that applied, the people of this Statewiould derive a great benefit. The Presi-dent of the Trade Bureau did not put for-ward the best aspects in relation to pricefixing, adopted by trade associations. Thereport continues-

-and the voluntary conductingof our affairs without being boundby a statute.

(Transcript, page 708.)To a further witness-Question:

Why do you fix the retail price ofan article?

Witness: There is a very goodreason for it. In fixing the retailprice we control the price thatthe public Pays for the article. Wecontrol the profit margin whichthe various sections of the trademake as between the manufac-turer and the ultimate consumer.In times when articles may be inshort supply there would be anopportunity for other sections ofthe trade to place an excessiveprofit on the article, to the detri-ment of the consumer. As manu-facturers, we are vitally interestedin the price that the consumerultimately Pays for the article be-cause that can regulate demand.As manufacturers we want thegreatest possible demand for ourarticle.

Question: Do you believe Inprice control?

Witness: No, I do not believe InState price control.

Question: You believe in fixinga price though?

Witness: Yes, by our own mem-bers.

Mr. Perkins: Who was that witness?

Mr. HEAL: Mr. Johnston, the thenPresident of the W.A. Trade Bureau. Hewent to a great deal of trouble in adducinghis evidence before the Honorary RoyalCommission in relation to the aspect ofprice fixing, but I did not agree with hisremarks.

We have all heard about the severityof the rules of trade unions in this Stateand of the H.M.A., but evidence was givenbefore the Honorary Royal Commissionwhich indicated that the rules of the tradeassociations were more severe, in respectof their members who sold commodities at

prices below those fixed by the associa-tions. On many of the minutes of thesetrade associations-of which we had photo-stat copies which I believe are now inthe Possession of the Attorney-General-there was proof that their members werefined aend penalised for selling below thefixed price.

I refer to page 15 of the report of theHonorary Royal Commission in which thefollowing is stated:-

Whenever it was possible to do so.disciplinary action was taken by someassociations against any member whocommitted a breach of prices in re-spect of tendering. The Commissionbecame aware of a number of instanceswhere a member who tendered a pricebelow that agreed to by the associa-tion was required to pay the profit ofthe transactions into the association'sf unds.

'I do not agree with this Paragraph: Iimagine that most members in this Housewill not agree with it either. I fail to seethat the measure before us will enableaction to be taken against a trade associa-tion which takes disciplinary action againstIts members.

It is proposed under the Bill that therules of all trade associations are to beregistered. If the registrar reported to theMinister that some trade associations hadstepped out of line, then it would be up tothe Minister to take appropriate action. Iquestion whether he would take any actionif a report were made to him by theregistrar that a member of a trade asso-ciation had been penalised because he soldan article at a price less than that fixedby the association. I venture to say thathe would not.

Mr. Perkins: That is not Provided for inthe measure. The Bill empowers the Min-ister to ensure that trade associationsobserve their own rules.

Mr. HEAL: That makes the Bill all theweaker.

Mr. Hawke: That makes it a farce.

Mr. HEAL: What is the good of the Billin those circumstances? The legislationwhich the Government is attempting torepeal contains much more Power to en-able the Minister or the Unfair TradingCommissioner to take action against tradeassociations. As was stated by The WestAustralian this morning, if the Govern-ment is to repeal the unfair trading legis-lation it should have the courage of itsown convictions, and it should not passany legislation in place of the unfair trad-ing legislation. What we have before usin the Hill is worse than what is containedin the legislation on the statute book.

Mr. Perkins: Apparently the unfair trad-ing legislation has not done anything toclean up the matters You outline.

Mr. HEAL: It did. I have told the MVin-ister in which respects.

3492 [ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. Hawke: I can refer to action inrespect of the sale of galvanised iron.

Mr. HEAL: When the Minister in theprevious Government inquired of the CrownSolicitor whether there was power for himto take action, he was told that actioncould be taken. That was before theHawke Labor Government went out ofoffice. I refer to an instance whichaffected a person living in my electorate.He went overseas and brought back somemachinery for the making of ice cream.The machinery cost him thousands ofpounds. On his return, he built a factoryin this State and that cost him manythousands of pounds. He installed themachinery and manufactured ice cream.He approached the shops in the metro-politan area and made a market for hisproduct.

However, after a few weeks, the shop-keepers who were buying his ice creamwere told by a big ice-cream manufactur-ing firm In this State-the Minister knowsthe firm to which I am referring-that ifthey did not procure their ice cream sup-plies from this firm only, and from noother, it would not continue to supplythem.

Mr. Perkins: Are you sure that the icecream of the small manufacturer was notbeing kept in the refrigerators suppliedby the big firm?

Mr. HEAL: It was not. If the big ice-cream manufacturing firm had suppliedthe refrigerators to the shops selling itsProducts, those shops were bound to sellOnly its ice cream. In many cases thesmall manufacturer supplied fce cream toshops which had their own refrigerators.Many of the shops had to accede to thedemand of the big firm of ice-creammanufacturers, because the latter manu-factured half a dozen ice-cream lines;whereas the small manufacturer was oper-ating in a smaller way.

These remarks also apply to the BeachIce Cream Company. At the time of thepresent Government coming into office,this matter was being investigated by theUnfair Trading Commissioner. Unfortun-ately, after the present Government cameInto office, Proceedings were discontinuedand no further action was taken. We findthe same thing is going on today.

Mr. Perkins: You might be surprised tolearn that the firms are stocking all thebrands at the moment.

Mr. HEAL: I would be very glad toknow that. I was speaking to this personthe other day and he said he was stillhaving trouble.

Mr. Perkins: The only ban is on thebulk ice cream.

Mr. HEAL: if that is so, I still do notregard that as free enterprise. If theMinister has any power in regard to thismatter he should see that these people.who have spent many thousands of

pounds, are able to sell their product onan open market. I think we are agreedthat we would all be better off if thiswere brought about.

Mr. Hawke: Who put this ban on thebulk ice cream?

Mr. HEAL: There would only be oneperson, and that would be the big ice-cream manufacturer in Perth. The mem-ber for Fremantle has already made a fewquotations from an article, by FredMorony, in this morning's paper. I wouldlike to make a further quotation as fol-lows:-

Apart from repealing the RestrictiveTrade Practices Act, the only teeth inthe Trade Associations RegistrationBill are in the part that prohibits anygroup of traders banding together tosubmit uniform tenders for goods orservices.

The registrar, who would administerthe proposed Act, would have littleinitiative in registering trade agree-ments and the rules of trade associa-tions.

In those spheres, it seems, the Gov-ernment considers the right of thepublic to inspect agreements andother documents to be sufficient de-terrent to malpractice.

If the Bill becomes law, all associa-tions of traders will have to set outtheir qualifications for membership,their sources of finance, their almsand rules and the ways and circum-stances in which their members willbe disciplined.

These documents will then be regis-tered and will be available for publicinspection.

Provided an association gives allthe information required-even if oneof its aims is to rob widows--theregistrar wili have no power to refuseregistration.

That portion of the article illustrates howweak are the provisions of this Bill.

The Minister for Labour and the Min-ister for Industrial Development submittedas an argument as to why this Bill shouldbe introduced, the fact that it was themajority recommendation of the recentRoyal Commission into this matter. It wasonly natural that it would be a majorityrecommendation; because if we think fora moment, we will realise that the com-mission consisted of the present Attorney-General, who was the chairman; thepresent Minister for Labour-the otherCountry Party representative: the Ministerfor Railways, a Liberal member; the thenmember for North Perth, Mr. Lapham;and myself. it is only natural that anySelect Committee or Honorary RoyalCommission consisting of a majority fromone particular group-in this case, the

3492

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 39

Liberal and Country Parties-will bringdown a majority report in favour of thatgroup.

Mr. W. Hegney: The West Australiansaid that that was the price the LiberalParty paid to the Country Party.

Mr. HEAL: It is for that reason thatmost Select Committees or HonoraryRoyal Commissions are a waste of ourtime and the taxpayers' money, if any isinvolved. It is stated that because of thatmajority decision, this Bill has been intro-duced. As the majority opinion has beenexpressed, I would like to quote theminority recommendation in order that itmay be recorded in Hansard. This recom-mendation, made by Mr. Lapham and my-self, is as follows, reading from page 13:-

We concur with the recommenda-tions contained in the body of thisreport, i.e., recommendations (1) to(18), subject to the following excep-tion:-

Recommendation (19)-We objectto the inclusion of this recommenda-tion and recommend that it be re-placed with the following:-

(19) That legislation be pro-vided for the inclusion of therecommendations of this Commis-sion where not in conflict withthis recommendation and suchother ancillary matters as may benecessary to give effect to suchrecommendations, and providefor investigation and inquiry, andthat the prevention of unfairprofit taking, unfair methods oftrading, and unfair methods oftrade competition, and all othermatters to give effect to their pre-vention be dealt with under theUnfair Trading and Profit ControlAct, 1956, which Act, we stronglyrecommend should be continued.

Mr. Hawke: No wonder the Ministerwould not quote the minority recom-mendation.

Mr. HEAL:. After hearing all the evi-dence, which lasted quite a considerabletime, the then member for North Perthand I felt that ours was a very fairrecommendation; and I sincerely hopethat when a vote is taken, considerationwill be given to it. I am sure memberson this side of the House will give it somethought; but unfortunately the Govern-ment has the numbers.

I say once again to the Premier andthe Minister who introduced the Bill, thatit is not worth the paper on which it iswritten. It is certainly worth noting,when The West Australian in its leadingarticle states that the Minister for Labourmade a barren speech. If the Governmenthad the courage of its convictions it wouldnot have substituted anything in place ofthe Act which it intends to repeal.

For the reasons I have outlined, I In-tend to vote against the second reading,mainly In order to retain the present Act.

MR. HALL (Albany) 16.61: The mem-ber for West Perth mentioned an articlein today's The West Australian in regardto the teeth in the new W.A. Trade Bill. Ifit has any teeth in it, I would say theywere false. It seeks to repeal the presentlegislation and substitute nothing for it.If there were anything constructive Init, we could feel a bit happier and so couldthe people of Western Australia.

I have here a publication called "Con-sumer Protection and Guidance in theUK". We have heard much about in-dustries not coming here because of ourlegislation, and we have heard It statedthat there is no legislation overseas tocompare with our present legislation. Onpage 2 of this publication, is the introduc-tion, which we will omit for the present.On the same page there are listed "Legis-lative measures to protect consumers" andthey are as follows:-

Weights and Measures Acts, 1878-1936.Merchandise Marks Act, 1887-1953.Sale of Goods Act, 1893.Monopolies and Restrictive Practices

Act. 1948-1956.Food and Drug Acts, 1955.

Also, Acts were set up to provide consumercouncils and agricultural marketingschemes. Those are a few of the pieces oflegislation designed to protect the con-sumer. In addition, they have servicesfor the consumner and provision for thesecould well be incorporated in our legisla-tion to give people protection. These ser-vices include the Consumer AdvisoryCouncil of the British Standards Institu-tion and the Consumers' Association LWd.:the Consumer Research by GovernmentDepartments; Broadcasting and thePress; and Miscellaneous Services.

I will now cover the introduction, as Imentioned it earlier. it Is as follows:-

In a modemn industrial economybased, like that of the United King-dom, largely on freedom of enter-prise, the types of consumer goods andservices produced, and their -price,quality end quantity, are determinedmainly by consumers' choice.

We all agree with that. It continues--Consumers tend to spend money on

the goods and services which theyvalue most, and this encourages pro-ducers, stimulated by the desire to In-crease profits-

that is free enterprise-to make more of those goods forwhich they foresee a growing demand.

In practice, this exercise of "con-sumers' sovereignty", as it is called,may be hindered or thwarted for anumber of reasons, e.g.:

3493

3194 [ASSEMBLY.]

(1) The great variety and complex-ity of the goods on the marketmay make it difficult for con-sumers to choose wisely unlessthey are sufficiently informedabout the technicalities andperformance of the products ...

That is often the case when we buy some-thing mechanical under a hire-purchaseagreement. Not many days go by beforeit breaks down. Recently there was aninstance of a brand new washing machinewhich broke down three times and theowner has still not received satisfaction. Ifpeople had all the proper informationavailable to them they would know whatthey were getting.

Mr. Perkins: What has this to do withthe Bill?

Mr. HALL: Everything. The legislationbefore us is empty. it does not provideanything. An Act which gives some pro-tection is being repealed but nothing isbeing put in its place. That is why thereare no real teeth in it; they are com-pletely false. Something along the lineswhich I have been quoting should havebeen incorporated in the Bill. To con-tinue my quotation-

Over the past decade this problemhas been accentuated by the increasedproportion of relatively new and morecomplicated products.

That is a strong point.

MR. WATTS (Stirling-Attorney-Gen-eral): I move-

That the member for Albany begiven leave to continue his speech ata later stage of the sitting.

Motion put and passed.Debate adJourned to a later stage of the

sitting.

METROPOLITAN REGION TOWNPLANNING SCHEME BILL

CounciZ's MessageMessage from the Council received and

read notifying that it did not insist on itsamendments.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSIONACT AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3)

ReturnedBill returned from the Council with an

amendment.

ART GALLERY BILLContinuation of Mana gers' Co-nference.Message from the Council received and

read intimating that it desired that theconference of managers on the amend-ments insisted on by the Council be con-tinued at 6.45 p.m. on Tuesday, the 24thNovember, 1959, in the Ministers' Room ofthe Legislative Council.Sitting suspended from 6.15 to 7.40 p.mn.

ART GALLERY BILLConference Managers' Report

MR. WATTS (Attorney- General) [7.401:I have to report that the conferencemanagers met in conference on the Billand reached the following agreement:-

Amendment No. 1-Not agreed to.Amendment No. 10-Not agreed to.Amendment No. 11-The managers

decided that clause 26 be made to readas follows:-Selling or 26. (1) Subject to thesaleorksU provisions of subsection (2)of art In of this section, no personArt Gallery shall sell, offer for sale orprohibited. expose for sale or permit or

suff er to be sold, offeredor exposed for sale, in theArt Gallery any work of artthat belongs to him and isbeing exhibited in the ArtGallery.

Penalty: Fifty pounds.(2) The provisions of this

section do not apply to anywork of art that is being soexhibited pursuant to anagreement or arrangementmade by or on behalf of theState or the Board with theCommonwealth or anyother State of the Com-monwealth or foreign coun-try or the trustees or gov-erning body of any otherArt Gallery.

In explanation of the last amendment,I would like to state that there havebeen exhibited in the art galleries, bothhere and in the other States, certainexhibitions which, under agreement eitherwith the Commonwealth or with the boardof our Museum and Art Gallery, as it isat present constituted, have been broughtfrom overseas or from other States forexhibition here.

There have been pictures in these exhi-bitions which have been publicly declared,either by a foreign government, or underarrangement, to be available for sale.This proviso or subsection is included withthe intention of not preventing sucharrangements being made. I move-

That the report be adopted.Question put and passed, and a message

accordingly returned to the Council.

TRADE ASSOCIATIONSREGISTRATION

BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from an earlier stage ofthe sitting.

MR. HALL (Albany) [7.453:. Before tea,I was covering several points which I hadraised with particular reference to the

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 3495

Protection of merchandise. Glancingthrough the present Act I find that any-thing that was contrary to the Publicinterest-such as collusive tendering, andso on-was provided for. In legislation ofthis nature it is definitely necessary andadvantageous to Protect the interests ofthe consumer. In that regard the Billbefore us has no teeth whatever: and thataspect is worthy of consideration. I wouldnow like to quote the second point I had inmind. It is as follows:-

The consumer may need protectionagainst artificial price fixing by mono-polies or oligopolies, and against fraud,misrepresentation and other maiprac-tices by a minority of less scrupuloustraders and producers.

That Is very evident. We now have theseself-service stores opening up all over theplace, and the people do not get theattention to which they were accustomed.If we are to be channelled into that sortof trading, then there Is no doubt we willrun into trouble. It is necessary for legis-lation to be introduced which will protectthe whole of the community against mal-Practices. I shall now continue to quotefrom an article headed "Legislative meas-ures to protect consumers". It reads--

The principal legislative measuresproviding consumer protection are theWeights and Measures Acts, 1878-1936,the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887-1953. the Sale of Goods Act, 1893;the Monopolies and Restrictive Prac-tices Acts. 1948-56. and the Food andDrugs Acts.

It will be seen, therefore, that the Min-ister is repealing an Act which containsa provision enjoyed by the people inEngland today; one that gives protectionto the consumer. The Bill before theHouse Is not elastic enough, and perhapsit could be modified to fit into our wayof life.

The next article is headed "QuantityProtection by Weights and MeasuresLegislation". It reads-

The need for State action to protectthe consumer from losses due to in-accuracies in the quantites of goodssold has long been recognised.

In this State we are not protected in anygreat detail in this respect. We haveoften heard that the butcher's handweighs more on the scales than does theMeat. The provision I have Just quotedwas introduced many years ago.-in thedays of the Magna Cherte, and evenearlier. The next quotation I make is asfollows:-

A more recent development has beenthe enactment of legislation designedto protect the public against the givingof short weight or measure. Prior to1926 the only commodities where pro-tection was given against the selling ofshort weight were bread and coal.

Bread was first required to be sold byweight in 1822 and coal in 1889, butin 1926 the Sale of Food (Weights andMeasures) Act, 1926, extended the pro-tection against short weight or meas-ure-

Mr. Perkins: We already have that legis-lation here.

Mr. HAIL: I realise that. I am merelyquoting this provision to prove how pro-tected the consumer is.

Mr. Perkins: We have that here.Mr. HALTL: I am not sure that we have.

Let us look at the next one, which reads--Protection by Merchandise Marks Acts

The main purpose of the Merchan-dise Marks Acts is to ensure that trademarks and trade descriptions appliedto goods for sale are both honest andaccurate-

On many occasions we have heard ofmarks being falsified, particularly as theyrelate to Imported goods, such as china-ware from Japan. Some of this china Isa replica of the English china, even to thename of a town In England-though it Ispossible there is a similar town in Japan;I do not know.

Mr. Perkins: I think that comes underCommonwealth legislation.

Mr. HALL: That makes no difference;the quality of the goods is not there.

Mr. Perkins: It is already provided forby the Commonwealth now.

Mr. HALL: To continue-The first Merchandise Marks Act.

passed in 1862. was called "an Act toamend the law relating to the fraudu-lent marking of merchandise."

Can anyone say that the altering of marksis not carried out? I know of an instancewhere flannel from the mills here was sentover to the Eastern States. restamped, andsent back.

Mr. Perkins: That has nothing to dowith the Bill.

Mr. HAIL: I am aiming to provide pro-tection. According to the Minister I havebeen outside the scope of the Bill fromthe start, because I have been aiming toprovide some protection to the consumers:whereas the Minister is repealing an Actwhich provides that protection. The nextheading reads "The Sale of Goods Act.189 3."1

Point of Order

Mr. PERKINS: On a point of order, Mr.Speaker, I do not think this material hasanything to do with the Bill before us, andI do not think the honourable member Isentitled to speak on matters outside thescope of the Bill.

The SPEAKER: I was hoping that themember for Albany would relate his re-marks to the Bill. I think I can see lila

(ASSEMBLY.]

intention, but it is about time the honour-able member related his submissions to theBill. I feel I can fallow his train of thoughtall right.

Debate ResumedMr. HALL: I think clause 3 covers every-

thing. I am sure the Minister will admitthat the next heading-"Consumers'Committees in Agricultural MarketingSchemes" -is covered by the Bill before us-I quote-

Provision has also been made for therepresentation of consumers' interestsin the operations of statutory agri-cultural marketing schemes, i.e. pro-ducers' co-operative organisations setup under the Agricultural MarketingActs, 1931-49 (consolidated by theAgricultural Marketing Act, 1958),with compulsory powers to regulatethe marketing of Particular agricul-tural products. The schemes affectedare those relating to the marketing ofwool (U.K.), tomatoes and cucumbers(GE), potatoes (GB), hops (England),milk (England and Wales), Milk(Scotland) and eggs (UK).

It is very necessary to incorporate such aprovision in any legislation that is broughtbefore us. Those provisions contained inthe pamphlet entitled "Consumer Protec-tion and Guidance in the UK" could wellbe incorporated in any legislation it wassought to pass in this State.

I would now like to quote an article fromtThe West Australian dated the 24thNovember, 1959. It reads as follows:-

If the Bill becomes law, all associa-tions of traders will have to set outtheir qualifications for membership,their sources of finance, their aimsend rules and the ways and circum-stances in which their members willbe disciplined.

The next article I would like to quoteis from the same paper, dated the 23rdSeptember. It reads-

TV DEALERS BACK ON SUPPLYLIST

Two television dealers, disciplinedlast week for alIeged advertisingbreaches, were yesterday reinstated onsupply lists.

This followed appeals by the twofirms--W. J. Lucas Ltd. (disciplinedfor two months) and Ron Shaw Pty.Ltd. (disciplined for one month).

The two firms and the Radio Elec-trical and Television Retailers' Asso-ciation council, all represented bylegal counsel, met yesterday.

Mr. J. Hegney: What did they do?Mr. HALL: All they did was to try to

give the consumers a fair price. I wouldlike to quote again from the article of the24th November -as follows:-

Provided an association gives allthe information required-even if oneof its aims is to rob widows.-

I1f that is the aim of this legislation Icannot support it. To continue-

-the registrar will have the power torefuse legislation.

However, if a member complainsthat an association is exceeding itsregistered rules or is acting contraryto them the registrar will investigate.

The person who complains will berequired to set out the reasons andcircumstances in writing and to senda copy to the trade association againstwhich his complaint is laid.

I do not know whether the people con-cerned will fall into line and supply thenecessary information. I am sure manyof them would be reluctant to do so, andthere will be dissension among the dealersthemselves. If the Government is pre-pared to put teeth into this legislation, Iwill support It.

MR. ANDREW (Victoria Park) 17.56]:This Bill is, I think, one of the most in-nocuous measures that has ever been pre-sented. I have read its provisions; and, asfar as I can ascertain, its only purpose isto repeal the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act, 1956-1958.That is all the Bill actually seeks to do.The other parts of the measure have nopractical effect whatever on the economy,or those who are Concerned with theeconomy, of this State.

I would like to deal with one or tworemarks made by the Minister for Labourand the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment. The Minister for Labour was ratherunfortunate in his introductory remarkswhen he referred to this democratic Gov-ernment. I do not know whether he isaware, but there are many people in West-ern Australia becoming aware, that wehave not yet got a democratic Govern-ment in Western Australia, The Ministerknows that 150,000 people control thedestinies of 380,000 people in this State.

The SPEAKER: order! The honouraplemember can only make passing referenceto that.

Mr. ANDREW: That is all I am doing,Mr. Speaker; I am only countering whatthe Minister referred to as a democraticGovernment. Whenever the Hawke Gov-ernment endeavoured to bring a demo-cratic state of affairs, and a democraticGovernment into being, the Minister andhis Party prevented this. The Ministerfor Industrial Development in his usual.manner spun word after word; all thewords being quite meaningless, and just alot of piffie.

He made a number of assertions, but henever at any time brought for-ward a factto substantiate the assertions he made.The Minister for Industrial Developmentsaid that the old Act frightened peopleaway; whilst just a few moments ago the

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 3497

Minister for Labour said that the old Actwas ineffective; that it did nothing. Soon the one hand we have the Minister forIndustrial Development saying it is aterrible Act; that it Prevents business com-ing to Western Australia; while, on theother hand, we have the Minister incharge of the Hill saying that the Act isineffective and has done nothing.

In his assertions, the Minister for In-dustrial Development stated that six orseven businessmen would not come toWestern Australia. However, he nevermentioned the names of those six or sevenbusinessmen; and as they have not cometo Western Australia, there could havebeen no disadvantage in mentioning whothey were, because we in Western Aus-tralia could not, in any shape or form, dothem any harm. I believe that the Min-ister for Industrial Development only putthem forward as a debating trick. Frankly,I do not believe him. I think he tried toput something over.

Incidentally, he also said that the Actwas frightening big business away fromthis State. During the six years theHawke Labor Government was in officemore businesses were started in WesternAustralia than In any other period of theState's history. Figures can be producedto prove that contention. I had a lookfor, themn but was unable to find them.However, I used them during the Stateelections and gave the figures at that time.That gives the lie direct to the assertionmade by the Minister for Industrial De-velopment that the Present Act frightenspeople away.

Mr. May: They would not be able totrade unfairly.

Mr. ANDREW: He put forward thatbogey-man; and when asked how the Actfrightened businessmen away, he said, "Itis the unknown in the Act." When pressedfurther, the Minister for Industrial De-velopment was not able to say what theunknown legal implications were in theAct, or explain to what he was referring.He was unable to name the sections of theAct that were unknown and dangerous.Therefore, when I stated in my openingremarks that what the Minister for Indus-trial Development said was pure piffie, Ithink I was justified.

He just put a plod over that it wasthe unknown in the Act; but he couldnot give any idea as to what the un-known was. What he said was a lot ofhot air and tommyrot. The Minister forIndustrial Development took exception tothe remark of the Leader of the Opposi-tion, when he said that the Minister wasa representative of big business. I havebeen a member of this Chamber for thesame length of time as the Minister forIndustrial Development, and I am stronglyof the opinion that he is the representativeof big business. He is the Man Friday of

big business; and without exception hehas taken up the cudgels on its behalf,and quite often at the expense of theordinary people.

Mr. May: He has participated in It, too.

Mr. ANDREW: As my colleague, themember for Collie, has stated, the Mini-ister for Industrial Development has par-ticipated in big business. I will say nomore about that aspect at present. I re-member some years ago when it was knownthat General Motors Holdens had made aprofit of £10,000,000 and everybody in Aus-tralia thought it was a tremendous amountof profit to be made in one year, the Min-ister for Industrial Development stated.'That is not too big a profit." He wasquite satisfied to see £10,000,000 profitmade in one year; and considered that itwas not a big profit.

Mr. J. Hegney: The worst feature was.that most of it went out of Australia,

Mr. ANDlREW: That profit later grewto £12,000,000; and the year after that Itrose to £15,000,000; and what did we in.Australia get from General Motors apart.from one thing-the know-how to produce-motorcars economically? The originalcapital investment in Australia by that.company was very small, yet it received a-100 per cent. return in one year on thatcapital. In later years it received severaYhundred Per cent, return on its capitatinvestment. As a matter of fact, If werhad 100 firms in Australia like GeneralMotors Holdens, Australia would be ruined.We would all be working to Pay the divid-ends of those companies which were draw-ing tribute from Australia.

Mr. May: It goes out of the country,too.

Mr. ANDREW: It does. General MotorsHoldens gave us the know-how to Producemotorcars on an economic basis; but weare Paying too great a Price for thatknowledge. If the Chifley Governmenthad remained in office-

The SPEAKER: The honourable mem-ber will have to connect his remarks tothe Bill.

Mr. ANDREW: I am.

The SPEAKER: Remarks about theChifley Government do not come withinthe ambit of the Bill.

Mr. ANDREW: They do inasmuch as Iam speaking about businesses and restrict-ive trade practices, which come within thescope of this Bill; and it will also repealthe Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act which is now on thestatute book. The whole tenor of theremarks of the Minister for Labour andthe Minister for Industrial Developmenthave been that the Act to which I havejust referred has driven capital and busi-ncss away from this State. In addition, the

[ASSEMBLY.]

company of General Motors Holdens hascome into this debate previously; and atthat time, the remarks were not questioned.

The Federal Government has borrowedmany hundreds of millions of pounds--£380,000,000-from the International Bank.It has borrowed £80,000,000 sterling fromLondon, in addition to many other loans ofsmaller denomination. This money wasborrowed on a false assumption. It wassaid It was required to import into Aus-tralla equipment that was unobtainable inthis country. However, the real truth isthat it was required, and still is required.to pay for the outflow of dividends onforeign investments. I do not think any-body can deny that. Another fact I wouldlike to mention in passing Is that theprofits from foreign investment capital inAustralia are, I understand, taxed at therate of 3s. in the £, whereas Australiancompanies have to pay much more.

I would like to know actually what thisBill does. The title which was read outearlier this evening states that it is an Actto provide for the registration of tradeassociations and for incidental and otherpurposes. As I mentioned earlier, the Billprovides for the repeal of the Monopoliesand Restrictive Trade Practices Control Act.Then the Bill provides for the registrationof certain agreements and the registrationof certain trade associations. What doesthe definition of "agreement" state? It isas follows:-

"agreement" means any agreementor arrangement referred to in sectiontwenty-four of this Act made betweena trade association and one or morepersons carrying on business in thisState or between two or more tradeassociations which carry on theiroperations in this State, and includesany agreement or arrangement wheth-er or not it is intended to be or iscapable of being enforced by legalproceedings.

The Bill goes on to provide that therewill be no collusive tendering. It providesthat associations, persons, and businesshouses shall register their agreements andtheir trade associations. However, it doesnot matter how much those agreementsinterfere with the rights of the people andsmaller taders, or exploit the people byexorbitant Profits. In that regard no pen-alty whatsoever is provided. Therefore,we could have the Cockburn Cement Co.making an agreement to control the wholeof the cement Production in Western Aus-tralia.

Mr. May: It does so now.

Mr. ANDlREW: I suppose it does. How-ever, the company could get away with itso long as it registered the agreement.There is nothing contained in the Bill inregard to a penalty. That company couldput the price up sky-high and there wouldbc no penalty. All that could be done wouldbe to give publicity to the fact; but as

the daily Press is band-in-glove with bigbusiness, naturally it would not give thematter any more publicity than it couldhelp. The member for West Perth saidearlier this evening that trade associationswere Preventing the small trader fromcarrying on his business. I know a personin Victoria Park who was a working manat one time, and who thought he couldbetter himself. He started up in businesswith a couple of Partners. They were do-ing quite well until a particular tradeassociation concerned with their businessblocked them from obtaining supplies.Because of this, they had to close down.

That sort of thing happens in plentyof other Places. Talk about free enterprise!There is nothing free. It is more or lessjungle law. Those who can obtain controlby various Pressures do so. However, thereis no penalty in this Bill to stop thosePeople from being a Party to this formof malpractice. The Bill contains a penaltyin connection with a person who makes afalse statement to the registrar who isappointed under this Bill. There is alsoa Penalty if a company does not producea document when requested by the reg-istrar. That is all that is required underthis Bill.

I previously spoke about collusive ten-dering; and the penalty for that breach is£500. If a number of Persons in the sameline desire to tender collusively there isnothing to stop them under this Bill. Allthey need do is to be careful. it is notnecessary for them to Put in the sameprice; all they need do is to have a priorarrangement between themselves in orderto ascertain who they desire should obtainthe tender. They could take turns indoing this.

I can give an instance of collusive ten-dering, but it was not done for the pur-pose of obtaining a contract. There is aman who has business which is a mileand a half from this House. He is a verygood type of businessman, and so long ashe is able to eke out a decent living heis quite happy. He is an extremely ef-ficient man in his calling; and, becauseof that, he obtains plenty of work.

Another businessman in the same call-ing asked him on the Phone one daywhether he was going to tender for a cer-tain contract; and he said, "I am not con-cerned about it, because I have all thework I can do for some time." The firstPerson said, "You had better tender; be-cause if you don't, and I am the only oneto put in a tender, it will be thought wehave arranged it between ourselves." Myfriend said, "Well, I1 will put in a tender."He said he worked out his price, allowinghis usual margin of profit, and then addedabout 40 per cent. because Ile did not wantthe contract. The funny thing is that hegot the contract; and actually he had arow on his hands with the person whohad rung him. When my friend was

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.3 49

speaking to me he was perplexed aboutthe person who had rung him; he won-dered why he could not do the job at areasonable price. But that is by the way.

If a number of people wanted to go infor collusive tendering, they could easilyarrange to do so; and there would be noproof to the contrary unless they them-selves talked. That is the last thing theywould do; and I would not blame them.So the measure does not prevent collusivetendering. The whole Bill, in my opinion.is just a sham. The present Act has as itsobjects-

(a) to prevent unfair profit-taking;(b) to prevent unfair methods of

trading;(c) to prevent unfair trade competi-

tion.I do not think anyone can justly say

that those three objects are wrong; butthe Bill would abolish them. Also, theAct provides a penalty for breaching theseobjects. The sponsors of the present Bill,through the Minister, have not stated whythey want to abolish the Act, when thereare similar Acts In other parts of the world,including England and the United Statesof America. Actually the greatest damageto Western Australia was not done, as theGovernment alleges, by the Act which isnow in existence; It was done by this con-servative Party which, for political pur-Poses, broadcast far and wide-as far asEngland-

Mr. Heal: And America.

Mr. ANDREW: Yes. The Government, forpolitical purposes, broadcast far and widethat we had in existence, in Western Aus-tralia, an Act which penalised business in-terests; and the Government was not par-ticular how that broadcasting was done.

I remember that when the DeputyLeader of the Opposition came back fromthe trade mission he said that on oneoccasion he was speaking, in England, toa prominent businessman who was thepresident of a trade association. This mansaid, "You have a, very obnoxious Act inoperation in Western Australia, have younot?" The Deputy Leader of the Opposi-tion said, "To what Act do you refer?"The man said, "The Unfair Trading Act.":The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said,"No. You have a similar Act in operationin England. Do you know about it?" Theman replied. "No." The Deputy Leader ofthe Opposition said, "That is how little theEnglish Act weighs upon the business com-munity of England; and the WesternAustralian Act does not weigh any heavieron the business community in this State."Yet the Liberal Party had the temerity andcheek, for political advantage, and to thedetriment of Western Australia, to havethese things said all over the world, aboutcur legislation.

The Bill would have been better if ithad not been brought down, because it isineffective. if the Government had hadthe courage of its convictions, it would haverepealed the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Contirol Act, and beenhonest about the whole position. The Bill.in my opinion, is not worthy of any Gov-errinment.

Mr. W. Hegney: It is a sop to the Coun-try Party.

Mr. ANDREW: Perhaps; but even thePresident of the Frmers' Union was infavour of the existing legislation. A fewweeks ago I asked the Premier whether theGovernment was carrying on the cam-paign, which had been vigorously con-du~cted by the Hawke Government. toIncrease the consumption of Western Aus-tralian goods in Western Australia. ThePremier stated-not in a direct answer tothat question-that there were othermeans of expanding industry in WesternAustralia: namely, by inducing industriesto come here.

I want to say-and most people artaware of this; a person does not have to-be a man of outstanding intelligence to-know it-that businesses go where there is.a market. As the aggregations of popula-.tion are in the East, most of the big,-business interests make their headquarters.either in Victoria or New South Wales; andsome-in a lesser degree-in Queenslandand South Australia. We, in WesternAustralia, are isolated and do not havea large population. But I wish to mentiona factor which I have previously men-tioned.

Mr. Ross Hutchinson: Oh, no!

Mr. ANDREW: It is all right for theMinister for Health to say, "Oh, no!"What I am about to say is worthy of men-tioning; and everybody in Western Aus-tralia should have this put on the table forbreakfast every morning,

Mr. May: And for dinner and tea.

Mr. ANDREW: Yes. We export about£30,000,000 worth of goods to the EasternStates; and from the Eastern States,annually, we import about £90,000,000worth of goods. If we are going to equateour exports and imports with the EasternStates, we will have to export goods to theextent of an extra £60,000,000. We havelittle chance of doing that; but what wecan do is to grab a great deal of the£60,000,000 worth of trade.

This Government has not publicised orpushed the campaign for the consumptionof Western Australian goods as it should.There is a £60,000,000-mnarket here; andif the business interests knew that theycould get that market, they would estab-lish factories in Western Australia. But

3499

rASSEMBLY.1

It is of no use businesses in Western Aus-tralia building factories when many West-ern Australians buy goods which are Im-ported from the east. In this regard wehave a great opportunity for Western Aus-tralia to do something to help itself.

At one time I had a business at HerneHill-a general store. It was situated Inthe midst of a primary-producing centre.I used to sell three boxes of imported but-ter to one or Western Australian butter,notwithstanding the fact that if a customerdid not ask for a particular brand, he gotWestern Australian butter. The WesternAustralian butter was every bit as good asthe Eastern States butter-North Coast, asit was called in those days.

It is difficult to educate the people tobuy Western Australian goods; but weshould endeavour to expand the WesternAustralian industries as I have indicated.New factories would give employment toour people and would increase the volumeof business in the retail stores. They wouldalso bring about employment for the youngpeople leaving school each year. Thereshould be great industrial expansion inWestern Australia.

The Government should give seriousconsideration to the remarks I have made.because Western Australia has a wonderfulpotential. The Bill is so much rubbish;and naturally I oppose it because, if it ispassed, it will replace an Act that can dosome good for the people of the State.

MR. LEWIS (Moore) [8.26]: The re-marks I shall make are prompted by thespeech made by the member for Mt.Hawthorn. I listened carefully to him,and it appeared to me he had a bulge inone cheek. If I were uncharitable, Iwould refer to that bulge as being causedby his tongue, but I shall say it must havebeen caused by a gumboil. He referred tothe poor farmers having to pay a greatprice for superphosphate. The farmersmay be poor, but they are not fools. Whilesome of them may be taken in by thisnewfound solicitude for them by the mem-ber for Mt. Hawthorn, I think many ofthem would remember the acts of theGovernment of which he was a member;and I have in mind particularly the sus-pension of the rail services, and the morerecent opposition-

Mr. Andrew: The conservatives favouredthat, too.

Mr. LEWIS: -to the subsidy of roadtransport.

The SPEAKER: I hope this is only apassing reference: I do not think it hasanything to do with the Bill.

Mr. LEWIS: It is only a passing refer-ence. I was interested in the honour-able member's remarks concerning super-phosphate. I have a, particular interestin the price of superphosphate because I

am a user-a modest user I admit; I pur-chase something over 100 tons a year-and at the price, I can fairly say thatit is probably the biggest single item ofexpenditure that a farmer has to meet.Therefore it is understandable thatfarmers are particularly interested in theprice of superphosphate. That being so,it is not surprising that the President ofthe Farmers' Union is also interested, atall times, in the price of superphosphate.

Since superphosphate is the biggestsingle item of expenditure, quite naturallyfarmers say, "What about the price?Probably someone is making a lot ofmoney out of superphosphate." I haveno doubt that those thoughts promptedthe remarks of the President of theFarmers' Union as published in TheFarmers' Weekiji on the 21st May, when besaid-

"The Farmers' Union is keenly in-terested in the proposed action by theGovernment in regard to unfair trad-ing legislation," said the general pre-sident of the Farmers' Union (Mr.Grant McDonald) yesterday.

Mr. McDonald said he had no doubtas to the necessity for some amend-ments to the present Act, but he be-lieved a complete withdrawal from thefield of control of trading would notbe in the best interests of the Stategenerally.

"Although not apparent to thegeneral public, the operations of thepresent Act have conferred benefitswhich ultimately must play an im-portant part in reducing costs andthus help to foster Australia's import-ant primary industries."

Mr. Toms: He never said a truer word.

Mr. LEWIS: Perhaps; but I am interestedto know the truth of that statement. Whereis the proof that farmers' costs have beenin any way reduced or kept down by theincidence of this legislation. The extractcontinues--

The fact that the operations of thecommission were directly related tosaving the users of superphosphate inWestern Australia a considerableamount on their purchases, to hismind justified continuance of thelegislation, said Mr. McDonald,

Following Mr. McDonald's original state-ment on this matter, this statement wasmade by a spokesman of the superphos-phate manufacturers--

There is no truth in the suggestionthat superphosphate prices were influ-enced by the Unfair Trading Comamis-sion. Prices were adjusted on produc-tion costs and reasons for all variationshave always been published in alldetail.

[Tuesday. 24 November. 1959.] 3501

Mr. McDonald made a further reply, re-Ported as follows:-

Mr. McDonald's reply to the com-panies' statement was that his claimsfor benefits from the Unfair Tradinglegislation was based on the price Ofsuperphosphate in the various Statessince 1957. A table of prices which Ihave before me, be said, shows thatfrom January 1st, 1951, to July 1st,1958, the price of superphosphate inW.A. was reduced by 22s. per ton,while in other States the reductionwas New South Wales i~s. 6d., Vic-toria 12s., South Australia 15s., andQueensland an increase of 2s. 6d. Inview of the fact that the cost of im-ported raw materials is supposed tobe uniform in the various States Iwould be glad to learn to any reason,other than the activities of the unfairtrading commission, for Western Aus-tralia gamning an advantage over theother States since the Act was pro-claimed, Mr. McDonald said.

He had asked there for further proof asto why, apart from the existence of theAct, the cost of superphosphate had beenreduced in Western Australia. I have be-fore me a statement of prices, taken fromvarious annual reports of WestralianFarmers' Superphosphates Ltd., and I willbe happy to supply this information tomembers of the Opposition or any othermember who might be interested.

This shows that, under price control,long before the unfair trading legislationcame in, the price of superphosphate was£14 4s. 3d. per ton in Western Australia.After the cessation of price control, butbefore the incidence of the unfair tradinglegislation, in July, 1954, it was £13 5s. 9d.In October, 1954, it was £13 2s. 9d.: andin October, 1955, it was £13 8s. In July,1956, the price was £14. The unfair trad-ing legislation was proclaimed, I under-stand, about December, 1956, and theprice of superphosphate in October, 1957,was £13 16s. In July, 1958, the price was£12 18s., and that is a very considerablereduction, the reason for which I will showin a moment.

In September, 1950, the price fell to£12 14s.; and in September, 1959, it wentto £12 8s., which is the Present Price. Iwill relate the Production of superphos-phate in those Years to the price, becauseproduction has a direct bearing on cost. In1955 the consumption of suPerphosphate inWestern Australia was 474,000 tons. In1956 it was 477,000; and in 1957, when therewas a considerable drop in Price, Productionrose to 542,000 tons--a 65,060 tons increase,which was the reason for the marked dropin price. The drop in price had nothingto do with price control or the unfairtrading legislation, but was solely due tothat phenomenal increase in consump-tion-an increase of 65,000 tons on 477,000tons.

In 1958 consumption rose again byanother 42,000 tons, to 584,000 tons, andresulted in a still further drop in price.Last year, unfortunately, Production wasenly 578,000 tons-a decrease of 6,000 tons.However, the price fell, but there is atime lag between production and the set-ting of the price. As members will appre-ciate, the production must be known andthe sales for the year must be known be-fore the price can be determined for thefollowing year.

With regard to the other States, I mightPoint out that the consumption of super-Phosphate has remained reasonably stableover the Period with which I have dealt.It is in Western Australia that there hasbeen a marked increase in the usage ofsuperphosphate, and that is why the pricehas dropped considerably. I repeat thatthe Price bears a direct relationship to pro-duction. I have, in this report, a graphshowing the relationship between produc-tion and price, Production is shown inthe top line, and it is illustrated as con-tinually increasing, while the price is cor-respondingly decreasing-

Mr. Toms: Are the farmers all puttingon more super?

Mr. LEWIS: There is an increased acre-age and an increased usage of super, par-ticularly in regard to the light land.Reverting to the price of superphosphatein this, the last report which I have, we seethat for the Year ended the 30th June,1958, the Price of superphosphate was£13 16s.; and we see how that is made up.Materials, including power, fuel and stores-1 Might Point out that the price Of rAWmaterials is decided by the British Phos-phate Commission-account for 74 per cent.of the Price, the equivalent of £10 4s. perton. Wages, rates and taxes, plant depre-ciation, and interest account for 181 percent., or £2 uls. 3d. per ton. Distributionexpenses, 3 per cent., account for 8s. 3d. perton, while administration, 1 per cent., ac-counts for 3s. 6d. per ton. Dividends toshareholders, including Westralian Super-phosphates Ltd. farmer shareholdersthroughout the State. account for 2 percent., or 4s. 9d. Per ton; while the figurefor expansion and development, retained toassure sustained quality In output is 1*Per cent. or 4s. 3d. per ton.

From the figures I have given it will beseen that if the dividend were completelycut out the price of superphosphate wouldbe reduced only by 4s. 9d. per ton. It isnecessary to retain the 1* per cent. forexpansion and development, because ob-viously the works must be kept at a highstate of efficiency; and Planning must bedone for perhaps five years hence, so thatthe works can be ready for whatever theposition might be at that time.

In Western Australia, prior to 1920, therewere, I believe, three superphosphate works.One was at Rocky Bay, controlled by theMt. Lyell company; one at flassendean,

3502 ASSEMBLY.1

controlled by Cumning Smiths; and thethird was Cresco. The farmers of thosedays were anxious to have some co-opera-tively-controlled super works, and theyappointed a committee to inquire into thematter. That committee soon found thatthe cost6 of establishing a new super workswould be very high, and that the existingworks were of sufficient capacity to manu-facture much more superphosphate thanwas then being used. After some negotia-tions, it was decided to amalgamate twoof the then existing companies, Mt. Lycliand Cumning Smiths; and that the farmersshould take shares in a separate holdingcompany, to be called Westralian FarmersSuperphosphates Limited. As I mentionedearlier. 4,500 farmers took out shares toa total holding of £588,000. or an averageof £130 each.

Mr. J. Hegney: Is Cresco in It?

Mr. LEWIS: Not Cresco. It was Mt.Lyell and Cuming Smith that came intoIt, and the farmers, between then, holdone-third of the capital of the amalga-mated concern. There was a promise mademany years ago that, as soon as the usageof superphosphate amounted to 20,000 tonsIn what might be termed the outports--Geraldton, and Bunbury-the amalgama-ted company was to establish works atthose centres.

That promise was honoured; and formany years, as we know, there havebeen superphosphate works at Geraldtonand Picton Junction, despite the fact thatit required a considerable amount ofcapital expenditure to establish them, andthe fact that the super over all that timecould well have been produced by the con-cerns already established in the metropoli-tan area. Nevertheless, the establishmentof those works at Bunbury and Gerald-ton has resulted In a considerable saving infreight to farmers of the areas concerned.

More recently still the amalgamatedcompanies, together with Cresco, and withsome financial assistance from the Govern-ment, established works at Albany. Thosehaving been built in more recent years,the capital cost was high but the cost ofsuper has not been increased accordinglyin those areas. The added cost has beenspread over the whole of the State; and sothe farmers at Merredin, Southern Cross,Moora, or Miling to some extent subsidisethe farmer who gets his super from theAlbany works; but we do not complainabout that, because it is in line with thePolicy of decentralisation. If it saves thefarmer in the lower Great Southern areasa considerable freight charge, we have nocomplaint about it.

Mr. W. Hegney: Is there any competitionin the superphosphate industry as regardsprices?

Mr. LIEWIS: I1 do not think so; but forthe information of membersx I will nowgive some details regarding the dividends

which this big octopus is alleged to be pay-ing. In 1928-29 the dividend was 11.16 percent.;, and in 1929-39, it was 9 per cent.Those were the -years, as many of us recall,when the bank interest rate was about 71or 7 per cent. F'romn then on the divi-dends were-

Year, Per cent.1930-31 ... .... 31931-32 .4

1932-33 ... 3.51933-34 ,... I.... 3.51934-35 .... .... 41935-30 ... 51936-37 .. 5.51937-38 . . 61938-39 51939-40 51940-41 .. ... 41941-42 ... .. 211942-43 ... ... 211943-44 .... 21. 31944-45 .... .-. 31945-46 ... 31946-47 ..131947-48 .... .... 3.51948-49 .... .... 51949-50 .... .. 5.51950-51 ... .. 5.51951-52 .. .... 61952-53 .. ... 71953-54 8.. ..1954-55 .. ... 81955-56 ..I . 81950-57 ... .. 81957-58 .... ... 8

Including even the first two years, whenthe interest rate was 11.9 and 9 per cent.respectively, the average, over all thoseyears, was 5.247 per cent. if we excludethe abnormally high interest rates thatwere prevailing in the first two years, theaverage interest rate is 4j per cent.

So we can say with fairness that thesuperphosphate companies have not beenpaying high dividends. A question wasalso asked as to why the price of super-phosphate has dropped in Western Aus-tralia. The reason is that the localsuperphosphate works have built up areputation for efficiency second to none inAustralia. I can say that with confidence:because people who have visited the East-ern States inquiring into the methods ofsuperphosphate manufacture have foundthis to be so despite the fact that the rawmaterial has to be transported from Fre-mantle to Bassendean or to North Fre-miantle from the Mt. Lyell works.

In Port Adelaide, however, I believe thesuperphosphate works are adjaccnt. Andin Yarraville, near Melbourne. I am toldthat the raw material is carted by con-veyor belt from the ship's side which, ofcourse, would reduce costs considerably.Despite that, the efficiency and the pro-duction per man employed in the Westernistralan 5uaprphoziphate works far ex-ceeds that of Victoria or South Australia.

3502

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 50

Mr. Bickerton: How will superphosphateusers benefit under this Bill?

Mr. LEWIS: I do not think they will;but neither do they benefit under the Actwhich the Bill seeks to repeal. I am satis-fled that the Act had nothing to do withreducing the price of superphosphate.

Mr. Rowberry: In that case It has norelation to agriculture.

Mr. LEWIS: The report I have here isby the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Commissioner. Perhaps the hon-ourable member will agree that that hassomething to do with this matter. Thisreport is for the year ended the 30thJune, 1958: and in regard to superphos-phate, he has this to say-

The investigation into the industrywas continued during the year.

From those remarks it can be seen thatthis was not the first investigation; butnothing came of it. Superphosphate playsa tremendous part in the economy of West-ern Australia; because, last year, 578,000tons were produced at a cost of £12 14s.a ton. That is a very large sum of money.No doubt it was because of that thatinvestigations were made into the industry,and the results were nil. I will continueto quote from this report-

Three companies produce superphos-phate within the State; one, estab-lished with Government assistance, iswholly owned by the other two inagreed proportions. An agreement wasentered into between the two majormanufacturers as a preliminary to theestablishment of outport works. Thisincludes uniformity of superphosphateprices, so that the agreement could beconsidered contrary to the provisionsof the Act by:

"the making or entering into anycontract or agreement providingfor the maintenance of minimumresale prices of commodities."

Had that agreement not been made bythe manufacturing companies, it is pos-sible that the superphosphate works atAlbany-because of the high capital costof the works-would have been producinga product at a price much higher thanthat charged in any other part of theState. Because of the agreement betweenthe companies, the price of superphos-phate has been brought into line with thatcharged throughout the State.

Mr. Roberts: Have you any idea of thecast of the investigation to the company?

Mr. LEWIS: Unfortunately, that is notstated.

Mr. Roberts;. it would be pretty high.

Mr. LEWIS: This report continues-As stated, the Director of Investiga-

tion, before requiring a person to ap-pear at an inquiry to answer a charge

of unfair trading, must be of theopinion It is in the public Interest todo so. Therefore, although the mak-ing of the agreement may be withinthe definition of unfair trading, con-sideration of public interest would bean important factor before reaching adecision. The companies have receivedthe sanction of the Government oftheir action in fixing uniform pricesunder the arrangement to establishworks at a country centre, as is shownby the following extract from theagreement between the State and thejointly owned company.

It then quotes the agreement between theState and the company. The essence ofthat is-

the price f.o.r. works to becharged by the company shall be thesame price as that charged f.o.r worksat other superphosphate works throughthe said State .,.

When commodities are produced tostandard specifications, as in this case,agreements to provide for orderlymarketing frequently effect economiesof distribution which are in the in-terest of the consumer. During theprogress of the investigation, prices tothe consumer in Western Australiawere reduced substantially-

The report does not state, "because of theinvestigation." The words used are, "dur-ing the progress of the investigation." Ihave accounted for that by the increasedtonnage. Continuing-

-so that they are now comparablewith Eastern States prices-at themoment, they are cheaper-having re-gard to justifiable variations in costof production. The local price struc-ture may be subject to examinationby the Director of Investigation when-ever he has reason to suspect thatthere has been any infringement ofthe Act, such as the collusive fixingof uniform prices which are excessive.Having regard to all of these circum-stances, the Director decided that nofurther Immediate action was neces-sary in the public interest.

Mr. W. Hegney: That is right-" no fur-ther immediate action."

Mr. LEWIS: That is so. Being in theposition he is, he could not say what theposition might be 10 years hence. However,if we look back to the days before pricecontrol, we find that the managers of thesuperphosphate companies managed theirbusinesses efficiently and well.

Mr. W. Hegney: The President of theFarmers' Union was sceptical.

3503

3504 ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. LEWIS: The President of the Farm-ers' Union had to save face somehow; andwhen he was replied to very effectively bythe superphosphate company he said-

A table of prices I have before meshows that from January 1, 1951 toJuly 1, 1958, the price of super in W.A.was reduced by 22s. per ton while inother States the reduction was: N.S.W.16s 6d.; Victoria, 12s.; S.A. 15s.; andQueensland (increase) 2s. 6d,

In view of the fact that the cost ofthe imported raw materials is sup-posed to be uniform in the variousStates I would be glad to learn of anyreason, other than the activities ofthe Unfair Trading Commission, forW.,A. gaining an advantage over otherstates since the Act was proclaimed.

The use of superphosphate in WesternAustralia has risen to such an extent thatit has been possible to reduce the price.The production graph shows a directrelationship to the price. Whenever pro-duction has risen the price has had a ten-dency to fall. That will always be so.'Unless there is an undue increase in ex-penditure which would cause the price torise or, if the cost of material is increased,that, too, must affect the price of theproduct.

A few days ago something was said bya member about sand in superphosphate.I can assure the member for Fremantlethat no sand is present in the superphos-phate sold in Western Australia. Some-thing was also said about the moisturecontent. There is, of course, moisture insuperphosphate because, in its production.acid has to be used to break down thephosphatic rock. Some years ago the com-panies had their supplies of phosphaticrock obtained from Nauru Island stoppedby direction of the British Phosphate Com-mission, and had to obtain them fromChristmas Island. The rock from thisisland is inferior to and has not the sameconsistency as that obtained from Nauru;and as a result various strengths andquantities of the acid were used whichgave rise to some difficulty in manufacture.Unfortunately the super was distributed,not with an excessive water content, butwith too great a quantity of acid. Conse-quently, farmers have had a great deal oftrouble with it.

Since then, greater care has been taken,and the chemists of the various companieshave learnt from experience; and todaythere is no further trouble in that direc-tion. If it were possible for the super-phosphate works to store their productfor 12 months, there would be even lesstrouble in that regard; but we cannot haveit both ways. By that I mean that if thecompanies had to build large sheds tostore the superphosphate, the price of theproduct would have to be increased.

It is my opinion-and I believe you sharethis opinion with me, Mr. Speaker-thata substantial decrease in the price ofsuperphosphate could be brought about ifwe eliminated the use of corn sacks andgradually embraced bulk handling ofsuperphosphate. This would undoubtedlyeffect considerable saving in the costs ofthat commodity which, as I said earlier,is the biggest single item of a farmer'sexpenses.

MR. EVANS (Kalgoorlie) (8.551: Ilistened with a great deal of interest to theremarks made by the member for Moore,and I found his speech extremely con-vincing and very interesting. It was so in-teresting that it has inspired me to saythese few words; and it was so Convincingthat I have made up my mind to opposethe Bill. This measure is designed to pro-vide for the registration of trade associa-tions and for incidental and other pur-poses. The principal clause in the Billseeks to repeal the Monopolies and Restric-tives Trade Practices Control Act, whichwas passed by a previous Labor Govern-ment.

In the title of the Bill, there Is not oneword which refers to the repeal of thatAct. There are only the words, "and forincidental and other purposes." Therefore,one can gauge the importance which theGovernment, deeply and sincerely, placesupon the Act which is now on the statutebook and which the Government isend eavouring to repeal by this Bill1. Thewords, "and for Incidental and other pur-poses" suggest to me that the repeal of theAct is not so important as we are led tobelieve. If it were, the Government wouldhave indicated its intention in the majorportion of the wording in the title of theBill. The title would have read, "A Billfor an Act to provide for the registrationof trade associations and to replace theMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac-tices Act."

Mr. Bovell: I can assure you that youare wrong.

Mr. EVANS: I am only going on what Iread in the title of the Bill. If the Ministerdoes not gather that intention from thetitle, I suggest to him that he go back toschool and learn to read.

Mr. Perkins: The title will cover therepeal of the other Act all right.

Mr. EVANS: I agree. The title couldcover anything. The government has bull-dozed through Parliament other Bills ofa similar purpose, The Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices Control Act isto be repealed by one of the clauses in theBill; and as I was a member of this Housewhen this Act was passed, I can recallthat the legislation received an extremelystormy passage. In 1958 it was broughtbefore the House for amendment and forC-fltiflunne, and even then certain Gov-ernment members in another place, in the

3504

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 50

light of the majority report of theHonorary Royal Commission that was ap-pointed to inquire into restrictive tradepractices, were prepared to vote in favourof the legislation being made permanent.Prior to that, the Act had only a limitedterm.,

One -would be excused for thinking, ifwe found this measure not being opposedin another place, that there had been somepolitical compromise between the twoparties forming the Government. Whenthe unfair trading legislation was intro-duced in this House, the Minister forIndustrial Development referred to it asa serpent. He opposed the second readingand then refused to take part in the com-mfittee debate, because he considered thatin doing so he would be shaking handswith a serpent.

Mr. Guthrie: He used the word "cobra."

Mr, EVANS: I cannot discern any dif-ference. Government members are nowcompletely grasping the hand of the cobra,after being almost eight months in office.It seems to have taken the Governmenteight months to build up Dutch courageto tackle this cobra. I remember theelection points made by members of theGovernment and by candidates of theGovernment Parties-I have one in mind-who made glaring statements about theunfair trading legislation and what theLiberal and Country Parties would do ifthey were returned to office. Yet we findthe Government members alter beingeight months in office completely embrac-ing the cobra, and we as the Oppositionare asked to shake hands with a jelly fish.I refer to the words printed in the Bill; ifthe Bill is not a jelly fish, it is "wishy-washy". There is nothing in it apartfrom the repeal of the unfair tradinglegislation.

I claim the repeal of that legislation isa sabotage of the welfare of the peopleof this State. Perhaps I can give a betteranalogy. One might compare this Bill,minus the provision to repeal the Mono-polies and Restrictive Trade PracticesControl Act, with a field of corn. Thisfield of corn is being strewn with cobble.beautiful to the eye of the unsuspectingor the uninitiated, but completely uselessin itself. That view is not held only byme but is shared by an editorial in TheWest Australian.

This Bill is completely useless, and theGovernment knows that full well. It is acompromise between the Country Partyand the Liberal Party. If the Govern-ment were sincere-I refer to the majoritysection or the dominant factor in the Gov-ernment coalition-it would niot have a barof any restrictive practices. Governmentmembers know in their hearts that whatI am saying is true. The Bill is only acompromise; and, as such, is entirely use-less.

Mr. Perkins: We have done exactly aswe Promised we would do.

Mr. EVANS: The Government membershave taken a lot of time to build upenough Dutch courage.

Mr. Bovell: Your Government tookyears, and did not carry out what itpromised at the 1953 elections.

Mr. EVANS: I suggest for the edifica-tion of the Minister for Lands in particularthat the Government's sincerity in thisrespect is greatly doubted, because of thecloak-and-dagger melodrama displayed bymembers of the Government and its sup-porters during the last elections. Now itwants this "wishy-washy" Bill to take theplace of the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act. I hope thiswill edify the Minister for Lands; if it doesnot, he may blame the primary school, orsomeone back in the kindergarten days-

Mr. Bovell: That is where you shouldbe.

Mr. EVANS: What if we both make abooking for 1960 In the kindergarten? Imight call back later on as an old boyand ask how the Minister has been gettingalong. The Government claims that theunfair trading legislation at present onthe statute book has done immeasurableharm to Western Australia. It has quotedso-called emminent figures, particularlySir Halford Reddish.

I suggest to the Government that beingon the side of apparent righteousnessoften brings very questionable allies. Ileave that thought in mind as far as SirHalford Reddish, and some of the spuriousstatements made by him, and some of thespurious statements made by the sup-porters of the Government are concerned.

Let us examine the operation of theMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac-tices Control Act, which the Governmenthas threatened to obliterate from thestatute book. The Minister, when intro-ducing this Bill, stated that the Act haddone no good whatever. He said it did notcarry out the objectives that were set bythe Previous Government, which was theauthor of the legislation. If that is so,why has the Government hesitated, or whyhas it refused to continue this Act? If ithas done no good, it certainly has done noharm. A ghost which does not haunt isa ghost which is not to be feared. If it hasdone no harm, why worry about it? TheMinister stated quite clearly that thislegislation has done no good; nor has itstopped restrictive trade practices or mono-polies. Yet the Government painted sucha gloomy picture of industry being scaredaway from this State.

Let me mention the position in theplasterboard industry-an industry whichthe Minister glossed Over; and in myopinion he was not being truthful. Theunfair trading commissioner, which was

3505

3506 ASSEMBLY.]

the title given when this question was beingexamined, was asked to inquire into theposition within that industry, because therewas a. great deal of restriction on thegeneral public. I mention this instancewith absolute accuracy.

One of the plasterboard works managersin Kalgoorlie replied, when I asked him,that there was restriction not only on thegeneral public but on members within theindustry itself. He was being restrictedby the bigger factories in the metropoli-tan area. He was told that if he suppliedplaster of Paris to the retailers, his sup-plies would be cut off. He said, "I cansell you as much plasterboard as youwant, but I am not allowed to sell You theplaster of Paris with which to fix theboards."

As everybody knows, if one wishes tofix plasterboard one needs some plaster ofParis to do the flush jointing or to mendthe cracks which result from long cartage.He said he was not allowed to supply plas-ter of Paris to retailers. How ridiculous isthat situation! As a result of the stepstaken by the unfair trading commissioner,this matter was cleared up, and bothplasterboard and plaster of Paris wereonce again sold freely by retailers. TheMinister did not mention anything aboutthat matter, but I can vouch for the caseI have outlined.

I can also point to another situationwhere the unfair trading commissioner.or the Director of investigation of mono-polies and restrictive trade practices didnot achieve the desired result. I can givethe reason for that. At the particulartime, the director was transferred fromhis duties under the Act, and that legisla-tion was placed in cold storage.

I now refer to the sale of television setsand the agreements entered into by mem-bers of the electrical retail traders'association. The result of the applicationof those agreements was not in the bestinterests of Western Australia.

When questions were asked in this Houseas to the action taken by the Director ofInvestigation, vague answers were given.The truth was that he was not in a posi-tion to act, because he had other dutiesassigned to him, although the Act wassti in existence and set out certain coursesof action to be taken by him. The Minis-ter knows that these courses of actionwere not followed, because the whole mat-ter was slowed down and the director wasassigned to other duties.

I turn to another aspect of the argu-ment put forward by the Minister, andone which was raised when the unfairtrading measure was first before thisHouse: that is. the prolific amount ofindustry which was frightened away fromthis State-but not by the operation ofthis Act, because the Minister said it didnot achieve the desired aims. Thereforethose industries must have been frightened

by the titles of the nieasures--unfairtrading, and monopolies and restrictivetrade practices. I have not heard theseindustries being mentioned by name. Ihave only heard the assertion. I have notseen their names in black and white. Ihave not heard the managers of those in-dustries saying they were frightened.

Assuming they were frightened by thetitles of these measures, they could not befrightened by the Act itself if the state-ment of the Minister was true. There-fore, these firms must have been afraidof being labelled as unfair traders. Theymust have been frightened that their un-fair trade practices would be restricted.If that is the case, this legislation hasdone a great service to Western Australia,since Western Australia is well rid of thosepeople, as all they wanted to do was tobleed the people here.

To be consistent in my views, I intendto oppose the Bill. I say that the meas-ure, apart from the provisions to repealthe Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac-tices Control Act, is a conglomeration ofmeaningless jargon. Therefore it wouldsuggest to me that there is a lot of noiseon the landing, but with nobody comingdown the stairs.

MR. ROWBERRY (Warren) (9.13]: Itwill come as no surprise if I say thatI oppose the Bill. I was not impressedwith its presentation by the Minister. Ithas been described a3 a barren Hill. Isay, with all due respect to the Ministerfor Labour, that it is inconceivably barren.

I was particularly interested in the as-sertion of the Minister for Industrial De-velopment that the unfair trading legisla-tion had been responsible for keeping awayfrom this State companies and industrieswhich wanted to establish themselves here.If that is the sole reason for their keepingaway, then this State is better off withoutthem. We are well rid of anyone who willnot play the game because there is cer-tain legislation with a restrictive influence.

This idea could be developed at greatlength. Suppose we had a person who re-fused to drive his motorcar on the roadbecause there were traffic laws in existence.Those laws are made for the benefit ofthe wvhole community. In this case theywere mnade because they were necessary;and they were necessary because of theactions of the unfair traders themselves,and because of the representations by theconsumers. I cannot see anything in thisBill which is going to protect the con-sumers. When the consumers are protec-ted the Producers are protected at thesame time.

I was interested to notice that this Billhad been introduced because of the elec-tion Promises of both the Country Partyand the Liberal Party. The Minister, byinterjection a few moments ago, said that

3506

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 50

the Government was living up to its policyspeech. The policy speech of the Leaderof the Country Party as delivered at Mt.Barker was reported in The West Austra-lian on the 28th February. The articlestated-

The Unfair Trading Act will be re-placed with another law to controlcertain practices of trade associationsand ban collusive tendering, in linewith the majority report of the RoyalCommission on restrictive trade prac-tices.

What exactly the Leader of the CountryParty meant by "certain practices", we areleft to guess; and so, apparently, were theelectors.

Mr. Perkins: It was set out In greatdetail in the report.

Mr. ROWBERRY: This cutting con-tinues-

Mr. Watts, who was chairman ofthe Royal Commission, will also seekImplementation of a rider he addedto its report calling for Supreme Courtjudges to be empowered to inquireinto alleged monopolies.

"We stand for the development ofprivate enterprise," Mr. Watts toldthe meeting. "but desire to ensure thatit is competitive enterprise, which isessential in the public interest."

I am disappointed that in this Bill noaction has been taken to implement thispromise that was made to the electors atMt. Barker. Much has been said aboutprofiteering and about the attitude of thefarmers towards the Act which this Billseeks to repeal.

A few days ago I received a letter fromLake Grace, of all places, which shouldinterest the Minister for Transport. Itreads as follows:-

I am enclosing a letter from Mr.Hard also a docket for the purchaseof a stone of potatoes, at 8s. 1d. perstone. It doesn't make any differenceif we buy a bag we are still chargedstone rates, if we complain about thehigh price we are told that otherstores purchase these supplies on theblack market, and can therefore sellthem cheaper. The docket reads asfollows:-

Lake Grace & District FarmersCo-operative Co. Ltd.

s. d.1 Nestles milk ..12 214 Potatoes .... 8 1

10 3

Mr. Perkins: Will the honourable mem-ber table those papers please?

Mr. ROWBERRY: Yes.

The SPEAKER: I do not think that pri-vaue members can table papers, but Iwould point out to the honourable member

that the unfair trading legislation whichis being repealed specifically excludes potsa-toes and so on, which are controlled bystatutory boards.

Mr. ROWBERRY: I do not hear you,

The SPEAKER: I said that the exist-ing legislation specifically excludes itemscontrolled by statutory boards.

Mr. ROWBERRY: I still cannot makeout what you are saying.

Mr. Bovell: The Potato MarketingBoard controls potatoes and is a statutoryboard which does net come within theconfines of the existing legislation.

Mr. ROWBERRY: I merely read thatletter to einphasise the point that thereis a desire on the part of the people tobe protected from unfair trading and highprices.

The Minister for Industrial Develop-ment also said that we are preventingpeople from coming to Western Australiato establish industries. He said we aredriving them away because of our restric-tive legislation. However, we suffer verymuch in Western Australia from the factthat our primary industries do not giveenough employment to enough people. Itmay be described as heresy to say that wedo not give enough permanent employ-ment in the farming industry especially tocreate great markets for the people whosome here to establish industries. In myopinion that is the chief reason why West-ern Australia lags behind the other Statesin the Commonwealth.

To prove this point I would mentionthat in 1926 there were 8,200,000 acres ofcleared land in Western Australia. Therewas also a State forest area of 916,553acres. Those 8,000,000 acres gave directemployment to 26,395 people. In 1957there were 22,200,000 acres of cleared land-nearly a 200 per cent. increase. Theseacres gave employment to 28,254 people,an Increase of just over 2,000 for on in-crease in area of three times the numberof acres.

Those figures clearly illustrate that thatis one reason why secondary industriesare not established in Western Australia.There is no market for the products, andmarkets are important to industry. Un-fair trading destroys markets, and there-fore at the same time destroys industries.To repeal the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act would be a-step in the wrong direction; and if it weredone, it would be a black day in the his-tory of Western Australia and for thefarmers too.

We have heard a lot about the price ofsuper. I only wish to remark that where-as there was a 22s. 6d. reduction in theprice in Western Australia, there was onlya 15s. 6d. or 16s. reduction in the otherStates. I would like that to be explainedaway.

3507

3508 ASSEMBLY1

I was also interested to hear the memn-ber who gave such a well-reasoned andlengthby exposition of the ramifications,work, and sales of the superphosphatecompanies. However, I read the list ofnames of the board of directors of thosecompanies, and they are as follows:-

Messrs. W. E, Miller, A. Wilson, E.W. Richards, S. A. Rudduck, E. T.Loton, and E. H. M. Lewis, M.L.A.

I am therefore not surprised that heknows so much about super.

Mr. Lewis; I went to a meeting-Mr. ROWBERRY: I am not making

any implications whatever. There is anold saying which means "To excuse isto accuse."' I will leave it at that.

On Thursday, the 1st November, 1950,there was a report in The Farmers' Weeklywhich should be of interest to the farmers,and members of the Country Party gen-erally. A motion from the Avon ValleyZone Council of the Farmers' Union ex-pressed the greatest concern at the Gov-ernmenit's Profiteering and Unfair TradingPrevention Bill, and an emphatic protestagainst the measure was lost when itwent before the meeting of the union'sgeneral executive. The motion was asfollows:-

That this Zone Council feels thegreatest concern at the Government'sProfiteering and Unfair Trading Pre-vention Bill and makes an emphaticprotest at same. We consider thepowers given the Commissioner andno right of appeal being allowed aresome of the worst features of dicta-torial rule and that urgent telegramsbe sent to the leaders of all partiesand the members representing theAvon Valley Zone Council, ex-pressing our strong opposition to thecontents of this particular Bill, andask that every effort be made todefeat this Bill.

The president, Mr. Noakes at that time,said there was nothing stricter in thislegislation than in the price-fixing legis-lation. In fact, the clauses of the Billbefore Parliament were not very far re-moved from those of the old price-fixingAct.

The president of the dairy section(Mr. P. J. Oates) said he was op-posed to the motion because there ap-peared to be nothing in the Bill whichcould harm the farmer. The antagon-ists of the Bill were the commercialand Manufacturing orgenisations andhe could not remember when the com-merce man and the manufacturingman had ever been on the side ofthe farmer.

Mr. Hawke: Hear, hear!Mr. Lewis: What was his name?

Mr. ROWBERRY: His name is Oates,but he knew his onions. He went on tosay he was also convinced that the Press

had made every attempt to pull the woolaver the eyes of everybody so far as thequestion of an appeal went.

Mr. Hawke: He was a dinkum farmer!Mr. ROWBERRY: He went on to say-

I cannot see that there is any onething in this Hill which could do usany harm, but I can see that therecould be some things that could dous a lot of good. Here is a tool beinggiven to us that will do much to helpus prevent some of these unfair profits.

Mr. Lewis: How disappointed he musthave been!

Mr. Hawke: He does not allow the Lib-erals to pull the wool over his eyes.

Mr. J. Hegney: Like they do over someof the Country Party members.

Mr. ROWBERRY: Mr. McDonald of thewheat section had something to say. Isuppose it is the same Mr. McDonald wehave heard so much about. He said hewas not happy about the attitude whichwas developing in the world today towardssocialism. He took the view that the Billwas along socialistic lines. The world wasfollowing the trend towards socialism, andwe should not let it go that way, he said,and something should be done to arrestthis trend. For that reason he was op-Posed to the Bill.

Mr. Hawke: He has since been con-verted.

Mr. ROWBERRY: This same man be-lieves in every possible assistance and sub-sidy being given to the farmer; he be-lieves in orderly marketing-wheat Pools.and suchlike. He believes in the reopen-ing of uneconomic railway lines. But thatwould not be socialisation! Of course not!

Apropos of socialisation, and the atti-tude of the Country Party towards thisBill, and in line with Mr. Oates's state-ment that the manufacturing and businesspeople have never been on the side of thefarmer, I will read what the Leader ofthe Country Party had to say in March,1959. He said that L.C.L. membership,management, and outlook were composedof vested interests not interested in thecountry.

Mr. Lewis: Who said that?

Mr. ROWBERRY: The Leader of theCountry Party said that in March, 1959.1 heard the Minister for Lands suggest,a few moments ago, that the member forKalgoorlie should go back to the kinder-garten. I would suggest to the Leader ofthe Country Party-the Deputy Premier-that a few lessons in memorising wouldnot do him any harm; because words, likechickens, have an unhappy habit of corn-ing home to roost.

Apart from the repeal of the Monopoliesand Restrictive Trade Practices ControlAct, there Is nothing in the Bill. I am

3508

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.130

disappointed that we have not had aSupreme Court Judge appointed to go intothe question of collusive tendering. I havenoticed, during this session of Parliament,that in nearly every Bill introduced by theAttorney-General there has been a clausewhich has some reference to stipendiarymagistrates. The Attorney-General seemsto have an immense faith in the efficiencyof stipendiary magistrates. But I wouldremind him that the administration of thelaw is more a matter of commonsense;and that knowledge of the law is noteverything.

Administration of the law is determinedby the amount of commonsense which isbrought to bear upon the facts and evi-dence presented; and sometimes stipen-diary magistrates are just as lacking Incommonsense as anyone else. I haveknown some of them to suffer fromstomach ulcers, and that has very muchupset their judgment. I cannot see thatthere is anything of great moment oradvantage in having inserted in every Billthat comes before us a clause stating thatwe should have stipendiary magistrates toadjudicate on the matter. I oppose theBill; and I hope that, in committee, if itgets that far, we will be able to take outof it the only thing of importance in it-Clause 3.

MR. J. HEGNEX (Middle Swan) [9.351:1 think there is one point on which allmembers are agreed, and that is the needto try to establish secondary Industriesin Western Australia for the purpose offinnding employment for our young people.I think we are also agreed that the Gov-ernment of the day should have vested init power to be able to deal with cases whereit is found that people are engaged inexploiting the public. That was the rea-son why the restrictive trade practiceslegislation was originally introduced. Priorto that, during the war and immediatelyfollowing it, we had price control legisla-tion for the purpose of dealing fairly withall sections of the community. The Gov-ernment states that in its opinion thelegislation at present in existence is hav-ing a detrimental effect on the State, andparticularly in respect of the encourage-ment of industries to Western Australia.

The Minister for Industrial Develop-nment made great play on the fact that atleast half a dozen people interested in,opening industries in this State had con-sultations with him; but in the final analy-sis they were frightened away because ofthe existence of the restrictive trade prac-tices legislation. Hence, he said, it wasvital, from the Government's point of view,that that legislation should be repealedand the Bill now before us should be putin its place.

The Minister said that this Bill willonly have the effect of bringing to lightcertain activities In the commercial world

that are obnoxious and should be dealtwith; but above and beyond that, no fur-ther action would be taken. Replying tostatements made by some members on thisside of the House, the Minister said hewanted instances to show where the exist-ence of the Act had had an influence onthe reducing of prices or in controlling theactivities of companies. He said he wasunaware of the fact that the presentlegislation was acting as a kind of watch-dog so far as the State was concerned.

If the Act is so innocuous, as he believesit to be, there is no justification for itsrepeal; in fact, there is no justificationfor the measure that is now before us.It is admitted on all sides that, outsideof the repeal of the existing law, and theclause dealing with what is known ascollusive tendering, there is nothing atall in the Bill. Strangely enough, in thePaper today there were two or three re-ferences to the Bill which we are discuss-ing. There was a sub-leader in The WestAustralian, which holds itself oat as aguide to Parliament and the people ofWestern Australia.

I propose to refer to this sub-leader, andto analyse it to see the reasoning ofThe West Australian on this subject. itstated-

The Trade Associations RegistrationBill (described in Page 4) has thevirtue that it seeks to repeal the Res-trictive Trade Practices Act. But theGovernment can scarcely expect publicbacking for the rest of the Bill whenit has never attempted to show a needfor this type of legislation.

As is well known, numbers in this Houseare almost fifty-fifty, and I would say thereis just as Much Support for the existinglaw as there is for the Bill now before us.The article went on to refer to the WattsRoyal Commission and said-

Despite this, however, the majorityreport made the point that restrictivetrade Practices were comparativelylimited. When Labour Minister Perkinsintroduced the Bill, he made no at-tempt to justify it.

This is from The West Australin, whichis the Mentor of the Government, andwhich Is supposed to be the mentor ofcitizens of the State as a whole. It wenton-

The strongest points in his barrenspeech were that it would be undesir-able for one State to get ahead of theothers in trading legislation and thatthe position here was very healthy.

The West Australian certainly did notcommend the Minister's second readingspeech on this Bill. It said his speech wasbarren; and, In fact, the Paper was red-hot in favour of the abolition of the exist-ing law, and said that no further actionshould be taken. The article went on-

The most dangerous feature of theBill is the ban on collusive tendering.Harmful collusion is indefensible, but

3509

3510 [ASSEMBLY.]

the powers in the Bill could be mis-used and uniform tenders are some-times to the State's economic advan-tage.

The writer pointed out that collusivetendering could be harmful, and thereforethe State should make no attempt to try tocontrol it or deal with it! Notwithstandingthe fact that this type of activity in thecommercial community might be harmful,the writer of the article did not wantlegislation to control it, because it mightbe misused. I cannot follow the reasoningof the editor in that connection.

The Minister for Industrial Develop-ment was the principal protagonist of theBill, because he talked about the fact thatfirms were not coming here to establishthemselves while the Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices Control Actwas in existence.

Mr. Wild: That is quite true.Mr. J. HEGNEY: The Minister asserted

that there were many difficulties con-fronting the firms which desired to estab-lish industry here. There is no doubt thatthe Ministers set out to sabotage thePresent legislation as much as they could.Members on the other side of the Housedo not seem to care how much they decryindustry in this State as long as they gaintheir political advantage; that seems to bethe main purpose behind their every move.

It is well known that we are far removedfrom the great bulk of the population inEastern Australia. There are a great manyIndustries established in the EasternStates, and those industries export theirsurplus products to Western Australia. itis most difficult to establish industries inthis State because of the lack of markets.I listened to the news at 7 o'clock tonightduring which an opinion was expressedby Sir Norman Sipping, Director-Generalof the Federation of British Industries,while visiting the works at Welshpool.

Among other observations, he said thedifficulty that existed here in the establish-ment of industry was the market potential.It is also rather interesting to note theopinion he expressed under the heading,"British investment Change Forecast:' SirNorman Kipping is visiting Australia andhopes to interview 500 British representa-tives in this country. Among other things,the article says-

Change in the pattern of Britishinvestment in Australia was forecastby the Director-General of the Federa-tion of British Industries. Sir NormanSipping. ... He said the cream had pro-bably been skimmed from the invest-ment. opportunities. Future Britishinvestments would probably be more insmaller subsidiary industries in sup-plying components of complex indus-tries such as the motor trode. Therewas now not so much opportunity forbig investment in individual indust-tries-the giants were already here.

So the giants of British industry, in hisopinion at all events, are already here.We know that the giants of some Americanindustries are also here; and because theyhave their feet firmly planted on Australiansoil in other parts of Australia, it is verydifficult for Governments to try to induceindustry to come here and become estab-lished. We are, of course, all anxious tosee industry established in this State; butit is contended by members opposite thatthey should be allowed, willy-nilly, to ex-ploit the public right and left.

We all appreciate the fact that mostindustries in the State carry on businessunder proper and fair conditions. Theymust, of course, conform to certainindustrial standards, and there is noobjection to their making a reasonableprofit, The Unfair Trading Commissionerwould certainly not take action againstanybody making a reasonable profit. It isonly those who go beyond what is a fairand reasonable thing, and act to the publicdetriment who will be Investigated by thecommissioner under the law as it nowstands. That is its sole purpose. Shouldanybody feel aggrieved at the actions ofa, particular firm in so far as they relateto excessive profits, then it is possiblefor him to invoke the provisions of theAct and set in train an examination ofthe position. That is not unreasonable.I think it is important that the Stateshould have such a law.

We all know that there is a taxationlaw in existence under which all our pri-vate activities must be disclosed to theCommissioner of Taxation once a year. Itis necessary for us to disclose the natureof our industry and the source of ourincome. If it is fair and reasonable foreach citizen of the Commonwealth undertaxation law and in the interests of othercitizens of the country, why should notthe same apply to the legislation on thestatute book at the moment? This Billhas been analysed by many people--notoiily members on this side of the House-who consider that it contains no merit atall.

I would now like to refer to an articlewhich appeared in this morning's paper.I do not know the writer personally, buthis name is Fred Morony. The article isheaded, "The Teeth in the W.A. TradeBill." He deals with the Act at presentin existence; and in referring to collusivetendering he says-

The registrar, who would administerthe proposed Act, would have littleinitiative in registering trade agree-ments and the rules of trade associa-tions.

In those spheres, it seems, the Gov-crnmen t considers the right of thepublic to inspect agareements and otherdocuments to be sumficient deterrentsto malpractice.

3510

(Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.131

If the workers of this country desire toimprove their industrial conditions, or tosecure increased wages, it is necessary forthem to prepare a case through the unionadvocate for submission to the Presidentof the Arbitration Court. That casemust be supported by evidence. The em-ployers are also represented by their ad-vocate; and it is their duty to point outthe difficulties that might ensue if the sub-missions of the union advocate are agreedto, and so on, A great number of dis-closures are made in this connection. Indays gone by it was necessary to showhow many suits of clothes were worn inindustry, and how much was spent inmaking up the basic wage-even to churchcontributions, and so on. AUi that evidencehad to be submitted to the ArbitrationCourt.

As I have said, the workers under theArbitration Act must submit proof of theircase for improved industrial standards.if it Is not unreasonable to expect themto do that, then I submit it is equally notunreasonable to enforce the provisions ofthe present law, which at least will makean honest attempt on the case made outto ensure that a proper investigation ismade of the activities of companies andfirms acting to the detriment of the people.The law exists only to safeguard the In-terests of the people of Western Australia.

I remember the struggle that ensued,when I was a very young man, between theStandard Oil Company and the AmericanGovernment. The Standard Oil Companywas able to employ the best legal brains inAmerica, and for years it flouted the lawof that country and beat the AmericanGovernment all the way, even though thatGovernment was reputed to be all power-ful. Accordingly, I submit that a Govern-nment should have power to deal with casesbrought to it which indicate that improperpractices exist and that an inquiry may benecessary in the interests of the public.

We all know that of recent date the oilcompanies in Western Australia decidedthey would establish what were knownas one-brand service Stations. They issueda ukase that that was to be the position,and at once started to buy corner blocksof land at fabulous prices to enablethem to establish their stations. This wasdone before the overnment could pre-vent them; indeed, the local authoritieshad no power to regulate their action atall. Along a certain stretch of Beau-fort Street the service stations were goingup like mushrooms; so much so thatit must have been very difficult for thosepeople to make a living. We know thatsubsequently a Royal Commission was ap-pointed to investigate the position andthat commission recommended certaincontrols.

The Government of the day should havepower to deal with such things in the bestinterests of the community. In my earlier

manhood I worked In the engineering in-dustry. I worked all over Australia.Even today I know that in Melbourne andSydney a young man can find employmentquite easily. The same, however, cannotbe said of this State.

We on this side of the House have tried,through the Commonwealth, to provideemployment for young men by asking forthe establishment of a graving dock atFremantle-without much success. Thesame difficulty exists now that existed be-fore the present law was placed on thestatute book; that is, the potential market,This was spoken of by the Director-Gen-eral of the Federation of British Industryin pointing out the difficulty of gettingindustries which are being established inAustralia to come to Western Australia.

We know that after the war there wasa great fillip to the industrial side of Aus-tralian life. Hitherto, this country reliedmostly on primary Production. However,during the war many munition works wereestablished in Eastern Australia; andafterwards these were taken over by vari-ous industries. That gave a great fillip tothe industrialisation, of Australia, but un-fortunately Western Australia was too faraway from the activity that was takingplace. In addition, Governments in theCommonwealth sphere have not been veryhelpful to us. If they had been, this Statewould be better off than it is now.

The difficulty in getting industry whichis established in the Eastern States tocome to Western Australia is in regard tomarkets. Industries in Eastern Australiasupply the home market and then exporttheir surplus to this State. They under-sell and undercut those who are endeav-curing to produce similar goods here. Thatis particularly so with regard to such itemsas Pickles and jams. There is also thequestion of consumer Prejudice to be takeninto account. I think it can be said tothe credit of the former Premier-thepresent Leader of the Opposition-that hePut forward a considerable amount ofPropaganda urging people to support locaproducts in order to assist our industriesand create more employment in this State.

It is essential that we establish indus-tries in this ;State, but they should not beallo wed to exploit the public. I do notthink any Government Should allow that.The Paramount consideration is to safe-guard the rights, privileges, and well-beingof the great majority of the People. There-fore, it is necessary to have such legisla-tion as the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act on our statutebook.

It has been said that this legislation Isobnoxious and is preventing the establish-ment of industry in this State. However.I do not believe that. In the early days ofthe Commonwealth there was a tariff bar-rier between Victoria and New SouthWales. In those days they indulged in

3511

3512 [ASSEMBLY.]

trade protection; but when the Common-wealth Constitution came into being,section 92 of that Constitution providedthat trade between the States should befree. Therefore, no matter what industrywe might establish here, if it is in fiercecompetition with an industry in EasternAustralia, it wvill be in great difficulties inits endeavour to survive.

There is no doubt that from time totime it will be necessary for some indus-tries to be investigated from the point ofview of the public good. The fact thatpower is on the statute book of this Stateis of paramount importance. I have beenthe member for Middle Swan for manyyears; and, as the Minister for Labour andhis predecessor well know, an industry inthat electorate has caused a considerableamount of vexation. I am referring to theSwan Portland Cement Works. In daysgone by I have introduced numerous depu-tations to various Ministers, but unfor-tunately there was no power under our lawto deal with the matter.

I introduced a deputation to a formerMinister for Health which she referred tothe Minister for Labour, but no action wastaken. Therefore, I introduced a privateBill in an endeavour to give the Govern-ment power under the law to deal with aquestion of this kind. There should be alaw so that when industry does somethingwhich is inimical to the interests of theState, the Government of the day cantake action to safeguard the people. Iintend to oppose this Bill as I think theexisting law should remain on the statutebook.

Before sitting down I would like to drawattention to the fact that this is the firsttime since I have been a member of thisParliament that I have seen a person passbetween myself and the Speaker's Chair.It was most unruly.

MR. TONKIN (Melville) [10.6]: Any-body who has read the Bill which is be-fore the House will, if he is quite genuinein the matter, agree it contains very littlepower at all and is quite an innocuoussort of thing. As a matter of fact. I donot think it is worth the ink which hasbeen needed to print it, for all the goodIt is likely to do. It seems to me that ithas been introduced in order to appeasethose people who think something oughtto be done, and to delude them into be-lieving a good law has been brought downto Prevent restrictive trade Practices.

The first question we should ask our-selves in connection with this matter isthis: Is there a need in a country likethis for a restrictive trade practices Actor for a monopolies Act? If we thinkthere is no need for it, we should be quitefrank about it and do away with it al-together. If wve think there is a need forit. then we should take steps to see that

whatever Bill we have placed upon thestatute book is effective and will do thethings we think ought to be done.

I have heard a lot of talk about howthe existence of an Act of this naturescares away Industry and, for that reason,we should not have an Act of that kind;but it is a most remarkable thing thatthe necessity for this sort of legislationwas seen in Great Britain. There theyhave a Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Act, which is a very powerfulpiece of legislation. I think membersshould know more about it, because ifthey have a full appreciation Of what canbe done under that law, they will realisethe necessity for what can be done inthis country.

Whether we pass a satisfactory law atthe Present time or not, I am as sure asI stand here that one day Western Aus-tralia will have a very effective monopoliesand restrictive trade practices Act upon itsstatute book, because conditions will bringit about. It seems to me to be muchfairer, if such an Act is going to be placedon our statute book, to place it there nowso that any industries which become es-tablished will do so in the full knowledgethat the legislation exists, rather thanwipie the slate clean and encourage themto Come here in the belief that the skyis the limit and then, after those indus-tries are established, place this type oflegislation on the statute book.

Mr. Perkins: Don't you think that thistype of legislation should be on a nationalbasis rather than on a State basis?

Mr. TONKIN: If we wait for legislationon a Commonwealth basis, with the Men-zieS-McEwen Government in power, we willwait a long time. In the meantime, alot of injustice can be done. I will quotea few examples before I sit down. How-ever, I will first make reference to theEnglish Act of 1956. 1 quote from the1956 Commonwealth Survey, which is arecord of United Kingdom and Common-wealth affairs. In this survey, dated the4th September, 1956, there appears thefollowing:-

United Kingdom Restrictive TradePractices Act. 1956.

Following the undertaking given onthe 13th July, 1955, in the UnitedKingdom House of Commons debateon the Monopolies Commission Reportand Collective Discrimination, theGovernment introduced the RestrictiveTrade Practices Act on the 15th Feb-ruary, 1956, and it received the RoyalAssent on the 2nd August. The es-sential features of the Act may besummarised as follows:-

(a) The public registration of re-strictive trade practices;

(b) The establishment of a judi-cial tribunal to be known asthe Restrictive Practices Court

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 51

to determine whether or notthey are in the public interestand machinery for prohibitingthose which prove not to be;

(c) Laying down criteria uponwhich such an issue can bejudged with the onus of proofupon those who seek to justifythe practice;

(d) Rendering unlawful the col-lective enforcement of resaleprice maintenance, coupledwith the provision of newmethods to enable individualsto secure maintenance of re-sale prices which they miaychoose to fix;

Ce) Formation of a smaller andmore compact MonopoliesCommission for dealing withthose matters which are in-appropriate for reference tothe new Court.

Main Provisions:In their report the majority of the

Commission concluded that the sixcategories of agreements referred tothem affected the public interest ad-versely and recommended that, subjectto a few exceptions, all should be pro-hibited. The minority, however, re-commended that all the practices re-ported on -should be compulsorilyregistered, but should be prohibitedonly if, after individual investigation,they were found to be against thepublic interest.

The provisions of the new Act are insome respects a compromise betweenthe majority and the minority recom-mendations of the Commission, but inthe main they go considerably beyondeither. In the first place, the Actapplies to all the known restrictivepractices affecting the productions,processing and supply of goods in theUnited Kingdom, including commonprices and level tendering and notjust to the six broad categories ofrestrictive practices examined by theCommission.

Secondly, the proposals go furtherthan the minority recommendation,because although the practices arenot to be prohibited outright withouta judicial investigation the onus ofshowing that they are in the publicinterests rests with those who wishto continue them.

I regard this as so important that Iam going to read again a portion of thisparagraph dealing with the main provi-sions to show the full scope of the BritishAct-

In the first place, the Act appliesto all the known restrictive practicesaffecting the Production, Processingand supply of goods In the UnitedKingdom.

That is pretty sweeping, including com-mon prices and level tendering, and notjust the six broad categories of restrictivepractices examined by the commission. Soit can be seen from that that the Britishlegislation is all-embracing and far widerin scope than our present Act, which thisBill seeks to repeal. If they have foundthe need for that legislation in GreatBritain and a Conservative Governmentthere has found it necessary to take thataction, one can assume that the practicesare so unfair and against the public in-terest that that Government felt con-strained to take that action even thoughit may have occasioned opposition andcriticism from its own supporters.

To show how this works in practise Iwill quote from these Commonwealth Sur-veys. The first example deals with cer-tain rubber footwear, the purchases inconnection with which were such as tocause the matter to be referred to thepractice court. I quote-

The Monopolies and RestrictivePractices Commission's report on thesupply of certain rubber footwear waspublished on the 31st of July. TheMonopolies and Restrictive PracticesCommission finds that the conditionsto which the Monopolies and Restric-tive Practices Inquiry and Control Act1948 applies prevail as regards thesupply both of rubber boots and ofcanvas footwear because (a) morethan one third in quantity and valueof each description of goods suppliedin the United Kingdom is suppliedby the members of the Rubber Foot-wear Manufacturers Association andmembers of the Association of Hong-kong Rubber Footwear importers to-gether and the members of each as-sociation so conduct their affairs asto restrict competition in connectionwith the supply of each descriptionof goods and more than one thirdin quantity and value of each descrip-tion of goods supplied in the UnitedKingdom is supplied by members ofthe Rubber Footwear ManufacturersAssociation alone. The conditionsprevail as regards the supply of rub-ber boots for the additional reasonthat the D~unlop Rubber Co. Ltd.alone supplies more than one third inquantity and value of this descriptionof goods supplied in the United King-dom. The Commission's conclusionsand recommendations are-

I hope the Minister will listen carefully tothis, because it shows the value of thelegislation-

(1) The practices of the RubberFootwear Manufacturers Association:

(a) The association's price consul-tations and the understandingamong members not to nego-tiate special prices with tra-ders for large orders without

3513

3514 [ASSEMBLY.]

notifying each other operateand may be expected to oper-ate against the public interest.Members of the Associationshould cease to consult oneanother about Prices of eitherrubber boots or canvas foot-wear and they should be freeto negotiate special priceswith traders for large orderswithout notifying each other.

(b) The understanding betweenmembers of the Associationnot to change their Pricesduring the currency of a sea-son operates and may beexpected to operate againstthe public Interest. Thisunderstanding should be dis-continued for future seasons.

(c) If effect were again to begiven to the understandingbetween members of the as-sociation to allow compensa-tion to traders in accordancewith the uniform practicewhen prices are reduced Itmight be expected to operateagainst the public interestand it should not be revived.

(d) Provided that the Associa-tion's price consultations arediscontinued the Commissiondo not consider that the uni-form terms for prompt pay-ment may be expected tooperate against the public In-terest.

(e) The Commission do not con-sider that the maintenance ofresale prices of rubber foot-wear by members of the Asso-ciation in a manner and to theextent that they maintainthem at present operate ormay be expected to operateagainst the public Interest.

(f)I The classified list of thetraders entitled to wholesaleprices and terms operates andmay be expected to operateagainst the public interest.The list along with the arran-gement for administering itshould be discontinued, butthe Commission would see noobjection if the Associationcirculated to members a re-commended list of traderssuitable for wholesale termsprovided that the Associationdid not consult the distribu-tive trade in compiling it andmade it clear that memberswere under no obligation toobserve it.

(g) The collective selections bythe association of users en-titled to special terms operates

and may be expected to oper-ate against the public interest.The arrangement should bediscontinued.

We can see from that that there was avery fair and impartial investigation intowhat was actually occurring on the uinder-standing between these companies, and thecommission found that a number of thepractices being followed were against thepublic interest; and It recommended thatthey should be discontinued. That is aswe would hope it would be in any countrywhere the welfare of the general publicwas of some importance and where theinterests of business were not paramountto everything else. There is a furtherexample which I desire to quote, and itdeals with hard fibre cordage. I quoteagain from the Commonwealth Survey ofthe 26th June, 1958-

The United Kingdom Monopoliesand Restrlctiv6 Practices Commission'sreport on the supply of hard fibrecordage was published on the 8th June,The Commission finds that the con-ditions to which the Monopolies andRestrictive Practices Inquiry and Con-trol Act of 1948 applies prevail asregards the supply of hard fibre cord-age, since the members of the 'HardFibre Cordage Federation, togetherwith certain other suppliers, supplymore than one-third (and in factnearly all) of the hard fibre cordagesupplied in the United Kingdom andso conduct their affairs as to restrictcompetition in connection with itsproduction and supply.

The Commission's principal conclu-sions and recommendations are:

1. The Federation's commonprice system operates, and may beexpected to operate, against thepublic interest, and should bebrought to an end.

2. The Federation's arrange-ments for discounts to listeddealers, for aggregated quantityrebates, for resale price main ten-ance, and for exclusive dealing,support the common price systembut may also be expected tooperate against the public in-terest in conditions of price com-petition; they should be broughtto an end.

3. The 'Federation's arrange-ments for controlling the prices atwhich hard fibre cordage importedfrom the Irish Republic and St.Helena is sold in the United King-dom, and for preventing or dis-couraging imports from someSources, operate, and may be ex-pected to operate, against the pub-lic interest. The agreements andarrangements with Irish RopesLtd. and Belgian and Dutchmanufacturers affect exports as

3514

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 31

well as supply in the home Mar-ket and the Commission makes norecommendations about them. TheCommission recommends that, ifthe members of the Federationcontinue to handle cordage im-ported from St. H1clcnaM, theyshould be free to determine theirselling prices individually.

4. For the reasons given in (2)and (3) above, the agreementwith the National Association ofRope and Twine Merchants, by'which its members are allowed aspecial discount and aggregatedquantity rebates and undertakenot to buy foreign packing cordsand twines, operates and may beexpected to operate against thepublic interest, and should bebrought to an end.

5. Other Federation arrange-ments which the Commission re-gards as operating against thepublic interest are:

(I) the prohibition on themanufacture and sale ofany manila trawl twinebetter than the pre-war'second quality' twine;

(Ii) the prohibition on thesale of cords and twinesmade from waste fibre;

(Iii) the control of prices ofroping yarn;

(iv) the prohibition on spin-ning on commission fornon-members of the Fed-eration;

(v) the obligation to chargedelivered instead of ex-works prices for certainkinds of cordage.

6. The Federation's arrange-ments governing the sizes andrunnages of cordage, and thebreaking strains to be quoted,operate against the public interestin so far as they are obligatory,but It would not be against thepublic Interest for the Federationto issue a recommended code ofpractice.

7. The pool and quota schemein which most members of theFederation participate operatesand may be expected to operateagainst the public interest, andshould be brought to an end.

So far as action on the report isconcerned, as indicated during theSecond Reading Debate in the Houseof Commons on the Restrictive TradePractices Bill (see 20. 3. 56 p/211), theGovernment does not propose to takeaction on matters which will be sub-ject to the jurisdiction of the proposedRestrictive Practices Court.

It is clear from the examples I havegiven that in Great Britain they are notscared that what they do might frightenindustry. They carry out their investiga-tions into practices which they have rea-son to believe are against the publicinterest, and then they make their recom-mendation that such practices should bediscontinued. I might interpolate herethat the practice court had before it morethan 200 cases pending when I was inGreat Britain. By setting up that courtthey made provision for these cases whichwere the subject of recommendations tobe heard by the court and suitably dealtwith. If it is necessary in Great Britain,where business has flourished for years, totake this decisive action on matters whichare against the public interest, surely inWestern Australia, where we are en-deavouring to order a way of life, it is Inthe best interests of the public, and similarlegislation is desirable.

In my view it is fairer to put legislationon the statute book so that those who con-template coming to Western Australia toestablish industries can study it for them-selves. This is more advisable than induc-ing them to come to this State without anylegislation being on the statute book, andthen enact it after they arrive here. Surelythere is sufficient scope for any business tomake a reasonable Profit if such a businessdesires to carry on its undertaking with thepublic interest at heart. We should nottolerate for one second any business whichdesires to carry on practices in order toswell its profits if those practices are con-trary to the public interest.

We are not here to represent businessesand to see that they make large profits.We are here to see that the public interestis safeguarded, regardless of whether abusiness has been established for manyyears or whether it is only a short timesince it was invited to the State. Whereit can be shown that its method of doingbusiness is contrary to the public interestit should be stopped, because it becomes aquestion of whose interest is paramount:the interest of the business or the interestof the general public.

I cannot imagine that there is anybodyon the other side of the House who would,announce in this Parliament that he wastaking steps which would be in the in-terests of business rather than in theinterests of the general public. Any actionthat is taken contrary to the Interestsof the general public is, under such cir-cumstances, furtive and one that is takenwith deliberate purpose and with the in-tention of misleading-to create in theminds of members of the public a feel-ing that their interests are being safe-guarded; whereas, in effect, it is the in-terests of certain businesses which are re-ceiving the greatest consideration. In thissurvey of the i7th December, 1957. there

3515

3516 [ASSEMBLY.]

is mention of certain cases which came be-fore the Restrictive Trade Practices Court.I propose to quote from page 842.

Mr. Hawke: Is this a survey made inEngland?

Mr. TONKIN: Yes. I quote-It was announced on the 3rd Sep-

tember that the United Kingdom Reg-istrar of Restrictive Trading Agree-ments had been directed by the Hoardof Trade to refer to the RestrictivePractices Court a number of registeredagreements, including agreements inrelation to the supply of agriculturalmachinery and parts, copper wire rods(not rolled), electrical fractional horsepower motors, electrical transformers,electronic valves (including cathoderay tubes), portable pnieumatic powertoots and typewriters.

'Under the Restrictive Trade Prac-tices Act, the Registrar is required torefer all registered agreements to thecourt, but the Board of Trade maydirect him about the order in whichlegal proceedings should be taken. Thedirection mentioned above is the sec-ond made by the Board of Trade, andits effect is to place the cases it coverson the same footing as those includedin the first direction, made on 15thApril (see 30.4.57 p. 404).

The two directions covered nearly200 registered agreements affectingcommodities and processes. As it wasimpracticable to start proceedings im-mediately in respect of all of them,the Registrar had selected, for eachcommodity, those agreements whichappeared to be most important, ortypical, and notices of reference, whichmark the formal commencement ofproceedings, had already been issuedin respect of 20 agreements. Theserelated to all the commodities in thefirst direction, except shell boilers andschool milk. The parties to the regis-tered agreement about shell boilershad notified the Registrar that Ithad been terminated; and agreementsabout school milk were the subject ofinquiries.

The Restrictive Practices Court hasto decide whether the restrictionswhich have made an agreement regis-terable are contrary to the public in-terest or not, and it can do so onlyon the basis of the evidence before it.It is therefore essential that this in-formation should be as full as pos-sible, and it is the Registrar's functionto ensure, to the best of his ability,that this Is the case.

So it can be clearly seen that althoughthey were quite genuine in their approachto the unfair Practices which are knownto exist, they did not beat about the bushin Great Britain. The agreements which

are considered to be contrary to the publicinterest are fully investigated and the in-formation made available to the Restric-tive Practices Court as it is known inconnection with the actual operations ofsome of these companies which endeavourto fix and maintain prices against thepublic interest.

In Western Australia we have alreadyhad experience of collusive tendering andprice agreements which are contrary to thepublic interest. The Minister will know,as well as I do-and I know the casethorougly-the difficulty the PrincipalArchitect had with fibrous plaster manu-facturers. In the course of his duties,the Principal Architect reported to methat the fibrous plaster manufacturers hadput their heads together, and increasedthe price of fixing plasterboard, and allhad tendered the same price. They hadincreased the previous price, and everyone of them submitted the same tender.

For the information of those memberswho do not know what is going on, I pro-pose to repeat what I have said on morethan one occasion in this House. Thereis an organisation which, to some extent,is exclusive. That is, anybody who de-cides to enter it cannot do so simply bypaying aL fee. The association will decidewhether it will admit a new member. Ifone is not admitted, no matter how muchskill one has in regard to the fixing ofplasterboard, one cannot buy a supply ofplasterboard from the shops because theydare not sell it. if the shops sold suppliesof plasterboard to a person who was not amember of the association, they would betold that their supplies would be discon-tinued. That is a pretty effective tie-up.It ensures that only members of the asso-ciation can obtain a supply of plaster-board; and if they wish to tender a pricefor a contract, they must contact the as-sociation before they do so.

Supposing I want a plaster-fixing Jobdone, and I put an advertisement in. thenewspaper calling for tenders. Any mem-ber of the association, before he submitsa price to me, must get in touch withthe head office of the association. He hasto inquire whether anybody else has con-tacted the office about this job. if heis told that no-one has, he is free toQuote whatever price he likes. Knowingthat nobody will be able to submit atender lower than his, and that he is thefirst in, he can submit his own price inthe knowledge that nobody can tenderunder him. It is extremely unlikely thatanybody is going to tender a higher price;so any other person interested In the jotwill tender the same price, because eachmember of the association has to gcthrough the same procedure. Should thatpractice be allowed to continue?

3516

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 51

Mr. Perkins; Can you explain why theUnfair Trading Commissioner was notable to do anything about this in the lastthree years?

Mr. TONKIN: I suppose the Ministerstopped him.

Mr. Perkins: He has had three yearsin which to do something.

Mr. TONKIN: My knowledge of theposition is that this case whicfl involvesthe Principal Architect happened only afew months ago.

Mr. Perkins;, You have been talkingabout this for years.

Mr. TONKIN: The legislation has notbeen In operation for years.

Mr. Perkins: You have been talkingabout it since 1956.

Mr. TONKIN: The member for Mt.Hawthorn could probably give us that in-formation.

Mr. Perkins: I have all the informationI want.

Mr. TONKIN: If the Minister has allthe information, is it not stupid for himto ask me to supply it?

Mr. Perkins: I would like you to ex-plain it.

Mr. TONKIN: I cannot, because myknowledge of what happened in the of-fice is very meagre. I was merely wait-ing for something to happen: because ifever anything wanted clearing up, this isone matter that should have been clearedup. Where was the lack? Was it the faultof the Minister, the legislation, or thePrices Commissioner? I would like toknow.

Mr. Perkins: We are going to try a dif-ferent approach.

Mr. TONKINq: The Minister is goingto try a different approach all right! TheMinister is going to run away from it. Hewill certainly try a different approach'His approach will be so different that itwill not be an approach at all.

Mr. Perkins: We will not do the Stateas much damage as your Government did.

Mr. TONKIN: That is a lot of nonsense!1No wonder the Minister winked his eyewhen he made that statement! Why hasnot similar legislation caused damage inGreat Britain? I can honestly say thatthe existence of the Western AustralianAct was brought to my notice on only twooccasions when I was abroad. Both wereat meetings of the Chamber of Commerce.Never once, when I was discussing thepossibility of establishing an industry inWestern Australia, was the matter men-tioned to me. I am not saying that itwas not mentioned to some of my col-leagues. It might have been; but I do notknow. It was never mentioned to me dur-ing discussions on the prospects of estab-lishing industries in this State.

Mr. Perkins: There must have beensome reason why you came back withoutany industries.

Mr. TONKIN: That Is a nice statementto make! We came back without any in-dustries!

Mr. Perkins: I think there was onje.Mr. TONKIN: I think there was more

than one. Has the Minister ever heardof the guayule plant?

Mr. Perkins: That is a long way off.Mr. TONKIN: Now the Minister is off

on another track! Of course, the projecthas some distance to go; but the Ministerwill agree that a great deal has been donealready towards the establishing of thisindustry in Western Australia. It doesneither the Minister nor the Governmentany good to belittle that prospect, becauseit is a bright one.

Mr. Perkins: We hope it will be.Mr. TONKIN:. There is more than hope.

If the Minister does not know what is goingon, I shall tell him.

Mr. Perkins: I know.Mr. TONKIN: Of course he knows! But

he is trying to create the impression thatthere is nothing going on.

Mr. Perkins: it is being decided.Mr. Hawke: The Minister probably hopes

it will fail.Mr. TONKIN: There are certain other

very definite prospects which can still bebrought to fruition. I am aware of them,as is the Minister. It is no good creatingthe impression that the trade mission wasabortive. In my experience abroad, withthe exception of two meetings of theChamber of Commerce-one in London andone in the provinces-the question wasnever raised in my bearing. It was raisedat the first meeting in London becausethere happened to be some Australianspresent who were aware of the existence ofour legislation. They asked questions atthat meeting.

The SPEAKER: The honourable meam-ber has another five minutes.

Mr. TONKIN: In the provinces it wasraised during a gathering of representa-tives of the Chamber of Commerce. Oneof the members expressed the opinion thatthe legislation was not properly under-stood and it would be a good thing ifsteps were taken to explain it. With thosetwo exceptions I personally did not comeup against it at all. Never once duringthe negotiations in respect of dozens ofcompanies was the point raised that theexistence of this legislation was likely toprevent them from coming to WesternAustralia.

If the Minister has any precise informa-tion, I would like him to tell the Housethe names of the companies referred to

3517

3518 ASSEMB3LY. I

by the Minister for Industrial Developmentwhich raised this legislation as an obstacleto their establishing in this State.

Mr. Andrew: It is a furphy.Mr. TONKIN: Surely there is an obliga-

tion on the Government, seeing that thisstatement has been made so often, tomention at least one company which'would have come to this State, but whichdid not because of the existence of therestrictive trade practices legislation. I donot believe there is one. The Minister cansettle that question by giving us the nameof one company. If I get the name of oneI shall not hesitate to write and verify thematter. My experience was that this ques-tion was never an issue. Far wider andmore substantial considerations were thereason for their decision not to come here.

If we had been a f ew months earlier inthe field we would have been able to attractto Western Australia the big industrieswhich finally went to the Eastern States.But the negotiations were so far advancedwhen we started that we had no oppor-tunity of overtaking the leeway. Thepapers will show that the Dow ChemicalCompany and the big rubber companyfrom Akron were very definite prospectsif the field had been open as we felt it wasat the time the discussions were going on.Subsequent events proved that that wasnot so.

I repeat that sooner or later WesternAustralia will have to follow what has beendone in Great Britain, and have legislationof the type adopted in that country. It isfairer to place it on the statute book in theearly stages so that those who establishhere will be aware of the conditions. Ifthey behave fairly, there is nothing in thelegislation which will make them fearfulof being harassed in the conduct of theirbusiness, and of their being able to makesubstantial profits. It is only when profitsare unreasonable and out of all propor-tion that action is taken. I oppose theBill.

MR. GRAHAM (East Perth) [10.561: inmy view this Bill is typical of the Govern-ment's attitude. Ever since it assumed theTreasury bench it has slavishly followed apolicy of bending over backwards to obligebusiness interests and its own supporters,while at the same time it has mercilesslyslugged the workers and the people in thelower economic strata of this community.

That is a general statement. I couldoccupy at least half of the time availableto me in giving concrete evidence of theactions taken by this Government whichconfirmed an earlier statement of mine,if you would permit me, Sir, to mention in'passing some of them in order that wemight get a full appreciation of the signifi-cance of this BiL

We know what the Government did inregard to the unemployed in this State,and how it snatched l7s. 6d. a week from

the single unemployed. We have learnedthat the Government proposes that noprotection shall be given to persons who arethe subject of evictions by their landlords.Without any concern for the eff ects uponthe Persons caught up in their policy,wholesale sackings were commenced andare being continued. This Governmenthas gone before industrial tribunals forthe purpose of influencing them to refrainfrom granting certain advances to theWorkers.

This Government has refused to considera proposition in respect of anomaliescreated on account of the day upon whichthe Christmas Day falls this year. Onlyrecently we dealt with legislation designedto hit the small punter. We saw earlierin the session that anybody and everybodycould be appointed to the Fire BrigadesBoard except the firemen themselves.

That is the attitude of this Governmentto the ordinary people. But what appearson the other side of the ledger? A FilledMilk Bill to play up to the dairy farmerswas passed. Increased timber royalties areto be paid to farmers, when this Govern-ment knows that timber belongs to theCrown. It was under those conditions thatthe land was made available to the settlers.

In order to play the game of Party poli-tics we are to have the senseless openingof discontinued railway lines, at a con-siderable cost to the State. Road transportsubsidies are being reinstituted and builtup, and special legislation has been intro-duced so that succeeding Governments willbe unable to reduce those subsidies. Fan-tastic hand-outs to the silvertails who, inthe main, patronise the race clubs, are tobe made. The landlord is to be givencomplete freedom to evict tenants and toincrease rents to any limit he cares. Onlyrecently, control over the price of breadwas completely removed.

One could give scores and scores of in-stances of the Party-ridden attitude ofthis Government, of its lack of concernfor the ordinary human being, and of itsreadiness to play up to the very powerfulinterests in the community. I repeat:. thatis typical of this Government. Now itproposes that business firms should be givena free rein; notwithstanding the world-wide trend which is very much in evidencein Australia and in this State of companymergers and takeovers being adopted. Ineed not give examples of that, except bypointing out one ease where a firm ofmaster bakers in one fell swoop took overhalf a dozen or so large bakeries in themetropolitan area. It is easy to envisagethe direction in which such firms are go-ing, and the people will be completely leftat the mercy of powerful interests, withno legislation whatever to protect them.

Mr. Perkins: My information is thatthere are still many individual bakeries.

3518

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 3519

Mr. GRAHAM: One by one they aredisappearing. There Is no denying thatfact.

Mr. Hawke: The Minister apparentlytakes his advice from these people.

Mr. GRAHAM: Instead of having legis-lation, not directed against this firm, butto provide for some measure of protectionto the public if there be the necessity forsuch action, or to have this potential powerto act as a deterrent against anti-socialPractices, this Government seeks to wipeout the humble legislation already on thestatute book.

I trust it is not thought or suggestedthat we, on this side of the House, believethat those who are the principals of thesebusiness concerns are scoundrels or anysuchlike. It should be unnecessary to saythat the great majority of them are busi-nessmen of Integrity and substance; theyare persons who have a fair and properoutlook in life. But, of course, there arethe exceptions: in connection with themit is necessary to have some reserve power.

This Government, so anxious to Placateits own supporters and contributors to Itselection funds, cares nought for the wel-fare of the People so long as It is on theside of its supporters. That is apparentlyall that matters.

It may not do any harm to trace thebeginnings of the legislation, generally re-ferred to as the Unfair Trading and ProfitControl Act, and recently altered to theMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Prac-tices Control Act. All members are awarethat for the period of the war years andfor some time thereafter-and incidentallyduring the entire term of a Liberal-Coun-try Party Government in this State- therewas a system of Price control in operationand there was a statute which receivedthe blessing of this Parliament. It wasone of those continuance measures; andthroughout the whole of its life theLiberal-Country Party Government eachyear religiously introduced this Piece oflegislation. Naturally, when there was achange of Government in 1953, the HawkeLabor Government-incidentally, in con-formity with the Policy speech of itsleader, which was endorsed by the public-reintroduced this piece of legislation.The question of the mandate did notthen concern the members of the Liberal-Country Party in this Chamber or theLegislative Council; and so the Bill wasunceremoniously rejected.

The Government was rather concernedat the fact of this sudden lifting of thelid; because the order of the day wasalmost unbridled Inflation, notwithstandingthat by this time we had a Menzies Lib-eral-Country Party Government which waspledged to put value back into the £,keep prices down, and the rest of it. The

Hawke Government. after some investiga-tion and careful thought and consideration,decided that perhaps there was somethingfaulty with price control as administeredby a Liberal-Country Party Government:because, under that system, the Govern-ment of the day would determine, as didMr. Abbott, that clothing, for instance.should be subject to price control. Thatmeant that every trader in Western Aus-tralia was subjected to the filling in offorms and to inspectors from time to timevisiting his business premises to inspectaccounts and documents and determine incertain cases that certain lines of goodsshould be sold at certain prices, in somecases insisting that they should be reducedfrom the figure which was then shown onthe commodities.

Therefore-and I have said this on manyoccasions since-because a few traders weregoing to excesses and were trading quiteunfairly and unnecessarily-every othertrader in the community was subjected tothis Government control, and thereforeit would be a much fairer approach toregard the business and trading com-munity as being fair, and reasonable anddecent People, and put them on theirhonour, and leave them to do the rightthing. However, if it were found after in-vestigation that a firm or several firmshad been going to excesses, then that firmor those firms only would be thoroughlyinvestigated; and if what was suspectedwas proved to be correct, then that firmor firms would be declared; and in beingdeclared, that firm or firms only wouldbe subjected to price control.

That was the proposition, and that waswhat was embodied In the legislation. Itis that legislation which has been Paintedin all sorts of extreme and ridiculouscolours. The West Australian has beenscreaming to high heaven until even mem-bers of Parliament on the other side ofthe House, who should know better, andhad the Act before them to study it,really-I think-believed that there wassomething damaging in this legislation;and something harmful to the State.

When once this process bad commenced,there was no stopping it, and all sortsof exaggerated stories travelled the lengthand breadth of the Commonwealth andto other parts of the world. In theirexaggerated form these stories causeddamage-and real damage-to the State.In respect to that, I say with all the sin-cerity I can command that The West Aus-traian and the Liberal Party standblamed and condemned for their distor-tions and their deliberate lies that therewas here in Western Australia some dam-aging legislation.

As has already been pointed out, it waslegislation that was fair and reasonable inevery respect; and, as a matter of fact, itsgenesis was In talks that took Place be-tween a representative of the Hawke

3520(ASSEMBLY.]1

Labor Government and one of the leadersof commerce in the State of Western Aus-tralia. I wonder how many of the privatemembers on the other side of this Cham-ber have studied the Monopolies and Re-strictive Trade Practices Control Act. Ichallenge them to demonstrate to me orto the House that there is anything dam-aging in that legislation; or where thereis anything that could be harmful to busi-ness end industry; and whether there hasbeen, in fact, any damage done to anybusiness concern in Western Australia.

This talk about industries being afraidto come to our State! Those who perhapslisten to the exaggerated stories that weretold would possibly have same qualms. Iwell remember conversations with, 1 sup-pose, one of the wealthiest and most in-fluential businessmen in the Common-wealth of Australia-Sir Arthur Warner.He had learned all about this "'iniquitous"legislation by talking to Western Austra-lian Liberal Party members, and his con-ception of that Act had as much relation-ship to its provisions as had the story ofAlice in Wonderland. Yet he really andimplicitly believed all these lies. That iswhy I say that West Australian News-papers Pty. Ltd. and the Liberal Party ofWestern Australia did a disservice to theirState. Party politics came before every-thing else and it mattered not to themthat damage was being done to the State,throughout the Commonwealth, and theworld, as long as they were achieving somemean advantage.

Mr. Fletcher: It was seats that mat-tered.

Mr. GRAHAM: Of course! And that hasbeen the dominating factor in all theiractivities and decisions since they haveoccupied the Treasury Bench in WesternAustralia. And now, because we protest,they would pretend that we have somesort of hate, or dislike, of business organi-sations. Of course we have nothing ofthe kind, and there is certainly no evi-dence of it in the piece of legislationwhich this Bill seeks to repeal.

I am Prepared to vote for this Bill ifany of the private members supportingthe Government can prove to me-andthere is time, because it is not a verylengthy document-that there are any-where in the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrading Practices Control Act provisionswhich are harmful to business or to in-dustries contemplating establishment inWestern Australia. I can say that quiteconfidently, because I know none of themcan do it. I venture to suggest that therewould be quite a percentage of those whosit on both sides of the Rouse who havenot studied the provisions of that legis-lation and do not know the first thingabout it. They imagine all sorts of thingsbecause of what they have read in thePress.

We had a lengthy debate on Fridayaf ternoon. The previous Minister incharge of the legislation made a lengthycontribution, and he perhaps should bethe greatest authority of all members ofthis Parliament. The Leader of the Op-position who was Premier of the State forsix Years, and Premier at the time of theintroduction of this legislation, spoke for1* hours. The member for Guildford-Midland also addressed himself to thesubject, and we heard about half anhour of the speech of the present Minis-ter for Industrial Development. And yetthere was less space, including the head-lines and all, devoted to that debate byresponsible members of this elected Par-liament, than there was devoted to a visit-ing sailor who had with him as a pet alittle animal known as a, chipmunk.

From that, we gain some idea of thecontempt with which our Parliament istreated, and the lack of access to newsas to what is happening in the public lifeof Western Australia. There Is plentyof space--columns. of it-to tell these tiesto the public: but when a measure is be-ing debated and persons who have madea study of the political and mechanicalquestions address themselves to the sub-ject, two inches or so is given to sum-marise their addresses, some of whichlasted over an hour!

It is quite easy for the Government toget away with murder while that sort ofattitude is adopted, because the Publicnever learns. However, surely some ofthose who sit behind the Government havea conscience, even if it works only occa-sionally; and sometimes, surely, they canstudy a piece of legislation and judge iton its merits, and can have some regardfor the well-being of ordinary people.Mr. Hawke: There was a lot of space

allotted to jumpology.Mr. GRAHAM: Yes. Here let me make

it perfectly clear that I am not utter-ing these words because I want space Inthe paper: but I think, after all, fair is fair,and the public has a right to know the pro-positions that are before Parliament, andthe duly-elected representatives are en-titled to some respect. Their point of viewshould surely be known, and then theelectorate can make up its own mind. Letthe leading article say what the paperwishes; but surely this is something thatcomes, under the heading of news. or areour newspapers to be filled with tripe-

Mr. Fletcher:. And advertisements.

Mr. GRAHAM: --distortions, and sup-pression; and are the real things thatmatter and in which the people are vitallyinterested, apparently never to appear?

In this morning's paper was an articleby a young gentleman who used to sit inthe Press gallery. His name is Fred Morony.I well remember the occasion when he

3520

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.J 52

took down a conversation over the phone-I do not know bow-when he was seekinginformation from me which I refused togive. Next day in the Press appeared anarticle with all the "ums' and "aba" andthe rest of it, and the few words of myrefusal toD give a statement. ThisI conversa-tion was held from the sanctity of myown home where, incidentally. I had giventhe silent phone number for a specialpurpose; and even that action was nottreated with respect.

Now, apparently, he is an authority; and,while my leader could get only two inchesin The West Australian, this young gentle-man is able to get what appears to me,at a rough reckoning, to be about 15 singlecolumn inches. He, of course, would knowall about it! It is headed. "The Teeth inthe New WA. Trade Bill." It should, ofcourse, have been headed, "The Absenceof Teeth in the New W.A. Trade Bill."

This Bill is an insult to Parliament.Apart from the provision to repeal theexisting statute, which I have endeavouredto describe and which cannot be gainsaidby anybody, this Bill provides for certaintrade bodies or associations to be registered.Their rules can contain anything theylike, and there is no proscription, limit, orPenalty; there is no provision for themto conform with any standards, or withany formula. They merely register theirnames, their membership, and a few simplerules. For what purpose? As a matterof fact, they can escape half of the ob-jectives if they are able to satisfy theMinister-and with the present Ministerthat would be an easy job-that there issome secret formula, or something thatthey do not want made public. But whatis the purpose of having these associationsregistered? Where does it lead to?

If it was to register them with the objectof ensuring that their rules were fair andequitable, and that where those rules wentto excesses the registrar could insist ontheir being corrected or repealed, or some-thing of that nature, the Bill might meansomething. But what is this all about?Why have a Bill In connection with it?There is a penalty of £100 if they do notregister. But it does not matter what iscontained in their rules; they can stillbe registered; in fact, they are automatic-ally still registered. Why have it in theBill? Can anybody answer me by way ofinterjection? I will bet he cannot.

As I have already said, there is apenalty of £100. We know, by the processof law, that that means a fine of £20for a first offence for one of these businessconcerns that perhaps can be wreakinguntold damage on the economy of WesternAustralia, picking the pockets of the far-mers to the tune of hundreds of thousandsof pounds per annum-and a maximumpenalty of £100. But if anybody dares tosell a carton of filled milk-that is aL

heinous offence-the penalty is £200! Ifanyone commits a breach of the Market-ing of Potatoes Act the penalty is £500.

Mr. Nalder: You passed it.Mr. GRAHAM: This Parliament passed

it. If the workers are dissatisfied withthe treatment they receive at the handsof their employers, or if they are dissatis-fied with a decision of the court, thepenalty is £500. But if a vast businessconcern, with operations running intomany millions a year, commits an offence,the penalty is £100-and that is the maxi-mum. It is ridiculous in the extreme.

Mr. Norton: It does not say they haveto register then.

Mr. GRAHAM: That is so. Apparentlythey pay £100 and all is well.

Mr. Perkins: It is a continuing penalty.Mr. GRAHAM: It is not.Mr. Perkins: The offence remains.Mr. GRAHAM: I have read legislation,

and I think I can turn it up now, in whichthere is a continuing penalty; and wherethat is so, it is expressly stated. In thisBill it is not. No wonder I say that this isan insult to Parliament. lt would be aninsult to a kindergarten! This Bill doesnot seek to tackle any problem. If theGovernment does not recognise one, whytry and fool itself and the people of thisState by putting a whole lot of meaning-less jargon on to the statute book ofWestern Australia? Why does it not befair and honest and say that it is notconcerned with the people?

This is a facade! Register! Registerfor what purpose? Once I would not havebelieved that the Parliament of WesternAustralia would be subjected to thehumiliations being thrust upon it by thisso-called Government; or that this Parlia-ment, which has always had a proudrecord in the Parliaments of the BritishCommonwealth, would descend to thedepths that it has under the control ofthe present Government. I have alreadyindicated a number of directions whichlead me to that conclusion. I only wishthe Minister for Industrial Developmenthad been here earlier so that he might, byway of interjection, have indicated somemanner in which the existing legislationwas harmful for the State of Western Aus-tralia.

I have studied Standing Orders and Ifind from them that I would probablyexpose myself to the displeasure of theHouse if I said, which I feel, that whatthe Minister for Industrial Developmentsaid the other night In respect of thehalf a dozen firms which objected tocoming to this State on account of tbeprevailing legislation, was so much lies.

Mr. Court: That is not so, and youknow it is not so. You will come at any-thing when you are in debate like this. Ishould know.

3521

3522 ASSEMBLY.I

Mr. GRAHAM: The statement wasmade by the Minister-

Mr. Court: And it is factual.Mr. GRAHAM: -and I challenge the

Minister to prove it.Mr. Court: It is factual,Mr. GRAHAM: I say it is a convenient

fabrication for the purpose of misleadingthe people. He intervened in this debate--something which he rarely does whenanother Minister is in charge of a Bill-immediately following the member hand-ling the debate for the Opposition, and theLeader of the Opposition, so that his fan-tastic words could appear in The WestAustralian the following morning for thepurpose of counteracting anything favour-able to the existing legislation that mayhave been uttered by the Leader of theOpposition, or the member for Mt. Haw-thorn.

Mr. Court: AS Minister for IndustrialDevelopment I should know of all theproblems I am having In trying to attractindustry to this State.

Mr. GRAHAM: I know the lengths towhich the Minister will go to endeavour toconvince the people in connection withthis legislation. I have already indicated,and I have issued the challenge, that noMinister or member can point to one singlesection of the existing legislation andestablish how it has been harmful to anindustry, or to any potential industry; orwhere it has done any damage to anyIndustry. The Liberal Party and The WestAustralian newspaper went out of theirway to tell lies from one side of the worldto the other for political advantage andgain, and the State of Western Australiacould go bang.

The SPEAKER: Order! I must drawthe attention of the honourable member toStanding Order No. 135.

Mr. Court: What major industry didyou get after the passage of the legisla-tion?

The SPEAKER: The honourable mem-ber cannot impute motives.

Mr. GRAHAM; That was the StandingOrder I had in mind, and that is why Imade the assertion that but for it Icould say certain things. I was outliningthe things I could have said, and I wasnot saying it by way of affirmation.

Mr. Court: What major industry didYou get here after the passage of thepresent legislation? Let's get down to prac-tical realities.

Mr. GRAHAM: Apart from two or threeindustries, about which much was made-and they certainly had tremendous capitalinvested in Western Australia-perhaps thesame question could be asked in relationto the last generation or two, when suchlegislation was never thought of.

Mr. Court: But during the time of theMcLarty-Watts Government tremendousindustries came here.

Mr. QRAHAM- I said two or three in-dustries.

Mr. Court: That is the proof.Mr. GRAHAM: When I think of the

industries along the Scarborough BeachRoad, and in the industrial suburb ofO'Connor, and I look in the direction ofWelshpool and Eassendean, and a host ofother places, It Is so much poppycock totalk about industries not rowing, estab-lishing, and multiplying in the State ofWestern Australia. That is the sort Ofthing that is being talked about in allparts of the Commonwealth and beyondto build up this giant threat, and to makepeople believe, even at the cost of a lossof industries, that there is really some-thing faulty with the legislation on thestatute book.

It is a pity that the Minister for In-dustrial Development was not here earlier,because I traced the activities of the pre-vious Liberal-Country Party Government,with its policy of price control, interferingwith everybody and anybody at the whimand fancy of the Minister of the day;whereas our legislation, which supersededit, did away with that sort of thing al-together, and only after an industry hadproved itself guilty-and that industry ortrading concern only-would it incur thedispleasure of the law: and that displeasurewas price control for that one firm.

Mr. Court; You are giving the answerto your own question as to why this legis-lation on the statute book at the momentis repugnant to decent industry. You werestanding there with a gun pointed at themall the time.

Mr. GRAHAM: I suppose South Aus-tralia is a State which has grown frompractically nothing, in the industrial sense,to become a most Important factor in theeconomic makeup of the Commonwealthof Australia. There Is still price controlin that State.

Mr. Court: Anid a very benevolent ad-ministration.

Mr. GRAHAM: Price control is far morevicious, if I can use that extravagant word,than anything written in or contemplatedin the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act.

Mr. Court: You know the secret of theSouth Australian price control. It is thebenevolent administration that has existedthere for the whole of its history.

Mr. GRAHAM: There may be some sub-stance in that if the Minister for IndustrialDevelopment can show us where the pre-vious Hawke Labour Government acted inany vicious way in regard to the legisla-tion which is still on the statute book.

3522

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1950.1 32

Mr. Court: You know that you had agreat personal hate-and when I say "per-sonal bate," I mean from the Governmentpoint of view-towards Cockburn Cementfor a start.

Mr. GRAHA±': Nothing of the sort!I

Mr. Court: It became a personal ven-detta.

Mr. GRAH~AMv: For a number of reasonsIt is a pity the Minister was not hereearlier. He is now putting me in thePosition of virtually having to repeat whatI said earlier.

The SPEAKER: The honourable mema-her has five minutes left.

Mr. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.I suggest that the Minister read my speechand not ask me to go over the whole thinga second time.

We are told industry Is not coming toWestern Australia because of the existinglegislation. I suppose, if he were in NewSouth Wales, the Minister for IndustrialDevelopment would say that industry wasbeing frightened away from that State,'and discouraged, because that State pio-neered child endowment; because itpioneered the 40-hour week; because it Isnow Introducing equal pay for the sexes;because It is introducing preference tounionists and the rest; and because it isabout to abolish the holy of holies, theLegislative Council. Because of all thesethings I daresay the Minister would con-tend that industry will not be attractedto that State; that it will be seared away;that it will never come to the State ofNew South Wales. That is the sort ofstuff that is spoken by the Liberals andpeople of their ilk.

As I have said before, I honestly believedthat the Cahill Labor Government was go-ing to be exterminated completely from thefalse reports in The West Australian; butlo and behold, an election was held andthat Government was returned as strongas ever-I think It is now stronger than itwas previously numerically. It is quite easyfor the Press over there to tell lies andtransmit those lies for public consumptionhere: just as it is for the Liberals to telllies to the detriment of their own State.

We all know what happened in the caseof Peters ice-cream- There was a new con-cern manufacturing Ice-cream In West-ern Australia called, I think, Cowboy Icecream, to cater for the taste of New Aus-tralians. As soon as it was proposed thatthis new ice cream should be sold to thevarious little stores and shops, the pro-prietors of Peters ice cream went aroundand said to these people, "You sell Cowboyice cream and you will not get anothergallon of Peters ice cream. In addition,we will remove all the containers in yourshop ut the moment."

A similar story can be told about plaster-board and plaster manufacturers. In Man-Jimup where plaster was, and still is,manufactured they were told, "if you makecornices In greater dimension than 3 inchesin each direction, you will be denied com-pletely the supply of Plaster of Paris." Thatwas by arrangement with the large firmswho worked hand in glove up here. I wellremember a hardware merchant coming tome-a man dealing in builders' hardware-and because he was not in the ring-andthis goes back several years-it was im-possible for him to get nails.

Such is the grip these concerns have:and there is nothing in the legislation be-fore us that will overcome that situation.There are hundreds of such cases, andthis Is the sort of thing the Governmentis doing for its own kith and kin. Wehave already been told that 99 per cent. ofthose who went to the commissioner un-der the existing legislation were businesspeople who were being persecuted by thesegroups; these rings; these monopolistic in-terests.

Mr. Court: During the evidence takenby the Honorary Royal Commission mostof these people-

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister should notinterject, because I only have about halfa minute left. This Bill makes some refer-ence to collusive tendering. A schoolboycan see how easy It is to drive through thelegislation. As an example, let me cite aneasy case; that of half a~ dozen majorfirms tendering for sleepers. We knowsomething about that. All that it Is neces-sary for them to do is to form aL newcompany that is responsible for the sales.There is no collusive tendering becausethis firm-and this firm only-applies;but of course the figure is the one figure of£22 10s. There are 100 ways that theseprovisions can be avoided: and notwith-standing the grandiose penalty of £500attaching to collusive tendering, it meansnothing whatever. No wonder this legisla-tion is welcomed by the vested interestsgenerally!1

So I conclude, as I endeavoured to es-tablish Lu the course of nmy remarks, thatthis Go vernment believes in unbridledcapitalism, in business interests, large orsmall-preferably large-to be perfectlyfree in every direction to exploit people ifthey feel so dispose4. I emphasise thatmembers on this side of the House do notbelieve that they are all rogues or anythinglike it; but there are those who are un-scrupulous, and there should be adequatelegislation and protection in the interestsof the ordinary people in the community:and that, I regret to say, is an element inthe State of Western Australia for whichthis Government has made it unmistakablyclear it has no concern whatever.

3523

3524 [ASSEMBLY.)

MR. NORTON (Gascoyne) rii.35]: 1feel I should make a few remarks on thisBill, particularly as the Government hassaid that there has been no use whateverin the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act. The Bill before ustonight consists of 20 pages and 41 clauses,When one analyses it, however, it reallyconsists of about one clause of 12 words;and that clause seeks to repeal the pre-sent Act. The only o)ther provision, whichis towards the end of the Bill and occupiesapproximately two pages, is one whichdeals with collusive tendering, a. subjectalready covered by the legislation on thestatute book at the moment.

Much has been said about the Monopo-lies and Restrictive Trade Practices Con-trol Act: that it has done nothing; thatit has not brought to light any of theunfair trading it was supposed to uncover.There are many Acts on our statute bookswhich do not bring to light things whichare expected of them. For example, letus consider the Criminal Code, or thePolice Act, or the transport Act. We donot hear of many Prosecutions for theactivities they are supposed to control.They are there as the policeman Is In ourmidst; to be a guardian of the people.Their efficacy is not judged by the numberof convictions they secure; it is judgedby the control they have over the peopleand by the fair deal they give to thecommunity.

So It is with the Monopolies and Re-strictive Trade Practices Control Act. Itis not the prosecutions that have come outof it that are -so important, but what ithas done to help this country-not onlythe country but the people who reside init; those who earn their living in it inmany different ways. As members know,I represent a remote area of this State;and, though it might not he thought soat first glance, this Act has to a greatextent provided an advantage to people inthat area.

For example, there was a group of com-panies selling a common commodity; andthis group raised its price, for no ap-Parent reason. The people in the districtapproached me and asked me to makerepresentations to the commissioner tohave an investigation made. Whilst theinvestigation was in progress the priceswere reduced to the old level. Accord-ingly there was no necessity to take actionor to prosecute the company concerned.There is one instance where, because ofthis Act, a remote commuunity was savedmany thousands of pounds in the fewYears the legislation has been in operation.

I think the leader in this morning'sThe West Australian told the truth veryclearly. It is worth putting on record inHansard, and worth repeating to theHouse; because, no doubt, the Minister forthe North-West, who Is not taking anynotice, must have read it. I will quote

from it so that it may perhaps impressthe Minister a little, even though at thepresent time he takes no notice. I quote-

The Trade Associations RegistrationBill (described In Page 4) has the vir-tue that it seeks to repeal the Restric-tive Trade Practices Act, But theGovernment can scarcely expect pub-lic backing for the rest of the Billwhen it has never attempted to showa need for this type of legislation.

The 1956 Watts Royal Commission,on whose recommendations the Bill Isbased, held its hearings in secret-

I would emphasise that point. The bear-ings were held in secret, so bow are weto know the nature of the evidence thatwas taken; how can we pass our judgmenton the Bill before us? To continue-

-and the public has no way of know-ing what prompted its findings. De-spite this, however, the majority re-port made the point that restrictivetrade practices were comparativelylimited.

So there we have it. The whole thing isvery limited indeed; whereas the Act theGovernment seeks to repeal has a wideapplication; it was one which would servethe majority of people. This measure isrestrictive; and, as other members havesaid, it has no teeth whatever. As pointedout by the member for East Perth, thereis no force in the penalty of £100 for aperson who is not registered, because afterhe has paid £100 there is nothing to saythat he should go and register his associa-tion with other businesses. The leadingarticle continues--

When Labour Minister Perkins in-troduced the Bill, he made rno attemptto justify It. The strongest points inhis barren speech were that it wouldbe undesirable for one State to getahead of the others in trading legisla-tion and that the position here wasvery healthy.

Mr. Heal: Did you say barren?

Mr. NORTON: I said barren, and thatis what the newspaper said. it apparentlydescribes his speech. What surprises meIs why the Minister should have said it isundesirable for one State to get ahead ofthe others with legislation. Why shouldwe not be progressive and do somethingoff our own bat? The Hawke Labor Gov-ernment was the first here to take actionin connection with the Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices Act; althoughI will admit that similar legislation existedin other parts of the world. The leadingarticle continues--

Obviously the Country Party is weddedto this kind of legislation and theGovernment's Bill is the price theLiberals have to pay to have Labor'sAct killed.

3524

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.1 352S

That Is another very true statement. Tocontinue-

The Liberal element in the Govern-ment finds itself tied to the commis-sian's recommendations because itsdeputy-leader, Mr. Court, was one ofthe commission's members. Bothparties, therefore, made a double-barrel election promise to repeal theHawke legislation and replace It withthe commission's majority recommen-dations.

I do not think that is any great recommen-dation for the present Bill. If we couldhave seen the evidence given to the RoyalCommission, which conducted its hearingsin secret, we would probably have beenable to pass a better judgment on thismeasure. The present Bill has nothingin it except the provision to repeal theAct passed by the Hawke Government.It does not replace that Act with anythingwhich will help this State. Therefore Imust oppose the Hill.

AM PERKINS (Roe-Minister for Labour-in reply) [11.45): A number of pointswhich have been raised by members ofthe Opposition have already been repliedto. I think the member for Mt. Hawthornspoke about the superphosphate position.The member for Moore had quite a know-ledge of that position; and I think perhapsthe member for Mt. Hawthorn is nowmuch better informed on that subjectthan he was.

Mr. W. Hegney: He did not answer myquestions; but I hope you will.

Mr. PERKINS: My colleague, the Min-ister for Industrial Development, also an-swered a number of points raised by theearlier speakers, and I do not propose togo over that ground again. In regard tothe debate which has taken place, it struckme that very little of it had reference tothe Bill. All sorts of subjects were spokenof; and those subjects ranged over thewhole world. However, what they hadto do with this legislation I found it verydifficult indeed to know. As a matter offact, I think a stranger listening in thegallery to some of the speeches would havebecome very discouraged indeed, and wouldhave wondered what the outlook was forthe people of Western Australia.

Mr. W. Hegney: They would be verydiscouraged if they were listening now.

Mr. PERKINS: After listening to themember for Fremantle, they would havethought we should ban any industrialconcern from comning to Western Australiaunless it would agree to our limiting itsrate of profit, notwithstanding the factthat it would have to keep pace with itscompetitors. If the member for Fremantlehad his way, such a firm would have allsorts of restrictions placed upon it. ThatIs not the way Australia has been builtup. The traditional attitude in Australiahas been that if a person or a firm had

sufficient enterprise to risk its capital ina business, no-one would deny it the fruitsof its enterprise.

I hate to think what the future holds ifthe attitude develops that because a firmis enterprising, introduces new know-how,and manages to build up a prosperousbusiness, it Is going to be subjected toa -lot of sniping by people saying thatthat firm has done a disservice to Australia.That attitude is not right; and I agreewith the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment that if we could get a firm ofthe calibre of General Motors Holdensto operate in Western Australia it would beso much better for every man, woman,and child in the community, and it wouldbe better for every other business.

Mr. Graham: It would be better if theywere to bring the price of a car down £ 200.

Mr. PERKINS: I have no doubt that thecompetition being provided by GeneralMotors Holdens has been responsible forevery other make of motorcar being soldin Australia at a more competitive price.For the benefit of the member for EastPerth. I reiterate that the control of com-panies such as General Motors Holdens isvery largely in the hands of the TariffBoard. I think that could be the answerto many of the points raised here tonight;and I will deal with that in more detailin a moment or two.

The member for Middle Swan comparedthe control of businesses with the controlswhich are exercised by the Industrial Ar-bitration Act. Anyone who thinks f or amoment will realise that the wages fixedby the Industrial Arbitration Act areonly minimum wages. That Act has neversought to fix a maximum wage which aperson may receive. If the award ratein an industry is £16 per week, and anemployer is prepared to pay £32 per week,the employee is able to accept it. Weshould not limit the amount which a per-son or a company can receive if they areworth extra payment. That should be thecriterion and the yardstick upon which wejudge the position.

If one listened to the speech made bythe member for Middle Swan, I think onewould wonder whether it was any use thisState trying to expand its industrialcapacity. I think that goes for too manyspeakers on the opposite side of theHouse. They referred to competition fromthe Eastern States; but surely there isstill some ingenuity left in the peoplewho are responsible for developing indus-try in Western Australia. I believe thevery geographical features which make itdifficult for us to compete with the East-ern States can possibly be the means ofputting us in a favourable position todevelop markets elsewhere, particularly inSouth-eastern Asia. I know that my col-league, the Minister for Industrial De-velopment, is having a careful look atsome of the possibilities In that direction.The point I am trying to emphasise is

3528 [ASSEMBLY.]

that we will not get anywhere by drop-ping our tails. The tone of the debatewhich has taken place does a great dis-service to the State.

The member for Melville dealt at somelength with the English Act. I have givena lot of study to the English law, but Ido not believe that the position in Englandis at all comparable with what we have' ina State like Western Australia. When allis said and done, the English law operateswithin national boundaries. If we are go-ing to operate a similar law to that whichexists in England, obviously it must be ona Commonwealth basis.

I am aware that there are certain con-stitutional difficulties in the Common-wealth regarding the enactment of legis-lation on a national basis; but the factremains that in the Commonwealth thereare certain other instrumentalities whichhave a very marked effect on the conductof Australian industry; on the mainten-ance of a proper attitude to the public:the general maintenance of competition:and a proper balance between the profitswithin Australia and what may be re-garded as a reasonable figure, judged byour own standards and those outside Aus-tralia.

The Tariff Board is a very effective i n-strument indeed. The member for EastPerth dealt with the history of the un-fair trading Act, and he was very criticalIndeed of what he stated the then Opposi-tion-now the Government-created inthe minds of industrialists in WesternAustralia and wider afield. I suggest tothe member for East Perth that the peoplewho were primarily responsible for creat-Ing those fears were the members of theprevious Government.

Mr. Graham: TommyrottMr. PERKINS: What many people are

inclined to overlook is that the Act whichis now on the statute book, and which weaim to repeal, Is not the legislation whichmembers on the other side of the H-ousethought was the proper legislation to dealwith the situation.

Mr. Graham: So what!Mr. PERKINS: The Act as it now ap-

pears on the statute book was obtainedonly after very strenuous argument inthis Chamber, and even more strenuousargument In another place, which resultedin a watering down of some of the ori-ginal provisions.

Mr. Graham: You would not know theform of a Bill in respect of any StateParliament of Australia: you would onlyknow the final legislation.

Mr. PERKINS: Industrialists can hon-estly judge a Government by the type oflegislation It introduces.

Mr. Graham: PhooeylMr. PERKINS: I think industrialists in

Western Australia made a reasonable ap-praisal of the position which resulted intheir subsequent attitude towards the Bill

which the then Government introduced.There are now probably some members inthis House who do not know the provisionscontained in the original Bill.

Mr. Graham: You are admitting thereis no real need for the present legislation.

Mr. PERKINS: No: I am explainingthe reason for the critical attitude adop-ted by industry towards the previous Gov-ernment by outlining some of the provis-ions which were in that legislation which,presumably, represented the consideredopinion of the previous Government. Ipropose to read one particular clausewhich relates to the penalties imposed ona trader convicted of unfair trading,about which we have heard a lot duringthe course of this debate. This is a clausewhich appeared in the Bill when it wasintroduced to this House. It reads--

Upon the conviction of any personfor an offence against this Act. theCourt convicting the person shall re-quire that person to exhibit, in or out-side, or both in and outside all of theplaces of business, if any, of the per-son, notices of such number, size andlettring, in such positions and con-taining such particulars, relating tothe conviction as the Court deter-mines, and to keep them so exhibitedcontinuously for a period of not lessthan three months from the date ofthe conviction: and the person shallcomply fully with that requirement;and, if the person fails to do so, theperson commits a further offenceagainst this Act.

If any such person refuses or failsto comply fully with any such require-ment, the proper officer of the Courtby which the person was so convicted,or any member of the Police Force ofthe State, may, without prejudice toany proceedings arising out of anysuch refusal or failure, affix thenotices or cause the notices to beaffixed in or outside, or both in andoutside, the places of business in ac-cordance with the recuirement of theCourt in pursuance of subsection (7)of this section.

Any person who obstructs any suchmember of the Police Force or officerin the exercise of any power confer-red by this section commits an offenceagainst this Act.

Mr. Graham: It was there for firmswhich exploit the people.

Mr. PERKINS: The Bill continued-The notices shall be headed with the

heading "Convicted for Unfair Trad-ing under the Profiteering and UnfairTrading Prevention Act, 1956" in boldletters and shall be prepared in such amanner as to be easily legible to per-sons contemplating making any pur-chases or conducting any business atthe place of business where they areaflixed.

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.) 3527

If the Court convicting the person issatisfied that the exhibition of noticesin accordance with any requirementof the Court under the Provisions ofsubsections (7) to (10) inclusive of thissection would not be effective to bringthe fact of the conviction to the notllccof persons dealing with the convictedPerson, the Court may, in lieu of or Inaddition to ordering compliance withany such requirement, require theconvicted person to print or cause tobe printed on the invoices, accounts,and letterheads, used or to be used bythe person in connection with thebusiness of the person during a periodof not less than three months fromthe date of the conviction, a noticeheaded with the headfing specified insubsection (8) of this section in boldtype, and of such size and lettering, insuch position, and containing suchparticulars relating to the convictionas the Court orders; and the convictedperson shall comply fully with therequirements and if he fails to do soshall again be guilty of an offenceagainst this Act.

Mr. Graham: That should be a de-terrent.

Mr. PERKINS: That is what membersopposite tried to make the law of theland; yet they wonder why industrialistsin this State had some misgivings as towhat that Government might do In West-ern Australia. The member for Melville issurprised that, having gone overseas with atrade mission, he brought no appreciablebusiness back with him; but if I were abusinessman considering becoming estab-lished in a country the Government ofwhich thought provisions of that naturewere in order, I would have misgivingsabout risking my capital there.

Mr. Tonkin: Give us the name of onecompany which did not come on thataccount.

Mr. PERKINS: I would like to knowthe name of one business the bonourablemember brought back. We believe a newapproach is necessary. The Act which weare seeking to repeal has an unfortunatehistory in this State owing to some of theprovisions to which I have referred, whichreceived wide publicity at the time. Theposition was given careful consideration bythe Honorary Royal Commission and theBill now before us is strictly in accordwith the recommendations made by thatcommission. I do not claim that the Billis perfect, but it will give us an oppor-tunity to get experience of how the legis-lation operates. It will be a step forwardto have these associations and the agree-ments registered, because that will bringeverything into the light of day. If it isthen found that anti-social activities doexist, it will be easy to assess what theyare, and Parliament can then take anyaction that is thought necessary.

The Bill sets out the limits within whichindustry must stay, and I believe that iswhat businessmen want. The averagebusinessman is just as law-abiding as anyother citizen; and It is no service to thisState to suggest otherwise. I do not be-lieve that the main objective of business-men in Western Australia is to exploitthe public. Admittedly, very little actionhas been taken under the present Act inrecent years; and, as I said when Introduc-ing the Bill, had It not been for the factthat the officers appointed under the Actacted with great discretion, much greaterdisservice might have been done to theState. Fortunately, they acted discreetly;and for that reason the difficulties createdfor industry were comparatively slight.

The Act has created a great deal ofuncertainty, and no businessman likes be-ing placed In the position of not knowingwhen some Investigator might be set onhim to investigate all aspects of his busi-ness and make him produce his books andanything else that might be required tosatisfy the Investigator. I believe we shouldlay down certain standards for industry toobserve: and If they are broken, that Isthe time for Parliament to take action.

I repeat that all this Bill is designedto do Is to repeal the Act, which we con-sider unsatisfactory: and that Is what wePromised, during the election, to do ifreturned as a Government. We told thepeople that we would repeal that Act andreplace it with this measure, which willlay a foundation on which to build infuture. If this Bill does not prove satis-factory in its present form, the Govern-ment will be anxious to amend the legis-lation in future in whatever direction isnecessary to enable industry to functionsatisfactorily under it.

Question put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Mr. ReoellMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. HennMr. HutchinsonMr. Lewis

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. arahamMr. HallMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes-flMr'.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

NoCS-20.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.M r.Mr.Mr.Mr.

W. A. ManningNalderO'ConnorOldfieldO'NilOwenPerkinsRobertsWattsWildI. W. Manning

(Teller.)

W. HegneyKellyLawrenceNortonRhatiganYtowberrySewellTomsTon kinMay

Pairs.Ayes. Noes.

Mr. Mann Mr. MoirMr. Nlmmno, Mr. JamniesonSir Ross McLarty Mr. NulsenMajority for-3.Question thus Passed.Bill read a second time.

(Teller.)

3528 [ASSEMBLY.!

In CommitteeThe Chairman of Committees (Mr. Rob-

erts) in the Chair; Mr. Perkins (Ministerfor Labour) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses 1 and 2 iput and passed.Clause 3-Repeal:

Mr, W. HEGNEY: This clause is vital;and if it is defeated, the Premier canforthwith move that the House adjourn.If the clause is agreed to, there will beno legislation of an effective nature, tomy way of thinking, which the Govern-ment can place on the statute book, be-cause what follows will be of no conse-quence. Since there has been so much mis-representation by both the Minister forIndustrial Development and the Ministerfor Labour in regard to this Bill, I willprogressively explain the provisions of thepresent administration; but first I intendto submit to the Committee a Bill intro-duced by the present Deputy Premier In1955. 1 will read the vital clauses. It wasa Bill for an Act to protect free enterpriseand for other purposes incidental thereto.Its main provisions are not to be corn-pard with those of the measure now be-fore us; and, had it been passed, It wouldhave had far-reaching effects. Unless theAttorney-General has changed his viewssince then, I think he will agree that thepresent Bill Is diametrically opposed tothat which he introduced four years ago.

In clause 4 of the Bill introduced by theLeader of the Country Party both a com-bine and goods are defined. The clausethen goes on to exclude any other arrange-ment concerning commodities such aswheat marketing stabilisation and so forth.This measure is necessarily restricted Inits ramifications because the Deputy Pre-mier could not, under section 46 of theConstitution, introduce legislation whichwould require a Message. However, he wasable to breach the Constitution by intro-ducing a measure as drastic as that I havereferred to.

Yet the same gentleman-the Leader ofthe Country Party-subscribes to the repealof the present Act and to the harmlessprovisions which follow clause 3. I men-tion that aspect to show that the Leaderof the Country Party must have recog-nised then that the trend of combines andrestrictive trade Practices was increasingand there was some necessity to protectmembers of the community against themachinations or activities of those com-bines.

The Act passed by the Labor Party wasdesigned to protect the interests of thetrading community, and the legislation isnot new to any country. The HonoraryRoyal Commission indicated that similarlegislation was in existence in the UnitedStates of America, Canada, and GreatBritain; and I find that some of the clausesof this Bill have been lifted from the Re-strictive Trade Practices Act of Great

Britain. In America, too, there is theSherman Act, which has recently beenamended, and the Clayton Act of 1914. Thepresent Act was not conceived by theParliamentary Draftsman without refer-ence to the legislation of other countries-,and, in fact, the main provisions in itwere lifted from the legislation in GreatBritain, America, and Canada,

Yet we have the Minister for IndustrialDevelopment trying to tell us that somepeople wished to establish industries Inthis State but were deterred from doingso because of the Monopolies and Restric-tive Trade Practices Control Act. If anyof those people were representatives ofAmerican companies, they must haveknown that similar legislation operated intheir own country, in Canada, and inGreat Britain.

I now propose to mention again brieflysome of the matters that were brought tolight by the investigation officer as a resultof the legislation enacted in this State.A study of the matters that were handledshows that many unfair practices were dis-closed by investigation.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable mem-ber's time has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM: I will intervene for thepurpose of allowing the member for Mt.Hawthorn to continue.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: The only section thatappears to have been drawn from theEnglish legislation is subsection (6) ofsection 19 which provides for certain tradeagreements. However, I would not be inorder in dealing with that at this stage. Iwould rather deal with it when discussingother clauses in the Bill. The mainstay ofthe Canadian anti-combine legislation issection 411 of the Criminal Code, whichcorresponds with that In the United Statesof America. The Canadian legislation for-bids any merger, trust, or monpoly, whichis likely to operate to the detriment of thepublic interests.

The Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Act provides that the Directorof Investieation and the commissioner arerequired to take certain steps before aninquiry can be instituted or continued. Ithas been suggested that the Director ofInuvestigation will condurt any innuiry andthat a person Is not entitled to make blahprofits. I have inever surgested that. TheAct. merely seelks to p3revent anyv n~rs;Onfromn aking itnfair nrofits or engaging inunfair trade practices.

Members should clear their minds of anynreilrdirees and they should examine theprovisions in the existing Act, Any Per-son desiring to establish an Industry Inthis State will need to have no fear iihe reads the Act, unless he intends to in-dulge in improper and unfair trade prac-tices. I refer members to the definitionsprovision and to the definition of "unfaiiprofit". it Is contained in the UnfairTrading and Profit Control Act Of 1956.

3528

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.3 52

The definitions in section 8 of the Actdid not originate in this State. Thley werelifted from various Acts of Parliament inforce in the U.S.A. and Canada. Thissection also contains a definition of "unfairtrading." I refer to paragraphs (a), (b),(c), and (d) of this definition. Thenfollows a definition of "unfair tradingmethods" or "unfair methods of tradecompetition," This provision in. the Actwas lifted from the Sherman Act of theU.S.A. Under paragraph (a) of this defini-tion there is a very definite obligation onthe commissioner to have regard to thePublic interest but that seems to be the lastthought in the mind of the Minister forLabour.

The provision in paragraph (d) of thisdefinition was lifted from the ClaytonAct of the U.S.A., and it refers to the dis-crimination in price between differentpurchasers of goods of like grade or qualitywhere the effect of such discriminationmay be contrary to the public interest,substantially to lessen competition, or tendto create a monopoly etc.

The present Act does not have regard togoods bon-a fide sold at public auctions.Section 9 of the Act refers to administra-tion. The obligations, powers, and dutiesof the Director of Investigation is em-bodied in similar legislation in Canada.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourablemember's time has expired.

Mr. HAWKE: This clause proposes torepeal the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act. We heard agreat deal from the Minister about thisAct and the alleged difficulties which itcreated. We also heard the Minister forIndustrial Development speaking about thedamage which the continued existence ofthe Act was doing to this State. He told usthat six or seven firms would establishindustries here, were it not for the Act.

Mr. Court: I did not say that. I saidthat they would not negotiate while thelegislation was on the statute book.

Mr. HAWE.: Clearly these representa-tives were pulling the Minister's leg orwere Putting UP this legislation as anexcuse for not doing what he wanted themto do. it would be easy for them to fobhim off by saying that they were not pre-pared to establish industries in WesternAustralia so long as this legislation wason the statute book. If no such legislationexisted they would find some other excuse.Therefore we can rule it out as bluff orof no account.

We need to remember the fact that thislegislation is on the statute book mainlybecause two non-Labor members in theLegislative Council voted for the legisla-tion. Both were members of the CountryParty. It is advisable at this stage forme to read a few of the remarks wadeby them in support of the legislation, and

when amendments were made to the Actin December, 1958, at the time when thelegislation was placed permanently on thestatute book. Prior to 1958 the legislationwas on a 12-months trial basis.

Mr. Roche, M.L.C., said-It Is also a fact that nowhere else

in Australia since that time has theprice of superphosphate been reduced.So I think the farmer can claim abenefit to the tune of over £500,000a year as a result of the applicationof this legislation.

Another extract from his speech was--I think the imaginary or manufac-

tured fears which have been publicisedin respect to this legislation would dothe only harm that has been doneto Western Australia as a result ofthe Government introducing this Act.

Those two extracts indicate very clearlyhow strong he was in his views and inhis support of the original Bill and theamendment introduced in 1958. I flowquote a few remarks made in 1958 by theother Country Party member who sup-ported the original Bill also. He was Mr.L. C. Diver. In the Legislative Council onthe 2nd December, 1958, he spoke in sup-part of the BUi, indicating he would movesome amendments when the BUi reachedthe Committee stage, and was hopefulthat all or most of those amendmentswould be accepted. One extract from hisspeech is, " I would say the critics of thisBill are those who evidently believe inunfair trading." How true! Another ex-tract is as follows-

I do not think any monetary valuecould be placed on personal freedom,and I would be the last to sacrifice it,but if industry has no more consciencethan to make some of the chargeswhich it now imposes, is that not aninvitation to the representatives of thepeople to give support to legislationwhich certain sections of industrydeem to be harsh?

Representations have also been madeto me by people other than farmers-members of the Retail Traders' As-sociation-in regard to preferentialdiscounts.

A further extract is as follows:-To those who assert that this legis-

lation is scaring away Private enter-prise, I would say that it is they whoare placing a dagger in the back ofthis State. They talk about makingpolitical capital out of this questionbut I say, without fear of substantialcontradiction, that this legislation willnot frighten away any worth-whilecompany operating in Great Britain,Europe and America, because thosefirms are well aware of similar legis-lation operating in the countries wherethey now are. The wording of the

3529

3530 [ASSEMBLY.]

legislation may not be the same, butthe effects of it are the same on any-one who transgresses the law.

Those extracts from Mr. Diver's speechindicate very clearly how strongly he feltthe need for legislation to be placed per-manently on our statute book to protectthe Public interest, not against all busi-ness concerns, but against the minoritywhich would unfairly exploit the public;and which would unfairly, by combina-tion and control--set up through restric-tive agreements-pelalise smaller busi-nessmen in the community.

It amazed me that only two membersof the Country Party in both Houses ofParliament supported the legislation. How-ever, it was some consolation and en-couragement to know that at least twohad the courage to stand up and saywhat they did and also to vote for thislegislation to be placed upon the statutebook, and, nine or 10 months later, tomake it permanent. Clearly, there is anoutstanding need for the people in anycommunity to be protected by the lawagainst any business concern or combina-tion of business concerns which would useunfair trading methods against the com-munity.

I have been put in possession of agood deal of information since this Actwas first placed upon the statute book.Businessmen, feeling very severely the in-creasing Pressure of monopolies and com-bines, have supplied me with the informa-tion. They were realising that unless theycould have these pressures relieved orwiped out, their continued existence asbusinessmen in Western Australia wasvery seriously imperilled.

I remember that a number of men ap-proached me over a year ago In connec-tion with the distribution of galvanisediron. They described themselves as the"B"-class members of the Chamber ofCommerce. They were not distributingexcessively large quantities of galvanisediron and the monopoly manufacturer ofthe iron in Australia was threatening totake away from them some of the tradingadvantages which had been previouslyavailable to them. Obviously the purposeof this move by the monopoly manufac-turer was to concentrate the distributionOf galvanised iron in Western Australia Inthe hands of the big firms. The business-men who approached me asked whetherthey could gain protection under the pro-visions of the monopolies and restrictivetrade practices legislation.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour-able member's time has expired.

Mr. W. HEONEY: I was outlining someof the Provisions of the present Act. IPropose to deal with the powers Of in-vestigation and inquiry, and in this con-nection would like to point out that the

Director of Investigation has certainpowers. Section 18 of the Act reads asfollows:-

For the purposes of making any in-vestigation which the Director con-siders necessary in the public interestfor giving effect to the objects of thisAct, the powers prescribed in thisPart are hereby conferred, and theprovisions of this Part apply.

Then follow sections Providing thedirector with power to obtain informa-tion: inspect documents: obtain balancesheets and other accounts and statements:summon witnesses and take evidence onoath; obtain documents, books, papers, andthings; and administer the oath or con-firmation; and a person shall not refuseto answer. Most of those machinery pro-visions are incorporated in the Bill whichis now being considered. There Is also apenalty for failure to appear as a witness,Then follows the director's power to re-quire returns.

It must not be forgotten that thismachinery Provision is included in theCanadian Act. This section gives thedirector a certain guide as to whathe may or may not do. Section 28 is asfollows:-

Where the Director has reason,whether because of reports made tohim, or because of the observations ofhimself or an authorised officer, tosuspect that there is unfair trading,he shall, if of opinion that it is inthe public interest to do so . .

I emphasise the fact that all through thisAct the idea is that the director must atall times have regard to the public interest.

It will be seen that the director cannotproceed on a haphazard basis. There arecertain well-defined principles by which hemust abide. Another section which illus-trates this point is section 29. I wouldrefer members to subsection (2) of section30 and then to subsection (4), (5), and(6) of the same section. Part rV of theAct deals with the effect of declaring aperson to be a declared trader, while partV deals with books of account and therecords to be kept and Preserved. Twoof the sections have been lifted from theFederal Trade Commission Act of theUnited States.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honourablemember's time has expired.

Mr. HAWKE: When I was speaking pre-viously I was dealing with the position ofsmaller businessmen engaged, amongother things, in the distribution of gal-vanised iron. These men pointed out tome the proposals put forward by themonopoly manufacturing company andsaid that they would cause them to losetwo-fifths of their then existing profitmargin. They told me that that in Itselfwould be very serious for them, but ever

3530

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 53

so much more serious because the biggerdistributors would not suffer any Penaltyor reduction in profit margins.

Clearly, these smaller distributors wereimmediately to have been placed at a greattrading disadvantage as compared withtheir bigger competitors. I would alsoPoint out that all of these people, largeand small, were in the same association;yet this monopoly manufacturing companywas going to knock the smaller men and,by doing that, build up the bigger men.

As soon as I was able to do it, I passedtheir representations through the thenMinister for Labour, now the member forMt. Hawthorn, to the commissioner Incharge of the unfair trading control legis-lation for his consideration. Some daysafterwards I was able to write to the busi-nessmen concerned. In the letter I advisedthem of the commissioner's activities inthe matter, and sent to them a copy ofa report Sent to me by the commissioner.and expressed the hope that the amendedproposals which the company had nowagreed upon with the commissioner, wouldbe reasonably satisfactory to all concerned.They were reasonably satisfactory, andhave remained so during the last 12months.

However, now that the Minister forLabour and his colleagues have decidedto throw the smaller businessmen to thewolves, and the big monopoly manufactur-ing company over East knows of the in-tention of the Ministers of this Govern-ment, the move is on again. So thesesmaller businessmen are now beingthreatened by this manufacturing com-pany with the same threats as were issuedagainst them a year ago, and which wouldhave been imposed upon them at thattime except for the existence of the legis-lation which this Bill now proposes torepeal.

These smaller distributors of galvanisediron marvel at the audacity of this manu-facturing company in making its presentmove whilst the Monopolies and Restric-tive Trade Practices Control Act is Still UP-on the statute book. It is abundantly clearin their being amazed at that action thatthese smaller businessmen have no realisa-tion of the desperate anxiety of the Minis-ters of the present Government to sacrificesmaller businessmen to these monopolyconcerns and combines which, in the eventof this Bill being passed, will be almosttotally in charge of trading practices, fairand unfair, and through that be in com-plete control of the future destiny of thesmaller businessmen and of the publicgenerally in relation to unfair tradingpractices which will increasingly be imi-posed upon the public.

Obviously these smaller businessmenabout whom I have been talking are nowleft without a feather with which to fly.They are doomed. This Government haspassed the death sentence upon them, and

all that Is required to enable the Govern-ment to carry out that death sentence isto get a majority of members in this andin another place to agree to the Bill. Itwill be a tremendous disappointment tome if the Government succeeds in doingthat. There is some encouragement inthe fact that during this session some non-Labor members in the Legislative Councilhave shown some independence ofthought, and political courage, and haverefused to be bulldolzed by Ministers ofthis Government into voting for the Gov-ernment's legislation, irrespective of itsnature and whether it is fair, just, andreasonable to the community.

Surely that should be the vital testwhich every member, irrespective of whe-ther he is Labor or non-Labor, should applyto all Bills which come before us for con-sideration and decision. Why shouldmembers support a Bill introduced by aGovernment which obviously proposes tosacrifice the public interest whenever thatPublic interest comes into conflict with theinterests of combines and monopolies,which are anxious to impose upon smallerbusinessmen, and the public, unfair trad-ing practices.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon-ourabie member's time has expired.

Mr. W. HEONEY: I do not propose todeal any further with the existing legisla-tion, but I would like to make passing ref-erence to a few of the remarks made by theMinister in replying to the second readingdebate. I have had a look at the NationalSecurity Regulations in regard to pricecontrol, and also the Act which theLiberal-Country Party Government intro-duced in 1g48, shortly after it was electedto office. This free enterprise Govern-menit introduced a Price-control measure,and it contained some stringent provisions.There was one section in it which gavethe commissioner power to implement theCommonwealth Security Regulations, eventhough it was three years after the cessa-tion of hostilities. There is one clause inthe National Security Regulations to whichI would like to refer.

The CHAIRMAN: I hope the honour-able member will be able to tie up his re-marks with the repeal of the Act.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: D~o you think, Mr.Chairman, I would be doing this if I couldnot?

Mr. Court:, You are dealing with an Actthat has already been repealed.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I am not dealing withany Act at the moment, but I will tie thisup; because in the present Act, after theDirector of Investigation has submitted acase charging a particular trader with un-fair trading, the commissioner may docertain things. The commissioner has

3531

3532 [ASSEMBLY.]

Power to fix the price of a particular com-modity or goods with respect to which un-f air trading has been proved. Pricesregulation No. 45 (1) states-

The Commissioner may, by order,require any trader or class of trader,who sells or has for sale any declaredgoods or who supplies or carries onany declared service, the maximumprice of, or the maximum rate for,which is fixed by or under these Regu-lations, to exhibit, in such positionand in such manner as are specifiedin the order, such particulars relatingto any such declared goods or servicesas are so specified.

In view of that, the statement of theMinister for Labour loses much of itsweight. There is mention of this Act beingharnessed to Commonwealth regulations.There was no need for the Minister forRailways to interject that the Act hadbeen repealed; because he and his sup-porters saw to that. They also made surethat the profiteering prevention legislationof 1939 was repealed. It has been men-tioned that restrictions operate in certainindustries, and television was mentioned.We all know there have been attempts toadopt restrictive trade practices in thesale of television sets. Some traders areanxious to prevent other people from sell-ing television sets.

If the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act is repealed there willbe nothing to protect prospective buyersof television sets or traders who are notprepared to conform with the rules.Neither the traders nor the public will beprotected. It is no use the Ministertrying to convince us that what followsclause 3 is an effective substitute for theAct. We know that commodities such asmilk, eggs, and potatoes virtually have theirretail prices controlled.

I would say that had we combed West-ern Australia we could not have found twomore estimable men than Mr. Waliwork,the commissioner, and Mr. Robinson, theDirector of Investigation, for their respec-tive jobs.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourablemember's time has expired.

Mr. J. HEGNEY: I must protest againstthe attempt to repeal the present Act.There was an industry in my territoryknown as Swan Portland Cement. Whenthe Cockburn Cement Works came to thisState it was not long before Swan Port-land was obliged to sell up; and it wasnot very long before the price of cementwas fixed. There was no competition atall. It is little wonder that Mr. Reddish,the director of Cockburn cement enterprisewas so upset when the Government of theday sought to repeal the legislation. itis well known that over the Years the

cement works at Rivervale made substan-tial profits because it was the only worksavailable. We should be concerned withthe public interest.

Mr. Hawke: Hear, bear?Mr. J. HEGNEY: We should not be con-

cerned with the interests of certain tradersand business people who are anxious toexploit the public. It is those People thislegislation seeks to control in the interestsof the general public. We had the spec-tacle of The West Australian lecturingParliament as to what it should do withregard to this legislation; but no doubtIts concern stemmed from the fact thatthe legislation might apply to that body.which is making profits of 60 per cent. ormore, and now has controlling interestsin television. Is it any wonder it de-nounces this Bill?

The Government may have a majority;but if this matter were put to the country,more people would support the retentionof the present Act than would support itsrepeal. The law should stand. The Min-ister for Railways said that certain in-dustries would not come here because ofthe present Act: but he never gave thenames of any of those industries. In mysecond reading speech I quoted the opin-ion of the Director-General of the Federa-tion of British Industries who visitedWelshpool today. He said that the giantsof British industry were already here. Thestatements of the Minister for Railwayshave not the substance he would lead usto believe they have. The Director-Gen-eral of the Federation of British Industriestells us the difficulty of establishing in-dustries here was that the giants ofBritish industry were already establishedin this country; besides which there wasthe question of the distance from EasternStates' markets.

I would now like to refer to Chamber-lains-one of the establishments that wasconverted to wartime production. TheLabor Government of the day helped tofinance this industry and put it on its feetso that it could compete with the firm ofMcKays from Eastern Australia and alsoprovide employment for our own youngpeople. The action of the Governmentmet with a good deal of opposition and cri-ticism, but now that firm Is standing onits feet a lot of people have rushed inwith a certain amount of praise.

I do not think for one moment thatthe fact that this legislation is on thestatute book will be a deterrent to industrycoming to this State. The Deputy Leaderof the Opposition said tonight that exceptfor one instance in Great Britain, hedid not find this legislation preventedIndustries from coming here. On the con-trary, he was able to indicate to them thatif they came here they would receive theassistance they required. This Govern-ment should endeavour to get industriesto come here without crying stinking fish

3532

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 53

about legislation which is on the statutebook. I urge the Committee to retainthe present Act as it is well worth havingon our statute book.

Mr. HAWKE: I move-That progress be reported and leave

asked to sit again.Motion put and a division taken with

the following result:-

Mr, AndrewMr. BickartonMr. BradyMr, EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr, HaillMr. HawkeMr. RealMr. J. Hegney

Mr, BovellMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CorneliMr. CourtMr. Craig-Mr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GutbrieDr. HennMr. Hutchinson

Ayes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. Nulsen

Ayes--2O.Mr. W. HegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. EbatiganMr. RowberryMr. SewellMr. TomsMr. TonkinMr. May (Tetter.)

Noes--22.Mr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NaiderMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfieldMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WattsMr. WildMr. 1. W, Manning

(Teller.)Pairs.

Noes.Mr. MannMr. NimznoSir Ross MeLarty

Majority agalnst-2.Motion thus negatived.

Mr, ROWBERRY: The Minister forIndustrial Development has indicated tothe Committee that unless the Monopoliesand Restrictive Trade Practices ControlAct is repealed certain businessmenwill not establish in this State. Person-ally. I do not believe that, and I do notthink the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment believes it. B3ecause he and his partymade so much of this in the election cam-paign, I believe that they have to do some-thing about it. In any case, I do notimagine that it will help the State if wehave to be blackmailed in order to get in-dustries to come here.

I wish to quote an article which appearedIn The West Australian dated the 20thApril, 1959, written by the finance editorwho, I should think, would have somestanding in finance and business activitiesin this State. The heading is, "What DoesFuture Hold for W.A.?" The article readsas follows-

With the post-war period of expan-sion finished along with the economicdistortion which accompanied manyphases of it, what does the future holdfor business and industry in WesternAustralia?

in making an assessment of thefuture, care has to be taken to steera course between over-optimism andpessimism.

It would be foolish to expect thatexpansion in Western Australia wouldfollow the same lines as in a compactState like Victoria. On the other hand,it is equally foolish to over-emphasisethe State's isolation and its disabili-ties.

For many years to come, the State'sexpansion on all economic fronts willbe tied in closely with expansion inprimary production. Western Australia.with its cheap land, must attract moreand more farmers.

NeighboursOnly a small rise is needed in the

living standards of our South-EastAsian neighbours to bring a big de-mand for food which this State is in agood geographical position to meet.

With farming more mixed, the agri-cultural industry's stability will im-prove and, consequently, directly andindirectly it will continue to supply amajor Portion of the State's wealthand its general activity.

With the use of trace elements, im-proved farming methods and waterconservation, the State will achieve in-creasing importance as a source offood.

IsolationNor, as time passes, is the State's

isolation likely to prove the obstacleit has been to Industrial progress. inthe last few years, several industriesini Western Australia, through aggres-sive salesmanship and technical ef-ficiency, have competed successfullywith Eastern States industries on theirown grounds.

There is also increasing scope forlight industries in which freight costsare reduced to the minimum. Two orthree of these industries are alreadyoperating successfully and their pro-ducts are becoming increasingly wellknown in the Eastern States and over-seas. With a trade deficit with theEastern States of £57,000,000, it is iab-vious that a handsome business alreadyexists here for local industries to sup-ply the goods now brought from theother side of the continent.

It is obvious that a careful survey ofconsumer requirements could lessenthe trade gap. With establishmentcosts in Western Australia cheaperthan elsewhere, there will be growinginducements for new industries to be-gin operations.

Export TradeAs trade missions prove the existence

of valuable markets On our doorstep,opportunities for export trade willgrow. And with their growth, theState's Population will increase, pro-viding a continuing and steady in-crease in the local market.

3533

3534 [?ASSEMBLY.]

Another possible source of expan-sion within the State is mining. West-ern Australia has several minerals inabundance and their importance willimprove as the years pass. One isasbestos. As the production of thisrises, more and more of the productmay be consumed in local industriesinstead of going to Eastern Statesfactories and overseas.

Although world prices are depres-sed at present, there is also a futurefor the State's big deposits of ilnienite.It is not impossible that the day mayarrive when a valuable chemical in-dustry based on this mineral will beoperating in the southern part of theState.

Iron OreAnd most controversial subject of

all, the time may come when the Statewill be able to use its own big de-posits of iron ore in an integrated ironand steel industry. A recent Com-monwealth survey forecast a big risein the consumption of steel in the nextfew years. For defence reasons itmight be thought worth while to setup an industry here to meet the big-ger demand. When that occurs manyancillary industries could be expected.

There is no word about the Unfair Trad-Ing Act or the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act. I recommendthis to the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment.

Mr. PLETCHER: I oppose the clause asI believe the Act affords Protection to thepublic generally and to the trade unionistsand basic wage earners. We know that inthe early post-war years prices remainedstatic because both prices and wages werepegged; but when that legislation was re-pealed both prices and wages increased. In11948 a tradesman at Midland Junction re-ceived approximately £6 per week.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour-able member must keep to the clause.

Mr. FLETCHER: I submit that if thepresent Act Is repealed prices will increasevery soon. I repeat that in 1946 a trades-man at Midland Junction got about £6a week whereas the wage is now £17 l6s.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour-able member must keep to the clause.

Mr. FLETCHER: If the Act is repealedthe present maximum prices will immredi-ately become the minimum; and eventhough some traders may be reluctant tocharge the higher prices they will bebrought into line. If the Act is repealedsmall businessmen will have to chargemore or else go to the wall or be takenover, as we know is happening all over thecapitalist world today. That is what theBill seeks to achieve. As the Deputy Leaderof the opposition said, the small business-man has good reason to be alarmed at

present. The present Act provides somesafeguard for businesses and so I opposethe clause, knowing it would act to thedetriment of the lower income group.

Mr. EVANS: I oppose the clause. TheGovernment has offered no real reasonwhy the present Act should be repealed,and the only two arguments it has putforward in support of the clause cannotbe reconciled. The Minister for Laboursaid that the Act has been Ineffective andthat it does not achieve the objective ofits authors.

The Minister for Industrial Develop-ment has on several occasions ranted atthe damage caused by monopolies and re-strictive trade practices legislation. I re-peat that the two points of view cannotbe reconciled and the arguments will con-vince no-one. When the Act was placedon the statute book, the first person in myelectorate to show any Interest in it wasnot a wage-earner or small businessmanbut a man with a very big business. Heran a sub-agency for a very popular car,and he said that sub-agencies were beingvictimised. He sought recourse to the Un-fair Trading Commissioner and his troubleswere resolved satisfactorily. I say theGovernment is not being completely hon-est with the people, because the Bill isto provide for the registration of certaintrade associations and for incidental andother purposes. Why did not the Govern-ment include the real aim of the Bill inIts title?

The Government has been in poweralmost eight months; and this was one ofthe major planks upon which it was elec-ted. It has taken a long time to find thecourage to present this measure to Parlia-ment. No mention of the major aim ofthe Government's move is in the title ofthe Bill. If we remove this aim from theBill, and the Government should be de-feated on the measure, I am sure it wouldlose all interest in the further considera-tion of the Bill. This clause appears to bethe major one, and I oppose its passage.Realising the f utility of argument, Imove-

That progress be reported.Point of Order

Mr. COURT: is it competent for thehonourable member, he having just spoken,to move that progress be reported?

The CHAIRMAN: The point of order isunheld.

Committee ResumedMr. HAWKS:" Previously I was ref er-

ring to the present move by a monopolycom;pany which manufactures galvanisediron. I had pointed out that this companyhad agreed to forgo the imposition of con-ditions upon similar small distributors ofgalvanised iron in Western Australia f ol-lowing an approach by the commissioner

[Tuesday. 24 November, 1959.) 3535

of unfair trading. Even though thelegislation under which the commissionerthen acted is still upon our statutebook, this company Is still making thesame approach as it made a year ago tothese smaller businessmen.

Either the companL.y has heen imfonndby the Government. or someone represen-ting the Government, that the Governmentwill take no action against it; or thecompany has quite reasonably come to theconclusion that the Government will takeno action under the legislation which stillexists. So at least one big monopolycompany is setting out to put the bootsinto some of the smaller traders in West-ern Australia. This is clearly a sign ofthings to come.

I have information from another sourceindicating that the big monopoly compan-ies are getting on the warpath in antici-pation of the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act being repealedby Parliament; or in the safe and sureknowledge that this Government will notoperate that Act even if Parliament re-fuses to repeal it. A particular person hasbeen discriminated against by several bigmonopoly firms and combines in regard tothe supply of goods to him. He is beingdiscriminated against because he has re-fused to obey the conditions the monopolyfirms would impose upon him. Recentlyhe sent a telegram to The West Aus-tralian for publication, and this telegramsaid, in effect-

Trade Bill is a betrayal of publicand consumers' interest. It destroyscompetition and enterprise. It willmean increased profits to Pressuregroups and increased prices to thepublic.

Needless to say this telegram has not yetbeen published by the newspaper, despitethe fact that it was sent some days ago;and, if you, Sir, were permitted to do so, Ithink you would wager that the contentsof the telegram will never be published bythis newspaper.

Clearly the proposed repeal of the Act,and the balance of the Bill are calculatedto hand over the absolute control of indus-try. trade, and commerce in this State tomonopolies and combines. We have beentold by some speakers on the Governmentside that the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act has been in-terpreted by business interests in thisState, in other States, and in overseascountries, as being an attack on all busi-ness interests.

It would be just as silly to argue thatActs to punish people who commit murderor manslaughter, or who engage in robberyor any of the other crimes or offenceswhich are prohibited by statute, are anattack on everybody in the community.Such an argument would be stupid in theextreme. Obviously these particular stat-utes have been approved by Parliament in

Past Years withnamely, that ofTheir secondaryPunish those whocout in the statutes.

one main objective;protecting the Public.purpose would be toommit the offences set

Surely the same logical argument mustbe applied to the Act which the Bill pro-poses to repeal. Surely the Monopolies andRestrictive Trade Practices Control Actwas put on the statute book mainly for thepurpose of protecting the public interest;for the purpose of protecting the smallerbusinessmen; and for the purpose of pun-ishing those few monopolies and combinesthat breach the provisions of the law,

What is the difference, in principle ataniy rate, between all the other statuteswhich exist, and this one? There is no dif -ference in principle between them. Inthat circumstance, it is extremely difficultto understand why the Ministers of thisGovernment would line up with the bigbattalions in the business world-withthe combines and the monopolies-againstthe smaller businessmen and against thepublic interest.

I am not even suggesting that all mono-polies and combines are out to impose un-fair trading practices upon the smallerbusinessmen, and upon the communitygenerally. Nevertheless we all know thatsome monopolies and some combines areout to impose their unfair and strong willupon the small businessmen. None of usneeds to be told of the growing powerof monopolies and of combines; we seeon every hand evidence of that. Surelythe present is a time, more than ever be-fore in the history of our State, whenParliament should realise its responsibi-lities in this matter to the community, andto the smaller business people.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour-able member's time has expired.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: Previously I Indicatedthat the two men who had charge of themonopolies and restrictive trade prac-tices control office-Mr. Wallwork, thecommissioner; and Mr. Robinson, theDirector of Investigation-were men ofunimpeachable character. It would behard to find men more suited than theyfor these positions. The commissioner, asa result of his experience, has indicatedthat the Act is necessary in the interestsof the people of Australia.

Mr. Robinson is a highly qualified ac-countant-he was accountant in theCrown Law Department-and is experi-enced in business management. AUitraders and others who had any dealingswith him will agree that he was an idealperson for the position of director of in-vestigation.

Recently the Minister, in reply to ques-tions, tried to indicate that the office wasstill being carried on, although on a re-duced basis. But not long ago The WestAustralian said that the Act was in

3536 [ASSEMBLY.]

"cold storage." I have no doubt that itis in cold storage. Very little would havebeen done since the present Minister tookoffice. The tact that the main clause inthe Bill seeks to repeal the Act is a clearindication that the Government has nointention of implementing the provisionsof the Act.

A compromise was arrived at betweenthe Liberal Party and the CountryParty as a result of prior discussions. Theleading newspaper here pointed out thatwhile the Liberal Party does not believein any form of restriction, the CountryParty does; and as a price for the repealof the existing legislation, the LiberalParty agreed to the introduction of theBill.

No-one on this side believes the state-ment of the Minister for industrial Devel-opment that six industries declined tocome to this State because of the legis-lation. The people of this State will findout, if the legislation should be repealed,that the Government has done them a dis-service. The Leader of the Opposition men-tioned the trend in this State towardstakeovers, combines, and monopolies. No-one is against the combination of tradersor monopolies if they do not act to thePublic detriment. The principle whichpermeates the whale legislation is that thepublic interest is paramount at all times.

The attitude of the Government in seek-ing to repeal this Act is different from itsattitude in respect of the industrial Arbi-tration Act. Its activity in amending thelatter Act was in striking contrast to itspresent attitude. I am satisfied that thetraders have been protected to some ex-tent by the existing Act.

In 1958 an amendment was made tothe Act to prevent a combination oftraders from imposing restrictions on an-other trader. It states-

(4) Where two or more persons havewhether before, on, or after theday of the coming into operationof this Act, entered into an -agree-ment or arrangement in relationto trade or business, if any of thepersons has, whether before, on,or after that day, invoked anyof the provisions of this Act forprotection f rum unfair trading',none of the persons shall alter theagreement or arrangement, on, orafter, that day without first ob-taining the approval of the Com-missioner to the alteration, andwithout that approval no such al-teration is effective.

I now refer to a provision in the NewZealand Act which states--

Recommendations as to price con-trol. Where after inquiry under PartIII of this Act the Commission is ofthe opinion that it would be in thepublic interest that any goods towhich the inquiry relates should be

subject to price control under theControl of Prices Act, 1947, the Com-mission shall within 28 days afterthe date of the completion of the in-quiry report to the Minister its find-ings in that respect together with anyrecommendations it thinks fit as tothe extent of the price control itrecommends.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable maem-ber's time has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM: Where does the Gov-ernment stand on this matter? Membersof the Ministry are asleep In their seats.Surely the Government has some reply tothe statements made by speakers on thisside. What is the justification for therepeal of the Act? What damage has itdone to the economy of Western Australia?What possible harm can it do to any newindustry?

Mr. Court: We told you but you willnot believe us.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister informedus that six industries told him that theywere not Prepared to come to WesternAustralia.

Mr. Court: More than half a dozentold me. I was telling you of the in-dustries which were not prepared to nego-tiate because of the legislation.

Mr. GRAHAM: Despite the protestationof the Minister, I do not believe him.

Mr. Court: You don't have to.

Mr. GRAHAM: The pendulum will swingand there will be a different Governmentafter the next elections. The papers canthen be examined. I defy the Minister tocontradict the assertion that there willnot be found any record to indicate thatrepresentatives of half a dozen industriesstated that they were not prepared to setthemselves up in business in this Statebecause of the existing legislation.

Mr. Hawke: According to the ministerthey were not prepared to negotiate.

Mr. GRAHAM: That was Piffle.Mr. Court: How do you know it is

piffle?Mr. GRAHAM: Because I have a better

appreciation of the business communitythan has the Minister.

Mr. Court: I am afraid you do notunderstand much about industrial develop-ment.

Mr. GRAHAM: Because the Minister canquote that some businessmen said certainthings, he thinks that is the answer. Thatdoes not make legislation good or bad.

Mr. Court: it goes a mighty long wayto prove that something Is wrong whendecent people adopt that attitude.

3536

[Tuesday, 24 November1 1959.1 33

Mr. GRAHAM: When the Minister isable to produce a body I am prepared tolisten to him.

Mr. Court: Did you not have any com-plaints about the legislation when Youwere in office?

Mr. GRAHAM: We had as many ob-jections from people as the Minister-People like Sir Arthur Warner who hadnot seen the legislation, but believed in thelies of The West Australian and theLiberal Party.

Mr. Court: How do you know he hadnot seen the legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: Because he told me.The first time he saw it was when I senthim a copy.

Mr. Court: What did he say after-wards?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have not seen himsince. He had no conception of the legis-ation. He had heard some talk about it.He heard comments from the cronies inhis own particular Party. I guaranteethat 75 per cent, of those who support theGovernment have not read this Act. Theyhave fixed in their minds the fantasticideas which have been concocted, andwhich have been broadcast far and wide,to do damage to Western Australia; thatis, the lies disseminated by the LiberalParty and the daily Press.

Mr. Court: If they had not heard it be-fore they certainly beard it tonight fromthe member for Mt. Hawthorn.

Mr. GRAHAM: The invitation is stillopen to the Government to indicate onesection in the Act to which a fair-mindedand reasonable businessman can take ex-ception, and which can be regarded as adeterrent to any party contemplating set-ting up an industry in Western Australia.

There could be a thousand differentreasons based on the lies of the LiberalParty and The West Australian, but notbased on the legislation. The Ministerfor Industrial Development has probablyplayed around with this Bill on many oc-casions and has had the opportunity toread out any section which could be re-garded as damaging to an existing busi-ness or a prospective business in thisState.

The Minister for Labour pretendedthere were all sorts of provisions in thelegislation, among which was one to theeffect that a Government official was em-powered to investigate the books ofaccounts of a firm. I wonder whether heknows what was contained In the price-fixing legislation which his Governmentsupported. That Act enabled the commis-sioner to inspect the books of accountsand official documents of a business. Theowner could make a protest; and, with theconsent of the commissioner, could makecopies of the ledger, the profit and loss

account, and other papers. That legisla-tion was supported by the Liberal-CountryParty Government for six years. It ws.necessary and had all the virtues imagin-able; but the moment the Labor Govern-ment was in office it was considered anobnoxious measure, and was rejectedwithin a few short months of the newGovernment being elected, notwithistand-Ing its mandate to continue the legislation.

Surely the Present legislation is eminentlyfairer in every respect than this Bill whichis proposed to replace it. I put it to theMinister for Industrial Development as IPut it to members when he was not pre-sent, that when the Liberals and the Coun-try Party were in charge and the Ministerof the day decided that a certain com-modity or group of commodities should bethe subject of price control, every singlefirm in this city which dealt in those goodswas subject to Price control. The LaborGovernment resolved that all of thoseconcerns should be as free as the sea;but if one firm went to excesses, surelycontrols should be imposed in respect ofthat one firm only! That is the legisla-tion which is scaring off business con-cerns. I cannot repeat it too often: Thatassertion is a lie.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The honour-able member's time has expired.

Mr. HAWKE: When you were com-pelled by Standing Orders to ask me toresume my seat earlier, I was dealing withthe point of monopoly concerns imposingtheir will upon smaller concerns even tothe extent of cutting off Supplies of themonopoly- controlled commodity. Whenthat is done, the business concerns are leftstranded in regard to that Particular com-modity, and consequently are placed ina, difficult position in regard to trading.Yet, in the instance which has beenbrought under my notice, this monopolymanufacturing company continues to sup-ply that commodity to a large retail dis-tributor which is doing the same thingwhich caused the monopoly manufacturerto cut off supplies to the first-mentionedretailer, The reason the second-meni-tioned retailer has not had his suppliescut off is because one of the directors ofthat concern is also a director of themonopoly manufacturing concern.

I would not expect that to mean any-thing to the Liberal Party members, be-cause they dare not speak a word or recorda vote against the big battalions in thebusiness world and the monopolies andcombines. But I would hope it wouldmean something to some members of theCountry Party. With this proposal toabolish the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act, the issue,beyond any shadow Of a doubt, is onebetween the interests of monopolies andcombines which would indulge in unfairtrading practices and the interests of otherconcerns and the general public againstwhom they would exercise and operatethese unfair trading practices.

3537

3538 ASSEMBLY.]

Therefore, any Government which sub-mits a Proposal of this kind should bethoroughly ashamed of itself, because theproposal In the Bill is clearly designed totake away from the smaller business con-cerns and the general public the protec-tion they have under the law against anyunfair trading practices. Obviously thesemonopolies have been on their best, ornear-best, behaviour, since the parent Acthas been in operation. Of course, in re-cent weeks the Minister for Labour ad-vertised Publicly through the newspaperthat he had put the Act aside. For thisreason these monopolies feel they canforget the legislation. They have receivedthe green light from the present Ministerfor Labour. What a shocking state ofaffairs that is! And what a shocking pro-posal we have been asked to support!I Wehave been asked to take from the smallerbusiness concerns and from the generalpublic, the protection which has beenavailable to them for the past few years.

Mr. Perkins: It has not done any goodall the time it has been on the statutebook.

[The Deputy, Chairman of Committees(Mr. Crominelin) took the Chair]

Mr. HAWKE: The Minister for Labour-"Barren" Perkins, as someone on thisside of the Chamber has nicknamed him-is making it necessary for me to make morespeeches in Committee than I had in-tended to make. I have in my possessiona copy of a report which was preparedduring the final days of the administrationof the Government which it was my privi-lege to lead. This report deals in somedetail-although not in complete detail-with some of the matters Investigated bythe commissioner, most of them beingtaken to a successful conclusion.

We have already had information aboutthe cement industry from the member forMt. Hawthorn, the then Minister for La-bour. I think it can be said that al-though the action taken by the commis-sioner against one of the cement com-panies did not succeed in the courts oflaw, the action taken and the continuedexistence of the law have had a very goodeffect from the discipline point of viewupon both the cement companies whichare now operating more or less in com-bination in connection with the sale anddistribution of this product.

Mr. Perkins: I think you are lettingYour imagination run away with you there,are you not?

Mr. HAWKE: No; I am most certainlynot. I am making what I regard as a verysober statement and one which is the op-posite of exaggeration.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Crom-melIm): Order! The honourable member'stime has expired.

Mr. EVANS: I oppose the clause Inorder to give the Leader of the Opposi-tion time to continue his line of thought.

Mr. HAWKE: I am very grateful tothe member for Kalgoorlie for his in-spired action. It amazes me that at thishour of the morning one can receive suchinspirations. We next come to the priceof super. I know the Minister for Labourwould not accept the views of the com-missioner In regard to this matter, but Iput into the witness box the GeneralPresident of the Warmers' Union.

Mr. Perkins: Were you not present whenthe member for Moore spoke?

Mr. HAWKE: Yes, I was.Mr. W. Hegney: He did not prove any-

thing.Mr. HAWKE: I take the view that the

General President of the Farmers' Unionwould be a person of reliability and wouldbe one who would not have any politicalaxe to grind. Ile would be concerned withpromoting the primary producers' interestsof Western Australia.

Then we have the fibrous plaster in-dustry. Reports were received by the com-missioner that a uniform policy inrestricting the sale of plasterboardproducts was considered sufficient towarrant investigation. Subsequently auniform sales policy of selling only on asupply and fixing basis, adopted for aPeriod, was also considered to be contraryto the public interest: and so on. Thismatter was subsequently placed before theCrown Law officers, and I would be in-terested to know from the Attorney-General what has been done by them inregard to the matter.

Mr. Perkins: Apparently you know, not-withstanding the secrecy clause in regardto those administering the Act.

Mr. HAWKE: Arriving at my own con-clusion, I would say that the Minister forLabour has taken steps to make sure thatno corrective or remedial action was takenin connection with the matter.

Mr. Perkins: That has been going on forthree years and it got nowhere; so I do notknow where You think we would get.

Mr. HAWKE: We did get somewhere.We reached the stage where these matterswere referred to the Crown Law authori-ties, and I am demanding to know fromthe Minister what has been done about itsince. one does not need to use one'sImagination to know what has happenedsince the present Minister for Labour cameinto office; it is only necessary to read thestatement which he gave to The West Auts-tralian on the 30th April this year, andwhich was Published on the following day.It reads-

Labour Minister Perkins said Yester-day that W. J. Robinson, director ofinvestigation under the Act, was nowcompleting some final office workbrought about by the operations of theAct.

3538

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.1 33

He was being helped by one of thethree other officers employed in thedepartment.

The Government had arranged withthe Public Service Commissioner forthe other two officers to be employedelsewhere in the service.

Mr. Robinson was also doing somework for the Government in connec-tion with hire-purchase.

W. J. Waliwork. the commissionerunder the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Act, was carrying onhis duties as a magistrate.

So, clearly, before the end of April thisyear the Minister had well and thoroughlyput the skids under the administration. Ihave no doubt he received some heartypats on the back from the President of theW.A. Trade Bureau, who happened alsoat the same time to be the President of theLiberal Party, for the statement. I haveno doubt one or two other similar types ofpersons in the community also gave him apat on the back and a ward of praise.However, his public announcement at thattime put a good deal of fear into theminds of the smaller distributors of gal-vanised iron, and a large number ofsimilar businessmen in Western Australia;and would have made a considerablenumber of primary producers wonder whythe Minister was lining up shoulder toshoulder with monopolists and those asso-ciated with combines, instead of lining upwith the general public and protectingtheir interest in this matter.

Another reason why one does not haveto draw upon one's imagination to knowwhat the minister for Labour would dowith papers which were awaiting CrownLaw consideration and recommendation,and later ministerial decision, is to befound in the letter which he sent on the7th May this year to the Bread manu-facturers Industrial Union of Employers.This is related to the proposal to repeal thepresent legislation, because the WheatProducts Prices Fixation Act was passedto prevent the exercise of unfair tradingpractices.

Mr. Perkins: It has no coninection withthis.

Mr. HAWKE: Of course it has!Mr. Perkins: It is separate altogether.Mr. HAWTKE: It is closely related and

deals with the same principle. I can quiteunderstand why the Minister does not wantthis letter read.

Mr. Perkins:- It is one I laid on theTable.

Mr. HAWKE- I am wondering why heis not jumping up on a point of order.The letter reads-

Further to our discussion in myoffice yesterday regarding the fixationof bread prices under the Wheat Pro-ducts Prices Fixation Act I will begrateful if you could set out for me the

method followed by the committeeappointed under the above Act indeterining the selling price of bread.

Here we have a Minister of the Crown,sworn to uphold the laws of the country,and to carry out his duty to protect thePublic interest, going to a vested interestfor information as to how a system set outin the Act in question was operated bya committee set up by the Government.

Mr. Perkins: I suppose you know thatthe committee gets its details from thebread manufacturers?

Mr. HAWKE: The Minister cannot slideout of it that way. I1 can understand howdesperately anxious he is to slip out ofthis one.

Mr. Perkins: Don't worry; I have allthe details of this.

Mr. HAWKE, This letter is not a re-quest for details, but for the methodfollowed by the committee appointed underthe Act by the Government. Why wouldthe Minister ask the vested interest con-cerned to advise him of the method? Whydid not the Minister request the chairmanof the committee who, by the way, is theAuditor-General, to advise him of themethod which the committee operated?

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cram-melin): Order! The honourable member'stime has expired.

Mr. GRAHAM: I rise to enable theLeader of the Opposition to continue hisremarks.

Mr. HAWKE; The clear-cut and obviousduty of any Minister of the Crown whoseeks Information about the methodfollowed by a Government committee inProtecting the public against the vestedinterests is to get the information fromthe committee itself.

Mr. Perkins: Would you be surprisedto learn that I was also In touch with thechairman of the committee?

Mr. HAWKE: I would not be surprisedat anything the Minister for Labour did,because he is so much In the bag of manu-facturers and combines that he wouldcome at anything. He Is falling overhimself to protect combines and mono-polies, and especially those who areanxious to indulge in unfair trading prac-tices, and he would kill any partly devel-oped proposal to take action against thosewhich had breached the law and hadindulged In unfair trading practices.

Mr. Perkins: I suppose you know thatone of the members of the ParliamentaryLabor Party came to me and asked me tomake provision for one of the bakers in acertain town to increase the price of bread.

Mr. HAWKE: I would have to know allthe circumstances of that particular in-stance to know what was right or wrongabout it.

3539

3540 [ASSEMBLY.]

Mr. Perkins: You want to find out thecircumstances of every case before youtalk about them. In any case, it hasnothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. HAWKE: It has everything to dowith the Minister's attitude towards theBill, because it clearly demonstrates thelengths to which he will go to promote thepower of combines and monopolies to en-able them to practice unfair tradingmethods, if they wish to do so. If the Actis repealed, there will be nothing on thestatute book to prevent combines andmonopolies from imposing their will onanybody. The rest of the Bill is so muchbird lime, put there to get the privateCountry Party members into the net tosupport the whole of the Bill, andespecially that part of it which providesfor the repeal of the Act to which I havealready referred. The other clauses arevalueless, and they would have no effectin taking the place of the Act which theBill proposes to repeal.

The rest of the Hill does not even givethe registrar the right to disallow a rulewhich can be regarded as unfair or inimi-cal to the public interest. The Bill mightas well be thrown down the drain. Infact, it reminds me of a letter which asomewhat cheeky curate in one of theEnglish counties sent to his bishop. Thiscurate had not long been ordained and hewrote a rather cheeky letter to the bishop.The bishop looked at the letter, turned thematter over in his mind for a day or two,and sat down and wrote the followingletter:-

My dear curate,Your letter of Monday last is at

present in front of me.Yours sincerely,

Bishop so-and-so.As far as I am concerned, this Bill is atpresent in front of me.

Mr. GRAHAM: I move-That progress be reported and leave

asked to sit again.Motion put and a division taken with the

following result:-Aye s-20.

Mr. Andrew Mr.Mr. Bickerton Mr.Mr. Brady Mr.Mr. Evans Mr.Mr. Pletcher Mr.Mr. Graham Mr.Mr. Hall Mr.Mr. Hawke Mr.Mr. Heal Mr.Mr. J. Hegney Mr.

Noes-22.Mr. Bovell Mr.Mr. Brand Mr.Mr. Burt Mr.Mr. Cornell Mr.Mr. Court Mr.Mr. Craig Mr.Mr. Grayden Mr.Mr. Guthrie Mr.Dr. Henai Mr.Mr. Hutchinson Mr.Mr. Lewis Mr.

W. HegneKellyLawrenceNortonRhatiganRowberrySewellTomsTonklinMay

Ayes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. Nulsen

Pairs.Noes.

Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir Ross MeLarty

Majority against-2.Motion thus negatived.Mr. GRAHAM: If we are expected to ag-

ree to repeal legislation that has been onthe statute book for a number of years. weare entitled to some reasons. Up to date wehave not had them. The Minister forLabour says the legislation has not beeneff ective, and we would not miss it if itdisappeared from the statute book alto-gether. The Minister for Industrial De-velopment, on the other hand, says theexisting legislation is a menace to thefuture well-being of Western Australia; itis so damaging in its ramifications that itmust be got rid of at the first opportunitywhich, incidentally, is more than passingstrange. The battleground for the recentgeneral election was, by and large, thatAct and events surrounding it.

Mr. Perkins: Is not that good reasonfor repealing it now seeing we said wewould?

Mr. GRAHAM: If it is all the terriblethings it is supposed to be, it Is strangethat it is not until the final week of thesession that we have a Bill brought downto repeal that Act.

Mr. Perkins: That makes it all the moreurgent.

Mr. GRAHAM: One would have thoughtthat Parliament would have been calledtogether earlier than usual to remove thismenace from the statute book.

Mr. May: We were called together early,but not* for that purpose.

Mr. GRAHAM: So I am entitled todoubt the sincerity of the Minister forindustrial Development. I am still wait-ing for the Minister for Industrial Develop-ment to stand up in his place with onearm raised and the other over his heart,if any, and reaffrm the convenient fabri-cation that some half-dozen firms refusedto set up business in Western Australiabecause of the present Act. I would askany member opposite to point to one singlesection of that Act that is offensive andlikely to deter any businessman.

Mr. Perkins: We told people we weregoing to repeal it. They endorsed ouraction and you have it now.

(Teller.) Mr. Hawke: What about the proposalswe put to the people when we were elected?

W. A. Ma~nningNalderO'ConnorOldfedO'NeilOwenPerkinsRobertsWattsWild1. W. Manning

(Teller.)

Mr. Perkins: They turned yours down.Mr. GRAHAM: The people elected the

Hawke Government in 1953. Mandatesdid not mean a thing to the present Liberaland Country Party members. The HawkeGovernment was re-elected with 29 to 19members, with two Independents; and thatstill did not mean a thing to the Liberal

3540

y

(Tuesday, 24 November, 1Q59.] 54

and Country Party. The word "Man-date" was not heard of.- Yet we are askedto agree to repeal certain legislation, andthe Government says it has a mandate.

[The Chairman of Committees (Mr.Roberts) resumed the ChairJ.

Mr. Perkins: We said we were going todo it.

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot_ see why weshould take that course. Surely the M~in-iater should justify the action of theGovernment!

Mr. Perkins: There Is nothing I desireto add to what I have already said.

Mr. Hawke: Read the leading articles InThe West Australian.

Mr. GRAHAM: The West Australiansaid, "When Labour Minister Perkins In-troduced the Bill he made no attempt tojustify It.",

Mr. Hawke: Very true.Mr. GRAHAM: Of course it is! What

is the reason for the Bill? The conclusionsI draw are that this is the pay-off by theCountry Party to the Liberals; lettingthem get away with murder in considera-tion for the one put over the U.berals bythe Country Party-and I refer to theelectoral districts legislation.

The CHAIRMAN: That has nothing todo with this Bill.

Mr. GRAHAM: it has everything to dowith it. Mr. Chairman, because it is thegenesis of the legislation.

Mr. Perkins: RatsMr. GRAHAM: It Is not a matter of

what is right or wrong but a matter ofbargaining. I am surprised at the CountryParty's part in it. I am prepared to saynot one further word if the Premier orminister can give reasons as to why thislegislation should be repealed.

Mr. Perkins: Why do you think wesigned the report of the Honorary RoyalCommission?

Mr. Heal: Who signed it?Mr. Perkins: Three members of the

present ministry.Mr. GRAHAM: I remember serving on

a Select Committee dealing with the Metro-politan Transport Trust. Was the Min-ister for Labour or those sitting with himon the front bench impressed by the find-ings of that committee?

Mr. Perkins: It has nothing to do withthis.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister thinksthat because a Select Committee arrivedat a certain decision that that is the lastwvord.

Mr. Perkins: It indicated our opinionclearly.

Mr. GRAHAM: The purpose of a SelectCommittee is to deliver a finding based onevidence.

Mr. Perkins: Our findings were basedon evidence.

Mr. GRAHAM: The committee to whichI referred based its findings on evidence.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourablemepmber's time has expired.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I notice that theMinister for Labour has been left to carrythe baby. Apart from a6 feeble contributionby the Minister for Industrial Development,no other Minister has attempted to justifythe provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Perkins: It is my portfolio and Iam dealing with it.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I did not say it wasnot the Minister's portfolio. The Ministeris acting on behalf of the Government,and other members of the Governmentare letting him carry the baby. The mem-ber for East Perth has asked for somejustification in regard to the repeal ofthe Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act; and the Leader ofthe Opposition referred to bread. TheMinister for Labour interjected and saidthat bread had nothing to do with theBill,

Mr. Perkins: It hasn't, either.Mr. W. HEGNEY: I propose to show

that it has. For some years the price ofbread was fixed by the Wheat ProductsPrices Fixation Act. Under that Act thereis a committee with the Auditor-Generalas chairman. That committee has oper-ated for a period of years and has fixedthe price of bread in various pants of theState.

Mr. Brand: What has that to do withclaus~e 3?

The CHAIRMAN: Order!I We are notdealing with the Wheat Products PricesFixation Act; we are dealing with the re-peal of the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I will connect thisup with the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act. For someyears the price of bread had been control-led, but the present Government discon-tinued that control. Could the Ministertell me this: What law will operate to fixthe price of bread if the Wheat ProductsPrices Fixation Act does not function?If the Monopolies and Restrictive TradePractices Control Act is repealed, con-sumers In Western Australia will have noprotection as far as prices are concerned,as there is power In that Act for the com-missioner, in certain cases, to fix prices. Ifthe Government discontinues the fixing ofthe price of bread in any Dart of the Stateunder the Act which has been invoked forsome years, the only alternative will be tofix the price, in certain eases, wnder theAct which is to be repealed. If that Actis repealed, the people in Western Austra-lia will have no protection and breadmanufacturers will be able to charge what-ever price they like.

3541

3542 [ASSEMBLY.)

Mr. Perkins: Do you think they arelikely to do that?

Mr. W. REGNEY: Why was the price ofbread fixed for some years? The Ministerfor Labour says that he was asked by amember of Parliament to allow the Priceof bread to be increased. I think a pro-clamation was issued during the tenn ofthe previous Government in regard to aNorth-West town because the baker's turn-over was so small it did not pay him tocarry on. That town was struck out fromthe provisions of the Act. Under the Mono-polies and Restrictive Trade PracticesControl Act there is machinery for thesetting up of an advisory committee; andthat committee has been functioning forquite a considerable time.

Mr. Perkins: It still is.Mr. W. HEONEY: I will deal with that

in a minute. The committee functionedwhen the director of investigation wasactively associated with the Act, but theMinister has sandbagged the Act. Al-though this committee is meeting, it is ofno consequence now, because the Ministerwould not put any of its findings intooperation.

Mr. Perkins: I do not have to; the com-mittee does that.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I think that in cer-tain circumstances it would be competentfor the commissioner to determine theprice of bread. In Queensland, there is anAct to make better provision for the regu-lation of prices and rates of certain goodsand services by consolidating and amend-ing the law relating to the prevention ofprofiteering; to regulate sales of certainlands; and for purposes connected there-with. Part IV of the Queensland Act dealswith combines and monopolies. That, Actprohibits a person, either as a principal oragent from refusing to sell or supply goods,either absolutely or except under disad-vantageous conditions.

In this Bill provision is made for certainagreements to be registered; but under thepresent Act, the Director of Investigationwould have power to call for books, cer-tain documents, books of account, andstatements. He has the power to requestcopies of trade agreements from anytrader.

The CHAIRMAN: The honour ablemember's time has expired.

Mr. EVANS: I would like to hear thebonourable member continue. I opposethe clause.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: When one comparesthe Acts of Queensland, New Zealand, theUnited States, Canada, and Great Britain,it will be seen that the effective portionsof the Acts of those countries have beenlargely incorporated in the Monopoliesand Restrictive Trade Practices ControlAct.

As has been said, this clause is the mostimportant one in the Bill. There areothers which provide for the registrationof trade associations. I am not referringat this stage to collusive tendering, be-cause Collusive tendering is provided for inthe present Act. Apart from that, themain Provisions of the Bill, to my way ofthinking, refer to trade agreements. Thereis a great amount of protection providedto deal with agreements when it is provedthey will be detrimental to the interestsof the public. If clause 3 is agreed to.what part of this Bill will be effectivein protecting the public in regard to un-fair trading agreements? I have atvarious times tried to outline the main pro-visions of the present Act, and to illustratethat where there are reasonable groundsfor suspecting that unfair trading prac-tices are being indulged in, action canbe taken.

Mr. Perkins: I do not assume that everybusinessman is a rogue and is going toexploit the public, the same as you think.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: In reply to thatinterjection, and on behalf of those onthis side of the House, I say that the lastthing it is wished to imply is that all thetraders of this State are rogues andthieves. As the Leader of the Oppositionhas said, the Act is provided to Preventthe dishonest trader from putting it overthe Public; and, as the member for EastPerth said, instead of having a continua-tion of Price control, which would applygenerally, there is now provision in thestatute to ensure that there will be acertain amount of protection for the pub-lic against the trader who would engagein unfair methods of trading competition.

Mr. Perkins. We think there are plentyof honest traders to give the public a fairdeal.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: The Opposition con-siders that there are Plenty of fair traders,and the last thing which the Oppositiondesires to do is to hamper, harm, orobstruct, in any way, the activities of thehonest traders. They are certainly in themajority; but where it has been shownthat certain undesirable Practices are be-ing carried on, it is desired that legislationbe continued to deal with such cases; andwe want to know what Protection is beinggiven.

Mr. EVANS: When we look at this Hill,we realise that this clause is the most im-portant one in it, and that is why themembers of the Opposition are lightingagainst it. It is a grand piece of subter-fuge on the part of the Government.Without this clause, the Bill is ii lot ofmeaningless jargon. We know the tenacitywith which the Government has foughtfor the retention of this clause and howit wants to repeal the present Act irrespec-tive of whether innocent People are to bebled in the Process or as a result. The

3542

[Tuesday, 24 November, 1959.] 54

Government has fought with a tenacitythat even Kevin Sinunonds would be proudto acclaim.

I understand the Minister for Railwayssaid last Friday that at least six firmswhich bad shown interest In this Statehad been frightened away by the A ct;but unless the names of the firms arefurnished, one is entitled to doubt thatstatement. The Minister for Transportsaid the Act has achieved no good, andapparently it has caused no great harmeither; so the firms mentioned must havebeen victims of political poisoning pen-ned by members of the Liberal sectionof the Government since the Act cameinto operation.

Several references have been made tothe type of work undertaken by theDirector of investigation, and mention hasbeen made of cases where action was war-ranted or pending; but I do not thinkanyone has referred to the small shopswhich purchase tobacco and cigarettesmainily from W. D. & H. 0. Wills, forcash, but are forced to sell at a cer-tain price if they do not want their sup-plies to be jeopardised.

Why do not W. D. & H. 0. Wills takethe same action against our Joint HouseCommittee, in view of the fact that cigar-ettes are sold on these premises at a re-duced price? In spite of the majority re-port of the Royal Commission, certainmembers of another place saw fit to votefor the Bill which became the presentAct; but in view of what has taken placerecently in another place. I do not likethe chances of this measure, and I appealto the Government to drop it.

Mr. HAWKE: If the Minister for In-dustrial Development would guaranteethat the Bill will be rejected in anotherplace, I would have nothing further tosay.

Mr. Perkins: We do not know whatanother Place might do.

Mr. HAWKE: The Minister for Labourreferred to certain recommendations madeby a majority of members of the RoyalCommission. The two Parties which formthe present Government told the electorslast March that, if returned as a Gov-ernment. they would repeal the Act andsubstitute other legislation, but I do notthink the electors realised what sort of ameasure would be put forward in lieu ofthe Act.

Mr. Perkins: This measure Is based onthe majority report of the Honorary RoyalCommission.

Mr. HAWE: Does either the Ministerfor Labour or the Minister for IndustrialDevelopment think that the people of theState would have voted for the repeal ofthe Act had they known how useless theproposed substitute legislation would be?

Mr. Perkins: We made our intentionsclear.

Mr. Court. The people can read. Therewas a printed report.

Mr. HAWKE: The people would expectthe substitute legislation to be capable ofbeing administered, and of a kind thatwould prntect the small businessman andthe public generally. The minister forLabour said the Government does not be-lieve every businessman In the State tobe a rogue. No one thinks that. Thenhe said he thought there were enoughhonest businessmen in Western Austra-lia to look after the public interest, andthat is where he falls into the pit.That is exactly where he betrays the in-terests, the welfare, and the very existenceof the fair traders, and the general public.

Mr. Perkins: It is where you and I partcompany.

Mr. RAWE: By clause 3 the Ministerwill take away from all the fair traders--and they are in the great majority-thelegal protection which the present legis-lation gives them. They will be exposedto unfair trading practices which anymonopoly or combine in the future maydecide to impose upon them, After put-ting all the fair traders in Western Aus-tralia into that vulnerable and treacherousposition, the only thing he is asking Par-liament to support by way of substitutelegislation is this useless, valueless, andineffective proposal to provide for theregistration of trade associations and theirrules. These trade associations will beable to put forward any rules. They couldbe harsh and unconscionable; but the asso-ciation would have to be registered, andnobody could do anything about It. If anunfair trading practice is authorised bythe rules there is no remedy. The fairtraders and the general public, if this Billis passed in Its present form, will be atthe mercy of the combines and monopolies.

The CHAIRMAN: At this stage, as it isnow 11 minutes to 4 on the 25th Novemn-ber, 1959, I1 would draw members' atten-tion to Standing order No. 144. There hasbeen a lot of tedious repetition tonight,and I draw members' attention to thatStanding Order.

Mr. HALL: The repeal of the presentlegislation will have a drastic effect uponthe general public. The present legisla-tion was designed to prevent unfair pro-fit-taking, unfair methods of trading andunfair methods of trade competition. Thedefinition of "unfair trading" includes thetaking of any unfair profit, using any un-fair trading method, using any unfairmethod of trade competition, and acting incombination with any other person, or asa member of a combine to do any of thethree things I have mentioned. I saidpreviously that the Bill had no teeth. Ireally think it is a busybody Bill, becauseIt Is like somebody running round andtalking a lot but doing nothing.

3543

3544 ASSEMBLY. I

The sales of cement are dawn in thisState, and probably the excessive pricescharged for it have had that effect. Ifthe present legislation is repealed the posi-tion will probably be worsened. We alsosaw recently the action taken by RETRAon certain of its members. The ministerfor Industrial Development said that hadthe present legislation not been in exist-ence, six or seven firns 'would have estab-lished themselves in this State. I do notknow where he would pick them up. becauseI cannot imagine any firm being worriedabout a piece of paper. The Minister hascertainly not had sufficient time to seekthem out. I cannot believe that any firmwould worry about the restrictive tradelegislation which is now in existence. Noindustry will comne to this State unlesswe give it an incentive, and the populationhas a big effect upon that.

Legislation is in existence in other coun-tries in which many of these firms areestablished. It does not worry them inthose countries and it would not worrythem here. I cannot support the clause.

Mr. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, the timeis now 3.55 a.m. and I am getting tired ofthis tedious opposition on the part of theMinister.

Mr. Brand: So am L.Mr. GRAHAM: I am glad that I have

a convert in the Premier.Mr. Brand: I am getting tired of your

tedious repetition.Mr. GRAHAM: The Premier talked

about having a mandate.Mr. Brand: You talked about a mandate.Mr. GRAHAM: What is the Govern-

ment's reason for wanting to repeal thisAct?

Mr. Brand: The reasons have been givenad injlnitum.

Mr. GRAHAM: They have not.Mr. Ross Hutchinson: Of course they

have.Mr. GRAHAM: What is the reason?

Why should we agree to the propositionunless there are satisfactory reasons?

Mr. Perkins: The reason is that the peo-Ple supported it. They kicked six Labormen out. Those are good reasons.

'I*. Hawke: Some of the interjectionsare tedious repetition.

Mr. GRAHAM: The Minister said thatthere were sufficient concerns to ensurethat the people would get a fair crack ofthe whip. I am not seeking orders, butwhat about the business people gettinga fair crack of the whip? If challenged,I could get approximately 50 per cent.discount on the price of any television setthe Minister cares to nominate. Thereare firms prepared to do that; but whenthe master bosses get to hear of it, they

are prevented from doing that. Does theGovernment believe in free enterprise ornot?

Mr. Hawke,. It does not.Mr. Brand: Is believes in free enterprise

and it wants to get rid of the present Act.Mr. GRAHAM: Virtually, then, the Gov-

ernment seeks to legalise and reinforcethe position of those firma that want tocompel the various retailers to add their25 per cent. or 271 per cent, margin, not-withstanding that the firm might be quitesatisfied with a 5 per cent. or 10 per cent.margin. Is that free enterprise: or is theproposal to bow out completely to thelarger interests that want to dominate thelittle trader? That is what the repeal ofthis Act will mean.

Mr. Hawke: The Government is throw-ing the smaller businessmen to the wolves.

Mr. GRAHAM: There is no questionabout that. I feel the existing legislationis not as effective as it should be. Itshould be given more teeth. Let us con-sider the case of a chap named Perkinswho has a newsagency. He approachessomebody or somebody approaches him,the second person desiring to acquire thatbusiness, and being prepared to pay a cer-tain sumn to the owner, Perkins. What is theposition? It is necessary to go to a com-mittee nominated by West AustralianNewspapers Ltd., which tells Perkins towhom he can sell and at what price. Thatpresumably is free enterprise.

Mr. Perkins: The present legislation hasdone nothing about that.

Mr. GRAHAM: Exactly. I suggestedthere was nothing wrong with the presentlegislation, except that it does not go farenough.

Mr-. Court: Do you seriously say youwould like to stiffen up the present Act?

Mr. GRAHAM: Definitely.Mr. Court: Make that your policy on the

hustings.Mr. GRAHAM: I have said it everywhere

I have spoken, and half a dozen timestonight. I have also asked the Govern-ment half a dozen times to point to onesection of the existing Act that is offensive.

Mr. Court: The whole Act is a pistol atthe head of industry.

Mr. GRAHAM:, That is just so manywords. I want the Minister to read out asection of the Act to which objection canbe taken by any business concern inWestern Australia.

Mr. Court: We went through the Billclause by clause.

Mr. GRA4HAM: I am aware that most ofthe worth-while provisions were removed.At present it is largely a matter of thecommissioner exercising a measure of bluff,or endeavouring to persuade certain firmsto do certain things. Surely it was ob-vious in the case that went to the court.

3544

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.1 34

There was the glorious finding that therewas no monopoly in cement because therewere alternative building materials. Some-body could corner fountain pens and saythere is an alternative in pencils. Some-body could corner electric lights and elec-tric -upplics anday there was an alterna-tive in matches and hurricane lights andso on. When one case cannot be sheetedhome, surely it means the Act is notstrong enough; rather than that it wouldfrighten businessmen away from the State.The Minister tells us that the Bill isdrafted on the recommendations of anHonorary Royal Commission. I would askhim to look at the penalty of £100 pro-vided in the Bill. The Royal Commissionrecommended £250 for a first offence and£500 for a subsequent offence.

r. Perkins: Crown Law has a certainscale of penalties.

Mr. GRAHAM: We have £200 for sell-ing filled milk; and £100 for taking thepublic for a ride; £500 to an industrialunion which has an argument with itsemployer and which walks out; but £100for these large business concerns.

Mr. Court: Frive hundred pounds forcollusive tendering.

Mr. GRAHAM: Even though I am anamateur, I could Indicate how we coulddrive a coach and pair through this pro-vision. I spoke with certain businessmenlast night and they indicated half a dozendifferent ways to get around collusive ten-dering. It means nothing. Incidentally,one of these firms was associated withcollusive tendering. So do not let theMinister for Industrial Development try toget away with that.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourable mem-ber's time has expired.

Mr. ROWBERRY: It is an mlusionheld by some members that there isan inherent right for one section ofthe community to hold the other sectionsto ransom. I cannot find any support forthat contention. Civilised communitieshave always made laws to protect the weakagainst the strong, because the strong didnot show themselves capable of using theirstrength wisely. Even the Ten Command-ments were made after some of the actionsreferred to in them had been indulged in.

The CHAIRMAN: I suggest the honour-able member keep closer to clause 3.

Mr. ROWBERRY: What I am saying maynot be connected to the Bill, but it maybe distantly related. Clause 3 refers to therepeal of the Monopolies and RestrictiveTrade Practices Control Act. This Act isthe outcome of the desire of the com-mounity to protect itself against brigandage.Any person who does not indulge in unfairtrading has nothing to fear from thelegislation.

I cannot understand the repeated asser-tion of the Minister for Labour that mem-bers of the Government told the electorsbefore the last election what they woulddo if returned as a Government. In Feb-ruary, 1959, Mr. Watts said at Mt. Barker-he was the Chairman of the HonoraryRoyal Commission-that he would seek toimplement a rider which he added to thereport calling for Supreme Court judgesto be empowered to inquire into allegedmonopolies. He said, "We stand for thedevelopment of private enterprise, but de-sire to ensure that it Is competitive enter-prise, which Is essential to the public in-terest." Now he lends his support to theBill which seeks to deprive the public ofa means of protection. That was the priceto be paid to the people who contributedto the fund of the Government Party.

In my opinion the Monopolies and Re-strictive Trade Practices Control Act andallied Acts are the greatest stabilisers inour economy. It was stated that the repealof the legislation would cause inflation andwould bring about an increase in prices,which in turn would lead to an Increasein the basic wage. I cannot understandthe Premier and members of the Govern-ment supporting the clause under con-sideration, unless they are acting underthe compulsion of their masters.

I once heard the term "inflation" beingreferred to as a state when there is toomuch money chasing too few goods andservices. We find that an increase in thebasic wage cannot cause inflation, becauseon the authority of Sir Douglas Coplandthe basic wage cannot be the cause. Wenotice that wages and salaries are onlyincreased after the cost of goods and ser-vices have risen.

The CHAIRMAN: I must insist that thehonourable member keep to the provisionrelating to the repeal of the Act.

Mr. ROWBERRY: My remarks are re-lated to the repeal of the Act, althoughthey mayv be distantly related. In the pro-vision of goods and services--

The CHAIRMAN: My decision Is thatthe honourable member's remarks are notrelated to the clause.

Mr. ROWBERRY: I invoke StandingOrder 144 and appeal to the House for adecision.

The CHAIRMAN: The honourablemember's time has expired.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I move-That progres he reported and leave

asked to sit again.Motion put and a division taken with

the following result:-Ayes-IS9.

Mr. Andrew Mr. W. flregneyMr. Bickerton Mr. KellyMr. Brady Mr. LawrenceMr. Evans Mr. NortonMr. Fletcher Mr. RhatiganMr. Graham Mr. RowberryMr. Hall Mr. TomeMr. Hawke Mr. TonkinMr. Hea Mr. MayMr. J1. Hegney (Teller.)

3545

3546 [ASSEMBLY)

Noes-ni.Pairs.Mr . nll Mr. Lewis Ayes. Noes.Mr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthieDr. HennMr. Hutchinscon

Ayes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

PAr. W. A. ManningMr. HaiderMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfedMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. 1. W. Manning

Pairs.NowS.

Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir Ross MeLaMr. Watts

Mr. Mann,Mr. NimoaSir Ross MciartyMr. Watts

iMajority for-2.

Clause thus passed.

Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NUlsenMr. Sewell

(Teler.) Clause 4 put and a division taken with(eer)the following result:-

rty

Majority against-2.

Motion thus negatived.

Mr. OLDF'ELD: I move-That the question be now put.

Motion put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Mr. flovelMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommelinMr. GraydonMr. GuthrieDr. HenMr. Hutchinson

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir Ross MoLartyMr. Watts

Ayes-21.Mr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NaiderMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfedMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. 1. W. Manning

(Teller.)Noes- 19.

Mr. W. HegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RowberryMr. TomsMr. TonkinMr. May

Noes.MoirJamliesonNulsenSewell

majority for-I.

Motion thus passed.

Clause put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Ayea-21.Mr. BoveliMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. HenaMr. Hutchinson

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. PletcherMr. GrahamMr. HallMr. flawkeMr. HealMr. 3. Hegney

Mr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfieldMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. 1. W. Manning

(Teller.)

(ellher.)

Noes-iS.Mr. W. flegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RoWberryMr. TomsMr. TonkinMr. May

Mr. BovellMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr: CraigMr. CrommellaMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. HenaMr. Hutchinson

Mr. AndrewMr. BlickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. PletcherMr. GrahamMr. flallMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir Ross MeLartyMr. Watts

Ayes-2i.Mr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfieidMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. I. W. Manning

(Teller.)Noes-b9.

Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

Pairs.

Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

W. flegneyKellyLawrenceNortonRhatiganRowberryTomsTonkinmay

(Teller.)

Noes.MoirJamfiesonNuIsenSewell

majority for-2.

Clause thus passed.

Clauses 5 to 9 put and passed.

Clause 10-Cost of administration:

Mr. HAWKE: As the Act to be admin-istered, should this Bill become law, willconsist only of the registration of tradeassociations, and as the provisions in theBill in respect of the registration of theassociations are worthless, I desire toindicate my intention to oppose this clauseand, if necessary, to divide the Committeeon it. I am opposed to wasting the public'smoney.

Clause put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Mr. BovellMr. BrandMr. ButMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommellnMr. GraydenMr. GuthieDr. HennMr. Hutchinson

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. PletcherMr. GrahalmMr. HallMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes-21.Mr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. Na~derMr. O'ConnorMr. OldfieldMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. I. W. Manning

(Teller.)Noes-iS.

Mr. W. RegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. flowberryMr. TomnsMr. Tonkin

Mr. May (Teller.)

Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

AndrewBickertonBradyEvansPletcherGraham,HallHawkeHealJ. Hegney

Pairs.

Mr.Mr.Mr.Mr.

[Tuesday, 24 November. 1959.1 3547

Paim.Noes.

Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Majiority f or-2.Clause thus passed.Clause 11-Office of registrar:Mr. HAWKE: This clause is the key

clause to most of clauses 11 to 16 inclusive.Should the Committee not agree to estab-lish an office by the name of Registrar ofTrade Associations, then the other clausesto which I have referred-indeed all therest of the clauses in the Bill, I think-will be of no effect and the Governmentwill have to abandon every part of theBill except clause 3.

As has been said the proposed registra-tion of trade associations and all the restof the rigmarole is quite useless, hopeless,ineffective, and would be a waste of effort.public money, and officers' time. To estab-lish the Procedure set out would confer nogood whatever upon the Public and noProtection on smaller traders in relationto unfair trading practices which could beengaged in by some monopolies and com-bines. Therefore, as Parliament would bewasting its time and the taxpayers' moneyto go on with the proposals as set out inclause 11, I am very strongly opposed to itand hope it will be defeated.

Clause put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Ayes--20.Mr. BovellMr. BrandMr. HurtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. crominelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. Henn

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr. HallMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir floss MeLartyMr. Watts

Mr. HutchinsonMr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. I, W. Manning

(TellNoesS-19.

Mr. W. HegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. flowberryMr. TOMBMr. TonkinMr. May

(TellPairs.

Noes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Majority for-I.Clause thus passed.Clauses 12 to 15 put and passed.Clause 16-General Powers of Registrar:Mr. W. HEGNEY: As regards paragraph

(b), has the registrar power only to prose-cute for offences such as failure to regis-ter?

Mr. Perkins: Yes.

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NinmoSir Ross MeLartyMr. Watts

Mr. W. HEGNEY: With regard to para-graph (c), has the Attorney-General Powerto order a refusal to register an agree-ment or the cancellation of an agreementif it is shown to be contrary to the publicinterest?

Mr. Perkins: No.Mr. W. HEGNEY: With regard to para-

graph (d), I suppose that the exerciseof such other powers would not includepower to vary any agreement or alter anyof the rules of a trade association?

Mr. Perkins: We do not contemplateexercising discretion regarding the rules.but they have to register.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: The association andthe trade agreement would be registered.The registrar would automatically registerthe association and the agreement, andneither the registrar, the Minister, nor theAttorney-General could take any actionat all.

Mr. Perkins: That is so.Clause Put and passed.Clauses 17 to 23 Put and passed.Clause 24-Agreements which require to

be registered:Mr. W. HEGNEY: Certain types of agree-

ments are enumerated in the British T'radePractices Act; and if members read sec-tion 20 of that Act, they will see how in-effective this legislation will be as com-pared with the British measure. I wouldalso draw members' attention to the NewZealand Act which sets out the categoriesor types of agreements to be registered;and the list is a much more comprehensiveone than the list In this one. A limitednumber seem to have been lifted from theAct and placed in this legislation.

Mr. Perkins: We did not lift them fromthat Act.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: I have checked theBill with the New Zealand Act, and onlya few of the types of agreements are setout in this legislation as compared withthe New Zealand Act. It shows what ahollow measure this is. The classes ofagreements set out in the Bill are theonly ones which will require to be regis-tered. In the New Zealand Act the agree-ments which are required to be registeredare set out; and, in addition, applicationcan be made to the registrar to haveobjectionable features of an agreementwithdrawn or cancelled. In that way theinterests of the public and traders areconserved.

Now that the clause dealing with therepeal of the existing legislation has beenagreed to, the rest of this legislation isuseless. This is an attempt to deceive thepublic, and there is no effective machineryfor removing something of an unlawfulnature which may appear in a tradeagreement. Surely the Government is notgoing to see such legislation placed on

3548 (ASSEMBLY.]

the statute book; and no matter what which inquired into this matter is at pagetype of agreement it is, it must be regis-tered, and no matter how contrary to thepublic interest the agreement may be,neither the registrar nor the Attorney-General has any redress.

Mr. Perkins: We only aim to bring itinto the light of day.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: What then?Mr. Perkins: It may need further legis-

lation.Mr. W. HEGNEY: If the Government

was sincere in trying to protect the in-terests of the public; and if the Ministerbad sufficient interest in the compilationof the Bill, surely they would have seenthat a safeguarding clause from the NewZealand and British Acts was included?

Mr. Perkins: There are considerable dif-ficulties in grafting it on.

Mr. W. HEGNEY: Any member in thisChamber, including the member forSubiaco, would be able to draft a Bill intwo minutes by merely lifting the provi-sion from the New Zealand or BritishActs. This Bill does not deceive me, and Ido not think it will deceive the public.The Minister has admitted it will requirefurther legislation, and that indicates asop to please the Country Party.

Clause put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Aye s-2O.Mr. Bovel Mr. HutchinsonMr. Bryand Mr. LewisMr. Burt Mr. W. A. ManningMr. Cornell Mr. NalderMr. Court Mr. O'ConnorMr. Craig Mr. O'NeilMr. Croneflin Mr. OwenMr. Grayden Mr. PerkinsMr. Guthie Mr. WildDr. Henn Mr. . W. Manning

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. PletcherMr. GrahamMr. HallMr. HawiceMr. HealMr. J1. flegney

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NimmoSir Ross MeLartyMr. WattsMajority for-I

(Teller.)Noes-19.

Mr. W. flegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RowberryMr. TomsMr. TonkinMr. MayPairs.(Teller.)

Noes.Mr. MoirMr. JamclesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Clause thus passed.Clauses 25 to 27 Put and passed.Clause 28-Trade associations required

to be registered notwithstanding incor-poration under other Act:

Mr. GRAHAM: The Government's justi-fication for all the clauses after clause 3is that it serves some useful purpose forthe rules of the trade associations to beknown. That being so. surely it is de-sirable that the trade associations be com-pelled to register. One of the recom-mendations of the Royal Commission

16 of its report. In the last paragraphwe find the following:-

(11) that when the Registrarmakes any report to the Minister asProvided in recommendation (10), theMinister may direct the Registrar totake proceedings in respect of thecomplaint which may be heard be-fore a stipendiary magistrate.

Penalty: Not exceeding £250 for afirst offence, and £500 for a secondand subsequent offefide.

Mr. Perkins: I can explain that.

Mr. GRAHAM: Unless I am given suf -ficient reasons I will move to delete "Onehundred pounds" appearing in line 31 forthe purpose of bringing the amendmentto conform with the Honorary RoyalCommission's report.

Mr. PERKINS: I understand this is acontinuing penalty. If a trade assoccia-tion had not registered it would commitan off ence and be liable to a maximumpenalty of £100, which would indicate thatit should register. If it did not registerimmediately, it could be Prosecuted again;and there would be no future for such as-sociation unless it complied with the lawand registered, because it would be com-mitting a series of offences by continu-ous failure to register. The penalty issufficient to enforce compliance with thelaw. We did have it that an associationcould be registered under this Act, butthe advice of the Crown Law Departmentwas that it was desirable to retain regis-tration under the incorporation Act.

Mr. Graham: Would trade associationshave to register under the incorporationAct?

Mr. PERKINS: I think so; but thoseliable to be registered under that Actwould have to be registered under thisAct as well.

Mr. GRAHAM: I am sorry the Attorney-General is not here to confirm the Min-ister's belief. As I read it, it is not a re-curring penalty.

Mr. Perkins: I am certain of that.Mr. GRAHAM: As a rule, in local gov-

ernment statutes there is provision for apenalty, and then a daily Penalty there-after. Can the member for Subiaco in-dicate whether the words "Penalty: Onehundred pounds" imply that this penaltycan be Imposed every day during whichthe offence is continued? The unanimousrecommendation of the Honorary RoyalCommission was that the penalty should bevery severe.

Mr. GUTHRIE: Clause 28 (2) appliesnot only to a trade association but toevery member of the association. If thereare 25 members, each is liable to thePenalty Prescribed. In my view, if there

[Tuesday. 24 November, 1959.) 54

is a continuing offence it becomes a newoffence each day during which the associa-tion fails to register. Under the incometax law, if a person fails to file a returna penalty is inflicted, and another penaltycan also be inflicted if he fails to file onethe following week or the following month.The reason for having a daily penaltyunder the Health Act or the Public WorksAct is that a building may be in adangerous condition and has to be de-molished. If there is danger to the publicthere is a need for a daily penalty. Whenthe legislators provided for a daily penaltythey visualised that the failure to COMPLYwith the law could be dangerous to thePublic. The fact that the law does not referto a daily penalty does not mean that theoffence cannot be regarded as a newoffence each day.

Clause put and passed.

Clause 29-Application for registrationby trade association:

Mr, HAWKE: This clause proposes toset up a form of bureaucracy. No ad-vantage will accrue to anyone under it,and no protection is to be given to thepublic or to traders. It lays down that atrade association must make applicationfor registration and that the applicationshall set out certain details.

Bureaucracy can be justified in somecircumstances. It was a term which somemembers of the present Government usedfrequently when they were in Opposition.Where bureaucracy is set up to the ad-vantage of the community or to protectthe weak against the strong, then thereis some justification to set up aL systemunder which people can be compelled bylaw to do certain things.

The Bill proposes to set up a bureaucracywhich will compel organisations to takecertain steps. After all the expenditurehas been incurred and the effort shoulderedby those concerned, there would be nobenefit accruing to anyone, and no pro-tection available to those who need pro-tection. So this clause proposes to set upa useless and expensive bureaucracy whichwill be nothing but a nuisance to thosecompelled to do the things under the law.The proposition covered by clauses 4 to41 inclusive is an insult to Parliament.Parliament should not waste time in con-sidering it. For that reason I oppose theclause.

Clause put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Ayes--20.

Mr. Bovell,Mr. BrandMr. BnrtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CragMr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. Hennh

Mr. 'HutchinsonMr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. L. W. Manning

(Teller.)

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr. MalMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes.

Mr. MannMr. NlmmoSir Ross MctartyMr. Watts

Noes-S.

Mr. W. HegneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. EawbarryMr. TomesMr. TonkinMr. May

(Teller.)

Pairs.Noes.

Mr. MoirMr. JamlesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewall

Majority for-i.

Clause thus passed.

Clauses 30 to 41 put and passed.

New Clause 42:

Mr. GRAHAM: I move-Page 20-Add the following to stand

as clause 42:-This Act shall continue in opera-

tion until the thirty-first day ofDecember, one thousand nine hundredand sixty-two and no longer.

I will read from page 17 of the report ofthe Honorary Royal Commission-

The opinion of the majority of yourCommissioners is that the incidenceof the restrictive practices to which wehave referred, at present is compara-tively limited in this State and in thesecircumstances it is to be expected thatlegislation such as is proposed will besufficient-

0) to bring such practices underpublic notice:

(ii) to restrain their extension;and

(III) to enable Parliament say inthe next three years to ascer-tamn if these opinions provecorrect and if not, to consideramendments to the legislationcalculated to produce thedesired results.

If this new clause is accepted it willensure that the legislation will come backto Parliament for review; and if Parlia-ment does not feel disposed to re-enactthis rather innocuous series of clausesfrom 4 to 41 we will revert to the originalstatute which, of course, could be amended.

Mr. PERKINS: I cannot accept this newclause. I agree that this is experimentallegislation and we will probably have tohave another look at it, Particularly if itis as useless as some members of the Oppo-sition fear. Later on, amendments may bedesirable, and It will be necessary for Par-liament to take further action. I opposethe new clause.

3540

3550 [ASSEMBLY.]

New clause put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Ayes-iS.Mr. AndrewMr. BldkertonMr. Brady'Mr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr. RanlMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Mr. BovellMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. courtMr. CraigMr. CrommellaMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. Henn

Ayes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Mr. W. HegnelMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RowberryMr. TowsMr. TonkinMr. May

(Teller.)Noeas-20.

Mr. HutchlnoMr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. 1. W. Manning

(Teller.)pairs.

Noes.Mr. MannMr. nimaoSir Ross MeLartyMr. Watts

Majority against-i.New clause thus negatived.Schedule put and passed.Title put and passed.

ReportMr. PERKINS: I move-

That the Chairman do now reportthe Bill to the House.

Question put and a, division taken with thefollowing result:-

Ayes-20.Mr. flovellMr. BrandMr: BrtMr. CornellMr. CourtMr. CraigMr. CrommellnMr. GraydenMr. uthrieDr. Henn

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr. HallMr. HawkeMr. HealMr. J. Hegney

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NhrnmoSir Ross MeLartyMr. Watts

Mr. HutchinsonMr. LewisMr. W. A. ManningMr. RaiderMr. O'ConnorMr. O'NelMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. WildMr. I. W. Manning

(Teller.)Noes-is.

Mr. W. Hegne3Mr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RowberryMr. TomnsMr. TonkinMr. May

PairsNoes.

Mr. MoirMr. JamisonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Majority for-i.Question thus Passed.Bill reported without amendne

the report adopted.

Third Reading

MR. ]PERKINS (Roe-Minister for Lab-our): I move-

That the Bill be now read a thirdtime.

Question Put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Mr. BovellMr. BrandMr. BurtMr. CornellMr. courtMr. CraigMr. CrommelinMr. GraydenMr. GuthrieDr. HennMr. Hutchinson

Mr. AndrewMr. BickertonMr. BradyMr. EvansMr. FletcherMr. GrahamMr. HallMr, HawksMr. HealMr. J. Regney

Ayes.Mr. MannMr. NimmaSir Ros MctastyMr. Watts

Ayes-fl.Mr. LevisMr. W. A. ManningMr. NalderMr. O'ConnorMr. O'NeilMr. OwenMr. PerkinsMr. RobertsMr. WildMr. I. W. Manning

(Teller.)Noes-b1.

Mr. W. lI-egneyMr. KellyMr. LawrenceMr. NortonMr. RhatiganMr. RowberryMr. TowsMr. TonkinMr. May

(Teller.)Pains.

Noes.Mr. MoirMr. JamiesonMr. NulsenMr. Sewell

Majority for-2.Question thus passed.BiW read a third time and transmnitted

to the Council.

BILLS (3)-RETURNED

1. Metropolitan Region ImprovementTax Bill.

With requested amendments.2. Traffic Act Amendment Bill (No. 4).

With amendments.3. Builders' Registration Act Amendment

Bill.Without amendment.

ART GALLERY BILL

Council's Further MessageMessage from the Council received and

read notifying that it had agreed to the(Teller.) report of the conference managers.

ADJOURNMENT-SPECIALMr. BRAND (Greenough-Premier): I

move-That the House at its rising adjourn

till 3 pm. today.Question put and passed.

:nt andHouse adjourned at 5.38 am. (Wednesday)

3550

r