2952 [ASSEMBLY]

IiirnaatntAorth1Thursday, 24 October 1985

TH4E SPEAKER (Mr Harman) took theChair at W0.4 a.m., and read prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAYPostponement

MR TONKIN (Morley-Swan-Leader of theHouse) (10.47 a.m.1: Mr Speaker, in movingthe postponement of certain Orders of the DayI make the point that it is really great to see somany people in the Public Gallery, showingthat Parliament Week is proving so popular.

I move-That Orders of the Day Nos. I to 6 in-

clusive be postponed to a later stage of thisday's sitting.

Question put and passed.

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATEDREVENUE FUND) BILL

Second Reading; Budget DebateDebate resumed from 23 October.MR COURT (Nedlands) [10.48 a.m.]: In

continuing my remarks in this Budget debate Inote the concerns we have as a result of theeffects of the tax package on small business inparticular, and I refer especially to the fringebenefits tax, the capital gains tax and the enter-tainment tax.

I will now briefly run through some of theinitiatives that a Liberal Government wouldintroduce in the technology field. I said at thebeginning of my speech that I wanted to givethe House some of the alternatives we are pro-moting and which we will introduce when wereturn to Government. Our technology policyis designed to complement our small businesspolicy. We take a practical approach to tech-nology and its application in industry. Thecommunity is sick of a lot of the hypeassociated with the technology field, and ouraim is to make sure that our technology indus-tries have a strong technological capability andthat our industries can again become moreinternationally competitive. We are only tooaware of Australia's poor manufacturing per-formance and its very heavy reliance onimported technology, something which reallyhas to be changed. The high levels of tariffprotection we have had in this country haveharmned our manufacturing industries, and

manufacturing industries in WA, and particu-larly in other States, have stagnated. The Depu-ty Premier talks a great deal about having to getaway from the tonnage mentality. He shouldnot knock this mentality; he should not knockthose industries which are doing a great deal tokeep this country going. It is in those so-calledtonnage industries that we have been able todevelop and apply many new high-technologyproducts.

It was only early this week that the Premier,the Minister for Minerals and Energy and Iattended the opening of the new Asea Pty Ltdpremises. That company offers a wide range ofproducts to industry and it operates particu-larly at the forefront of technology in the fieldof electrical transmission and the developmentof new railway locomotives. It is looking atsome very exciting projects in this State whichreally will be at the forefront of technology. It isgreat to see a company of this sort able to beestablished with good offices, facilities andworkshops in Perth in order to take advantageof the opportunities available. Our primary in-dustries and our agricultural, mining and fish-ing industries are all providing a tremendousbase for technological growth.

Unfortunately in the computer fieldAustralia has been very slow to perform and inexcess of 90 per cent of all computer productssold in Australia are imported. The dominationof foreign products makes it very difficult forus to find our market niche in this field, butthat is something we must overcome. WesternAustralian companies are proving they can de-velop and produce computer components andsoftware which is internationally competitivein terms of both cost and quality. Thesecompanies must be encouraged.

For too long this State Government and theFederal Government's policies have restrictedour technology industries. Australia importsthe majority of its technology and consequentlywe are dominated by foreign-based high tech-nology corporations. This State Govern-ment-the purchaser of goods and services forthis State-must alter its policies so that localindustry can participate more fully in thesetechnology purchases.

On the national scene Government bodiessuch as Telecom and the Department of De-fence are really hogging the technologylimelight. They are keeping out private sectorparticipants which are keen to be involved inthese areas. The sooner a Federal LiberalGovernment gets into power and opens upthese areas to the private sector, the better.

2952

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 25

Perhaps we can get away with the ridiculousthings that are happening, for example, inAustralia Post at this very moment whereAustralia's mail service has come to a halt. Op-erations like Telecom and Australia Post areareas in which the private sector could beinvolved. Many of these industries are largeusers of new technology and theseopportunities should be opened up to the pri-vate sector.

In this State we would like to see statutoryauthorities such as the SEC which purchaseslarge quantities of high technology equipmentlodging More of its orders locally.

One of my main concerns is in regard to theTender Board. Too often local authorities go toa great deal of trouble to submit a tender for aparticular project where the equipment is quitecomplicated and sophisticated; a lot of work,time and expense is involved in preparingthose tenders. If these people lose a tender theyare simply told that they have lost it. We wouldlike to see the Tender Hoard provide feedbackto those people who have lost tenders so theyhave a better understanding as to why they lostand what they can do to improve their positionin the future. In that way, all the time andexpense they have gone to in preparing the ten-der will not go down the drain and they will bebetter placed the next time they tender.Unfortunately, too many companies are nowdeciding to not even bother tendering frGovernment work because, after a fewknockbacks, they believe it is not worth theeffort.

Another area in which there should be a fargreater involvement by industry itself is in thefield of industrial design and quality control.The Liberal Party certainly recognises the valueof good design in our manufactured goods; nolonger is the old Australian adage "roughenough is good enough" acceptable. If we are tomake our industries more competitive we mustunderstand that good industrial design is veryimportant.

The same situation applies in regard to qual-ity control. We have been taught a very goodlesson in recent years by the Japanese who haveparticipated in this area; their exports attainvery high quality control levels, which is whatthe international market accepts these days.The Japanese were not happy that their recentshipment of the basic commodity, wheat, fromNew South Wales was contaminated-theproduct was mixed-and consequently, theJapanese have refused to accept further ship-ments of wheat from New South Wales.

The field of robotics is an interesting one. Itreally is an- obvious field for Australia to enterbecause we have a small population and a workforce which does not want to do a lot of thosemenial, tedious jobs. Last year I travelled over-seas with my colleague, Mr Peter Jones, and wevisited a number of companies which wereinvolved in robotics work. In particular, thetwo operations we saw in Japan and in theUnited Kingdom explained to us what was go-ing to happen further down the track in thisfield and explained the opportunities which acountry like Australia could take advantage of.

Last week, with the Leader of the Oppo-sition, I visited a Western Australian manufac-turing operation which specialises in makingbeds and bed products and it was veryinteresting to discover that that company isnow investing in robotic equipment so it canremain a competitive producer in that field.The Deputy Premier might think that makingbeds is not a high-tech type industry, but hereis a classic case of a manufacturer making abasic commodity and introducing the most ad-vanced equipment possible to ensure thatfurther down the track the company remainscompetitive. The company has been very suc-cessful in picking up export orders.

I have briefly touched upon some of theareas that the Liberal Party is working on. Wehave already released some of our policies andothers will be released in a few weeks' time, butboth policies in regard to small business andtechnology are areas in which we are not prom-ising to spend a lot of the taxpayers' fundsbecause we believe it is not the dollars that arespent by Government departments that count.When members opposite talk about the Budgetthey seem to be proud to say things like, "Wehave increased spending in the Department ofIndustrial Development by 40 per cent andthat means we are doing something for indus-trial development." That might not necessarilybe the case. They may need to spend only halfthat amount to achieve more with the differentindustries concerned.

The Opposition is not concerned so muchabout promises to spend X number of dollars;we believe it is our actions and how we willassist the private sector in Western Australiathat count.

Mr Biryce: You have made my day.

Mr COURT: Why is that?

2953

2954 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Bryce: It sounds like I have a convert. Ido not care which side of the House they comefrom: If I can pick up a convert in the cause oftechnology I am really pleased. You have mademy day.

Mr COURT: That was a rather facetiouscomment by the Deputy Premier.

I want to repeat my concern about the unfor-tunate incident involving the Deputy Premierwhen the advertisements for the campaign re-lating to technology and the Industrial Devel-opment Department had to be prepared overeast. That highlights what I was saying earlier.The Deputy Premier may talk about tech-nology and use a lot of rhetoric associated withtechnology, but when it comes to practical per-formance: and the advertisements for his owndepartment being made in the Eastern Stateswe find that was done because the technologywas not available in this State. To me that is agood example of how this Governmentoperats-it is all talk. Government memberstalk about doing this and doing that, but whenit comes to putting things into practice they dothe exact opposite. Imagine how the advertis-ing industry in this State felt when it was told itcould not produce the advertisements becauseit did not have the technology and that the$150 000 it cost to produce the ads would bespent in the Eastern States. I do not think theDeputy Premier should be very proud of that.

While referring to the concept of industrialdevelopment, I would like to say howimpressed I have been with many operationscurrently taking place in Western Australia.One in particular which I have inspected acouple of times in recent weeks is the construc-tion in Geraldton of the jacket for the Harrietoil field. It really is an achievement for localindustry that we are seeing this type of con-struction in this State. I am particularly pleasedit is being built in the member for Geraldton'selectorate.

People in Perth do not understand what istaking place there. The jacket--it is not a bigone by world standards, but nevertheless acomplete jacket-is being built with, I believe,a very high Australian content. I think theAustralian content in the end will be around 70per cent. Construction started in January, andthe first pant of the jacket which will sit on theseabed will leave in a few weeks, if it has notalready done so, to go into position. The toppart of the jacket with the production facilitiesfollows a few weeks later, and there is a possi-bility that it will be Producing oil by Christmas.

It is remarkable that we have the ability inthis country to bring together a number of dif-ferent skills, and not only build a jacket such asthis which is quite a complicated feat, but to doit in such quick time with tight constructionschedules. Geraldton is proving to be an idealplace to build it; it has a good work force, and itis close enough to Perth for equipment or partsto be sent up overnight. It is a credit to all thepeople involved; the Bond Corporation formaking the decision to build it in WesternAustralia and the Bechtel-Clough engineeringteam. It is providing an opportunity forAustralian engineers to work with Americanengineers who have tremendous expertise inthis field. One of the gentlemen who showedme around the construction site last worked ona very complicated oil jacket in North Alaska.We now have the opportunity to pick up skills.

I hope it is the beginning of many jobs of thistype because it is not just simply a heavy engin-eering job. Many new welding techniques arebeing used and the jacket requires a lot of soph-isticated equipment in order that the pro-duction platform will work. While building theplatform in recent months more oil has beendiscovered, and the platform is designed sothat satellite wells can be brought in to feedthrough the jacket.

Another similar operation is the good workbeing done in the shipbuilding industries inGeraldton and Cockburn Sound. Our ship-builders are gradually moving up to bigger rigs.I would like to see a new ship-lifting facility inthe Cockburn Sound area to enable ship-builders to work on larger ships. They arereaching the stage where the size of the shipsthey can build is being limited by slipway facili-ties. If we could combine a ship-lifting facilitywith some defence work-and the Oppositionhas made its position clear on defence work; wewant a lot more carried out in this State-itwould be a fillip for the industry. We think it isa good opportunity to kill two birds with onestone and to have more defence activitiestaking place here while providing the ship-building infrastructure to enable builders tomove to larger work. It would also enablemaintenance to be carried out on ships from allover the place.

The member for Geraldton knows the con-cern I have had for one builder in theGeraldton area who has had difficulty in get-ting a bounty so he can build larger vessels.Geraldton is ideally placed to have such anindustry, and I would like to see those prob-lems overcome so the industry can expand.

2954

(Thursday, 24 October 1985] 25

In the minutes remaining to me I want topoint out that this Budget will be the last by aLabor Government for many years to come.We have seen, particularly in recent weeks, theGovernment start to pull itself to pieces. Itdoes not matter whether it is the question offreebies-where there is a reluctance to dis-close all the facts and the Government set ruleswhich it wants to ignore-or its support for theFederal Government's tax package. Those taxchanges have resulted in a vicious attack on therestaurant industry and people associated withit. Already 5 000 people have lost their jobs,and yesterday's estimate was that the numbercould be as high as 30 000 people in the firstcouple of months.

Mr Hodge: You support tax dodgers, do you?Mr COURT: I do not.Mr Hodge: That is what you are saying.Mr COURT: I am not. I am saying there are

many forms of entertainment which constitutelegitimate business expenses.

Mr Hodge: There are many forms which donot.

Several members interjected.Mr COURT: Members opposite are attack-

ing the average wage earner. They are preparedto allow 30 000 people to lose their jobs in thatindustry. The longer members opposite runaround supporting the tax package and thedamage it is doing, the quicker we will be sit-ting where Government members are now.

It is the same as the attack on the automobileindustry through the fringe benefits tax. Thatindustry is getting its act together to make theGovernment aware of the ramifications. Manycompanies are revamping their fleet buyingpolicies, and the companies which will be hitworst are the Australian manufacturers.

The Government is failing to grasp the crisisin the wheatbelt regions. We see the Govern-ment's hypocrisy in relation to the high-risedevelopments at Scarborough. The Govern-ment has publicised its achievements inGovernment and included among them theconstruction that is taking place at ObservationCity at Scarborough. But when it suits theGovernment it does an about-turn. We have aLabor Minister and a Labor member who seemto want to take on local government in a fightover this issue when they do not know wherethey stand.

The Government has done an about-face onthe question of Aboriginal land rights. It builtup false hopes on that issue and got opinions

and views and then did an about-turn. Now wehave the interest rate debacle we discussed lastnight in which a number of members oppositeand their Federal counterparts are not preparedto face up to the hard decisions which must bemade to improve the drastic interest rate situ-ation. The Government believes everything canbe resolved by a public relations fix; a few littletricks and glossy pamphlets or advertisementson television can solve the problem. The publicare now seeing right through the Government'sactions.

MR BRIDGE (Kimberley) [11.10 a.m.]:During the course of the debate last night onthe Budget, the member for Merredin interrup-ted an interjection I was making during themember for Mt Marshall's speech. As a resultof that interrupted interjection, the member forMerredin asked me, "Why are you getting soupset? You are a very placid sort of fellow andyou have always displayed a lot of toleranceduring the time that I have known you as amember of Parliament. What's wrong,Bridgy?" The degree of intolerance that Idisplayed in tmy attitude to politics to a greatextent has been brought about by the negativedebate that one encounters day-in and day-outin this place.

I am pleased that there is a young audiencein the gallery as I make these points, because Ithink it is relevant to this country and thepeople of Australia that it is understood why Iam taking this line. I have not had the oppor-tunity in this place of seeing any example of thespirit of Australia in the many days on whichdebate on this matter has taken place. As aresult I am sometimes frustrated and angry.

The Opposition has constantly made predic-tions of gloom and doom in the many monthssince the Labor Party was elected to Govern-ment in this State. I know that it is customaryfor the Opposition to seek out and attack theGovernment based on opposition to all thosethings that the Opposition sees fit to oppose.However, the nitpicking and the extent of op-position that has taken place is, in my opinion,very damning. I believe that we, as members ofParliament representing our society, should beworking towards enhancing better relations be-tween people and a better spirit ofAustralia-something which seems to be lack-ing at present.

Mr Taylor: It demonstrates, on the part ofthe Opposition, a lack of national pride.

2955

2956 ASSEMBLY]

Mr BRIDGE: Absolutely. We have everyreason to believe in this country and its people,but what do we do to demonstrate that in thisChamber? How can we expect the public to bereasonable and to promote aspirations whenthey are confronted with our unreasonable per-formances in this Parliament? We, in thisplace, seem to show no leadership at alltowards encouraging that spirit of Australia.

Mr Bradshaw: Don't you believe you havebeen undermining the Minister with special re-sponsibility for Aboriginal Affairs?

Mr BRIDGE: That interjection typifies thepoint I am trying to make. I am making astatement which I believe is a statement of factbased on the evidence of the debate that hastaken place in this House. If members want tointerpret my comments as applying to particu-lar members of this Parliament, they may doso.

Mr Bradshaw: I am only going on what Ihave read in the papers.

Mr BRIDGE: I believe that we have to lookat our directions in this House. This institutiondoes permit opposition to be advanced by theOpposition, and I do not take any great excep-tion to that, but the extent to which membersopposite constantly advance a negative outlookand a negative debate is nothing short of dis-gusting. I listened to the debate last night with alot of interest because I wanted to be on strongground when I spoke here today, and it seemedto me that there was only one comment madelast night that 1, along with another member ofthis House, agreed was a realistic proposition.

Mr Bradshaw: You are saying then that yourspeech is negative?

Mr BRIDGE: The member for Murray-Wellington is only half-baked, and I suggestthat he listens to me for 30 minutes or so be-cause he might learn something.

This lack of oprimism is one of the greattragedies of our parliamentary institution.Australia, as a nation, is looking for leadershipand we, in this place, have been granted theresponsibility of providing that leadership. Oneof the things that comes from leadership is ademonstration and a recognition of the goodaspects of our community and our nation. Thisattitude is lacking and we should have a look atthis State and those positive aspects. However,the Opposition makes out that everything isbad. I do not believe this is so. L.ast week, forexample, money was provided in a moregenerous way than ever before during Telethon.Do people contribute like that if they are in a

situation of despair? They do not dig into theirpockets if they do not feel that they are in aposition to do so. Opposition members are oncompletely the wrong tack when they talkabout gloom and doom.

The Opposition has been making a song anddance about the plight of the farmers. We, onthis side, are aware of that plight and we knowthat everyone, whether fanner or not, has gonethrough a similar period in this country. I knowhow the farmers feel. My forebears went to theKimberley; our family has lived there for gen-erations, and l do not think that anybody couldhave a better understanding of the situation forfarmers in that region than a member of theBridge family. For three-quarters of the totaltime my family has lived in the Kimberley, wehad nothing to our name and we never soughtor achieved one cent in handouts from theGovernment. I know what it is like to battleand struggle, and I am aware of the problems.Opposition members do nothing effective byisolating specific areas of concern and promot-ing those areas in a negative way. If theyisolated those areas and attempted to deal withthem positively, we, on this side, would notmind, but to talk about every issue that comesbefore this House-whether it is to do withfarmers, the unions, the pastoralists, the heli-copter muster, or the children of this State-insuch a gloomy way, does nothing constructiveat all.

Mr Tubby: I believe that what has takenplace (his week is a result of pressure byfarmers and concerned members of Parliamentin this place to ensure that at least some noticehas been taken. Unfortunately, we have got touse these extreme pressures, and continue thesepressures, to get some action.

Mr BRIDGE: Australia provides a vision ofwhat can be achieved and it is a very differentvision from the one being promoted in thisHouse by the Opposition. The spirit of feelingproud about Australia and about Australians issomething which should be shared by allAustralians. We, in this place, should providethat leadership and that example in the way weperform in Parliament.

Mr Tubby: Why don't your union mates dojust that?

Mr BRIDGE: The member for Greenough isa great one to call on the unions. He is doingthe very thing that I am saying we should notbe doing. It is because people like the memberfor Greenough point fingers at others and yetcannot show any pride in this country that this

2956

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 25

pessimism exists. It is almost as if membersopposite want the wails of this place to cave intomorrow.

Mr Tubby: We support sensible unionism.Mr BRIDGE: One of the reasons that oc-

casionally the measure of tolerance that isknown to exist in me becomes a bit thin isbecause I am committed and concerned aboutthe people of this country collectively andabout the way in which we, as politicians, areseen to be their representatives. We should actat all times in the interests of goodwill andharmony, and a desire to restructure thiscountry into a better nation.

I will never be comfortable about what isgoing on when we have this type of debate. I donot intend to dwell on this issue for any lengthof time. It ought not to have been brought uptoday, but it was. Members should look at theway in which the Opposition constantly attacksthis Government about the land rights issue.

Mr Bradshaw interjected.Mr BRIDGE: History will prove that the

smart alec member for Murray-Wellington iswrong becau~e there is no way that we canreconcile this nation's future directionequitably until land rights is resolved. I amspeaking of the planning of a nation towardsthe kind of relationship and cooperation that isessential and, deep down, I believe we have afeeling and belief in that notion. This will neverbe achieved while we are not facing up to theland rights issue, and the only way we can faceup to it is through this Parliament. It is no goodsaying to the public, "You do it," because it isour place to look at the basics and fundamen-tals and plan sensible legislation that will givenobody any special privileges. We have not gotequality today, and members opposite know it.I give as an example, the other day the Minis-ter's comments-

Several members interjected.Mr BRIDGE: Members talk about fairness! I

will just make this point and then leave thesubject.

At this stage we-you and I-have pos-session of our own properties on an equal basis.The people of the .Jigalong community are noton the same grounds as we are. Their land can-not be made freehold title unless it is throughthe Parliament. Can members therefore saythey are the equal of us?

Mr Clarko: How is it their land?Mr BRIDGE: Because it was set aside for

them.

It would be nice if it could happen in 1985because we could be seen to be part of theprocess of granting land rights but it seems wehave missed out through a lack of wisdom totake the appropriate action. But somewheredown the line someone somewhere will dosomething about the situation.

Mr Clarko: Thirty thousand people in West-ern Australia had an area equivalent to the sizeof Victoria given to them by this State Parlia-ment.

Mr BRIDGE: I do not care if it is 50 000people. Members should try to get away fromthis give-and-take mentality and think moreabout the basic facts surrounding this issue.They might then come up with some con-clusions which are sensible.

Mr Bradshaw: Your family leased that landat Halls Creek.

Mr BRIDGE: The member should not worryabout my family. He should be serious aboutbringing this country towards the view that wecan all feel proud and excited about its futuredevelopment and planning. We all need to faceup to that issue. I am not speaking about givingspecial privileges. I am saying that as a nationwe should be proud to be Australian. Peopleshould face up to that issue and show someresponsibility, otherwise the situation will con-tinue. It is a problem that has not been resolvedin this country. It is pant of our responsibilityas legislators to do it. It is not a big deal. Politi-cally, it has been made to be a big deal bypolarisation, opinion polls, housewives in themetropolitan area saying they will bethreatened, and all this sort of business. It is asimple process of looking at basic fundamen-tals.

Land rights is not a big deal, as I said. It islooking at a form whereby a greater measure ofsecurity of land tenure can be provided forthose Aboriginal people, who can clearly showcause for that to occur. The other thing that isenshrined in the whole process is a greater formof protection of the sites to be recognised asimportant sites.

Mr Blaikie: You are saying that Aboriginalland rights are no longer dead. They are aliveand will flourish. You are giving a clear indi-cation of that view.

Mr BRIDGE: I said it for the media and Irepeat it. Members should listen closely so thatthey do not miss my point. Australia, as anation, cannot truthfully speak aboutdeveloping itself into a nation where the coop-

2957

2958 ASSEMBLY]

eration, the goodwill, and the maintaining ofits spirit will continue unless we resolve thatoutstanding issue.

Mr Blaikie: You are saying that you supportland rights.

Mr BRIDGE: I have supported land rights allalong, and I still do.

Mr Blaikie: And your Government does. aswell.

Mr BRIDGE: I am speaking on behalf ofmyself as an Australian, about a nation and thedirection in which I see it going.

Several members interjected.Mr BRIDGE: If members wish to be smart

and direct the debate upon votes they can havea go. I am not interested in votes. As 1 often sayto members in this Parliament if they wish torun out with banners and tell the public, theycan do so.

My contribution to this debate is based onhow I feel my contribution should be. It is notclouded with what the end result of the voteoutside that door might be. If the people outthere want to be short-sighted and naive andnot be prepared to accept my entitlement toexpress a view which I feel is essential andappropriate for this country, then so be it.

There has not been sufficient advancementmade in this Parliament because we. tend todwell on the negative rather than the positivepoints. We should be doing more about thesituation ourselves because people are search-ing for an answer.

I wish to explain to the Parliament why I feelgood about the things that have happened inthis State during the period of time we havebeen in government.

The Opposition has not had a single word ofpraise for anything this Government hasachieved during its term in office. I refer mem-bers to my maiden speech; I am sure they willsee that others have made similar contri-butions.

Mr Bradshaw: Your last one?Mr BRIDGE: The member for Murray-

Wellington is a smart little fellow and aboolbead- He is not a man's bootlace.

Mr Tabby: We agree that you would be themost reasonable person in your party and thatyour speeches are outstanding.

Mr BRIDGE: If the member for Greenoughbelieves that, why does he not listen to what Ihave to tell him about better things to come.

If members like to look at this Government'scontribution when it was in Opposition, theywill find there were things said that were com-plimentary to the Government. I know I saidcomplimentary things to the Government.However, I have never heard one person fromthe other side say anything that could beinterpreted as supportive of this Government.

I now turn to the Kimberley electorate.Major road construction works have takenplace in the region in the last three years. I amnot saying, though, that it began in the lastthree years and that nothing was done prior tothat. I am prepared to say that the extent towhich those works were operational hascontinued and, if anything, it has intensifiedtowards their finalisation. We feel good aboutthat. These works'will enhance the region sothat the travelling time between towns will bereduced and the people in the area will not feelquite so isolated. The roadworks will lessenthat feeling of isolation which has been verymuch a pant of people's lives in that area.

Mr Blaikie: Would you agree that Sir CharlesCourt was a champion of the north? A lot of thedevelopment which is taking place is because ofhis vision and encouragement.

Mr BRIDGE: He told me once in a personaldiscussion that he thought I championed thatcause pretty well. It is a matter of opinion.

Mr Terry Burke: You are too humble to an-nounce it.

Mr BRIDGE: Yes. I thanked Sir Charles forhis kind comments. However, it is a matter forthe member to form a judgment on this issue.

Another matter of great importance in thearea since we have come to Government is therestructuring of the Kimberley pastoral indus-try. The concept was introduced with an enor-mous amount of debate and has been attackedin this Chamber. There has been much nega-tive debate about that restructuring, not onlyhere, but also throughout the State and in theregion. Eventually, I am sure that we will seethe benefits from this scheme.

Mr Bradshaw: I think time will prove thatthe Government has made a very big mistake.

Mr BRIDGE: I hope that interjection hasbeen noted. The member said the restructuringof th e pasto ral i nd ustry i n th at area has been amistake.

Mr Biadshaw: It is.

2958

(Thursday, 24 October 1985J 95

Mr BRIDGE: I doubt whether the memberwould know a bullock from a galab. Whatwould he know about developing the landalong the lines put forward by the Govern-ment?

Mr Blaikie: The member for Murray-Wellington has been in the Chamber longenough for him to know the difference betweena bullock and a galah.

Mr BRIDGE: That is beside the point.

This Government will be recognised in thefuture as being a Government which saw thepotential for the restructuring of the Kimberleypastoral industry. It took advice from genuinepeople in that industry whose perceptions ofthe plans were such that their judgment willultimately prove to be correct. We will see amajor transition in the industry in the years tocome.

It is well known that the industry is goingthrough a very difficult time for many reasons.However, I believe that through this scheme,the industry is capable of picking up and wewill see many properties in the Kimberley upand running again in the not too distant future.Those properties will be established on viablegrounds and eventually families who areinterested in the area will be attracted to themand become an essential pant of the industry.

That is the way I see the restructuring despiteall the knocking of it by many different people.It stands to reason, I believe, that people wouldlook at it initially with some degree of reser-vation because it is a completely new kind ofscheme. It has never before been put into effectin Western Australia. We were told that manywould try to convince us that the way to go inWestern Australia in the pastoral industry wasto allow properties to get bigger and bigger.

Mr Blaikie: Can you explain why the pastoralindustry in Western Australia is now in a stateof demise, whereas the Queensland industry isenjoying the highest peak of prosperity in itshistory?

Mr Mclver: That is because this State experi-enced so many years of Liberal Governments.

Mr BRIDGE: I think the Minister isprobably correct. The pastoral industrysuffered at the hands of Liberal Governmentsover many years. We have not been in powerlong enough to have brought about the changesthat will eventually occur.

Mr Blaikie: You have brought about thechanges that have occurred because you arepreventing private buyers from buying proper-ties.

Mr BRIDGE: Private buyers have no fearsabout their opportunity to share in theKimberley pastoral industry. They will haveample opportunity, at the end of thisrestructuring, to acquire properties in theKimberley. There has been no attempt to denyprivate buyers from entering this industry.

Tourism is another industry that hasflourished in the Kimberley and in the north-west. We have seen clear evidence of the greatbenefits tourism is bringing to the region by thedegree of enthusiasm and optimism that is evi-dent.

Fewer disputations in the Pilbara iron oreindustry have also been a very important partof the last three years. I remember when I firstbecame the member of that section of thePilbara which is now part of the Kimberleyelectorate that there was a degree of uncer-tainty and of concern evident in that region; Iam speaking of such places as Tom Price,Paraburdoo, Newman, and other inlandmining centres. That feeling is not evident now.People are now directing their interests intoother areas and these areas have been notableones. We have seen major developments in theprovision of services to those towns. A majorsupermarket was completed this year inNewman, and that supermarket was very muchwelcomed by the residents of that town.

Today we are witnessing a very different atti-tude in the approach of people who live in thatpart of the State. The responsibility for thesedevelopments, to a large extent, can be laid atthe feet of this Government. Many importantdevelopments are taking place and there ismuch satisfaction and happiness under thisGovernment which has not been evident in thedebates in this Parliament. I get the feeling thatthings are not as bad in all sectors of our so-ciety as is promoted by the Opposition in thisplace. However, many sections of business aregoing through bad times.

The people in the north-west have recognisedthe assistance this Government has given tosmall business in that area and it is an import-ant factor.

An enormous amount of progress has beenmade in regard to medical ser-vices in theKimberley and the north-west generally. TheGovernment has budgeted large sums of moneyto medical services. I take this opportunity to

2959

2960 [ASSEMBLY]

pay tribute to the Minister for Health-I amnot doing this just because he is sitting in frontof me; I am genuine-who has taken a greatdeal of interest in the north-west. He hasspoken to people about the need for facilitiesand has sought their ideas about how the ser-vice can be improved and what type of actionsshould be considered by the Government toplan for the future.

When one looks at all the major serviceswhich the Government is called upon to pro-vide, there is nothing but a satisfactory state ofaffairs in the north-west. From roadworks, thepastoral industry, to the provision of medicalservices and the planned improvement ofthem, and the assistance to small business, theGovernment must be commended.

The Government has also provided assist-ance to the Aboriginal communities and a lotof development has taken place since thisGovernment has been in power. That develop-ment has been in basic areas where help isessential to the people concerned. Places likeKalumburn, Jigalong, and Noonkanbah weremajor areas of concern a few years ago. TheGovernment has provided four basic things toimprove the situation in those areas, the mainservice being the provision of water supplies.Mowanjumn fell into this category. If one wereto go to Kalumnburu, .ligalong, and other com-munities in the north-west, one would find thatthe basic needs of those communities are ad-equately met.

The Government has been involved in majorplanning and has provided the necessary fundsin order that the wishes of the people in thosecommunities can be accommodated in a veryeffective way. 1 am not talking about one ortwo items only, such as roads and medical ser-vices. The Government has improved all ser-vices across the board and it is an example ofthe way in which it is supporting the region.

Mr Mensaros: It is mainly due to the FraserGovernment. That was when it started.

Mr BRIDGE: I would have thought thatwhat it was due to was the representation madeto the Government and the Government's re-sponse. That is an essential part of any plan-ning and any decision-making role. Represen-tations must be made to the Government Sothat it can act upon them accordingly. It maywell be that members opposite can talk aboutthe benefits which are now evident being at-tributable to people outside the immediate con-fines of the area. However, when all is said anddone the advancements have been due to

people who live in the area and who have beencapable of presenting a case which hasultimately attracted support from the Govern-ment.

Western Australia generally and, indeed, thenorth-west have been served well by the presentGovernment. It will continue to serve the Statebecause it is aware of what is required.

Before 1 came into this place I had a longexperience in local government. Although it isa confined area there was always talk aboutideologies, planning, and the wonderful thingsthat every one of us sees as essential to our wayof life. It is one thing to say that, but it isanother thing for Governments to act accord-ingly. We have clear evidence that the case, asfar as this Government is concerned, is that ithas been prepared to act upon the advice anddirections given to it by those who are con-cerned about the well-being of the community.

I am content with the development and theadvancements that have been made possible bythis Government in my area. As the local mem-ber I am satisfied that everything is progressingwell in my electorate. However, I would like tomake an appeal to all members in this Parlia-ment that above all things this country needsan effective direction to follow.

We need to get hack to the spirit of thecountry which is so clearly portrayed in theworks of Banjo Paterson. We should not createsuch an atmosphere that people in this countrybegin to question the writings of BanjoPaterson in such a way that in the future theirmeaning will be lost. This country should neverbe placed in a position where this could bepossible. One way in which we can prevent thisfrom happening is to foster the national spiritof our land.

Although we may not agree with the way inwhich certain things have been planned weshould not see it as being devious. We shouldtry to work towards fostering goodwill in thecountry irrespective of the origins of the peoplewho live in it. I am sure that if that were tohappen the people who look to us for leader-ship and the people who are searching for itwould be much better off. In turn, we wouldmake a contribution which would be far betterthan the nit picking and the seemingly vote-catch ing debates one has to encounter day byday in this Parliament and which do nothingbut satisfy the egos of the people making thosespeeches. In the long term, the speeches do notpass through the walls of this Chamber.

2960

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 96

MR MENSAROS (Floreat) (11.49 am.]: Icannot resist the temptation to partly reflect onthe comments of the member for Nedlands andthe dialogue which took place between him andthe Deputy Premier. Those members appearedto be debating against each other about how theGovernment can more efficiently serve the in-dustr and resources development of thiscountry. It was very satisfying to hear the mem-ber for Nedlands come up with very goodideas. His ideas were not ony known to me, butalso they were implemented more than 10 yearsago. The Deputy Premier is proud that he canserve the area of technology most efficiently,but he has a large staff.

I recollect that during the years I was respon-sible for industrial development, which thenincluded resources development, the number ofemployees in my department never exceeded103. Mr Speaker, if you were to reflect in thesame way as I do you would realise that thenumber of resources development projectswhich were initiated during the six years I wasin charge of the portfolio were infinitely morein number than those which have beeninitiated by this Government as this Govern-ment has initiated none, with the possible ex-ception of the casino project for which neitherthe Minister for Resources Development northe Minister for Industrial Development wereresponsible.

One half of what was my department has astaff of 140 people; I do not know exactly howmany staff are employed in the other halfwhich dealt with resources development. I pre-sume the number would be about the same,which means that the aggregate number of staffdealing with the same subject is about threetimes as many as when we were in Govern-ment, yet it achieves infinitely less in the wayof results.

I would like to spend the time available tome in this Budget debate commenting on amatter pertaining to my electorate, as well asmaking some general observations and furtherobservations on matters which fall within theprovince of my shadow portfolios. I will alsodeal with a matter closer to home; namely, theParliament.

First, I mention the handling, the announce-ment, and the planning--or perhaps the lack ofplanning-by the Government of the proposedsports complex planned for my electorate in theGraylands-Mt Claremont area next toMcGillivray Oval. The Project is important,not just for one electorate Or one area, but forthe whole State. Judging from the various an-

nouncements made with respect to initial prep-arations, it appears to me to be more of a politi-cal exercise than an administrative one, whichit ought to be in the interests of the community.Of course, the local community, which happensto be my electorate, has an interest in it, as isunderstandable. For decades that communitywas plagued with a traffic problem affecting, inparticular, Rochdale Road in Mt Claremont,because of the lack of any north-west mainroad connection. Hence, through a dogleg, allvehicles, including heavy traffic, use that roadto travel from south to north and vice versa.That makes the life of residents, which prior tothis onslaught was quiet, unbearable.

I have tried to follow the arrangements madein preparation for the sports centre, obviouslyin the interests of my electorate. I have askedquite a number of questions, mainly in griev-ance debates, but I have never had the responsewhich the questions have merited. Only re-cently I asked the Minister for Sport and Rec-reation, who is responsible for this matter,whether he could guarantee that there wouldnot be a heavy traffic problem in addition tothe one which will exist until after the bypassroad is built, Instead of answering the questionin the same sort of objective and matter-of-factmanner as I asked it, he took a cavalier stand. Ithink it would be worth while quoting from hisanswer which states-

..I can give an assurance that as a re-sult of actions being taken by the presentGovernment the traffic situation inRochdale Road after the construction ofthe bypass will be infinitely better than itwas during the time the member was aMinister in the previous Governiment ...

Such a cavalier answer does not make anyfriends for the Minister. He probably thoughtthat it would, but when I showed his reply topeople who were concerned about the issue, Ifound that if he had any friends he has now lostthem. Suich a response is not becoming ofsomeone whose previous profession shouldperhaps have ensured that he commands morerespect. It is a childish attitude. I know andhave said in this place very often that this areahas suffered a traffic problem for decades,under all sorts of Governments.

The member for Victoria Park will remem-ber that when he was Minister for Planning Iwrote no him several times. That was a longtime ago. Then I worked within our Govern-ment to solve the problems. We had solved theproblem, at least by decision, if not by action.The solution would have been in place were it

2961

2962 [ASSEMBLY]

not for the obstruction of this Governmentwhich for some inexplicable reason-perhapspride in that it did not want to eat the words ituttered in Opposition-stopped the ServetusStreet development. Ultimately it realised thatthat development had to go ahead and it didnot hinder it to the extent of not allowing'resi-dents to sell their houses to the MetropolitanRegion Planning Authority. Thus, not only didthe Minister's answer show a lack of regard forthe people in the area, but it was also incorrectfrom that point of view.

It is enormously important that the Govern-ment plans the sports complex in a way whichdoes not do a disservice to the local people. It isto be hoped that with construction of the by-pass the traffic problem in Servetus Street wilbe alleviated and perhaps to some extentsolved for those people in Rochdale Road andits immediate surroundings.

People in the area will have other trafficproblems. For example, John XXIII College isrelocating; there is also a problem with respectto subdivision of the prounds of what used tobe the mental hospital; and, of course, now thesports centre. These three developments willundoubtedly create a very heavy volume oftraffic. Before the decision to build the sportscentre was made, the situation should havebeen examined and potential problems solved.This was not done. Again, in answer to anotherquestion as to whether the local people and, inparticular, the local authority had beenconsulted, the Minister replied in an uppishand dismissive way. Hie said that the consult-ants engaged by the Government "applied theappropriate techniques and consulted withthose people who in their judgment were in aposition to provide the directly relevant data".

I do not know whom they consulted, but I doknow that previously we had public meetingsand public participation and consultationswhen we engaged the same consultants. I wasasked as a local member to participate. But thisGovernment now has not even asked theopinions of local government. Who should bein a better position to give advice with respectto this matter than the City of Nedlands? TheGovernment or the consultants have notconsulted a single resident of Rochdale Road.Those residents will have to suffer the problem.

Thus, the Government deserves censure forthe way it has handled this matter. It has notdealt with it as it ought to be dealt with. I amnot necessarily criticising the concept of thesports centre itself. I do not criticise the ideabecause I support sport. Even so, I make the

comment that surely the taxpayer is entitled toask questions as to whether the amount of $20million or $21 million-albeit a small amountin comparison with the total capital expendi-ture in the year, but nevertheless not a pit-tance-is spent wisely and, in particular, in away which is productive.

I do not know whether the Government hasconsidered existing facilities. I am referringparticularly to Perry Lakes Stadium and toBeatty Park, facilities which are not overused.In fact, I would say they are underutilised.With a few adjustments or additions, PerryLakes could be used for more purposes. Aftermore serious study, it could possibly do therequired job in combination with Beatty Park.It appears to me that the complex is beingplanned more in the interests of the pro-fessional people, the top people, who want thekudos of having a memorial to themselves,rather than in the real interests of sport and thecommunity.

A venue such as this, whether new or old, issuccessful or has merit only if it is serving vol-untary organisations and sporting clubs and isnot being organised from the top. That is notwhat people want and it is not a system underwhich they can organise sports for themselvesand the general public. I repeat that I am notagainst the idea but I think more careful exam-ination is needed. A proper examinationshould be made with regard to the real needsand demands, the cost benefit of the project, itseffect on suburban life, particularly on trafficin the area, and local interests generally. Thereshould be closer Cooperation with the City ofNedlands instead of the Government trying toignore that authority.

I was very happy to see the Governmentfinally introduce the new tendering system inwhat used 1o be the Public Works Department.I originated that idea more than three years agowhen I noticed that the department hadrecommended that a number of the lowest ten-ders for quite large jobs not be accepted be-cause the tendlerer's work was not good enoughor because they were not financially sound. Myimmediate response each time was to ask whythose people had been allowed to tender for thejob bearing in mind that it takes a tremendousamount of time and money to submit a tender,and having submitted perhaps the lowest ten-der, those people were then told that their ten-der had not been accepted. It was plain that wecould not have a system of restricted tendersbut I suggested that tenders should be placedinto categories, almost like a football league.

2962

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 26

For example, the first league would includepeople who could tender for jobs up to a cer-tain amount, say $ 100 000 or $150 000 and soon. After more than three years this idea hasnow been implemented. I assume that thereason it was not implemented sooner was theupheaval in the Public Works Department dur-ing which almost all of the professional archi-tects left, were sacked, or their life was made sointolerable there was no option for them but toleave. Obviously somebody has turned up theold files and implemented this suggestion.

Not enough has been done in this directionand I place on record that somebody shouldlook further through the files and read myother suggestions in this area. One of them wasthat all arms of Government-whetherinstrumentalities or departments-should havea similar system of tendering so that construc-tion and building companies, and firms andindividuals who tender will know exactly whatthe system is with regard to Government ten-ders.

Also all Governments departments andinstrumentalities should adopt a system thatthe Public Works Department had and presum-ably which the Building Management Auth-ority has, that its professional work is given outin such a way that certain architects and engin-eers do not receive all the work, while othersreceive none. I understand that computers areused to record the relevant information. Thatworked well in the old Public Works Depart-ment and I think it should be done in otherarms of Government-

I have a few comments to make in connec-tion with land tax because I have received anumber of complaints on this matter. I am nottalking now about the inequitable nature ofland tax; I have done that several times in thepast and I will not repeat my argument. I havereceived three complaints with regard to onespecific matter which all have the same griev-ance; that is, when a property is transferredduring the year throughi a Purchase agreementall other rates and taxes, including water ratesand shire rates, up to the date of settlement arcadjusted between the vendor and the pur-chaser. Land tax is the only tax for which thatpractice is not generally adopted by varioussettlement agents and real estate agents. Some,in fact, do adjust the land tax component butothers do not. It relates to a difficulty with theLand Tax Assessment Act which states thatpeople are eligible and obliged to pay land taxif they own property on 30 June of any year. ifthe correct interpretation has been placed on

that provision, I think the law should bechanged. If, on the other hand, an incorrectinterpretation has been placed on that pro-vision an instruction should be sent to the de-partment to correct the matter. It is most in-equitable that if a settlement is effected on 2July the vendor of the property, the previousowner, should be required to pay land tax forthe coming year. The land tax assessment formstates that the charge imposed is for the nextfinancial year, yet the purchaser who will ownthe property for that year is not required to payanything.

I admit that there would be difficulties ifneither the vendor nor the purchaser were notobliged to pay tax. In other words, if the pur-chaser is an owner-occupier the departmentmay claim that it will get nothing if an ad-justment is made. Of course, that is as it shouldbe. If a property is no longer liable to land taxbecause the owner is an owner-occupier the taxshould be calculated only up to the date ofsettlement. I do not think that with today's ageof computers that would present any great dif-ficulty.

if the correct interpretation is that whoeverowns the land on 30 June is liable for land tax,we could reach a very funny situation in whichthe department could request payment of theland tax twice. If a settlement of the property ismade on 30 June the vendor is the proprietorfor part of that day and the purchaser also be-comes the proprietor for part of the day. Ifneither party is an owner-occupier it meansthat the interpretation of the law to date wouldenable the department to demand payment ofland tax twice for the same property and for thesame year.

I hope that these comments will receive someattention by the State Taxation Department orTreasury and that some action will be taken inthis direction, because the present situation ismost inequitable.

I wish to deal with a further matter in theportfolio of Housing. This particular mattershould be raised because it was handled in amost inequitable way and it is throwing intodoubt the correctness of the policy pursued bythe Minister and the department in this matter.

I am referring to a comparatively small blockof flats in Applecross in which the then StateHousing Commission, through an agent,disclosed some interest to purchase. An inspec-tion of the property was made but the purchasewas verbally declined on the ground that theunits were all occupied. The message given to

2963

2964 (ASSEMBLY]

the owner through the agent was that the StateHousing Commission would have beeninterested in purchasing the property but onlyif the premises were vacant.

Setting aside the question of why this policyexists-and it is not very difficult to deducewhy, because obviously through its arm of theState Housing Commission, which is nowcalled Homeswest, the Government wants toavoid the slightly embarrassing situation ofhaving to give notice to tenants, and wants toleave this dirty work to the previousowner-the handling of this matter continued,after one inspection appointment had not beenkept, with a subsequent inspection. The im-pression was still left with the owner's represen-tative that the property would be purchasedbecause the owner had indeed vacated all theflats, only to find that subsequently the boardrejected the purchase and the owner was leftwith vacant flats. The tenants who, inciden-tally, almost all happened to be migrants fromChile, were most inconvenienced and I do notthink the Minister would need a great deal ofimagination to picture what sort of opinionthey had of his Governmeni-the Governmentof the day.

I asked for a written explanation from thegeneral manager, who did oblige in due course,even if not immediately. However, his expla-nation does not tally at all with the verbal com-munication which was left with the people. Istrongly question the policy the general man-ager espoused in his letter, which said thatHomeswest is only interested in purchasingproperties if there is a 60 per cent vacancy rate.That is a very non-commercial type of policyand it cannot be explained by anything otherthan the fact that the department wants thevendor to do the dirty work for it. It results infairly serious inconvenience and financial lossto the tenants themselves, and also in financialloss and damages to the owner.

Perhaps this is not an earth-shattering, mat-ter, but it should be tidied up, and although theMinister is not in the Chamber at present heshould take some notice of it and possibly havethe courtesy to report back to me as to whetherhe will spare some thought and take some ac-tion to remedy this situation. The people de-serve much better treatment; after all, they arepart of the constituency of the State for whomthe Ministers of the Crown are responsible.

I turn now to matters connected with therecently enacted Strata Titles Act. The oper-ation of the Act has brought to light two com-plaints which I think are genuine and therefore

deserve remedy by the Government while it isthe Government, or we will take the matter inhand after being elected to Government.

The first complaint relates to the require-meats for the new plans, which the Minister forLands and Surveys-who is personally respon-sible for this area, having taken it over from theAttorney GeneralI-pomised me that he willnot only look into it but also remedy.Unfortunately, I have not experienced yet thathe has done so. This provision places virtuallyhundreds of strata titled property owners in aposition where they infringe the law becausethey are physically unable to comply with theprovisions. The Professional Surveyors Associ-ation has reminded not only the Oppositionbut the Government as well of these quite obvi-ously impossible requirements and yet, as faras I am aware, nothing has been done.

[Quorum formed.]

Mr MENSAROS: The second shortcoming ofthe Strata Titles Act is that it wakes too manydemands from the point of view of red tapeand details required by it which are obviouslynot within the capacity of small strata titleowners 10 provide, especially where it is com-mon practice for elderly people and others tobuy two units, occupy one themselves and letthe other one. They are not in a position andcannot afford to hire professional assistance tofulfil all these clerical requirements, which arequite superfluous because strata title unitsexisted without any problems before the Actcame into being. Again, I would like to remindthe Minister for Lands and Surveys about thismatter. lHe gave me an undertaking some timeago that he would remedy this, and it needs tobe done fairly urgently.

The third matter I will raise is in connectionwith my responsibility as Opposition spokes-man on legal matters and is one about whichwe all hear quite a lot. It relates to the FamilyCourt, and particularly the various welfare as-pects of it. I have experienced an incrediblenumber of complaints which have come to mein my capacity as Opposition spokesman onlegal matters. If that is the case, then I supposethe Attorney General would have received aneven larger number of complaints.

I know that people having something to dowith the Family Court become emotionallyinvolved, and we accept that because of thatthey are not quite objective. I know also thatthe Family Court itself, being the only Statecourt in Australia handling this Federal legis-lation, has to act according to the Federal Fain-

2964

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 26

ily Law Act. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore thefact that very large numbers of people arecomplaining, and neither can we ignore that100 per cent of the complainants-and I amtalking about 50 or 60 people within a year,which every member would surely judge to be alarge number of complaints in one singlefield-were men. No women complained tome.

Neither can we ignore what people of highstanding in society, irrespective of their poli-tics-people such as Kim Beazleysenior-have to say in connection with the lawgoverning the actions of the Family Court, andthe very fact that people with moral fibre andintegrity view the matters the same way-as,by and large, does the Opposition-which isthat we should give back to the family unit theimportance it was accorded prior to the im-plementation of the Family Law Act.

No matter how that is stipulated by policiesor anything else, the modemn endeavour lacksthe necessary moral fibre. One should rememn-ber that the Soviet Union, when it started toexist after the first World War, wanted to doaway with the family unit altogether by encour-aging not only permissiveness but the absenceof family ties. It started to install childmindingcentres and all the rest of it. This was againsthuman nature, not necessarilymorality-which it is also, but which theSoviets ignore anyhow-but in a few years'time it had to reverse that policy. Ever since,no matter how atrocious the Soviets' behaviourmight have been, they have returned to thefamily unit as the basis of society.

That is what our party advocates, and it willundoubtedly be pursued when we become theGovernment. We would like to restore themoral importance of the family to the com-munity and deal with inevitable separationsand divorces, not from the point of view ofindividual interests or so-called equalities, butfrom the point of view of the interest of thewhole unit, particularly in the interests of thechildren.

The lack of proper decisions is not due to thejudges but to the law governing maintenance,care, and particularly access to the children.We see these tragedies occurring day after day.

I am not speaking without any supportingfacts. I was approached by some people whotook a tape of a telephone conversation with awelfare officer. One was not Sure whether shewas acting for the Trades and Labor Council orfor the Department for Community Services.

During this conversation she offered thewoman-who posed as a deserted wife and themother of children-expenses to take her andher children to the Eastern States so that thehusband should not have access to the childrenand she could virtually disappear from thescene.' This would make it fairly difficult foranyone to discover her address.

I understand this custom, which was used bythe social security department, was stoppedduring the term of our Government. It has nowraised its head again. I suppose the Minister,who has been absent from this Chamber duringthe whole of my comments, will look at it andsay whether that is his policy or whether thepolicy is being abused. That solution is abso-lutely wrong from the point of view of theinterests of the people involved and from thepoint of view of any social attitude.

I want to deal also with something muchcloser to us all, and that is certain matters weexperience in the Parliament. I want to enmpha-sise I am not speaking on behalf of the Oppo-sition; I exercise my right, which we have onthis side of the I-louse, to utter my individualopinion.

With due respect to the Joint House Com-mittee, the enormous bureaucracy in this placehas become overbearing. It has reached a stagewhere it is almost ridiculous. I do not think itserves the purpose it should.

Nowhere in any arm of Government or inany large company can we find a more perfectdemonstration of Parkinson's law than in thisParliament House. You will recall, Sir, whenyou and I entered this place in 1968, when thenew front of the building was completed, therewas a handful of officers, attendants, and staff,all of whom we knew after a few days. Todaywe can walk through the corridors and meetmany strangers. I do not know whether thesepeople are employed here or not.

I wonder whether this enormous prolifer-ation of staff has been necessary when the ag-gregate number of members of the Houses hasincreased only from 81 to 91. 1 wonder whetherit is justified. Quite apart from this, I wonderwhether it has achieved a better or more desir-able service from the point of view of the mem-bers or of the institution. It has obviouslycreated more rules, more restrictions, and morepaperwork.

Previously we could walk into the recordsroom and ask for an Act of Parliament with itsamendments. The attendant, knowing every-thing by heart, either took it off the shelf or

2965

2966 ASSEMBLY]

watched while we did. Now we have to go to acounter, as if we were going into some sort ofdrapery store, and ask a junior person, who inturn has to ask a senior person, for what wewant.

I am not saying that the service is not just aspolite or as effective as before. I am wonderingwhether the proliferation of staff, the expense,and the electronic installations, give a betterservice to members of Parliament. We wouldbe very hard put to answer this question in theaffirmative. It would be hard to say honestlythat the public is being better served becausewe spend much more money on these things.

When I talk about regulations I have tosmile. If I want to look at a tabled paper in theHouse, somebody comes up and asks me pol-itely to sign a voucher. I should never have tosign it when I will return the paper in fiveminutes. Why is this necessary? We have 57members instead of 5 1. 1 do not know thatanybody has been able to explain this.

Of course when new officers, particularlynew executive officers, come onto the staff theywant to do something. They want to provethemselves and the necessity for their existencebecause they think that if they continue withsomething which has worked very well theymight be considered not good enough. I refer,for instance, to this system which has beenintroduced under the auspices of security.These rules are not only superfluous, but theyare verging on the ridiculous. I emphasise Ispeak for myself, but to my mind they arealmost degrading to human dignity.

I am enormously upset when I see peoplecoming into this place and being tagged almostas though they were animals. Why is it thatonly months ago I was able to go overseas andquite freely enter the House of Lords, a Houseof Parliament in a country where terrorismexists, a country where security is obviouslymore important, a country whose ParliamentHouse has experienced terrorism? As I enteredthat Parliament I was confronted only by anattendant who very politely asked, "Can wehelp you, Sir?" When I explained whom Iwanted to see he asked whether I knew the way.I explained that I did because I had been therebefore. I was then able to go off by myself, andwithout any tag. This was so for other peoplealso. I had to laugh when I was waiting for myfriend and some other visitors came up tome-I must have a distinguished look-andasked whether I was Lord so-and-so. I had toexplain that I was just a visitor like them.

I also visited the State House in Austin,Texas. The same arrangements applied therealthough there was not even an attendantpresent. Surely a Parliament in America facesgreater security risks than we do. The sameapplies to the Parliament buildings in Austria,where I continue to visit friends. A person isable to ask for a member of Parliament and justwalk in.

Do we honestly need this security system?Whom does it really benefit? Did it prevent theincident which happened yesterday? That sortof incident as we all know happens now andagain. They are good fun for the media; theyare the only things the media seem to re-port-not the debates. Whether we have tags ornot, it happens. Are we really in the business ofhaving to spend money on this son of securitysystem, with cameras in corridors exactly asdescribed by Orwell in his book 1984? TheBBC film of the book featured cameras in cor-ridors just as we have here. I no longer invitepeople here as my guests unless I ask them inadvance whether they mind being tagged in-stead of being here as my free guests.

Mr Speaker, you will remember the timewhen the Chief Attendant was Mr Churchilland the Chief Steward was Mr Davies. MrChurchill had a magnificent way with people.He would always very politely ask whom visi-tors wanted to see and somehow he always gottheir name. He was always able to tell the mem-ber that Mr Smith, or whoever, would like tosee him. If that was around lunchtime, hewould immediately ring Mr Davies who, asChief Steward, would then be able to addressthe people by their name. All this was the peakof courtesy and the sort of dignity that shouldbelong to this place.

I can vouch for the fact that, as a previousMinister for Works, at Budget time I would saythat the first preference should be better fireprotection in Parliament House and that thebuilding should be equipped to prevent a firespreading from one part of the building toanother. After all, is not fire a greater danger tomembers than any other question of security?Yet Government after Government hasignored that point because it wanted first toprovide more comforts rather than necessities.

MR STEPHENS (Stirling) [12.34 p.m.]: Itake this opportunity during the Budget debateto mention a couple of matters of concern tomy electorate and to again point out thatincreased rural costs mean the farming com-munity has taken,. yet again, another knock.One way or another action will have to be

2966

[Thursday, 24 October 1 985J 96

taken to ensure that we maintain on farms themaximum number of farmers who, at present,have been adversely affected by the change inthe terms of trade and, in some instances, bythe very severe weather conditions they haveexperienced not just this year but over a num-ber of years which have seriously eroded theirfinancial stability.

That so much time has been spent on therural problem will be easily understood by con-sidering the Bureau of Agricultural Economicsfigures, which reveal the real situation faced byrural people. I quote from the 25 July editionof the National Farmer. A small pant of therelevant article reads as follows-

In a dramatic underscoring of the hardtimes which many farmers are protestingover, the Bureau of Agricultural Econ-omics has revealed that a quarter ofAustralia's farms are earning a sub-povertyincome of less than $500 a year.

That $500 is not only a family incomefrom the farm-it must also cover de-preciation and return to capital and man-agement.

It applies to the 1983/4 financial year,and adds that in the previous (drought)year of 1982/3, the farm cash surplus ofthose bottom 25 per cent of farms was ashocking MINUS $574.

The bureau's figures reveal the true in-come plight of the typical Australian fam-ily farm member too: in 82/3 they earnedMINUS $1 999 for a year's hard work, in83/4 just $13 600, and last year $7 500.

In other words the average person work-ing a family farm pocketed just $20 000over three years-while the averageAustralian landed close to $60 000.

These figures reveal the serious plight faced byfarmers in WA and throughout Australia. Thisplight has been brought about not merely bythe actions of one Government but in pant bythe actions of a number of Governments, bothState and Federal.

Our internal costs are also another factor cre-ating this serious situation. Some of these costshave been brought about gradually over aperiod when quite profitable returns were beingreceived by different sectors of the community.One sector is the firms processing agriculturalcommodities prior to export. These firmsbought industrial peace by giving in very easilyto the worker's demands.

This is particularly true of the abattoir indus-try. On different occasions over the years abat-toir managers have freely admitted that therewas plenty of fat, plenty of profit in the returnsthey were receiving, so rather than stand up tothe union demands they gave in. Of course,now that their costs are very high they arefinding it difficult to compete internationally,The only way they can do so is to reduce thereturn to the farmers. Those reductions in re-turns to farmers in past years, when a reason-able margin was involved, went unnoticed.Now, when farmers are operating close to theline separating profit from loss or indeedoperating below that line, these reductions inreturns to farmers are impacting seriously ontheir profitability.

Back in the golden days of the wool boomduring the Korean war, when wool was fetchinga pound for a pound, the shearers sought aprosperity loading. I suppose it isunderstandable that the bonanza r.'aped by thewoolgrowers was seen by the shearers as some-thing in which they should be able to partici-pate, so we saw a prosperity Ioading'granted tothem. As I understand the position, over anumber of years that prosperit), loading wasabsorbed into shearing rates.

The point I want to stress is that at a timewhen that section of the agricultural com-munity was prosperous, other people wanta' toshare that prosperity; but now that the situ-ation is reversed I do not see anyone offering totake a cut in income to help out the now de-pressed agricultural community.

Perhaps that is being unrealistic but at leastit is consistent. If one is to share in the benefitsone must be prepared to meet a reduction asthe situation changes.

Another factor leading to the problemsfacing the rural community is the Situation onthe waterfront. The costs of exporting ourgoods ultimately come off the returns that thefarming community receives. I wish to refer toa few points in the National Farmer of 2October where there is an article headed "Thecost of Australia's waterfront scandal." Thefirst point is as follows-

In a recent paper on the national econ-omy, the Economic Planning AdvisoryCouncil (EPAC) noted Australia's share ofworld trade has slumped from 2.6pc toI .2pc in the past three decades.

2967

2968 ASSEMBLY]

Our share of trade in virtually everymarket has dwindled. Our ranking amongthe world's big traders has slipped from8th to 23rd.

While much of this has to do withnational economic policies of successivegovernments, part of the blame assuredlylies with the portals through which ourproduce reaches world markets-our portsand shipping industry.

Here are some facts: Australian portcosts are from 70 to 100 per cent higherthan those of overseas terminals;

Those percentages will give members an indi-cation of the difficulties being faced by an ex-porter, but I am referring particularly to ex-ports of agricultural products, where thefarmers are the people who are disadvantagedand have to suffer. The article continues-

Australia has the world's second highestrate of waterfront industrial disruptionand will this year lose about quarter of amillion manhours;

Once again, those man-hours are a cost to theindustry and have to be paid. They come fromthe final returns received from primary pro-ducers. The article continues-

Australia accounts for between one thirdand one half the world's shipping strikeinsurance claims;

In the I t months to August 30,Australian ports lost loading time suf-ficient to load 1.5 million extra tonnes ofgrain, at a carryover cost of $30m;

Our port handling charges for a 20 footcontainer are 326pc higher than those ofthe US West Coast and 53pc higher thanthose of the UK or NZ;

Members can see how the port costs seriouslydisadvantage our exporters.

On the other side of the coin is the closedconference system of setting freight rates, lead-ing to major freight hikes. The farmer is beingsqueezed from both sides. The additional costsbrought about by the unsatisfactory situation oflabour and the closed conference system keepour freight rates at an artificially high level.

To continue-

Delays-industrial and operational-account for two thirds of the time theaverage ship is alongside an Australianwharf-

Shipping companies need to keep their shipsmoving to maintain their profitability. Whilethat situation is ideal, that cost is also passedon in the long run to the primary producer. Thefinal point is as follows-

The wheat industry alone pays out$1 250 per grower each year in additionalfreight charges to cover the cost of delaysand stoppages in Australia;

Members should bear in mind that earlier on Ipointed out from the Bureau of Agricultural'Economics statistics that the average farm in-come was $500. The $1 250 referred to in thearticle, if it could go into the producer's pocket,would mean a massive increase in hisprofitability.

It is quite clear from the points I haveenumerated that one of the biggest factors af-fecting the profitability of the primary pro-ducer is costs-costs which could be alleviatedin many instances if we had a much betterindustrial relations system. This factor isacknowledged by the farning community, asindicated by the stand taken by the NationalFarmers Federation. A fighting fund has beencommenced and the rural community-notonly farmers, but businessmen as well-arecontributing to the fund. The fund is beingused to support an abattoir owner atMudginberri to fight union action. TheMudginberri dispute also highlights the lack ofaction taken by the Federal Government inupholding the law. There have been occasionswhen the court has made decisions-and I amreferring to the Mudginberri dispute-whichhave been ignored by the union, and the Feder-al Government has not sought to uphold thedecisions of the court.

The Mudginberri dispute is not over yet. Wehave seen litigation proceed under section 45Dof the Trade Practices Act so the abattoirowner can recover some of the costs that hehad to meet because of the union action. Hope-fully, he will be successful, but at the sametime, if we take notice of some of the articlesappearing in industrial magazines, there is asuggestion that the Federal Government is sup-porting the ACTU. The ACTU, in turn, is sup-porting the AMIEU in trying to overcome theoriginal decision of the Industrial Commissionwhich permitted the employer, the owner ofMudginberri, to negotiate directly with theabattoir workers to bring about a much moreefficient way of handling the animals andsubstantially reduce the costs without any lossof wages to the workers. That is the importantthing. Whereas, the workers would receive a

2968

[Thursday, 24 October 1985J)96

slightly higher wage, the cost to the owner isonly about one-third of that being experiencedat the Katherine abattoir where they wereoperating under the old system.

One of the greatest problems confronting thenation is the industrial problem which ishighlighted by the Mudginberri situation. If weare to get anywhere as a nation, the Govern-ment must govern. We cannot tolerate a situ-ation where a union acts outside the law orbelieves it is the law. Only the other day we sawthe ACTU place a ban on flights to SouthAfrica. Our foreign relations should be at thedecision of the elected representatives of thepeople. They should not be interfered with byother groups. I was going to say minoritygroups but I realise the trade union movementrepresents a large section of the community.Their members are not the elected representa-tives and as such they should maintain the roleof looking after working conditions without in-terfering with the foreign policy of the nation.

Time does not permit me to deal in detailwith the South African situation. All I can sayis that I regard the attitude of Australia andother countries to be rather inconsistent. I can-not say that I am a supporter of apartheid, butneither am I a supporter of what is going on inAfghanistan. If it is wrong to kill blacks inSouth Africa, it is equally wrong to kill thepeople in Afghanistan.

Mr Clarko: Four million people have fledfrom Afghanistan.

Mr STEPHENS: I realise that. We havedouble standards and it is a reflection on ournation that we have those double standards. Ifthe Federal Government feels so strongly aboutSouth Africa and takes the action it is contem-plating it should take the same action with re-gard to Russia.

Mr Clarko: Hear, hear!

Mr STEPHENS: That would be consistentand I could perhaps go along with it, but cer-tainly I cannot support the inconsistent actionof today.

Mr Clarko: And hundreds of other countriestoo.

Mr STEPHENS: That is right. Othercountries in Africa such as Uganda and Nigeriado not have good government, and the con-ditioning of the oppressed people of thosecountries would not be much different fromthat which we understand the blacks are suffer-ing uinder South African rule.

Also, are we going to give way to the lawless-ness that the ANC apparently is encouraging?Black. South Africans are complaining aboutpeople being imprisoned without trial, yet if wetake note of the accounts in the Press we seethat the same people who are complaining willtake a person out of the mob, without trial, ifthey believe him to be an informer, whether heis or is not; it is sufficient only for them tobelieve him to be one. The person is not tried.The blacks put a tyre over his head, douse itwith petrol, and burn him alive. Do we want tosupport that type of alternative regime?

I have sidetracked a little, Mr DeputySpeaker.

Mr Clarko: You made a very good point.

Mr STEPHENS: I am disgusted with the atti-tude that our country is taking with regard tothe South African situation. As a last commenton that point, I would like to wish Kim Hughesand his fellow cricketers all the best in SouthAfrica. They certainly have my support. It isobnoxious to refer to them as rebels. They arecarrying out freely their own wishes and desiresand, as we live in a free country, surely theyshould have that right.

Opposition members: Hear, hear!

Mr STEPHENS: In the few minutes I haveremaining before the luncheon suspension Iwant to move on to the question of furtheragricultural research in this State generally, butmore particularly in regard to the area I rep-resent.

For many years I have advocated the needfor research to maximise the potential of thesouth coastal region and my requests havefallen on deaf ears, even to the extent that theprevious Liberal Government closed down theresearch station at Denmark. I recognise thatalthough two Liberal members in the upperHouse represent the same area, they were notactive in trying to prevent the closure of theDenmark research station. I give the presentMinister for Agriculture credit for the fact thatas soon as he became Minister, at my request,he instituted a stay of action on the closure ofthat research station, but unfortunately it wassubsequently closed down. I understand thetrain had moved too far down the track for it tobe stopped! That being so, I was particularlyinterested to note that the Interim Report tothe Great Southern Region Economic Study,Volume 1, commissioned by the presentGovernment, mentioned research. These comn-ments vindicate the stand I have taken over the

2969

years I have represented the electorate ofStirling. Page 6 of the repont under the heading"Agriculture and Forestry" at 1,.3.20 reads-

The most important factor constrainingagriculture in the Region is the gap be-tween potential productivity and actualproductivity. The main reasons that-pro-ductivity gains has not increased as muchas it could include:

(i) Insufficient locally based agriculturalresearch.

(ii) Lack of consistent application tofarming techniques of the research re-sults which do exist.

(iii) Insufficient capacity to make knownthe results of the research.

(iv) Insufficient management skills to re-spond to new information andincreased financial pressures.

The first point-insufficient locally-based agri-cultural research-is very important and ithighlights the mistake the previous Govern-ment made in closing down the Denmark re-search station. It was a double mistake becausein closing it down a similar facility was movedto Busselton which has a similar climate toDenmark, incurring of course additional un-necessary costs. Had these costs been savedthey no doubt could have been directed intofurther research.

in the past farmers have made many mis-takes, but usually due to ignorance of the situ-ation. There is an awareness in the fanningcommunity of the long-term effects of some ofthe agricultural policies and the degenerationwhich they cause in the soil. I am pleased to seethat the Soil Conservation Advisory Com-mittee is coming into its own; more areas areforming by the committees which can only re-sult in an overall improvement in those farm-ing areas. We still have a long way to go be-cause once the land has degenerated it is a lotmore difficult to restore it than it would havebeen to prevent the degeneration in the firstplace. I repeat that I am not being critical of thefarming community because, in the main, ac-tion was taken in ignorance.

The water supply is of great concern to theDenmark community. I have raised this matterwith the Minister and have tried to seek animprovement in the water supplies to that area.I was particularly astounded that the depart-ment chose not to go ahead with a system to

scour the water before it entered the darn. Thecost was a minimum of only $28 000, but itchose not to take that course.

Mr Tonkin: It was felt it would not be effi-cacious.

Mr STEPHENS: It is questionable whetherthat would or would not be the case. I havediscussed this matter with some officers,although I will not name them.

Mr Tonkin: I have discussed it with severalengineers.

Mr STEPHENS: I was told the Governmenthad decided not to do it at the moment but thatit might consider it in the future. Before theGovernment considers it, I point out that thewater supply had been temporarily improvedby taking water from Scotsdale Creek, but ofcourse that water supply is not sufficient todevelop a water supply scheme. However, asystem exists at Madfish Bay, which is only 12kilometres from the townsite, and I urge theGovernment to look at Madfish Bay with aview to development because in the long termit could be the cheapest way out of the prob-lem.

Mr Tonkin: Does it have plenty of water?Mr STEPHENS: Yes, I have been told it has

plenty of water and it is only 12 kilometresfrom the townsite. Taking a long-term view, itwould be cost efficient to look into this matterof developing it because Denmark surely isgrowing, particularly as people realise it has abeautiful climate and is an ideal place in whichto retire. Definite growth is occurring inDenmark and the demands on the water supplywill increase. It will be a long time before theDenmark River improves to the point where itcould provide a satisfactory supply for thetown.

Sitting suspended from 1.00 to 2. ISp.m.MR CLA.RKO (Karrinyup) [2.15 p.m.]: The

Burke Government should be seen by thepeople of Western Australia as being the mostdishonest Government in the modern historyof this State. I did not have the time to go backfurther and check whether it is the most dis-honest of all time in this State and Australia; itpossibly is. It has been a Government ofbroken promises. For example, it promisedprior to the 1983 election that it would holddown taxes and charges- We have witnessedinstead an increase in three years, possibly arecord, where the increase in State taxation col-lections to date and projected for the first andonly term of this Government is 52 per cent. inthat period the actual and estimated inflationrate is of the order of 20-plus per cent.

[ASSEMBLY]2970

[Thursday, 24 October 1 985J 97

This Government introduced for the firsttime for many years a new form of taxation, thefinancial institutions duty, and now as anexample of its continued hypocrisy and doublestandards, it is trying to make a virtue of thefact that it is lowering the tax it brought in.This Government has been hypocritical inmany matters-the double standards, thetwisting of the truth, misleading of the public,and trying to snow the public in matters such asthe John O'Connor case. John O'Connor, aradical union leader, was placed above the law.He had a history of disrupting the economy ofWestern Australia and had been associatedwith major industrial disputes and strikeswhich affected people who were innocent andhad done nothing at all. Ordinary members ofthe public suffered regularly at the hands of MrO'Connor and members of the TransportWorkers Union.

This Government chose to ignore the adviceand recommendations of virtually everyone ofthe people who are involved in the process oftaking a person before the courts, from thepolice who started the matter right up to thelevel of Mr Kevin Parker, who it seemed to mewas in an equivocal position. The other peoplein the legal process all strongly recommendedthat legal action be taken against Mr O'Connor.This Government chose not to do so. It choseto put aside the only thing that should never beput aside in the community-the law.

Then we moved to the question of the freeFiji trip by the Premier and his driver, andtheir children. People have been examiningthat incident from the point of view of whetherhis position as Premier of this State wascompromised by the fact that he was taking afree holiday at the expense of a prominentPerth businessman who was involved in busi-ness contracts with this Government. That isone way of looking at the issue. I do not wish tolook at it in that way. I want to look at thehypocrisy of the Premier and the people inCabinet with him.

In about the middle of 1983, some sixmonths after this Government came to power,it put out a statement in its typical breast-beat-ing way, saying, "What good boys we are; whata great Government;, how honest we are, morehonest than any other group of Cabinet Minis-ters who have ever held office in this State. Wewill put out this breast-beating statement say-ing we will not compromise our position. Wewill be above all that and all who preceded us.We will be extremely honest; we will have acode of conduct relating to the benefits which

Ministers can have. We will prevent, inhibit,and stop any of those activities coming the wayof our Ministers."

The hypocrisy of all this was that theGovernment brought in its policy andpublicised it to the people of Western Australiaso it could gravel rash to the community andthe electorate and say what good boys theywere. When the Government found out itsbreast-beating did not work or lit the pro-gramme, and the Premier said subsequently itwas a silly policy, the Government quietly,surreptitiously, and in a closet manner changedthe policy, or so it expects the public to believe.This is yet another example of the duplicity ofthis Government and the hypocrisy of theGovernment led by the Premier.

I want to refer now to the area I aminterested in, planning, and in particular to thearea near where I live and the hypocrisy relat-ing to the high-rise issue on the Scarboroughbeach front.

Yesterday The West Australian trumpeted onpage 1 the heading-which was larger thanWorld War III might attract-which read asfollows, "Council deceived us onplans-Pearce". I would point out that the onlypeople who have been deceived in WesternAustralia over the Scarborough high-rise devel-opment are the public of Western Australia.The Premier of Western Australia in his typicalhypocritical fashion said in April 1982 that theLabor Party, if it won the next election, wouldensure that the Austmark tower would not getoff the drawing board, In the Weekend News of1 7 April 1982 the Labor Party is described asbeing against the construction of a 20-storeybuilding on the Scarborough beach front. Thearticle reads as follows-

The Labor Party has pledged itselfagainst the proposed 20-storey develop-ment at Scarborough.

The Leader of the Opposition, MrBurke, told Scarborough residents onSaturday that the residential tower wouldnot get off the drawing board if Labor wasto win power next year.

He told the meeting of about 200 resi-dents held on the grass outsideScarborough Surf Club that Stirling CityCouncil had made a probable mistakewhich could not be allowed to stand.

2971

2972 ASSEMBLY]

He also challenged the Minister forHealth, Mr Young, to support hisScarborough constituents by voting withthe Opposition on any motion to opposethe development.

The Labor Party at that stage opposed the con-struction of the development and they let off aballoon to the height that the proposed devel-opment was expected to reach. This is what thislion, who is now our Premier, said in 1982. Hesaid one thing, but what did he do when hetook his place on the Treasury benches? If onelooks at other articles printed about that timeone discovers that he changed his views con-siderably. Under the heading, "Halt beach-front high rise: Burke", the Daily News of 22April 1982 reads as follows-

The State Government should step inand halt planned high rise development onthe Scarborough beach-front, says theLeader of the Opposition, Mr Brian Burke.

The ankile continues-

Mr Burke said the Labor Party wouldnot permit the two 20-storey projects to goahead.

These were the statements made by the nowPremier, as Leader of the Opposition in April1982. 1 have never heard these statements de-nied and I challenge the Premier to deny themif he wishes.

Prior to the last election, the Premierexhibited his hypocrisy. He will do anything toachieve a particular course of action at a par-ticular time-he will say anything and then hewill do what he likes. That matter, of course,caused a great deal of consternation inScarborough following the last election be-cause, ultimately, the Burke Labor Govern-ment gave its imprimatur to high rise develop-ment. I quote from another article in the DailyNews on 24 May 1984, under the heading"Burke attacked over Scarborough", whichreads as follows-

The Premier, Mr Burke, is in hot waterwith members of his own party who areangry about the approval of a hugeScarborough beachfront development.

Last night a Labor Party meeting, in-cluding three State MPs and one FederalMP, called for immediate action by theState party which could over-rule theGovernment.

The article continues-They say Mr Burke has done an about-

face after calling on the previous LiberalGovernment in 1982 to halt high-rise plansin the area.

Another article which relates to that particularposition appeared in the Daily News on I June1984. Under the heading "Why Bond gotOK-Burke" the following appears-

The State Government has supportedtwo controversial developments because itwants to create jobs, the Premier, MrBurke, said last night.

He was referring to the $100 millionScarborough beachfront, three-tower de-velopment by an Alan Bond company andthe planned $150 million casino atBurswood Island.

The Premier said a "very deliberate pol-icy" had been adopted to allow construc-tion projects which can start this year.

The Government had decided the 17, 13and 11I storey development on theScarborough beachfront by Austmarkshould proceed.

Mr MacKinnon: What did the Minister forPlanning say about that the other night?

Mr CLARKO: We had a different Ministerfor Planning at that time. The artidle con-tinues-

_It was still our view that the jobs andthe boost to the economy that this $100million project would provide was worthpursuing."

The Premier said that on Radio 6PR in hisusual left-wing talk-back programme.

Here is the situation on the Scarboroughbeach front development: Before the electionMr Burke said one thing to 200 Scarboroughresidents; he said, "We will not let it get off theground." Then, two years later he agreed to doprecisely that because he considered it wouldbe good for the economy and for jobs withinWestern Australia. However, on 29 May 1984the Premier is at a meeting of the State Execu-tive of the ALP when a motion to stop theObservation City project is rejected. Heseconded a motion moved by Graham 'Youngto prevent further high-rise development on theScarborough beach front. Our mighty gladiatorand white knight has now changed his tune tothe extent that he steps in and seconds themotion. He is going back over old ground be-cause before the election he was opposed to thehigh-rise development, but once he got intoGovernment he was suddenly in favour of it.

2972

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 97

As soon as that proposal was on the drawingboard, he immediately seconded the motion Ihave mentioned.

Mr Davies: Are you in favor of high-rise inScarborough?

Mr CLARKO: I am glad the Minister hasasked me that question. Some journalistreported that the Premier had turned the tableson me by asking where I stood on this particu-lar matter, and I replied to him, "That is aseparate question." It is a separate question. Iinvite members to read Hansard of this Parlia-ment and they will see that I have made myposition perfectly clear on this matter, as I doon every issue in any debate. I do not say onething, then take another step the next day andsay the opposite and on the day after that comeback to a position partially like the first. Isuggest that members read Mansard and theywill see precisely where I stand on this issue; ifmembers read the local newspapers they willfind precisely where I stand.

Having been a member of the City of Stirlingand a member of the planning committee forsix years, and one of three people from the Cityof Stirling Council who are in this Chamber, Iam the only person who has always votedagainst high-rise development on theScarborough beach front. That should be clearenough for members. I wonder why thejournalist who recently, of his own choice,chose to include my interjection in his article,as if to suggest that I was afraid to state myposition. I have stated my position in the me-dia for at least the last 10 to 15 years, andanybody who cares to read a newspaper willdiscover what I think about high-rise develop-ments. That journalist is obviously gullible andhas not done his homework.

I have tried to make my position quite clear.Without question, my position is known toeveryone who cares to read the newspaper. It isa great pity that the Minister for the Environ-ment and his colleagues have not also madetheir positions clear. I ask the Minister for theEnvironment where he stands in regard to theSorrento marina.

Mr Davies: I support the decision.

Mr CLARKO: Why is the Minister runningfor cover on that subject? The main reason thata marina will not be built at Sorrento is en-vironmental. The Minister has hidden underthe table and has pulled the tablecloth over himuntil the butter and the sugar have fallen off!He does not care and he is hiding from a de-

cision regarding the marina which should havebeen made by him. He and his colleagues havedistorted this matter. Time will tell.

I hope that I have not been too equivocal inexplaining my position in regard to theScarborough high-rise buildings. Withoutfurther humbug I advise the House that theLabor Party has a real problem. TheScarborough Ratepayers Association-a sec-ond name for the local branch of the LaborParty-has been unsuccessful in recent years inhaving its members elected to the council of theCity of Stirling. Robyn Murphy stood, on be-half of the association, and her platform wasopposition to the high-rise at Scarborough.Those people are most upset with the stancetaken by the Labor Government on the ques-tion.

Mr Brian Burke: May I ask a question?Mr CLARKO: The Premier asked a question

last night-I hope he gets as much publicity ashe received yesterday.

Mr Brian Burke: I do not control the pub-licity.

Mr CLARKO: The Premier spends half histime in the Press room.

Mr Brian Burke: The position of local peoplelike Robyn Murphy regarding the Govern-ment's policy measured against your positionand your candidate is that your candidate sup-ports high-rise and so does your leader.

Mr CLARKO: That is excellent. The Premieris saying that the Government's position hasbeen published in The West Australian news-paper. In my opinion, it has been published ina most biased and prejudiced way. TheGovernment has been successful in promotingits candidate for Scarborough at our expense.The Premier will find out that it makes nodifference that the view of Clarko is differentfrom the view of Grierson.

My party is different. It is not like the LaborParty which says what its people will do. Thatis socialism and that is what the Labor Party isall about.

Perhaps the Premier will be prepared toanswer a question. Is it true that before theelection he said that his party would opposehigh-rise buildings on the Scarborough beachfront? Subsequently, his party supported it, butrecently it came out and said that it will sup-port nothing above three storeys.

Mr Brian Burke: This is the truth of the situ-ation.

Mr MacKinnon: That is the truth!

2973

2974 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Brian Burke: Do you want the questionanswered or not?

Mr MacKinnon: See if you can.Mr Brian Burke: Prior to the election-Mr CLARKO: The Premier said that his

party was against it.Mr Brian Burke: -the Labor Party-me and

the Labor Party, which means all of us-Mr CLARKO: The Premier is wriggling.Mr Brian Burke: I am not wriggling. We put

the position-Mr CLARKO: That the Labor Party was

against it.Mr Brian Burke: -that after the election the

City of Stirling had taken certain action whichmeant that we could not stop the developmentunless we were prepared to resort to unethicalthings like refusing it on the basis of health orother regulations.

Mr CLARKO: That is nonsense. TheGovernment could have stopped it. I will referto a Press report to show what happened. Howcan the Minister for Planning claim credit forthe Labor Party and himself by saying that nomore buildings above three storeys will be builton the Scarborough beach front?

Mr Brian Burke: I can answer that question.Things have changed. Firstly, we have a newtown planning scheme and, secondly, the latestdevelopers made a mistake. They did not amal-gamate the titles.

Mr CLARKO: That is not the point I ammaking. The Premier is resorting to his usualdouble standards and hypocrisy. A minute agohe admitted that in 1982 he opposed high-risebuildings on the Scarborough beach front, butin 1984 he agreed to them. Does the Premierdeny that he agreed to them in 1984? He is nowrunning away from the Chamber.

Mr Brian Burke: I am going to a Press confer-ence.

Mr CLARKO: I am not surprised that that isthe case. It is a wonder that the Premier cameout of one. He is involved in one long Pressconference! He is a master at duplicity andhypocrisy. Hie stands up in this House everyevening at 5.15 p.m. like a medieval cardinal,and gives some sort of peculiar sermon. Thisman is a hypocrite and a great pretender.

I have explained the three positions whichhad been taken up in regard to high-rise build-ings. The Premier admitted that in 1982 hesaid, "We will prevent it." It is on the publicrecord whether he likes it or not. It was ap-

proved in 1984 and on 21 May 1984 under theheading, "Govt promises to restrict high-rise"the following article appeared in The WestAustralian newspaper-

THE State Government has moved to takesome of the heat out of the ScarboroughBeach high-rise debate.

In a statement released in the weekend,the Government gave an assurance thatthe beachifront would not be obscured byhigh-rise developments along the coast.

The Government gave an assurance that thebeach front would not be obscured by high-risedevelopments along the coast. That was plainfor everyone 10 read and the Government's ap-proval of the Observation City $100 millionproj ect followed.

In the same newspaper article to which Ihave referred, it states, in regard to the ques-tion whether it was the MRPA or the Govern-ment which made the decision-

This is despite earlier statements fromMr Dowding, and the Premier, Mr Burke,that the Government could not intervenein the MRPA decision.

It is another example of the hypocrisy of thisPremier. When it suits him to he runs for coverbehind the MRPA. Everyone in this House,including the young people in the gallery,would have heard how the Premier began toanswer my question-he is great at asking mequestions. However, when he answered myquestion about whether it would be such andsuch, he used the word "we". I do not know ifit is the use of the Royal plural or whether hethinks that he is King Brian O'Burke fromNorthern Ireland. Did he not wriggle and thenlater on have to admit the truth? He had toadmit that he did come out and say in front ofhis supporters that he opposed it. It was thecoward's way out, but when he is locked up inhis fancy Cabinet moom he takes the oppositeposition.

I could produce a whole series of statementsincluding those from the monthly propagandawe receive from the Government. I do notknow about you, Mr Speaker, but I receiveabout three copies of this newsletter eachmonth. It is a typical case Of OUr wise andshrewd Treasury.

We have a situation where on one occasionthe Government said it was not its decision butthe MRPA's decision, and yet on another oc-casion it claims credit for the decision made. Itcan only have it one way; it certainly cannothave it both ways.

2974

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 97

There is a magnificent cartoon in today'sDaily News which shows the present Ministerfor Planning putting his thumb down to theSpindrifter development. One thing that is ac-curate is his bionic lip which is shown in all itsmajesty.

I refer again to the article which was printedin 1984 and which was available for everyoneto read. I hope that members of the Cabinetread it. It states-

The authority has recently approved the$100 million Observation City Proposal,which includes three tower blocks of HI, 13and 17 storeys. Other high-rise develop-ments planned for Scarborough include an$8 million I 3-storey Spindrifter extensionand a $15 million 2 0-storey block forMurdoch Pty Ltd --

Again, in The West Australian on Saturday, 24March 1984, in a major article headed "SixHigh-rise Projects on the Stocks", there is anartist's impression of the skyline of theScarborough beach front, including Spindrifter.Despite that, we see in The West Auzstralian ofWednesday, 23 October 1985, the headline"Council deceives us on plan-Pearce".' I havenever seen such hypocrisy in my life. Anotherheadline read, "Council Says Pearce Inept".

This Minister has insulted the leadens of theinstitutions in which his portfolios are involvedmore than any other half-dozen of the Minis-ters in this Government. It was his standardpractice to insult the people of the Universityof Western Australia this week; next week thepeople at Murdoch University; then the peopleat the Western Australian Institute of Tech-nology; and so on. The point is that here is aman insulting all these people, and his latestploy this week is to insult the Mayor of the Cityof Stirling and to have the gall to claim that theCity of Stirling is now partisan political. I donot like to say it is political because manymembers talk about there being no politics inlocal government. Politics and local govern-ment are the same thing, as members wouldknow, and that is why I said "partisan politi-cal".

Now the Minister has attacked the fact thatpeople in the City of Stirling are not of hispolitical party, and makes out that that issomething evil. it is either evil or it is not; onecannot say the people at the City of Stirling arebeing nasty because they do not support one'spolitical views, but that they are all right whenthey do. That is not acceptable.

It was a gross inaccuracy for the Minister tosay that the City of Stirling deceived him bynot telling him about the previous Spindrifterapproval. Every Minister in the Government,whether involved in planning or anything else,should read The West Australian regularly. Isuspect that all of them do read it virtuallyevery day of their lives. They should be able toget through to page 2 of the newspaper, wherethis matter was there for everyone to see, and ithas been in the newspaper on many occasions.The full story has been revealed, not only of theBerringa Beach project but of all the others aswell. One of them-the Murdoch one-hasfaded away.

It is absolutely dishonest of this Minister tosay that he met with a representative of theCity of Stirling and that that man did not tellhim of all the projects approved by the City ofStirling, or all the projects involving theScarborough beach front. lHe is not requiredto-the project did not need the approval ofanybody above the City of Stirling. The de-cision was made, and everybody in WesternAustralia who reads the newspaper knows whathappened. Those who have poor memories arereminded of it each time the project hits theheadlines again. It is a major public issue inmetropolitan Perth-the question of high-riseat Scarborough beach front-and it is quitedishonest for the Minister to say he did notknow about it. It is either dishonest or,alternatively, inept for him as the Minister forPlanning to try to claim a great deal of creditfor the fact that he is not going to allow anymore buildings above three storeys in that area.

If the Minister did not find out about it then,I challenge him to ask all of the key people inplanning in his office, whether they were awareof the Spindrifter project. I put it to the Housethat every planner in the Metropolitan RegionPlanning Authority and key pants of the plan-ning world of Western Australia knew aboutthose projects. There is no way they could haveavoided it. The Tourism Commission certainlyknew about it and wanted to take an interest init. I cannot imagine anyone on weaker groundthan the Minister for Planning when he saysthe Mayor of the City of Stirling deceived himbecause he did not tell him about when he firstshaved and so on. That is all it is-a great pieceof planning bluff or, if members like, grosshypocrisy. Fancy the Minister saying, "Thisman deceived me because he did not tell meabout something that he should not have toldme about." That is what it amounts to. In ad-dition, the Minister is surrounded by experts in

2975

2976 [ASSEMBLY]

planning. Either he is saying they are incom-petent, or he is incompetent. I put it to theHouse that he is incompetent and a hypocrite.He is Rip Van Winkle if he was not aware ofwhat had been happening in regard to thosebuildings.

If it were-in some peculiar way which Icannot believe nor accept-that the only waythe Minister could find out the informationthat the Spindrifter project had been approvedwas not in the newspapers, nor from his plan-ning advisers, but from the Mayor of the Cityof Stirling, who did not say it to him and didnot have to say it to him, how can the Ministersay he was deceived? Heavens above! If that isthe state of our planning, the whole world willcrumble.

If one looks at the questions I asked yester-day-and I asked them deliberately-con-cerning the Spindrifter project, one seesthat I asked the Minister when he firstheard about the project, if he discussed itwith his key people in the planning world, didthey inform him of Spindrifter or did they not,and was the decision to apply the three-Storeylimit made while he was ignorant of the currentposition of high-rise approvals in the area.

This Minister has bungled yet again. Weknow this man cannot plan things because weknow, when we look at the marina at Sorrento,that there was a meeting arranged for him. tochair, but the Premier had to chair the meetingbecause the Minister did not turn up. Heturned up later and said he did not know wherehe was going. We know he does not knowwhere he is going in the main, but he was notable to find the Padbury Hall; and that is typi-cal of his whole approach. I do not like tomention that on one occasion he slept in anddid not go to another meeting, because hemight be offended. Just imagine, the Ministerhas deceived us by not telling us other thingslike that.

I am amazed by the announcement by the-Minister that he will take every possible step totry to stop a project over the situation where,when one gets a building licence, one mustbuild within a year of the licence being issued.The Minister made Some statements herewithin the last 24 hours in which he said thatjust clearing the block or something like that isnot sufficient to cover that requirement. Heneeds to be very careful in this. He might thinkhe has a victory by stopping this project insome way because he claims the requirementsof the licence have not been met, but he em-

barks on an explosive course and potentialminefield if he applies this generally while he isthe Minister.

I do not want to say too much about theChinese restaurant because a great deal hasbeen said about it over time; but every personin Western Australia who has any knowledge ofthe subject and who has read the newspaperknows that this, again, was an absolutely dread-ful thing. It was dreadful that this LaborGovernment should try to impose on the coun-cil of the City of Stirling a decision designed toadvantage the Labor Party financially. I havenot yet found a single person, other than themembers of the Government, who has evertried to defend that decision by the Labor Partyto try to publicly blackmail the City of Stirlinginto agreeing to its desire to have yet anothersource of income. Members opposite cheatedand tricked Hon. Ray O'Connor and the mem-ber for Gascoyne in terms of the letters writtenabout the use of that piece of land. Theyacquired the land from the previous LiberalGovernment, and said they would use it for aLabor Party office; and Ray O'Connor-beingthe softy that he is-agreed to it. When he toldme it had been agreed to I said, "You are amug, Ray, for doing that. I would certainly notlet them have land to build an office in thatway because it will backfire on you." I did notrealise when I said it just how much they triedto have it backfire.

The Labor Party came in with sugar andspice and said to the Liberal Government ofthe day and, to our Premier, "We just want thisland from the State Housing Commission."~Ray O'Connor said, "Deal with the memberfor Gascoyne. If it meets the criterion you haveoutlined I think that will be all right and theland can be transferred." The Labor Party atthat time thought it could tell a few little whitelies, distort the position, and get this land awayfrom the Liberal Government. It thought therewould be no trouble with the City of Stirlingbecause the City of Stirling was in Labor'spocket, and it could construct whatever it likedthe Taj Mahal, a spa bath, or anything. TheLabor Party did not know it would become theGovernment and that certain of its party'sfriends would lose their seats on the StirlingCity Council. Some of those people had beenunfortunate enough to have the Premier per-sonally authorise their candidature.

An Opposition member: They are the oneswho lost first.

2976

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 27

Mr CL-ARKO: They did not do too well. Iknow some people who could win that ward bythousands of votes because of their good recordof service. Here were these other people withthe personal imprimatur of the Premier ofWestern Australia, who could not get into thecouncil. I wonder if people will think twicebefore they do that again.

Mr MacKinnon: There was a bloke endorsedin Fremantle who lost.

Mr CLARKO: Was there?Several members interjected.Mr CLARKO: Please would members talk

about partisan politics, because everyone inlocal government is involved in politics!

Mr Bryce: The member for Kalamunda said,"Our fellow". He was talking about "our fel-low" meaning our partisan friend.

Mr CLARKO: An article appeared in TheWest Australian of 17 August 1985 under aheading "Labor assent ends restaurant row."The article reads-

THE long-running battle between theStirling City Council and the Minister forPlanning, Mr Pearce, over a controversialALP Chinese restaurant is over.

The row ended on Thursday when MrPearce agreed to lift a legal order he hadplaced on the council requesting that therestaurant be allowed in Nollamara.

The restaurant affair is one thing, but theGovernment, under the leadership of thePremier, prevented district planning schemeNo. 2 from being introduced to the City ofStirling. That action cost many people in thatcommunity huge sums of money because thezoning of land was held up for many months.People lost money because of delaying thezoning decision.

These people were held to ransom. This isdisgraceful. If the scheme was held up oversome planning issue on which the Governmenthad a particular view, that would have beenone thing. The Premier wrote the letter to RayO'Connor requesting the land. The Premiertold us all that would be involved would be alunch room for people visiting the Labor Partybuilding. Instead it was to become a Chineserestaurant. I understand the Chinese man whoactually applied to operate this restaurant haslost a fortune as part of the backwash of thisarrangement.

The really disgraceful thing about it is theway this Government could use its own narrowobjectives of political profit from a restaurant

improperly sited, and in complete contra-vention of the arrangement under which itobtained the land. The Government was pre-pared to hold up this planning scheme for170 000 citizens of Western Australia, and theycarried on with all sorts of stunts to bold it up.

I would like to say something briefly aboutthe Sorrento marina. Here is a situation wherebefore the election the Premier made manycomments about the Whitford nodes. When hewas Leader of the Opposition the Premier said,"We will purchase the nodes. We will see thatthis land is retained for the public for rec-reational purpose:s." The words he used wereroughly these. "We want to purchase thisbeautiful natural beach." A publication inPerth shows that this beach at Sorrento is oneof the safest beaches in metropolitan Perth.

I was involved in 1980 and for some yearsearlier in the steps which led to the develop-ment of the boat launching ramp at OceanReef. I went to this site in the company of MickNanovich, the member for Whitford at thetime. We went with senior people from theMarine and Harbours Department and others.We stopped at various places, and we were toldthat this site was an unsuitable place to locate amarina.

The Government took away this beach, andso did the member for Whitford. The memberfor Whitford has caused herself irreparableharm and lost her chances because of her weak-gutted approach. She said if the EPA approvalwas forthcoming, it was okay by her.

My objection is that the marina will destroythis beautiful, natural beach, as I have saidright from the beginning. Other people like themember for Whitford have said that if the EPAapproves the proposal it is okay by them.

The EPA document gives no clear decision inregard to the location. Not enough attentionhas been given to the problem of sand move-ment within and adjacent to the marina, ac-cording to the ERMP investigation. The Minis-ter for Planning said, in answer to my questionabout what it would cost in regard to sandtransportation, that it would be $35 000 perannum. Early the next morning I listened to theABC radio station and I actually heard theMinister say that that estimate could rise ashigh as $90 000, but anything above $35 000would be paid for by the State Government. Ido not think these people have any idea of thereal cost.

(94)

2977

2978 [ASSEMBLY]

That marina should have been placed atOcean Reef. What the northern suburbs reallyneed is boat launching facilities for boats whichare trailed to the beach front and placed in thewater by ramps. The Sorrento marina was orig-inally created to provide two boat launchingramps. That has now been increased to four. Itwas prepared to create limited parking facili-ties. The fees were to be high to discouragepeople who trailed their boats to the rampintending to launch them at the Sorrento ma-nina.

We do need a boat launching facility in thenorthern corridor. The spokesman for the boat-ing industry authority has said that 92 per centof boats in metropolitan Perth are trailered.But the Government is creating this monsterfor 1 000 big boats when what it should bedoing is using the $13 million-which appar-ently is the figure, three-quarters or more ofwhich will be coming from the Government inthe long term although initially all of it willbe-to build a boat launching facility at OceanReef. The facility should be able to handle per-haps 500 or 300 big boats rather than the1 000, and we would then be able to maintainthis priceless beach.

The promise the Premier made that he wouldleave this natural beach untouched has beenanother act of hypocrisy on the part of thePremier and the people behind him. Onceagain it is a matter of the Government sayingone thing and doing another. The Governmentcons the public into believing it will do onething and then quietly tries to bluff its way outof it, using some sort of Irish blarney to inducethe public into some sort of soporific state toaccept the Government's rank hypocrisy.

MR BATEMAN (Canning) [3.01 p.m.]: It isabout time we broke up this debate a littlebecause I guess this is the last time I will havean opportunity to say a few words in this place.When I rose to my feet in this place some 18years ago to make my maiden speech, perhapsthe only emotion I felt at the time was nervous-ness, and I guess it is a little like that thisafternoon. In the time I have been a member ofParliament I do not suppose I have ever gotover feeling a little bit of nervousness everytime I rose to speak in here. I imagine that isthe same with most members.

In the past the member for Karrinyup hasperhaps quite rightly yelled out and said that Ishould not interject but should get up andmake a speech. After all those interjections I

am paying my debt. He can rest assured that hewill not have much of an opportunity everagain to make those comments.

Mr Clarko: It disappoints me that that is thecase.

Mr BATEMAN: Nevertheless this is the wayit must be because the time comes when wemust all hang up our boots.

Today I rise to make probably miy finalspeech and I do so with a lot of mixed feelings.I do feel a little sadness. I do not know why Ishould feel that way because to get out of thisplace at this time seems to me to be a ratherwonderful thing. But I do feel some sadness.

Mr Thompson: No anger?Mr BATEMAN: None at all. There is some

sadness in leaving some very good friendsmade over 18 years.

Of course, during my time I have experi-enced some feelings of happiness, especiallywhen at 3.00 a.m. the Leader of the House hasmoved for the House to adjourn! I thoroughlyenjoyed those moments.

A member of Parliament can experienceother feelings of happiness in his lifetime whileworking in his electorate when he is able tohelp people in less fortunate circumstancesthan he. We all do our best to assist thosepeople. In many other professions, peoplewould not be able to offer the help we are ableto offer. A member of Parliament can openmany doors which a member of another pro-fession cannot open. That aspect of my work asa member of Parliament has given me a greatdeal of happiness.

Perhaps my main emotion is pride in havingbeen the member for Canning for almost 18years. I thank the people of Canning for theirsupport and for their faith in me to adequatelyrepresent their interests in the Parliament.

Mr Jamieson: You have held the seat of Can-ning for longer than any other member for Can-ning.

Mr BATEMAN: I am proud to have beenable to break the hoodoo that was attached tothis seat and to secure it safely for the LaborParty. Previously the seat changed between theparties, but since I first held it, it has become asafe Labor seat. I like to think that this hasbeen the result of the many years of hard workI have put into the electorate. I might add thatthe member for Welsh pool was also a memberfor Canning at one time. Boundary changeshave a lot to do with whether the seats we holdare safe or not. I was very fortunate indeed

2978

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 27

after a few years to have lost areas of Melville,Willeton, Baternan, and Bull Creek-thanks toredistributions.

Mr Jlamieson: Real tiger country.Mr BATEMAN: Yes, for any Labor member.

The member for Murdoch is happy to representthose areas. Those areas helped to make myfirst few years in Parliament quite rough and Iwas very pleased to lose them. I experiencedfive redistributions in the six elections in whichI represented the seat of Canning. It can bequite hectic after a while making new friendsand supporters.

r have been asked many times how I came toget into politics, and that question is fairenough. After the war I worked underground inthe mines at Kalgoorlie and so joined theAustralian Workers Union, where I first gotmixed up in politics. I had already beeninterested in wanting to help the underdog and,furthermore, I felt that the Labor Party's phil-osophy was the one which was most beneficialfor most people. Be that as it may, I thenhelped Don May in his election campaign whenhe stood for the ALP in a by-election againstMr Arthur Mills and Mr Richardson. I workedhard to ensure Don's success and our cooper-ation was panly achieved because he and Iserved overseas in the same unit during thewar. Our friendship then turned into a politicalfriendship as well. I later became the presidentof the Riverton branch of the ALP and thengained endorsement for the seat of Canning.Obviously I won the election-and took theseat from Ross Elliott-and I have held it eversince.

I suppose at different times I have had manyopportunities to do better as a member of Par-liament. Looking back I suppose I could havetaken a different course in here, but I followedthe path I did because the seat of Canning wassuch a difficult one to hold, especially in theearly days. I had to devote every day of theweek and a great deal of the weekends to myduties as a member of Parliament. I had onelad at university, one at college, and another athigh school, and I found life pretty difficultduring the first six years what with lookingafter a family and working hard in the elector-ate. I chose to work hard as an electorate mem-ber rather than to push into the field of tryingfor the Ministry. I was very fortunate in serving2V2 years as Chairman of Committees, 21/ yearsas Deputy Speaker, and six years as Whip.They were very satisfying years and I thank theparty, and the Parliament, for allowing me torepresent the Parliament in those positions.

Mr Blaikie: You were a very fair and under-standing Chairman of Committees.

Mr BATEMAN: The member's comment is abit late now; perhaps he should have told methat at the time.

Mr Blaikie: Some Of Your colleagues mighttake a leaf from your book.

Mr BATEMAN: But that was yesterday.During my 18 years as the member for Can-

ning I have made a great many friends whom Icherish greatly, Had I not been elected to Par-liament I may not have met- them. I am think-ing now of you, Mr Speaker, my dear old friendTom Jones, Ken Mclver, Terry Burke, and RonBertram. We all were elected to Parliament inthe same year and we formed a friendship anda bond which has kept us close.

Mr Terry Burke: The class of '68!Mr BATEMAN: It was a very good year, and

I have enjoyed the friendship of those membersover the years, and indeed the friendship of allmembers. It has been a good 18 years for me.

I would like to thank the branches whichhave worked so hard for me in my electorateover the years. Without them none of us wouldbe here, no matter which party we belong to.Branch members stand out in the hot sunhanding out papers-God knows why! Theyknock on doors and get bitten by dogs. I thinkof two of my friends who have been bittenduring those stupid door-knocking campaignswe all have to undertake before an election.

Mr Thompson: They were Liberal dogs!Mr BATEMAN: One of our fellows had eight

stitches in his leg and was quite sick for a while.It staggers me that they do all that voluntarily.They wear out the soles of their shoes and stillcome back election after election. They arededicated people, and I pay a great tribute tothem.

My family are dedicated in the same way.They help not only at election time, but havedone so for the whole 18 years I have been inParliament. They have always played their partas I suppose wives or husbands should do.They have to do a hell of a lot-looking afterchildren, and so on-and they play as great apart as we do sitting in this place. When onethinks of the hours we sit here and carry outother duties in our electorates, one realises thatone's wife, husband, or partner, plays a veryimportant part in looking after one's familyand constituents when they telephone a mem-ber's home. Our families put up with some stu-pid calls late at night, some of them very fright-

2979

2980 [ASSEMBLY]

ening. My wife has had three such calls over theyears and they are not nice, but they are thingsthey have to put up with.

As this is the last opportunity I will have tospeak I would like to thank the staff of Parlia-menit House. I do not suppose any member inthis Parliament would know which way anystaff member votes-and neither shouldhe-because staff members are apolitical. Theytreat us all the same in carrying out their dutiesas staff members. That is great, and they havealways played an important part for all mem-bers. There is nothing a member requires whichhe does not get in five minutes flat. A greatcompliment must be paid to all staff members.

I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, forthe pleasure of your company over those years,and we met before we came to this Parliament.It has been a friendly 18 years. I congratulateyou on the way you have run this Parliament;you have been very fair. I say with respect thatthe member for Kalamunda was a very fairSpeaker, but he was not as fair as you. He wasvery much tougher at question time, and ques-tions were stopped on many occasions becausethere were too many interjections. I pay thatcompliment to you because it is deserved forthe way in which you have carried out yourduties.

t wish all members the very best, especiallythose new members who have been here foronly one term. I say to them in particular that itis very frustrating, as many of us know, to servefor only one term. We have seen members goout after one term and we know it is frustratingand costly to be here three years and then getbeaten. It is a pretty sad state of affairs andvery deflating; it is a pretty rough cup of tea. Iwish all members who have been here one termthe best of luck at the next election. There isonly one way to win elections, and that is towork damn hard. That is all I have to say thisafternoon. I wish everybody well; thank youvery much.

[Applause.]

MR RUSHTON (Dale) [3.16 p.m.]: Thatwas a nice, tranquil way to lead up to a Budgetspeech. I want to reciprocate a few of theremarks of the member for Canning. We haveshared common boundaries and football,cricket, tennis matches, and social engage-ments. His departure is a loss because while weno longer have the same boundary, our associ-ation goes back many years in many ways. Iappreciate his remarks. He has been a goodopponent if one can speak of political opposites

in that way. I-e has been respected in our area,and his leaving is the passing of an era. I hopepeople of his type will come back into the Par-liament in the years ahead. Although he hasstill a little way to go I offer him my bestwishes. I hope that he has a long and happyretirement and that he keeps up some of his oldassociations.

The details of the Budget will be dealt withwhen we get to the items, but I would like toraise a number of aspects and prove a fewpoints about matters which are not quite ascredible as they should be. The credibility ofthe Premier and the Government is in questionat the moment. I refer to the Treasurer'sremarks in the Budget Speech in which he re-ferred with pride to the Budget and said-

... total outlays are planned to also in-crease by 8.9 per cent to $3 094.5 million,a rise of less than one per cent in realterms.

The Treasurer got off on the wrong foot for astart because when one looks at the figures onesees they do not add up. That has beenexplained to the House. Once again it seemsthe books are deliberately cooked, and that isnot good coming from a Treasurer of the State.

Another point the Treasurer should have re-gard for at present is the fact that Australia'soverseas debt has increased to $70 billion, azidis increasing at a terrific rate with a $10 billioninterest bill atone on the debt each year. Itshows we have a real economic problem. Thefact that the Treasurer is proud of the increasein the size of his Budget shows he is on thewrong track. When one looks at the signs onecan read into the Budget one recalls that theTreasurer has been saying recently that theMotor Vehicle Insurance Trust has beenexamined and has a surplus of funds, and doesnot need an increase in contributions.

I question that and refer members back tothe time of the Tonkin Government when con-tributions were raised. We spent the next nineyears after coming to office getting the MVITback into shape. Now the Treasurer declaresthat an actuary has looked at the funds andfound they have been wrongly assessed andthere is a surplus. I have some evidence thatthat is not so. It is another way of putting offone's responsibilities and leaving them to thenext chap, and doing everything towardsfinancing an election. It is not good for thelong-term planning and financing of this State.

2980

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 28

More evidence of how artificial this Govern-ment is in its management of finances can befound if one looks at the Auditor General'sreport. On page 37 one finds the Governmenthas stashed away something like $25 million.The Auditor General's remarks indicate themoney was well and truly unspent. In additionthere is another couple of million dollars relat-ing to police recording fees.

Unspent money which has been set aside forinvestment in the short-term money marketamounts to approximately $23 million plus afurther $2.5 million that went into a slush fundfrom last year. That is only the tip of the ice-berg.

To show that all is not rosy in the garden,this Government has one objective and that iswinning an election. It is ignoring the economyof the State and the long-term well-being of thepeople of the State.

The Premier's trip to Fill has been debatedfully in the last few days. The Premier wasfound wanting in that debate. He was not evenpresent at the final discussions when he had theopportunity to come clean on so many of theoutstanding matters. Of course, that is typicalof his performance in not answering questions.The Opposition depends on something drop-ping off a truck or somebody stepping out ofline and leaking something to it so it can pointout the deficiencies of this Government's per-formance.

Mr MacKinnon: They are not prepared tostand up and be counted.

Mr RUSHTON: That is so and it has oc-curred right through the term of this Govern-ment.

Many episodes other than the Fiji episodestand out in my mind as being far more devas-tating. I know of two matters which will indi-cate to the public of Western Australia thedouble standards of this Government. The firstis the development of the Burswood Island ca-sino. That casino has been the most destructiveissue in this State. The tendering for the devel-opment of the casino did not even go throughthe normal processes. The Government took apiece of land illegally. It did not consider whatthe environmental impact of that casino wouldbe. Volunteers have spent $250 000 in timeand material developing Burswood Island to astage which has now been lost to the people ofPerth. I am sad about that.

Environmentally, I have now become awarethat people have been writing to the Premierand the Minister for the Environment since the

time the casino on Burswood Island was firstmooted and have not been receiving any re-sponses. I think that people will judge thisGovernment as totally irresponsible in the fu-ture. The people of Northbridge are very muchup in arms about the development of BurswoodIsland. The other day they were informed thatthe restaurants at the casino were to be ex-tended, and that must make people's blood runcold. Those people invested vast sums ofmoney in that area. If there bad to be a casino,it should have been developed adjacent toNorthbridge.

I am not in favour of the casino. I wouldrather that it had not been developed. I wouldrather that this State be different from otherStates with legal gambling so that we could at-tract people who are not interested in going tocasinos and who are not interested in the el-ement that casinos attract. The people who arein the know feel that the next thing, of course,will be for the casino to get poker machines.This will be necessary in order to ensure thatthe casino is financially viable. It is generallybelieved that it will struggle to make ends meetunless poker machines are installed. I believethat the majority of Western Australians wouldnot want to see them installed. Therefore, theGovernment will not make any move towardsthis goal until the election is over. If it is suc-cessful,' I believe one-armed bandits will be in-stalled to justify the existence of the casino.

[ believe the casino was developed to demon-strate to the public that this Government was aGovernment of action. The Governmentwanted the casino in place before the electionirrespective of what its development has doneto the construction industry. Conditionsgranted to employees on the casino site havespilled over to all other building sites. There is,therefore, an escalation in costs. That is a badresult which has come from this great endeav-our by the Government.

I believe that certain people put pressure onthe Government so that their development pro-posal would be considered first. I believe thesame applies to the rn jorings in CockburnSound. The tenders "-s.c granted to people whohad been forward ; neir application and whoput pressure on thi 3iovernment.

Recently I have :eceived letters regarding theClaremont Showground. The Government hastaken away the need for the use of the seminarfacilities at the showground by incorporatingthose facilities in the casino. For this reasonpeople are concerned that the showground willbe used as a Luna Park all year round, a situ-

2981

2982 (ASSEMBLY)

ation which will prove to be disruptive to thelives of people living adjacent to theshowground at Claremont. These are the sortsof things that are happening as a result of thedecision to develop the Burswood Island ca-sino.

We do not know what effects the casino willhave on traffic flow in that area. We also do notknow what impact the casino will have on theenvironment. Someone recently said that thesite water is all right. However, I am moreworried about the future of the city and how itrelates to the casino development. I was verymuch involved in the upgrading of HeirissonIsland and the beginning of the upgrading ofBurswood Island. It pains me to see that thatwonderful vista will be lost to us through thedevelopment of this commercial operation.The casino should have been developed nearPerth railway station, at Northbridge. Therewould not then have been any impact by thatdevelopment on the social life of our city.

Mr Jamieson: You are talking a lot of non-sense. It is tucked away out of the road. It willinterfere with nobody.

Mr RUSHTON: That is your point of view,but you do not have much regard for the en-vironment.

Mr Jamieson: I was talking about the en-vironment when you were still changingcheques in the bank.

Mr RUSHTON: Thank you. The next matterabout which I wish to speak relates to some-thing far more serious than the Premier's hol-iday to Fiji. I am worried about the attemptedcompromise of the Government with the set-ting up of the Curtin fund. The media recentlyhas touched on the Curtin fund and how itrelated to the Premier's Fiji trip. Much more isat stake when the Government is attempting tocompromise people by putting them into agroup and suggesting that they are the success-ful entrepreneurs backing the Labor Party. TheGovernment has given this group guaranteesand licences. It is not good enough for theLabor Party to be funded in the normal way.The Government has attempted to compro-mise people who are invC! ed in everyday com-mercial transactions.

It is a very unsatisfactory standard that hascrept in and one which I hope will be cleanedup very quickly indeed.

For instance, one can go to a function nowand hear people complaining that they havenot got this licence or that response from theGovernment, and the indication is that if they

do not kick the can they will not get anythingfrom this Government. That view is widelyheld and it is a very unsatisfactory one relatingto the Government of the day. The sooner it iscleaned up, the better. Those are double stan-dards which most of us are very unhappy aboutand we trust something will be done by thepeople exercising their will to have themcleaned up.

Remarks have been made regarding what weknow today as the Hillarys Boat Harbour. Onceagain, what happened in the last few days wasthat people with an expectation-those ladieswho went forward onto the groyne to expresstheir displeasure with their signs-given tothem by the Premier were actually reacting to asituation born of that expectation. The Premierhad, at the last election, spelt out what hewould do regarding the nodes. That was a pol-itical commitment to have his candidateselected and, of course, it reads very poorly in-deed now when those trusts are broken.

A newspaper headline at that time was"Labor will save the nodes." It says, "Here iswhy we want the nodes back." There is little inthe advertisement I will respond to, but it illus-trates the double dealing and hypocrisy that istaking place now. It happens so often that I feelI should mention it. The newspaper advertise-ment reads-

It's potentially one of the finest beachesin the Perth region, with wide sandyshores-safe for children and the aged,plus an ideal launching area far small craft.

Mr MacKinnon: Who said that?

Mr RUSHTON: The Premier-he author-ised it. The question was asked in the Houseand answered, and obviously the Premier auth-orised it. The advertisement continues-

It SHOULD belong to everyone, not justa privileged few!

Authorities such as the EnvironmentalProtection Authority, the National ParksBoard, and the C.S.I.R.O., strongly adviseagainst development because of erosionproblems and damage to the ecology andenvironment.

The Premier made that commitment at elec-tion time for the sake of getting his candidateselected, and it made quite a powerful im-pression. The same sentiment was expressed inthe advertisement to the effect that this is whathe would do. In the same advertisement it wasstated-

2982

[Thursday, 24 October 1985])98

There were good social, biological, edu-cational and aesthetic reasons forpreserving the Nodes in their natural state.

That is a little quotation from the CSIRO'sstatement. Then Mr T. Carstairs of the CoastalCommunity Group stated-

The beach erosion problem clearlyshows the fragile nature of this section ofcoastline.

These are the contents of an advertisementauthorised by B. Burke, Parliament House,Perth. The double standards and hypocrisy areso blatant, and when we see that same blatancyin so many other things, it starts to concern theaverage citizen. I can understand the Fiji tripand the Premier's involvement, but the doubledealing pant of it is most upsetting. ThePremier does not seem to have any remorseabout it-he seems to want to leave it aloneand take the political course of not answeringthe charges made.

I will now address myself to the latest hypoc-risy that is taking place at Scarborough. Onewould think the member for Scarborough waslilywhite in regard to high-rise buildings. I my-self have been a Minister for Town Planning,and I know a fair bit about his background inrelation to what has happened at Scarborough.The member for Scarborough used to be verystrong in supporting the Murdoch Group ingetting permission for a 20-storey building atScarborough. Now he has the gall and the hideto come in here and criticise somebody else inregard to these developments.

Mr Blaikie: Have you noticed that he re-mains very silent when you raise that point? Hedoes not even interject.

Mr RUSHTON: That is right, but he will bedoing something about it, and that highlightsthe hypocrisy of the Minister for Planning whomakes the claim that he knew nothing aboutthe Spindrifter development that is to takeplace. That is something which has been ap-proved for a long time. The Minister for Plan-ning has abused the Mayor of the City ofStirling; indeed, the City of Stirling seems to bethe kicking boy for this Government.

Mr Blaikie: The Minister for Planning hasobviously seen the cartoon in the Daily Newstoday and has remained very silent, too.

Mr RUSHTON: The Minister is obviouslyspokesman for everything now. He spoke up atSorrento when it should have been the Ministerfor Transport. It all comes back to the Ministerfor Planning-he obviously has the biggest vo-

cabulary. He is a debater, but certainly not anadministrator. He has proved himself to be avery poor Minister in carrying out reasonablepractices.

We have seen what the Spindrifter develop-ment is being put through at the moment. Asfor the Observation City development, to myknowledge that is still subject to two more high-rise buildings. Those judgments were madeduring the term of this Government. Anotherfeature of the duplicity of this Governmentshines forward in many ways. I go out into thatgeneral area sometimes, and the points beingput forward are that it is all due to June Craig,the previous Minister for Town Planning.When one looks at the dates on which approvalwas granted, one sees what has taken place dur-ing the time of this Government. That is theway this Government works-it is not credible.

It is totally hypocritical for the member forScarborough to be criticising people goingahead with this development. His Premier saidit would create employment opportunities andwould be a prestigious development as far asthe Government was concerned. Now that theirseats are at risk, he does an about-face. It allrelates to an election in the months ahead. Themember for Scarborough was up to his neck inhigh-risc development. He was closely involvedwith the Murdoch Group, in getting permissionfor a 20-storey building near the Spindrifterand I was fully aware of that when I was re-sponsible for town planning.

This whole scene is one of hypocrisy, onethat is questionable, and very deplorable whenit comes to how people can go about a develop-ment with any security. I am worried because Ido believe that Observation City, which had itsapproval at stage one, is dependent upon twomore stages.

Mr Thompson interjected.

Mr RUSHTON: The member for Scar-borough was very closely associated with theMurdoch Group and I think got approval for a20-storey building. If that did not get through,then it very nearly did. He left the City ofStirling just before the next application for ahigh-rise building was made, and then changedhis whole tune and became a defender of thefaith-a defender of limited storey build-ings-and championed that cause.

Mr Burkett: I have never voted in favour ofhigh-rise at a council meeting of the City ofStirling. If you can contradict that, you showme the evidence.

2983

2984 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr RUSHTON: The member is one whowould work very hard when in an officialposition and then go outside to say hedisagreed with the decisions made. That is thesort of thing that happened.

Mr Pearce: That's rubbish. That's the kind ofthing you do.

Mr RUSHTON: That is known. The Minis-ter's performance has also been discredited.The fact that the Minister is the third Ministerfor Planning in just over 21/ years shows whatregard this Government has for the planningprocesses.

Mr Pearce interjected.Mr RUSHTON: We know what my perform-

ance was and I am proud of it, as are others.We do not take away from the Minister for onemoment his ability to debate. That is his forte.But the fact is that the truth and the facts donot matter to him. All he wants to do is win adebate.

Mr Pearce: "A good debater is a good manspeaking the truth"-Cicero.

Mr RUSKTON: I retract my remarks. Ithought the Minister was a good debater, butnow I have to withdraw those remarks becauseif that is what Cicero said-and he was a wiseman-the fact is that the Minister does notmeasure up to his credentials.

The fact is that there has been double-dealingat Scarborough. What is this Minister for Plan-ning going to do about the next stage of Obser-vation City and the one after? I understandthat those three stages are linked as far as itsviability is concerned. The Spindrifter develop-ment was entitled to go through the process. Iunderstand it was a part of town planningscheme No. 1. The City of Stirling was entitledto make decisions. This Minister came in and,for political reasons, is attempting to thwartwhat should be the responsibility of the City ofStirling.

This Government has piously said that it be-lieves in authority being vested in local govern-ment authorities. My judgment is that localgovernment authorities should be entitled tonegotiate with the Minister for Local Govern-ment and have those freedoms and rights theywould choose. However, this Minister has goneone further with that principle. Obviously hehas introduced some freedoms that localgovernment authorities do not want. I alwaysnegotiated with local government authorities todetermine what they wanted and reasoned withthem in that regard.

The Government made an unfortunate movein separating the portfolios of Local Govern-ment and Planning because obviously theywork well together. One could get better de-cisions on planning and local government byhaving them in one portfolio.

Mr Pearce interjected.Mr RUSHTON: A Minister has to work. He

can't be just a mouth sounding off around thecity or country. The Minister should be backdoing his work. That brings me back to a verysad situation which has become known to meby people seeking to see the Minister. Theyhave been told that unless they come from hiselectorate they cannot see him on planning ap-peals.

Mr Pearce: That is untrue. Let me tell you, Iget one hour a week in my electorate officebecause I am so busy as a Minister.

Mr RUSHTON: I am not talking about theMinister's electoral office.

Mr Pearce: That is the only place where thereis a restriction.

Mr RUSHTON: This happened in the Minis-ter's office in the education building.

Mr Pearce: I keep that one hour for my con-stituents. The reason for that is that all yourconstituents want to come and see me.

Mr RUSHTON: That is rather strange. I in-dicate that the Minister is telling untruths. I seeso many of the Minister's constituents, I won-der where the Minister is. I do know that as aMinister he has many calls upon him whichtake him to H-edland and other places. Perhapspeople cannot see as much of the Minister asthey may want to.

Mr Pearce: Who has wanted to see me andhas been unable to do so?

Mr RUSHTON: I am talking about the Min-ister's own office. People have rung up andmade appointments to see him. When theyhave gone to the office the secretary has metthem at the door and asked them what theywanted to see Mr Pearce about. When theyhave said it was a town planning appeal theywere asked whether they came from the Minis-ter's electorate. They were then told that theMinister sees no-one other than his own con-stituents on that matter. That is rough justice.The Minister is not fulfilling his ministerialresponsibility.

Mr Pearce: I have never given people ap-pointments for town planning appeals. Mystandard practice is not to have people come tosee me on those matters.

2984

[Thursday, 24 October 19853198

Mr RUSHTQN: They can't see the Minister.

Mr Pearce: Because I deal with 30 town plan-nling appeals a fortnight.

Mr RUSHTON: The Minister deals withfewer that I did.

Mr Pearce: Except that I deal with themfairly. Around Armadale they have what areknown as Rushton subdivisions which meansthat anybody who wanted a subdivision inDale-

Mr RUSHTON: Whenever the Minister is introuble he lashes out. He seems to lower thelevel of debate when he is in trouble. He is introuble with his dealings in Scarborough. I ampresenting facts. The Minister has made ajudgment and stands by it. That is obvious; butI am somewhat critical because I think a Minis-ter is there to dispense service to all people, notjust those from his electorate, not just thosefrom the Labor Party or from the Liberal Party.A Minister should look after the people whocome from any cross-section of life who wantto see him.

Mr Pearce: People who make appeals can seeany officer on the Town Planning AppealsCommittee. All the documents come to me fordecision. However, if you are going to listen tothe appellant, you would have to have eachcouncil in to put the alternative point of view.

Mr RUSHTQN: That depends on the Minis-ter's frame of mind. That is an instance whichreflects his approach. He is entitled to it.

Mr Pearce: It is a fair approach. It applies toeverybody.

Mr RUSHTON: Nobody sees the Minister inthose matters except those in his electorate.

Mr Pearce: My constituents cannot come tosee me on an appeal matter at my departmentaloffice. They can come to see me in my capacityof a local member, as can any person.

Mr RUSHTON: That has been identifiedand is clear. The Minister does not see peopleon town planning appeals other than thosefrom his electorate. I just wanted to get it clari-fied because that is what people havecomplained to me about. I can just confirmthat that is his ruling.

Mr Pearce: That's right. It is not like the dayswhen you were a Minister when anybody couldcome up and say, "I know 'X' who is in theLiberal Party. Give me my appeal." We don'twork like that.

Mr RUSHTQN: That is just the smart alecand nasty approach of a debater. Apparentlythe Minister is not a very good debater anymore, keeping in mind what Cicero said abouthonesty.

I return to the subject of the Scarboroughbeach front. We have a real mish-mash of in-volvement by the local member and the Minis-ter who has judgments to make. He is obvi-ously making political judgments. He does notmind kicking a developer who has had author-ised approval in such a way that the developerwill be obviously disadvantaged financially. Hehas not been very clear about what is to happenwith Observation City. It is my belief that Ob-servation City has an understanding. Stage onehas been approved with a number of activitiesto take place in that building. I believe that theapproval was for serviced holiday units, resi-dential apartments, retail outlets, restaurantsand recreational facilities. I believe that stagestwo and three will also be high-rise develop-ments, and that those stages contribute to theviability of the total project. Thus, basically,there would be three high-rise developments inthe Observation City complex. The Spindrifterwas to be built down the moad. It had made astart on the development, but is now beingchastised and terrorised by the Minister. It isbeing unfairly dealt with by the Minister forpurely political reasons.

I have not been involved in the decisionsthat have been made. Obviously it is thisGovernment's decision with respect to thatfrontage and what will be constructed there.But to my mind, everybody on a like zoningshould be treated equally. I have always heldthe view that one person should not be treatedin one way and another in another way. If theyare in like circumstances or a like zoning theyshould be treated equally.

Mr Burkett: A lot of people who supportedObservation City-the member for Mt Lawleycould correct this if I am wrong-said that thatwould clean up a very untidy part ofScarborough beach, vis-a-vis the old pinballparlours, the old fish and chip shops and every-thing else.

Mr RUSHTON: flat was the member forScarborough's opinion.

Mr Burkett: It was not my opinion. A lot ofpeople who supported the development saidthat. How could anyone who is pro-high-risesay that the Spindrifter is cleaning up anythingwhen it is replacing two beautiful single resi-dential homes alongside West Beach lagoon,

2985

2986 [ASSEMBLY]

alongside the original holiday units ofSpindrifter-three storeys, blending harmon-iously with nothing?

Mr RUSHTON: The member is indicatingthat in fact the Observation City-

Mr Burkett: I think a lot of people on theCity of Stirling indicated that they would notsupport high-rise in district planning schemeNo. 2 south of Scarborough Beach Road andbetween Brighton Road, West Coast Highwayand the Esplanade.

Mr RUSHTON: What has to be done has tobe fair and one has to treat everyone equally.

Mr Burkett; The approval was granted on 9November 1983. You know the planning pro-cedure because you were an extremely fairMinister for Town Planning and Urban Devel-opment. This approval is valid for a period ofone year only; if the development is notcompleted a fresh approval must be obtainedbefore commencing or continuing the develop-ment. There were four blocks of land and theyhad to be amalgamated. When you were Minis-ter I said to you that I was getting peoplecoming out to Stirling since day one applyingfor rezoning. They did not own the land orcontrol the land by option. You can come alongto the corner site and say you want a delica-tessen.

The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr RUSHTON: I wish to put before theHouse the fact that it is a delicate situation andit would appear unfair play is taking place be-cause it is a political expediency for theGovernment to do certain things.

I do not wish to be unfair to the member forScarborough, but to my knowledge he was fordevelopment in the days gone by and he is inthe position where he could judge the numberof people that do not want that high-rise build-ing. The Minister is quite facetious in his ap-proach to the situation. There should be equaltreatment for whoever is developing, and itwould be interesting to have the Minister makea statement regarding his intentions concerningObservation City. Observation City, on myunderstanding, is to have three high-rise build-ings in due course, stages 1, 2, and 3. Will thattake place? if the Minister is serious and fair hewill say, "No, you cannot have stages 2 and 3."If that situation occurred stage I could quitelikely be unviable. That is the situation and thisGovernment has been found wanting. TheGovernment's credibility is questioned on thatissue.

I wish to briefly touch on some of thehappenings and the false claims made aboutpublicity in my area relating to the standard ofethics in the next election. The Premier makesthe claim that his candidate has done manythings in the district. What more could he do ifhe was a member of Parliament? If there was atribunal to deal with unfair and untruthful ad-vertising, this Premier would be behind bars.

The Premier and his candidate claim to havehad an influence on the upgrading and im-provement of the Mundijong-Picton railwayline at a cost of more than $1 million. Millionsof dollars were spent during the time of myadministration, and the inference is thatnothing else has been done.

The permanent care unit which cost$800 000, as part of a development for theArmadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital, is ayear behind. There is no mention of that. Irefer to another item and that is the construc-tion of the initial stage of the Oakford PrimarySchool. I cannot get a commitment from theMinister as to the purchase of the site. TheGovernment makes this false claim in thepaper about the construction of the initialstage. It is still possible but it is not feasible tobe running that advertisement when the schoolshould have been built before last winter, notthis coming winter. The Minister has madeanother claim about the health centre at theArmadale-Kelmscott Memorial Hospital. Thathealth centre was commenced in our Govern-ment's time.

I refer to the improvement and upgrading ofthe Serpentine-Mundijong irrigation and drain-age scheme. One would not be able to see whatthe previous Government has done.

I next refer to the construction of the newArmadale bus-rail transfer station at a cost of$300 000. This was on our Government's pro-gramme, and it would have been built a yearago. It will now start in about February orMarch of next year. That is the quality andintegrity of the advertising by this Govern-ment. God help us having a Government ofthose ethical standards and principles when itcomes to running a State.

With respect to the financial aspects, we see amisleading presentation of the figures. There isno regard for the real drama that this country isgoing through at the present time through thehigh cost of government, the huge spending bythis Government and the Federal Government,and the creation of a fund as seen in the Audi-tor General's report which will make moneys

2986

[Thursday, 24 October 1 985J198

available for this election. I refer to the little"PS" on the letter I personally received fromthe Premier asking me to support his candiatein the next State election, that flat one cent oftaxpayers' money had been spent on the pro-duction and circulation of that letter. It wasonly the copy of the Premier's letterhead thatinvolved a cost,

The money is coming to this Governmentfrom its intrusion into the commercial worldand into the heavyhandedness of forcingpeople to pay money into the Curtin Fund andinto the Labor Party for this election. It is myunderstanding that the Labor Party has fundsto the extent of $3 million to spend on thiselection. Those funds are obviously comingfrom that source.

tt will be an interesting election because if aGovernment can buy an election it would notneed to go any further. It would have won thiselection. There are some citizens who are deter-mined that the standard of credibility, ethics,and principles that is degrading the Govern-ment at this moment will not continue in thefuture.

I believe we have a real task ahead of us toensure that these standards and ethicsemployed in parliamentary life, in comerciallife, and in our communities are attended to.This type of advertising is unacceptable. I trustthe Government will rethink its position to en-sure that ethics will come back into itscampaigning so we do not have to answer un-truths and lies nearly every week inpresentations by it.

MR CORDON HILL (Helena) [3.58 p.m.]: Irise to speak for a few minutes on certain as-pects of the Budget presented a couple of weeksago by the Premier and in particular to addressmy comments to some of the remarks made bythe member for Dale, who I notice has just leftthe room.

The member for Dale, along with a numberof other Opposition members, has adopted aparticularly negative approach since coming toOpposition. It is amazing that this approachcomes from the member for Dale, who was aMinister, and in fact the Deputy Premier ofthis State.

One would think the Opposition, instead oftrying to adopt a negative approach and con-stantly criticising the Government for allegedwrongdoings, would try to look for positivepolicies which would be of benefit to the com-munity of Western Australia. In addition, onewould imagine the Opposition would be pre-

pared to accept some of the positive things thisGovernment has done and recognise that it hasmade tremendous progress in many areas.

It is well known in the community that allthe economic indicators are showing that theeconomic performance of this Government hasbeen outstanding. The Opposition can come upwith all the figures it likes. The facts presentedby the Treasurer in his Budget speech and pre-pared by Treasury officials show that unem-ployment has continued to decrease at atremendous rate.

During the life of this Government we haveseen far fewer business bankruptcies than inthe years of the previous Liberal Government,and employment has increased quite dramati-cally.

Let us now consider some of the statisticssupplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.For the month of September, last month, wefind that unemployment in WA decreased by2 300, or 4.4 per cent. That is a tremendousachievement and something which the Oppo-sition should praise. However, all we hear arenegative responses and continual knocking.Over the last 12 months, unemployment in WAfell by 18.3 per cent compared with a nationalfall of 5.4 per cent, so we are well above thenational figure. The unemployment rate forSeptember this year was 7.4 per cent, which is afall of almost two per cent on the figure of 9.3per cent for September 1984. WA has the sec-ond lowest unemployment rate in Australia.

We have also seen a strong growth in em-ployment in WA, a reflection of the continuedgrowth in our economy. Note this: The growthin employment for last month was the largestmonthly increase recorded since monthly fig-ures became available in 1978. For a consider-able period since 1978, we were governed bythe Liberal Party, both State and federally, andwe saw employment opportunities decline.Under Labor Governments, both State andFederal, that situation has been turned around.The growth in employment since September1984 is 5.3 per cent and that compares favour-ably with the national average of 3.2 per cent.Obviously the reason for this significant in-crease is the strong growth of our economy andthe tremendous confidence the business com-munity has in this Government. So we haveseen an increase in employment opportunitiesalongside a dramatic decrease in unemploy-ment. Of course it is Queensland andTasmania, the Liberal States, which are drag-ging down the national figure.

2997

2988 [ASSEMBLY]

The grwwh in employment in WA is evenmore significant when we consider the increasein our labour force last month. In recentmonths job seekers have been coming onto thelabour market at a tremendous rate, which isusual at this time of the year. However, thisyear many of them have been absorbed into thelabour force. The full-time employmentposition for September grew by two per centand the pact-time employment position forSeptember grew by 3.5 per cent. WA has aparticipation rate in the labour force far greaterthan any other State.

The Opposition continually talks aboutbankruptcies, mortgagee saes and so on, butthe fact is that bankruptcies in WA havedropped significantly since we have been inoffice. They have dropped here more than inany other State. During the last financial yearbusiness bankruptcies in WA fell by 15.3 percent, which was a significantly higher figurethan the national average and whichrepresented a fall of five per cent. OUr figurecontrasts dramatically with the number ofbankruptcies in Queensland, where they actu-ally increased by more than they decreased inWA. Bankruptcies in Queensland increased by15.6 per cent under a Liberal Government anda similar situation occurred in Tasmania.

Mr Blaikie: You should also take credit forthe increase in our wine tax of 10 per cent.

Mr GORDON HILL: I will come to taxesand charges in a moment. The QueenslandGovernment, which the member so admires,interestingly enough does not necessarily sup-port the privatisation policy which the mem-ber's party here supports.

The Opposition continues to raise questionsabout the State Government's taxes andcharges, but it does so in a dishonest way. Re-cently we have seen a series of television adver-tisements featuring the Leader of the Oppo-sition outside his "typical" suburban home inCirce Circle, Dalkeith. In those advertisementshe claims to be a typical householder with atypical mortgage. Most of the advertisementspresent allegations of increases in StateGovernment taxes and charges under thisLabor Government. The claim is made that theBurke Labor Government is a high tax Govern-ment- I think we should compare the record ofthe Burke Labor Government with that of theCourt-O'Connor Liberal Governments. TheOpposition's claim that this Government is ahigh tax Government is just an untruth. Thefacts I will produce are supported by StateTreasury, so they cannot be denied. Members

should bear in mind that the Consumer PriceIndex for the last three years of the Court-O'Connor Governments-which is the time Iwill compare with the last three years of theBurke Labor Government-rose by 33.6 percent, whereas the projected increase for theperiod of the Burke Labor Government is just21 percent.

Domestic electricity charges under theCourt-O'Connor Governments increased by 50per cent, while under the Burke Labor Govern-menit they increased by 23.8 per cent. Domesticgas charges under the Court-O'Connor Govern-ments increased by 58.2 per cent, while underthe Burke Labor Government they increasedby 24.7 per cent. The fixed charge for domesticmetropolitan water under the Court-O'ConnorGovernments increased by 90 per cent, whileunder the Burke Labor Government itincreased by 10.5 per cent. What a difference!What a Government! Metropolitan seweragecharges under the Court-O'Connor 'Govern-ments increased by 90 per cent, while under theBurke Labor Government they increased by16.6 per cent. This is at a time when we haveexperienced a significantly lower increase inthe Consumer Price Index.

Members of the Opposition claim to be thepeople who best support rural communities,but consider this: Domestic charges for countrywater supplies under the Court-O'ConnorGovernments increased by 101 per cent, whileunder the Burke Labor Government theyincreased by 24 per cent. What a remarkabledifference. The State fuel tax under the Court-O'Connor Governments increased by 105 percent, while under the Burke Labor Governmentit increased by 17.3 per cent. The most starkcontrast is to follow: Third party insurance pre-miums under the Court-O'Con nor Govern-ments increased by 176 per cent, while underthe Burke Labor Government they did not in-crease at all.

The Opposition has a very sorry record inGovernment. For it to claim that the BurkeLabor Government is a high tax Government isquite untrue. The figure that should be lookedat carefully is the CPl increase due to Govern-ment charges. Over the last three years of theCourt-O'Connor Government the increase was2.2 per cent; the increase under the BurkeLabor Government's term of office is 0.5 percent. The figures speak for themselves. Mem-bers cannot deny those figures, however muchthe Opposition might want to claim they areuntrue. They are the facts and they have beenprovided by the Treasury. Opposition mem-

2988

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 28

bers are being quite hypocritical when they talkabout honesty. When they refer inside andoutside this Chamber to State Governmenttaxes and charges being exorbitant they are tell-ing blatant lies because the figures I have justprovided show that most of the increases havebeen below the Consumer Price Index. Theyare below the inflation rate, which means inmost cases there have been real reductions inState Government taxes and charges.

I want to come back to the question of smallbusiness growth. That is an area in which theOpposition claims to be particularly strong; itclaims to support small business and to have aparticular interest in that area. As I indicatedearlier, the growth in small business under thisGovernment has been quite staggering. I havesome figures which will bear out thatstatement; they have been provided by theSmall Business Development Corporation.

The major growth areas in this Govern-ment's three years in office have been construc-tion-and that is well known-and intransport and storage, and the wholesale andretail trade. In the construction area 4 500more firms have been established, a growth of57 per cent. In the wholesale and retail tradearea 1 700 more firms have established, agrowth of 11I per cent. In the transport andstorage area there has been growth of 44 percent with 856 more firms being established.

At the same time the small business sectorhas increased its share of the State's work forcefrom 36.1 per cent to 41.2 per cent. That indi-cates the significant pant the small businesscommunity plays in the State's economy. It iswell recognised by the Government, and it hasbeen supported by this Government as theTreasurer indicated in his speech through pay-roll tax reductions and cuts in State taxes andcharges which affect the small business com-munity. This has meant an increase in employ-ment opportunities, and it indicates the confi-dence the business sector has in the StateGovernment.

Let us look at the forecasts for growth areasin the business sector. Again they have beenprovided by the Small Business DevelopmentCorporation. The corporation forecasts that thecompound growth rate in Western Australiabetween 1985 and 1989 will be 3.5 per centwhich is significantly higher than any otherState. The next highest figure is for SouthAustralia with a rate of 2.69 per cent. The low-est figure is in the Liberal State of Tasmaniawhere it is anticipated there will be growth of1. 58 per cent.

I refer very briefly now to a matter which wasraised in today's Daily News. I note the LiberalParty is in the process of producing its policieson privatisation. It is worth noting that theLeader of the Opposition in a speech at a Lib-eral Party conference early last year produced ahit list-the Hlassell hit list--of Governmentinstrumentalities and authorities which hewould be prepared to sell off and dispose ofeither partially or in their entirety. It includesthe SEC, the Public Works Department-

Mr Blaikie: There is nothing left of the Pub-lic Works Department.

Mr GORDON HILL: I imagine he is talkingabout the Building Management Authority orthe Water Authority because he mentions thewater authority later on. The hit list goes on asfollows-

The Government Printing Office; theState Government Insurance Office; theState Engineering Works; the Rural & In-dustries Bank of Western Australia; theWestern Australian Tourism Commission;Stateships; Westrail; Metropolitan MarketTrust; hospital and other institutions cater-ing services; the Metropolitan Water Auth-ority; the Department of Lands and Sur-veys; the Department of industrial Devel-opment; and the Hospital Laundry andLinen Service of Western Australia.

There is very little left after that.Mr Blaikie: Is that all?Mr GORDON HILL: The member for Vasse

is proud or that. He knows very well that thecountry people he purports to represent ywouIdbe disadvantaged by that policy. The Leader ofthe Opposition said in this Chamber, lastyear-

We are looking at a vigorous policy ofprivatisation which includes not only salebut also partial sale and contract.

The facts are that this policy will lead toincreased costs for those services in the countryin particular, and I know that you, Mr ActingSpeaker, (Mr Taylor) would agree. It wouldlead to increased unemployment. The Oppo-sit ion talks about the Thatcher experience andis modelling its policies on Thatcher policies inthe UK, policies which have led to an unem-ployment level of 13.5 per cent. What a figureto be proud of! What a tremendous objectivefor the Opposition!

There is also talk by the Federal Oppositionof privatisat ion. Included in the Federal Oppo-sition's hit list is the sale of Telecom, among

2989

2990 [ASSEMBLYI

other bodies. The Opposition talks about theUnited States and uses it as an example ofderegulation in telecommunication services. itclaims there has been an improvement in ser-vices there as a result of deregulation. I wasrecently in the United States, and I can tellmembers that I met many consumers in remoteareas of the country-in the mid-west, such asNebraska-who had nothing nice to say aboutthe US telecommunication system. I went tothe people who were affected by thederegulation and privatisation, the consumersand small business people and farmers, andthey did not like it one little bit.

I wish to quote from the UltraconservativeUS News and World Report, a United Statespublication. In a recent current affairs article itstated-

Phoning remains as easy as ever. Butservice for businesses with special needs ischaotic. Residential users remain bewil-dered. Anyone having to deal with the newphone companies stand a chance of gettingevasive treatment.

That report is dated 9 July 1985. That is an up-to-date comment from a conservative new re-port in the United States. The conservatives inthis country will use it as an example forderegulation of this system.

Mr Trethowan: But not privatisation.

Mr GORDON HILL: 1t is an example ofderegulation. I know the system is private.However, I am talking about deregulation inwhich more private companies have the oppor-tunity to come into the system. In Australia,one company is involved in telecommuni-cations as was the situation in the UnitedStates previously. However, many companiesbecame involved in that system and from thattime the service declined. I could give manymore examples to indicate the problems whichexist in the United States with regard to thederegulation of telecommunications services.However, I will leave that for another time.

My main concern about this policy ofprivatisation is that workers in my electoratewill be severely harmed by it. When I talkabout workers I have the Westrail workers atthe Midland Workshop in mind. I know thatrecently the Liberal Party released its policy ontransport. That policy stated that it would holdan inquiry into the future of the MidlandWorkshop. That sounds ominous to me be-cause I know how the Midland Workshop's em-

ployees were treated by the previous LiberalGovernment. I am therefore quite concernedabout the future of the workshop.

I would like to canvass many other mattersconcerning issues relating to my electorate. Ithink, however, that it is appropriate to do thatduring the debate on the Estimates.

I did want to make a few comments aboutthe Opposition's negative approach to Govern-ment policies. The Opposition has never comeout with any statement supporting any Govern-ment initiative. Nor has it accepted anyGovernment success and there have beenmany. Those successes have been widely ac-cepted by the Western Australian community,the business community, and by Australia as awhole. That was indicated in a survey carriedout by the New South Wales Liberal leader, MrGreiner. Throughout Australia this Govern-ment has been praised as one that shows in-itiative, as one which provides stimulus to theeconomy, and as one which has caused growthin employment opportunities. Yet this Oppo-sition will not recognise that fact and continuesto adopt its negative attitude. If that continuesin Februar or March or whenever the Stateelection is to be held, the people of WesternAustralia will say, "Let there be no hassle."

MR THO0MPSON (Kalamunda) [4.24 p.m.]:Having been chided by the member for Helenafor not saying something positive I now wish tosay something positive: I commend theTreasurer for producing the Budget papers inthe folder provided. It keeps them together andmakes it easier for us to find them. I havebegun my speech by saying something positive.

I draw the Government's attention to thefact that, whenever I move a motion critical ofthe Government, I always put before the Housethe alternatives that I believe should be fol-lowed. The Government should give creditwhere it is due. We periodically praise the Min-isters. I have praised the Minister for Health ona number of occasions. I recently commendedthe Minister for Minerals and Energy for some-thing that he did.

Mr Brian Burke: When is it my turn; that iswhat I want to know?

Mr THOMPSON: I have given the Treasurercredit.

Mr Brian Burke: You have never given mecredit.

Mr THOMPSON: I gave the Treasurer credita moment ago over this folder. Be thankful forsmall mercies.

2990,

[Thursday, 24 October 1985]199

Mr Brian Burke: Why don't you be honestand say you are opposed to us?

Mr THOMPSON: We are opposed to theGovernment by definition.

I have had to review the order of the subjectswith which I wanted to deal to keep some sortof continuity in the debate with the pointsraised by the member for Helena, He hadsomething to say with regard to our initiativeson privatisation. He suggested that there are anumber of areas of Government responsibilitythat are not appropriate to be privatised. Hementioned the State Energy Commission. Hesaid our policy on privatisation would result inan escalation in the cost of the service or,alternatively, a downgrading of the service,particularly for country people. That is not ourposition. We have said categorically that noinitiative undertaken by us in respect ofprivatisation would result in a loss of employ-ment, nor would it result in the downgrading ofa service.

Many functions of the SEC could beperformed more cheaply by private enterprise.The State Energy Commission has, in some re-spect, adopted a privatisation approach tomany of its services because it has called fortenders for the provision of equipment and thatequipment will involve private enterprise. En-gineering design also goes to private enterprisebecause it is not done by the workers at theSEC.

Many functions within some of thesemonopolies can be better performed by privateenterprise. I would eat my hat if it were notpossible to write a specification for the con-struction of a powerline and not have it donemore cheaply by private enterprise to the samestandard which is now provided by the StateEnergy Commission. How often do we see inour electorates equipment standing idle be-cause one piece of equipment is being used?That is the way the system has evolved. if pri-vate enterprise were doing the job it would ar-range its equipment in such a way that it wouldbe more consistently used. That would result inthe job costing considerably less.

we will certainly be letting different func-tions of the SEC out to contract. The samepolicy applies to the Water Authority of West-ern Australia. If a developer was developing asite, the only Construction authority that hecould call on to provide the water reticulationsystem is the Waler Authority.

Liberal Governments in the past decidedthat they would allow private enterprise tohave a go at that; so they called tenders for theconstruction of those reticulated systems. As aresult, the cost of developing land has beensubstantially reduced, because it has beendemonstrated time and time again in those par-ticular operations that private enterprise cando it more cheaply than can the MetropolitanWater Board.

I will concede that there are some things thatthe State Energy Commission and the WaterAuthority do that it would be hard to come tosome arrangement with private enterprise todo. Those functions would remain with theState Energy Commission and the Water Auth-ority. I refer to functions such as the provisionof a maintenance service, although I thinkthere could be some system by which mainten-ance could be provided by a private organ is-ation. However, it would be difficult to write aspecification that said that people would beavailable to come out in the middle of the nightto replace a pole that had been knocked over bysome drunk on the way home from the pub; orthat people would be available to repair a burstwater main. Those are the types of things that itwould be hard to come to some arrangementabout.

Many other functions presently performedby Government organ isations could beperformed by private enterprise. Let us con-sider the situation with respect to the BuildingManagement Authority. You will recall, MrActing Speaker (Mr Taylor), that at the time ofthe 1959 election-or perhaps you might notbecause you would have been a little light on inyears in those days-

Mr Brian Burke: I remember it. I worked onit and we lost.

Mr THOMPSON: That is right. We won be-cause we said to people that we would producepublic buildings at less cost than under asystem of day labour.

Mr Brian Burke: That was not the reason youwon.

Mr THOMPSON: Let me claim it. ThePremier makes claims that elections are wonfor all sorts of reasons that we do not concede.But one of the planks of our election platformin the 1959 election was to replace the daylabour force of the Public Works Depantmentwith contract arrangements. As a result therewas a substantial saving in the cost of publicbuildings. That situarion of privatisation has

2991

2992 [ASSEMBLY]

been carried on since that time to a greater orlesser extent, depending on which party hashad control of government.

Mr Court: Also in the 1959 platform wereproposals to sell abattoirs and a whole list ofthings.

Mr Blaikie: State sawmills.Mr THOMPSON: All those things were run-

nling at a substantial loss. They were beingheavily subsidised by the taxpayers.

Mr Court: Even the then Labor Premier,Albert Hawke, agreed to the sale.

Mr THOMPSON: He was a moreenlightened person than some of those who sitopposite at present. H-awke could see that therewere some advantages. There is no questionthat in the case of those particular State tradingconcerns the taxpayers were relieved of a bur-den and the provision of facilities wasenhanced.

There is no place in the world where claybricks are cheaper than in Western Australia.

Mr Davies: Or timber dearer.

Mr THOMPSON: I am not all that aut failwith timber prices, but I do know that there isno place in the world where clay bricks arecheaper than they are here. There is no place inthe world where there is a higher percentage ofhomes built of double brick than in Perth,Western Australia. I believe that is a tribute tothe brick manufacturers in this State. Theyhave taken up the challenge. They have beenvery vigorous in their research to find ways ofproducing bricks at less and less cost. I thinkthat that is an example of how privateenterprise can work. Up until that lime a highpercentage of the bricks were provided by theState brickworks. I worked on the constructionof the Armadale State brickworks. The bricksthat they made there were pressed bricks. Weneeded three men and a boy to pick one up.

Mr Brian Burke: At least that improved em-ployment. Think of the extra jobs. Every brickneeded three men and a boy.

Mr THOMPSON: That is the difference be-tween the Government and us. The Govern-ment undertakes projects that require morepeople to do them. Those are not real jobs.What we are about is Providing real jobs, notState owned shovels for people to lean on. Wewant to provide jobs that are challenging, jobsthat the people who fill them know are wanted.

Mr Brian Burke: Real honest to goodness,flag raising, God fearing jobs!

Mr Court: That's why we can sell bricks tothe Middle East.

Mr THOMPSON: Thai just happened toflash into my mind. It was not part of myspeech. This is how members run out of time inthis place. They get sidetracked.

There are many examples of how over theyears privatisation has been introduced, but Iwant to restate the position. There would be nojobs lost. There would be no-one sacked from ajob and there would be no reduction in theservice. If those two conditions could not bemet, no privatisation project would beimplemented. The third condition that wouldhave to be applied would be that the cost to theGovernment would have to be less.

Mr Brian Burke: Why did you differentiateand say that no-one would lose their job andthen say that no-one would be sacked from ajob?

Mr THOMPSON: I will explain that. Therewas a thrust into privatisation by the CourtGovernment-the provision of cleaning ser-vices at three major hospitals. One was the SirCharles Gairdner Hospital. A company by thename of Crothall Hospital Services (WA) PtyLtd came to the Government and said that itcould save it hundreds of thousands of dollarson the cleaning of hospitals by employing itstechnique and equipment and by reducing theamount of labour that went into the cleaning ofthe hospital. The Court Government said tothat firm: "You are not to sack anyone; youhave to provide as good a service, and you haveto provide it more cheaply." Those three con-ditions were met and those contracts have beengoing on quite satisfactorily. I think that theyhave been or are to be terminated because ofpressure that has come from the cleaningunions. The Minister for Health may care tocheck on that.

Mr Hodge: Not at Sir Charles Gairdner. Thecontracts were in place only at one other hospi-tal. When the contract expired, the hospital didnot renew it.

Mr Brian Burke: They don't reduce labour?Mr THOMPSON: They do not sack people.

All the cleanets who were on the job whenCrothalls took over continued on the job.

Mr Brian Burke: So they didn't reducelabour?

Mr THOMPSON: They did not sack anyone,but as there were retirements or people left thejob, their positions were not refilled.

M r B rian B urke: So j obs we re lost?

2992

(Thursday, 24 October 1985) 99

Mr THOMPSON: There were fewer peopleinvolved. No-one got the sack.

Mr Pearce: It is called natural wastage. Thereis nothing new about that.

Mr THOMPSON: So by natural attrition-Mr Pearce: You reduce the number of jobs.Mr THOMPSON: -the number of people

involved in that particular project is reduced.The jobs were real jobs.

Mr Pearce: So the net result is a lower levelof employment?

Mr THOMPSON: Not necessarily.Mr Brian Burke: What happens then?Mr Clarko: They go and get other jobs.Mr THOMPSON: They go and get other

jobs, but they are real jobs. They are jobs thatare meaningful.

Other things happening in the communityare also contributing to the fact that fewerpeople are doing jobs; automation, forexample, is one such factor. I can rememberwhen the sewerage system was installed in Mid-land. In those days the trenches were dug withshovels and the spoil canted away by horse anddray. That is how old I am. Would the Govern-ment suggest that one way to overcome unem-ployment would be to get rid of hackhoes fordigging trenches and have men dig trencheswith shovels and have horses cart the spoilaway? That shows the difference between theGovernment's position and our position.

We believe in keeping up with the times andtaking advantage of technology for the benefitof the community and in producing real jobsthat mean something to people. Does thePremier think that workers would thank him ifhe asked them to go back and dig trenches withshovels when there are backhoes. to do it? Ofcourse they would not. That is our approach.

Mr Brian Burke: We have not asked them todo that.

Mr THOMPSON: That is the logical exten-sion of the argument that you put.

Mr Brian Burke: I do not think it is at all.Mr THOMPSON: I think it is, there is no

question of that.While talking about privatisation, I want to

discuss the Hospital Laundry and Linen Ser-vice, which is a service which people say wewill not be able to get rid of. I can tell theHouse that we will get rid of it, but we will notnecessarily flog off the whole operation to onecompany. That point will be looked at, butthere are many ways of providing a hospital

laundry and linen service. I am interested tonote that the Budget papers for last year indi-cate the cost of replacement linen for the Hos-pital Laundry and Linen Service was $102 000.That is not an insignificant amount of money,but in a service like that it is understandablethat sheets, pillow cases, etc. which are tornmust be replaced.

Mr Brian Burke: Sometimes they get thread-bare, too.

Mr THOMPSON: Yes, that is true. Last yearthe Government spent $102 000, but this year$3.16 million will be paid to replace the wornout stuff.

Mr Brian Burke: Do you want patients inhospitals to have holes in their sheets?

Mr THOMPSON: No, I am not saying thatat all, but I want to know why there has beensuch a dramatic escalation from $102 000 lastfinancial year to $3.16 million this year.

Mr Brian Burke: Because we have to replacethe worn. out linen. Perhaps you think we areputting four sheets on every bed?

Mr Hodge: Put the question on notice andyou will find out.

Mr THOMPSON: The Treasurer has comehere and said, "We wanted $102 000 to patchthe sheets last year, but this year we will need$3.16 million."

Mr Brian Burke: We are putting a dozensheets on every bed.

Mr THOMPSON: I suppose that will createemployment?

Mr Brian Burke: You have not got much tocriticise us for. I know you have to pull yourweight and everything, but we are jogging alongpretty well.

M r THOMPSON: As long as I do not have topull the Treasurer's weight-that might be atest for me.

Mr Brian Burke: I have a bad back, so youmight have to carry me.

Mr THOMPSON: So have f-perhaps Ishould see the Treasurer's physician.

Mr Brian Burke: Why don't you thank us forthe equestrian centre?

Mr THOMPSON: I have already done thatin another speech.

Mr Brian Burke: I am sorry-I was not awareof that

Mr THOMPSON: I commended the Minis-ter and the Treasurer for picking up the projectthat was initiated by the former Liberal

2993

2994 [ASSEMBLY]

Government. I note with interest that there wasno recognition given when the centre wasopened, but that is politics and I accept that.

Mr Brian Burke: Came on!

Mr THOMPSON: That is right. It was acommitment.

Mr Brian Burke: I publicly praised you foryour involvement.

Mr THOMPSON: 1 know. I will tell theHouse how the centre was initiated. When Iwas chairman of the horse trial subcommittee,I invited John Graham to come to a horse trialheld at Andy White's property at Gidgegannup.It was the first time Mr Graham had beeninvolved in the trials.

Mr Brian Burke: What is the horse trialsubcommittee? Is it a QANGO?

Mr THOMPSON: I was on the committee ofthe Equestrian Federation. Mr Graham saidthe Commonwealth had some money for inter-national sporting facilities and it was embar-rassing them. They did not know what to dowith it. I told him that we had had an aspir-ation for many years to build a State equestriancentre. That was how the whole thing started;and it was in the time of the former LiberalState and Federal Governments that that pro-posal was floated. I gave the present Ministersin charge of sport, both State and Federal,credit for pursuing that initiative. I know it wasnot easy; and indeed, I know that on a coupleof occasions it looked as if the $1.4 millionearmarked by the Commonwealth would slipaway. It was as, a result of the work of thepresent Minister that that money was saved forus. It is a wonderful facility and it would not bethere had it not been for a number of coinci-dences, including the involvement of privateenterprise and one or two other things that oc-curred.

Mr Blaikie: I think we should give credit tothe member for Kalamnunda too.

Mr THOMPSON: When the present Stateand Federal Governments came to Power,there was in place in Australia a very worth-while and effective system of national healthcare. It really amazes me that the incomingFederal Labor Government decided to inter-fere with that system. I concede that under theold Med ibank system, which had been revisedand fiddled with, there were some short-comings and problems which needed attention;but what has finally happened as a result of thechanges made by the Federal Government is

that the system has become quite disastrousand will continue to produce problems for thepeople of this nation.

We in Western Australia cannot isolate our-selves from that, although the hospitals and thefacilities we have in this State compare ex-tremely favourably with those in the EasternStates. Indeed, if not for the fact that there wasas much fat in our system as there was whenthe present Government came to office, theproblems of our hospitals would be more pro-found than they are at present.

Mr Brian Burke: The Royal Australian Nurs-ing Federation disagrees with that. It says thereis absolutely no fat in the system and, in talkingabout non-nursing duties, it says it is a matterof life and death, and wants them abolished bythe end of December.

Mr THOMPSON: The Treasurer is speakingof non-nursing duties and the situation withrespect to the working conditions of nurses,whereas I am referring to physical things-thebuildings and the equipment in them. I spentsome time this week in the electorate of MtMarshall and I visited several hospitals. Thestandards of the facilities I saw there were firstrate.

Mr Brian Burke: Add to that the fact that weare the ones who got the Royal Perth Hospitalnorth block going.

Mr THOMPSON: Yes, the Government did,but I question whether that was a wise decision.

Mr Brian Burke: The decision to build it ornot is one thing. The Liberal Governmentmade that decision, so question your own de-cision. But were you just going to leave it there?

Mr THOMPSON: I question the wisdom ofstarting it in the first place, and of continuingit. 1 accept that the facilities there are less thanperfect and that something needs to be done toredress that. But building a brand new blockwill not overcome the problems that prevailwith respect to the old building.

Mr Brian Burke: The thing was 20 per centbuilt when we came into government.

Mr THOMPSON: Yes, but this Governmentspent $5.5 million on it last Financial year andhas earmarked $17.2 million for it this year. Atthe same time, other hospitals available topeople in the Perth metropolitan area are beingunder used. The private hospitals of this Stateare battling to keep their numbers up.

Mr Brian Burke: There will not be any Morebeds as a result of the completion of the northblock. That will not affect that situation.

2994

[Thursday, 24 October 1 985J199

Mr THOMPSON: No, but the Governmentwill try to maintain the throughput at RoyalPerth Hospital at least at its present level, orcater for even more. That is inappropriate.People can be just as adequately cared for insome of the peripheral hospitals around themetropolitan area, and some of the proceduresgoing on at Royal Perth Hospital could be doneelsewhere in hospitals which are under-utilised.It is a waste of community resources.

Mr Brian Burke: I am saying that the northblock will not affect that-it will not increasethe number of beds.

Mr THOMPSON: No, but it will expand thecapacity of the hospital to have more peoplepass through it.

Mr Brian Burke: Do you think we shouldclose beds down at Royal Perth Hospital?

Mr THOMPSON: The Treasurer is doing hislevel best all the time I have been speaking toput words into my mouth and make me saysomething I do not want to say. What I amsaying is that I want the Royal Perth Hospitalto be used for those procedures which cannotbe carried out in the peripheral hospitals wherebeds are available. There is a waiting list for theRoyal Perth Hospital, while at the same timethe peripheral hospitals are being underused.

Mr Brian Burke: Why is that?Mr THOMPSON: Under the health system,

people are attracted to Royal Perth Hospitalbecause they can go there and receive free ser-vice. They pay a levy of one per cent. They areentitled to roll up and say they want this, thator the other done.

Mr Brian Burke: One will not stop that goingon there.

Mr THOMPSON: We will. We will not stopthem by draconian measures. We will intro-duce a system which encourages people to go tothe other hospitals.

Mr Brian Burke: What is that system?M r THOMPSON: Freedom of choice.Mr Brian Burke: What is that system? Can

you tell us?Mr THOMPSON: There will be an education

system.Mr Brian Burke: For them to go where it

costs more?Mr THOMPSON: It costs less, in fact- It

does not cost them any more.Mr Brian Burke: You will never educate

them into that.

Mr THOMPSON: One must educate thecommunity, including the doctors, to encour-age people to go to other hospitals. We willencourage people to continue their private in-su ran ce.

Mr Brian Burke: We are getting off the point.M r THOMPSON: We are not.Mr Brian Burke: I do not understand. You

say they are going to the Royal Perth Hospitalbecause they can get treatment free of charge?

Mr THOMPSON: I am saying 25 per cent ofall people going to Royal Perth Hospital haveprivate health insurance.

Mr Brian Burke: You would stop them ifthey had, would you?

Mr THOMPSON: No, I would not- The per-son who interviews them would say, "Are youaware you can have this procedure done in aprivate hospital and it will not cost any morethan having it done here?" That is one way ofattracting people into private hospitals, or intosome of the peripheral hospitals.

Mr Brian Burke: You do not think theyknow?

Mr THOMPSON: Many of them do not. Itcosts $600 a day or thereabouts to treat apatient in Royal Perth Hospital. The same sortof treatment can be done for about half thatprice or even less in one of the peripheral hos-pitals.

Mr Brian Burke: Why is that?Mr THOMPSON: Because the infrastructure

costs of these other hospitals are less. TheRoyal Perth Hospital will always be a dear hos-pital to run.

Mr Brian Burke: It is a teaching hospital.Mr THOMPSON: That is right. It has many

facilities, and they include very high cost units.The cost of those units is spread over the wholehospital. It will never be a cheap hospital torun. Relating it to the number of patients ittreats, the costs can be significantly reduced byencouraging people to be treated elsewhere.

Mr Brian Burke: There is absolutely no senseto the economic logic you raise, because thecost per patient will rise if fewer patients gothrough. What happens then?

Mr THOMPSON: Royal Perth will grow likeTopsy under the Government's system to Caterfor the pressure. Is the Treasurer happy withthe waiting list?

Mr Brian Burke: I am never happy with anywaiting lists.

2995

2996 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr THOMPSON: What is the Governmentdoing to deal with the waiting list? It shouldsay, "We are not going to provide more beds atthe Royal Perth Hospital; we will encouragepeople into the peripheral hospitals which arebeing under-utilised."

Mr Davies: They cannot do open heart sur-gery in Kalamunda Hospital.

Mr THOMPSON: I know that, but they cantreat varicose veins in Kialaniunda Hospital,yet people go to Royal Perth to have that done.

Mr Davies: What evidence do you have ofthat?

Mr THOMPSON: I have the evidence of thePresident of the AMA, David Watkins, whosays many people are being treated in RoyalPerth who could be treated in other hospitals.

Several members interjected.

Mr THOMPSON: The member for VictoriaPark is helping me because that is what I saidearlier. Doctors in the community can help usto encourage patients to go to other hospitalsand reduce the pressure on Royal Perth. Brainsurgery, open heart surgery and those sorts ofthings are complicated procedures and willalways have to be done at Royal Perth.

Mr Brian Burke: Why do doctors send theirpatients there now?

Mr THOMPSON: It has become traditionalto send them there. Thcy have to be educatedto do otherwise. In addition, there is the systemof Medicare.

Mr Brian Burke: Thai is what I was trying toget to. You are going to change Medicare, areyou?

Mr THOMPSON: We will not changeMedicare.

Mr Brian Burke: I thought so.

Mr THOMPSON: But we will do our best toinfluence Canberra to do that, as the presentGovernment should be doing.

Mr Brian Burke: You can achieve what youare saying by changing Medicare, but you can-not do it by educating the community.

Mr THOMPSON: No, we cannot achieve achange in Medicare. We are supported in ourview by the President of the Australian MedicalAssociation who says many of these procedurescould be done in the other hospitals which arebeing underutilised.

Mr Brian Burke: There is no argument thatthey can be done in the other hospitals, butwithout changing Medicare, regardless of

people's circumstances and free public hospitalservices, you will not achieve the result youseek.

Mr THOMPSON: Twenty five per cent of allpatients rolling up at Royal Perth to be treatedhave private health insurance cover, so for astart those 25 per cent could be encouragedinto the private system.

Mr Brian Burke: Do you think doctors aredopey, and that they do not know what you aresaying? Of course they know.

Mr THOMPSON: I am not saying that. I amsaying insufficient help is given to encouragepeople who are now going to Royal Perth Hos-pital to be treated at the underutilised periph-eral hospitals.

Mr Brian Burke: Why do you not make a rulethat if one has private insurance one should notgo to Royal Perth?

Mr THOMPSON: That is not our approach,and I do not think it is the Government'seither.

Mr Davies: Doctors send their patients toRoyal Perth Hospital and then lose control ofthem. Why do doctors not want to maintainand follow the procedures at these suburbanhospitals?

Mr Brian Burke: Because they want the highprofit operations at private hospitals and theyoffload on to the public hospitals those patientsthey cannot make money on. They arebusinessmen and they try to maximise theirreturns.

Mr THOMPSON: I say to you, Mr DeputySpeaker, that that is a slur on medical prac-titioners of this State, and they will get to knowabout it.

Mr Davies: Why do doctors say to theirpatients that this treatment can be done at theRoyal Perth Hospital? Why do they not want itdone in the local hospital?

Mr THOMPSON: Most general practitionersin the metropolitan area who treat patients willput their patients into the private hospital solong as the Government does not fiddle aroundwith it. Where the Government has fiddledwith the system those doctors send theirpatients off to Royal Perth Hospital. AtKalamunda Hospital the system has not beeninterferred with. The patients who can betreated at Kalarnunda Hospital should betreated there. Those who, because of the corn-plexity of the procedures, cannot be treated atthe Kalamunda Hospital. are treated elsewhere.I needed open heart surgery and my doctor sent

2996

(Thursday, 24 October 1985] 29

me to Royal Perth. That is the only place in theState where the operation can be carried out. IfI had appendicitis he would have sent me toKalamunda. People have been encouraged tobelieve that the Government will look afterthem, so they go to the out patient departmentsand clinics at Royal Perth Hospital to betreated.

Quite a fiasco has developed at the PerthMedical Centre with respect to research facili-ties which have hitherto attracted worldwidepraise. I refer to those projects undertaken byProfessor Byron Kakulas and the research hehas undertaken and which he continues to pur-sue. He has made great strides in the treatmentof muscular dystrophy in this State and he hascontributed to the world progress in treatingthis disease.

The Government takes no credit for havingfumbled the ball at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospi-tal or the QE 11 Medical Centre in regard to theaccommodation that is needed for researchunits. In 1982, under the Liberal Government,the then Minister for Health (Ray Young)made a commitment that modifications wouldbe made to A block to enable Kakulas' researchfacilities to be adequately accommodated. Noaction was taken by the Government duringthat 12-month period and ultimately in the lastfinancial year it spent $3.5 million on modifi-cation work for A block which included necess-ary work t0 cater for the research facilities.

The hospital is na closer to getting the ac-commodation for its research equipment nowthan it was two years ago. It is a crying shamethat the support that the community has givenKakulas through the Telethon appeal has runinto trouble, not because of any lack of motiv-ation on the pant of the research team, butbecause of the inability of the Government toget the job done. I am told it is an absoluteshambles at the hospital; they do not knowwhether they are coming or going. The Govern-ment has spent $3.5 million and now it is sit-ting back scratching its head. The Governmenthas earmarked $2.286 million in the currentBudget to continue the work on A block, but nowork is going on there because the Governmenthas suddenly discovered it has problems. Workwas done in one part of A block and carpetswere put down. Other workmen came to dowork in another pant of A block and wheeledtheir barrows of concrete over the newly laidcarpet on the floor. That carpet is now ruinedand will have to be replaced.

Mr MacKinnon: Is that dinkum?

M r THOMPSON: That is true.

Mr Court: One incident was mentioned on"State Affair" this week.

Mr THOMPSON: "State Affair" has given ita bit of a nudge, I understand; it is a catas-trophe. It is a real blow to Professor Kakulas'swork which is recognised throughout the worldby the medical profession. I just cannot under-stand how the Government has fumbled thisproject so badly.

I call on the Minister to drop everything he isdoing and to get down there and sort out thenonsense because if he does not do so he will letthis State down.

I wanted to touch on a few other aspectsrelating to health, but time precludes thatcourse and I will have to cover those pointswhen we deal with individual items. I refer tothe question of law and order, in particular, therole of the policy. The odds are moving heavilyin favour of the criminals in this State. Thepolice are experiencing greater difficulty incombating the severe rise in the crime rate thathas occurred in WA over the last three or fouryears. I charge the Government with havingdone too little too late. It should give the policethe necessary resources to combat this seriousincrease in crime. The level of crime hasescalated in our community in the last fewyears, and it impacts greatly on individuals. Irefer to breaking and entering crimes againstindividuals, It is not uncommon for a person toget out of his car in a carpark, accidently bumpthe car next door, and then to wake up in hos-pital after being bashed by a hood. Thosethings are happening in our community andwhile the police are doing their utmost to com-bat the problem-and they are doing a verygood job-they do not have the resources tocater for that great rise in the crime rate.

One year before the Liberal Government leftoffice we undertook to increase the size of thePolice Force by 100 officers in each of the fol-lowing three years.

Mr Read: Was there a big increase in theprevious three years?

Mr THOMPSON: There was not a signifi-cant increase, but then of course the rise incrime had not really begun. In response to acall from the Commissioner of Police, we madea commitment to increase the size of the PoliceForce.

Mr Read: You knew there had been an in-crease in the crime rate?

2997

2998 ASSEMBLY]

Mr THOMPSON: Let me develop my argu-ment. The commitment by the previousGovernment was to increase the force by 100officers per year. When the present Govern-ment came to power it honoured that commit-ment and in its first two years of office itincreased the manpower of the Police Force byanother 100 officers each year. Since the timewhen the Liberal Minister for Police initiatedthat increase there has been a dramatic increasein the crime rate in WA which is demonstratedby the number of people appearing before thecourts; for example, the Citizens Against Crimegroup is an indication that people in the com-munity recognise the upsurge in criminal activ-ity and the citizens are trying to do what theycan in regard to this rise in crime.

The present Government has not equippedthe police to handle the difficult job they haveto do. The Government has indicated that theincrease in the number of officers will beescalated; it is still not sufficient to meet thepressure being placed on them.

Mr Davies: Do you have any idea of whatwould be sufficient? One for one?

Mr THOMPSON: 1 do not know what itshould be, but I would like to be able to have alittle chat with the Commissioner of Police andfor him to confide in me his recommendationto the present Minister, but I will not do that.

Mr Cart: First of all, feel free to speak to theCommissioner of Police. Secondly, you mustrealise it takes us a little while to correct thebacklog and the rundown in police numberswhich occurred during the three years of theprevious Government.

Mr THOMPSON: Hold on. All the currentGovernment did when it came to office was topick up the rate of increase that the previousGovernment set the year before.

Mr Carr: That is not true. In the last threeyears the previous Government increased theforce by 160 and in one year there was noincrease at all. In three years we have increasedthe Police Force by 380.

Mr THOMPSON: We made the commit-ment that if we remained in office we wouldincrease the force by 100 in the following twoyears.

Mr Brian Burke: That was an election prom-ise; come on.

Mr THOMPSON: In that time there hasbeen a dramatic rise in crime and the Govern-ment has not responded to it properly. I reallythink the rate at which the Police Force is-being

increased should be accelerated. Researchneeds to be undertaken in regard to the facili-ties that are provided to policemen. The equip-ment in some of our police stations isantiquated and old. They are fiddling aroundwith manual typewriters. Police stations mustbe the last offices in this State which haveantiquated manual typewriters.

Mr Read: It is good to hear criticism of theprevious Minister for Police.

Mr THOMPSON: I cannot go into the story.I want to reiterate that a Liberal Governmentwill pursue vigorously the principle ofprivatisation as a means of providing a serviceat least equal to that which is now provided.We will not have private enterprise policemen,but we will look at ways of allowing privateenterprise to supply policemen with bettersystems and equipment.

We will not have the Police Force taken over,because the Police Force occupies a veryspecial place. However, I will welcome the op-port unity when we get to the Estimates item 3to pursue some of the other points I have madebecause I enjoyed my discussion with the mem-ber across the Chamber.

Debate adjourned, on motion by MrTrethowan.

(Questions taken.JSitt ing suspended from 5.5610o 7.15 p.m.

STATE PLANNING COMMISSION BILLSecond Reading

MR TONKIN (Morley-Swan-Leader of theHouse) [7. 15 p.m.J: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.On Wednesday, 3 April 1985, the Minister forPlanning moved in this House that the WesternAustralian Planning Commission Bill be nowread a second time. At the conclusion of thesecond reading the Bill was commended to theHouse and debate thereon was adjourned on amotion by the member for East Melville.

Since that time, several submissions werereceived from local government representativesincluding the Local Government Associationand the Country Shire Councils Association,expressing concern that the proposed Bill madeno firm provision for appointment of a localgovernment representative on the WesternAustralian Planning Commission.

Notwithstanding that the primary functionof the proposed commission was to advise theMinister on the revision, review and consoli-dation of the existing legislation into one Act,

2998

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 29

the Government considered it appropriate towithdraw the Bill in order to allow further Con-sideration on the question of local governmentrepresentation.

Simultaneously with the announcement ofthe withdrawal of the Bill, a three-man con-sultative committee comprising Mr W. A.McKenzie, AO, .JP, Chairman of the Metro-politan Region Planning Authority; Mr ft. H.Fardon, AASA, FIMM, Chief ExecutiveOfficer, City of Melville, representing the localgovernment organisations; and Mr J. Mant,LL.B., former Director General of the Depart-ment of Housing and Urban Affairs, SouthAustralia, now a consultant on planning mat-ters, was appointed to review the submissionson the recommendations of the Committee ofInquiry into Statutory Planning in WesternAustralia, and to report to the Minister byNovember 1985.

The consultative committee has approachedits task in two parts. It has concentrated on thefirst 10 recommendations of the committee ofintluiry which are mainly concerned with theadministrative and organisational structuresfor planning in this State, which is the subjectof this Bill. The second part of the committee'stask will address the remaining submissionsand the results from this work will assist in theevolution of new and more detailed planninglegislation for Western Australia.

The submissions on the first 10recommendations of the committee of inquiry,and the planning industry in general all supportthe appointment of a State Planning Com-mission with State-wide jurisdiction. Accord-ingly, the Hill proposes the establishment of aState Planning Commission with the responsi-bility for coordinating and promoting urban,rural and regional land-use planning through-out Western Australia.

The commission will replace the MRPA,' theTown Planning Board and the Town PlanningDepartment by a single planning organisation.The commission is to be a corporate body anda Crown agency subject to direct ministerialcontrol.

There are to be not more than five membersall of whom are to be appointed by theGovernor on the nomination of the Ministerfor such period not exceeding five years. Im-plicit in the membership is to be a representa-tive of local government nominated by theMinister from a panel of three names, submit-

ted by the Local Government Associationconjointly with the Country Shire Councils As-sociation.

The chairman of the commission is to beappointed on a full-time basis while the othermembers will either be full-time or part-timeappointments.

In order to allow for better regional represen-tation, a number of associate members to rep-resent groups of local authorities or regions areto be appointed by the Governor on thenomination of the Minister from a panel ofnames submitted by groups of local authoritiesor regions.

It is intended that associate members will beinvited to attend meetings of the commissionwhen matters of regional significance affectingthe regions are under consideration. On suchan occasion the associate members will beentitled to the same privileges and remuner-ation as full members.

The proposed structure outlined above hasreceived formal and unequivocal support fromboth the Local Government Association andthe Country Shire Councils Association.

In addition to assuming the functions of theexisting planning bodies-that is the MRPAand the Town Planning Boaid-the com-mission will be responsible for coordinatingand promoting urban, rural and regionalland-use planning throughout the State; ad-vising the Minister on the administration of thelegislation, with a prime objective of reviewingand consolidating the existing Statutes into oneAct; and more importantly, the preparation ofa non-statutory State planning strategy to facili-tate regional planning and land developmenton a State-wide basis for the guidance of StateGovernment agencies, local authorities and pri-vate organisations.

As soon as the commission is appointed, it isthe Minister's aspiration as the responsibleMinister to direct the commission to undertakea review, revision and consolidation of all plan-ning legislation as its foremost task; with aclear mandate that such legislation be drawn upin continuing consultation with local govern-ment and other agencies; and, in anticipationthat it will be brought to this House no laterthan the spring session of 1 987.

The new legislation will enable the StatePlanning Commission to-

appoint committees to carry out its func-tions under delegated power;

2999

3000 [ASSEMBLY]

delegate to local authorities a committee oran appropriate officer. The purpose of thisbeing to speed up decision makingprocesses. Indicative of this aspiration is arecent amelioration by the MRPA onclause 32 resolution about to be gazettedand which will result in a reduction of upto 70 per cent of development applicationspresently required to be submitted by localgovernment, which can look forward tofunther close consultation in the matter ofcontinuing development of responsibility.

The commission will appoint a Country Plan-ning Council which is likely to be an occasionalcommittee. The membership of the committeewill be flexible and will vary according to theissues under consideration. Membership wouldinclude associate members but would bewidened to include Public Service and com-munity representation.

The commission is to be supported by aMetropolitan Planning Council appointed bythe Minister for a two-year term consisting ofup to 14 members.

The present system of district planning corn-mittees is to be retained because the majorityof submissions and conclusions drawn from aseminar sponsored by the MRPA support theirretention. With the exception of the north westcorridor, the existing district planning com-mittees remain unchanged. The Shire ofWanneroo and the City of Stirling areregrouped to form the North-West DistrictPlanning Committee, while the Cities ofNedlands and Subiaco, the Towns ofClaremont, Cottesloe and Mosman Park andthe Shire of Peppermint Grove will now formthe Western Suburbs District Planning Com-mittee. Local government will therefore havesix representatives on the Metropolitan Plan-ning Council.

The other members of the MetropolitanPlanning Council are to consist of four perma-nent heads appointed by virtue of their officeand up to three representatives nominated andappointed by the Minister. The Chairman ofthe Planning Commission is to be the Chair-man of the Metropolitan Planning Commissionby virtue of his office.

It is intended to strengthen the role of theDistrict Planning Committee through the pro-vision of secretarial and professional assistanceby the Commission.

The functions of the Metropolitan PlanningCouncil will be performed under delegatedauthority from the commission and be subjectto the direction of the Minister and the com-mission.

The commission has power to appoint stand-ing or occasional committees. It is anticipatedthat one of these committees will be asubdivision committee to undertake this initialfunction on a State-wide basis.

The Bill makes provision for a State Plan-ning Commission account to be established atTreasury. It is anticipated that proceeds of thisfund will include Consolidated Revenue Fundappropriations currently made to the TownPlanning Department.

The metropolitan region improvement fundwill continue to be administered by the newcommission for the purposes of implementingthe metropolitan region scheme. The proceedsof this fund will include CRE grants to theMRPA and receipts from metropolitan regionimprovement tax.

The proceeds of the account will be utilisedfor payment of members' fees and allowances,salaries and wages of staff, and general admin-istrative costs.

The proceeds of the improvement fund willbe used for implementation of the capitalworks programme and other associated costsconcerned with the metropolitan regionscheme, and payment of fees and allowances ofthe Metropolitan Planning Council members.

The commission will be empowered to bor-rOW moneys through the Central BorrowingAuthority, subject to guarantees by theTreasurer.

The commission is required to prepare andsubmit an annual report within four months ofthe close of the preceding financial year, and toinclude such financial statements as arerequired and duly audited by the Auditor Gen-eral.

The staff of the Town Planning Departmentis to be transferred to form the staff of the StatePlanning Commission. The Bill however alsomakes provision for the appointment of anexecutive director of planning who is to beprincipal professional adviser to the com-mission on matters of land use and land devel-opment.

The Bill before the House endeavours tomeet the aspirations of those involved with"planning" and proposes the integration of thethree existing planning organisations into one

3000

[Thursday, 24 October 1985]100

State-wide planning body with wider represen-tation. The existing staff of the Town PlanningDepartment will be transfer-red to the StatePlanning Commission and will be responsibleto the chairman. Appropriations fromConsolidated Revenue to the Town PlanningDepartment will be deposited into a StatePlanning Commission account while appropri-ations to the MRPA, together with receiptsfrom the metropolitan region improvement taxand from sale of goods and services, will con-tinue to be deposited in the metropolitan re-gion improvement fund and utilised for givingeffect to the metropolitan region scheme.

In short, the appointment of one planningbody will help to streamline the planning pro-cess. It will provide a Statewide emphasis onregional and land-use planning; as a result of itscorporate structure it will be subject to betterministerial control and direction, and last butnot least, it does not pre-empt any conclusionsconcerning the detailed procedural aspects ofthe existing legislation, the consideration andreview of which will be the foremost task andobjective of the new commission.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Clarko.

ACTS AMENDMENT (STATE PLANNINGCOMMISSION) BILL

Second Reading

MR TONKIN (Morley-Swan-Leader of theHouse) [7.26 p.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

As a result of the introduction of the StatePlanning Commission Bill into this House,there is a need to make consequential changesand modifications to-

the Town Planning and Development Act1926;the Metropolitan Region Town PlanningScheme Act 1959; and

the Parliamentary Commissioner Act1971.

These changes and modifications are embodiedin the Acts Amendment (State Planning Com-mission) Bill.

The changes proposed by and large amountto the substitution of the State Planning Com-mission in place of the Town Planning Board.

Those sections of the principal Act that arebeing repealed are-

section 3-Town Planning Commissionerand Deputy Town Planning Com-missioner;section 4-Town Planning Board;section 5-functions of the board; andsection 5A-protection of members of theboard.

Modifications to section 5AA relate to theproposed State Planning Commission beingempowered to prepare statements of planningpolicy instead of the Town Planning Board andthe MRPA.

The principal Act was enacted to establishthe Metropolitan Region Planning Authority.As a result of the introduction of the StatePlanning Commission Bill in this House, whichproposes the establishment of one planning or-ganisation that embraces the functions andpowers of the Town Planning Board and theMetropolitan Region Planning Authority, con-sequential changes require repealing of thosesections of the principal Act that relate to theMRPA, its functions, and its powers, and tomatters relative thereto.

These sections of the principal Act that arebeing repealed concern-

section 7-the MRPA and its membership;section 8-appointment of certain mem-bers from the district planning com-mittees-now embodied in the State Plan-ning Commission Bill;section 9-section relating to MRPA beinga body corporate;section 1 0--provisions for appointment tooffices on the MRPA;section I I-provision for appointment ofdeputies;section 12-vacancies in office;section 13-remuneration and expenses ofmembers of the MRPA;section 14-protection of rights of publicservants on the MRPA;section 15-convening of meetings;section 16-quorum;section 17-vacancy or defect in appoint-ment to office no ground for invalidity;section 1 7A-transitional and validityprovision introduced in 1980;section 18-minutes and conduct of pro-ceedings;section iSA-power to appoint com-mittees;

3001

3002 [ASSEMBLY]

section 19-power to delegate functions;section 20-exemption from personal liab-ility;section 2 1-suspension of member;section 22-office of member not office ofprofit;section 2 5-functions of the MRPA;section 27-power of the authority to co-opt services;section 27A-powers related to land re-served for parks and recreation;section 28-approval of Minister to cer-tain expenditure;section 29-annual report to be made byMRPA;section 29A-duty and liability of personsexercising functions under this Act-thatis pecuniary interest;section 39-power of MRPA to borrowfrom Treasury; andsection 40-power of MRPA to borrowgenerally.

The changes proposed to sections 23 and 24and the first schedule relate to the establish-ment of an additional district planningcommittee; that is, six instead of five.

The changes to section 38 reflect the pro-visions contained in clause 18 of the StatePlanning Commission Bill. In other words thefunctions of the commission and the power tospend money in the performance of those func-tions are being streamlined so as to be consist-ent.

Other changes are substitutional matters re-placing the word "Authority" for "the Com-mission or Council" where appropriate.

The consequential changes to the Parliamen-tary Commissioner Act 1971 reflect the demiseof the Town Planning Board and the MRPAthrough the establishment of a State PlanningCommission.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Clarko.

CONSERVATION AND LANDMANAGEMENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second ReadingMR DAVIES (Victoria Park-Minister for

Conservation and Land Management) [7.32p.m.J: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.This Bill amends the Conservation and LandManagement Act to correct a technicalomission from the Act. The Wildlife Conser-

vation Act and regulations provide for theshooting of ducks by licensed shooters duringdeclared open seasons. Duck shooting is an es-tablished, traditional activity for more than5 000 licensed duck shooters.

Much of the duck shooting traditionally oc-curs on game reserves. These reserves are infact nature reserves classified under theWildlife Conservation Act as shooting or hunt-ing areas.

The part of the Wildlife Conservation Actproviding for classification of nature reservesas shooting or hunting areas was repealed withthe passage of the Conservation and LandManagement Act 1984. However, due to atechnical omission, an equivalent provisionwas not incorporated in the CALM Act.

As a consequence, nature reserves whichhave traditionally been available for duckshooting in the past are no longer availableunder the existing legislation.

It was not the intent of the CALM Act todeny access for licensed duck shooters duringdeclared open seasons to shoot ducks on naturereserves which have traditionally been open toduck shooting.

The Bill amends the CALM Act so as to pro-vide for hunting and shooting on specifiednature reserves in the manner and with theconservation safeguards previously providedfor in the Wildlife Conservation Act.

If we do not pass this legislation through theHouse, I can imagine 5 000 irate duck shootersadvancing on Parliament with theirblunderbusses blazing. Because of the nature ofthis Bill we might call it the "Duck Bill".

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

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATEDREVENUE FUND) BILL

Second Reading: Budget DebateDebate resumed from an earlier stage of the

sitting.MR TRETHOWAN (East Melville) [7.35

p~m.J: We live in challenging times whichpeople sometimes find somewhat confusing. Ithink it must be remembered that what oneperson perceives as a challenge, another mayperceive as a threat.

It is the time, Mr Speaker, in which the suc-cess or failure of our society over the next 100years will be determined. It is a time in whichwe require Governments in this country, bothState and Federal, to be open to change while

3002

(Thursday, 24 October 1 985J]00

preserving the best of our current system and toseek to find out how the difficulties we cur-rently face can be effectively solved with theleast dislocation to our society and with theleast deleterious effect on individuals. It willtake Governments which are prepared forchange and forward-thinking to accomplishthese objectives.

Unfortunately, at the present time we haveState Labor Governments and a Federal LaborGovernment which could be labelled, quitefairly, reactionary Governments which aremore interested in preserving vested interestsand vested monopolies in both the Govern-ment and private sectors than seeking a changeto our society which will allow it to establish afreer and more prosperous society than thatwhich we are likely to enjoy.

It is not difficult to understand why somepeople might be confused at the present timebecause we are in, and have been for perhaps15 or 20 years, the second industrial revolutionwhich is sometimes referred to as the post-in-dustrial revolution. There are many similaritiesbetween the structural change which we findourselves confronted with at the present timeand that which European countries foundthemselves confronted with towards the end ofthe eighteenth century and into the nineteenthcentury.

Mr Bryce: Are we going to hear reference totechnology?

Mr TRETHOWAN: I am glad the Ministerfor Technology said that. If he remembers itwas technology which instigated the far-reaching change brought about by the indus-trial revolution. It is precisely the same tech-nology-

Mr Bryce: It is different technology.Mr TRETHOWAN: It is different in nature,

but it is the technology currently confronting uswhich is a stimulation to the change in oursociety at the present time.

The problems which occurred during the firstindustrial revolution included the social dislo-cation which was severely affected when thegoverning systems of the countries involvedwere reactionary, protected the vested interestsand monopolies, and were not prepared forchange. That is true at the present time. Ifmembers recall, the societies that gained themost from the first industrial revolution werethose prepared to change. The United King-dom, for instance, was the most successful inthe initial stages of the industrial revolution,not only because it had a fundamental demo-

cratic system of Government and a goodsystem of law, but mare importantly the societywas such that it encouraged the establishmentof the middle class and encouraged middleclass entrepreneurs. It was the middle classentrepreneurial economic freedom which al-lowed Great Britain to achieve technologicaladvantages, in research and developmentwhich gave rise to the generation of wealth thatthe United Kingdom experienced from the be-ginning to the end of the nineteenth century.

Mr Bryce: They did a pretty lousy job ofdistributing the wealth in Britain.

Mr TRETHOWAN: They did not do a goodjob in the initial stages. The initial stages bearwitness to the kind of economic dislocationand personal hardship that can be sufferedwhen the structures of a society are notsufficiently free to respond to the needs ofchange within it.

If we look at the first industrial revolution wewill see it brought about a fundamental changein the area in which the majority of the grossnational product was generated. Prior to theindustrial revolution most of the wealth ofcountries relied on primary sector activity. Theviability of a country related fundamentally toits closely associated agricultural enterprisessuch as small cottage industries based on theproducts of agriculture and a slight upgradingof the primary sector production. What the in-dustrial revolution brought about was a dra-matic shift in productive emphasis and gener-ation of wealth from the primary area to thesecondary area. That caused a fundamental dis-location in the production of food and majorchanges in the ownership of land and dramaticshifts in population, none of which the existingstructures of that society were able to copewith.

Exactly the same thing is happening at thepresent time. We are faced with a major shift inthe productive emphasis of our society fromthe secondary area to the tertiary area. We arefaced with the growth of what may be called theknowledge industry, something which I amsure the Deputy Premier will understand.

The same sort of dislocation is occurring nowas occurred during the first industrial revol-ution. Some sections of the society are beingasked to bear a burden which is unfair andcrippling to those individuals. in the first in-dustrial revolution, it was primarily the dis-placed agricultural workers who were unable tohave an effect politically because of their weakpolitical position in the society. The economic

3003

3004 [ASSEMBLY]

emphasis, which had been primarily in the agri-cultural industry, had shifted. The security ofthe structure of the society they had grown upin changed, and they found themselves verymuch at the bottom of the growing new indus-trial heap.

At the present time it is those people withinour society who exist outside the organisedstructures of the society, the vestedmonopolies, that bear the brunt of the currentchange. Those people are the ones who have toface daily the realities of the competitive mar-ket place, and who collectively are -not able tovoice their opinions to that effect. I am refer-ring fundamentally to those people involved insmall business-small businesses in the manu-facturing sector, small businesses in the agricul-tural sector, and small businesses in many ofthe tertiary service industries. They are thepeople who are being asked to bear the brunt ofthe changes within our society at the presenttime.

Mr Bryce: Are you including the employees?Mr TRETHOWAN: I am including all the

people who work in that sector for the simplereason that when a firm is governed by themarket place, if it cannot afford to make aprofit and remain viable, it shuts down and as aresult affects not only the owners of the firmbut also all the people employed. This is exactlythe situation that occurred in the first indus-trial revolution in regard to agriculturalworkers and their displacement from agricul-tural land.

A Government, to be successful and to setout on the road to a bright future within thisState and within this Commonwealth, needs todeal fundamentally with the causes of thechange. What we are faced with is an economicsituation where the power in our society is heldprincipally by large organisations-those whoare in a powerful position. It has been fre-quently described as big business, big unions,and big government. There is also another say-ing which is rather popular at the present time,that in our society the Government controls theprivate sector but who controls the public sec-tor? The answer is: nobody.

Mr Bryce: That is paranoia.Mr TRETIO WAN: Unfortunately it is a tru-

ism.Mr Court: Who controls WA Government

Holdings?Mr TRETIIOWAN: That is one of the

biggest mystery questions of aU] time. Certainlynot the people of this State who theoretically

should be owning it and to whom that organ is-ation should at least supply information aboutwhat it does.

Mr Bryce: Robert Menzies used to plan inter-jections during his speech.

Mr TRETHO WAN: I thank the DeputyPremier for his interjection. Is he suggestingthat I have arranged his interjections before Ispeak?

Mr Bryce: We are beginning to wonder.

Mr TRETHOWAN: They certainly provideme with good substance.

What we are faced with is a society with anincreasing demand for services from the publicsector and an increasingly heavy burden of tax-ation to meet those demands; and governmentswhich find themselves in an unenviableposition in terms of trying to change the cur-rent pattern. The reason for that is that oncethe level of subsidy by the public sector reachesthe majority of society in a democracy, to re-move any part of that subsidy directly hits thehip-pocket nerve of someone and that someonewill undoubtedly make that removal of subsidya reason for changing his vote and changing theGovernment at the next election.

The result is that virtually all westerndemocracies are faced with the problem ofspiralling growth in the public sector, spirallingtaxes to generate revenue, and increasing defi-cits when the growth of the gross nationalproduct is not sufficient to cover the increasingdemands for expenditure. We in this countryare no exception. Some Governments, such asthe Fraser Government, manage to hold backexpenditure quite substantially. In two years ofthe Fraser Government the growth of expendi-ture was held to under one per cent of the grossdomestic product, and in another year it washeld to less than two per cent, which is morethan a record, considering the pressures ongovernment.

The current Federal Government in the firsttwo years had no such record. The growth in itsexpenditure was quite dramatic. The only ef-fective solution that has so far been found towork within democratic structures or non-democratic structures to resolve the problem ofthe ever-increasing demands on the public sec-tor is a mechanism known as privatisation. It isalways said, and quite rightly said, that thistechnique of slowing the growth of the publicsector and the demands of the public sector hasbeen fundamentally developed within the

3004

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 30

United Kingdom. It is a major policy of theThatcher Government and has been provedsubstantially successful.

For those people on the other side of theHouse who would say Margaret Thatcher is onthe opposite side of the political spectrum tothem, and what she does must be wrong be-cause she is a conservative-her economic doc-trines obviously favour that conservative pointof view, privatisation does the same, thereforeit must be wrong. They have misunderstoodthe whole problem and are confused about theproblem facing all Governments at the presenttime. It may be true that the Prime Minister ofGreat Britain is a conservative-that she is aneconomic dry.

I think there is very little doubt that that isprobably an establishable fact. It is alsoprobably true that the President of the UnitedStates holds similar political views. Both thosecountries have used the privatisation techniqueto reduce the growth of government, to in-crease the efficiency of government, and to tryto provide some sort of benchmark for testingthe efficiency of government. The end result ofthat is to benefit the taxpayers of thosecountries and to redirect the use of resources tothe most efficient and productive area to allowfor future generations of growth and wealth.

If it were only the Prime Minister of GreatBritain and the President of the United Stateswho espoused the concept of privatisation, itmight be justified to label it as a purely con-servative doctrine. In that case, some of thecomments of the Government might be justi-fied. But it is not just the Conservative PrimeMinister of Great Britain, or the RepublicanPresident of the United States, who espousesthis doctrine. I am sure that members of theGovernment would not refer to the Presidentof France, M. Mitterand, as a conservative. Hiseconomic policies in the initial stages ap-proached very closely to the socialist ideal andyet it is that very President who has beenendeavouring for the past 12 months to im-plement the kinds of policies that are directedtowards increasing the efficiency of the publicsector, getting competition into the public sec-tor, and divesting the public sector of operatingenterprises. He has been directing this withinFrance.

A member: That did not happen in the firstyear, though.

Mr TRETHOWAN: It did not happen in hisfirst year-that was when France moved frombeing a moderately prosperous country with a

good balance of trade and a secure currency toa stage where the bottom fell out of the econ-omy; there was a run on the currency, and theexternal balances depleted to an alarming de-gree. But that lesson was learnit by the FrenchGovernment and President Mitterand has, infact, learnt that the problem that must betackled in every western democracy at thepresent time is the problem of spiralling growthin the public sector.

Mr Bertram: Is he going to denationalise thebanks?

Mr TRETHOWAN: I am not sure how farthe policies will go, but the pressure will betowards ensuring that all those enterpriseswhich normally exist within the private sectorwill again exist within the private sector.

If that example is not enough to convincemembers of the Government that their ap-proach is blinkered or, in the words of theDeputy Premier, is one of "knockers" as soonas privatisation is mentioned, let me quote acountry which I am sure they would not daresay is a country which is an exploiter of theworking classes, a voracious capitalist econ-omy, or a hive of conservatism. I quote thePeople's Republic of China. The fundamentalpolicies that have been introduced there overthe last 18 months are fundamentally those ofprivatisation, particularly at the grassrootslevel, the freeing up of land for the-and theycall them the peasant classes-agriculturalworkers to have their own plots, to grow andsell food in a free market; and recently, theability for small businesses to start up withincities to compete-

Mr Gordon Hill: It is a stupid analogy.Mr TRETHOWAN: Why is it a stupid

analogy? Is it because the member for Helenadoes not understand it? He has the classicblinkered approach of the Government. Hecannot perceive that the socialist ideal does notwork economically, that the State, when it isall-powerful, finds that it is also moreconstricting on growth and personal freedom.He could not accept that because it is obviouslyhis political bent.

Mr Gordon Hill: That is nonsense and it isnot my position. It is because I understand itthat I say it is a stupid analogy.

Mr TRETHOWAN: People reading this de-bate in Hansard will be able to judge for them-selves who is making a stupid analogy.

The reason that the People's Republic ofChina has been increasingly freeing up the op-erations of the private sector when previously

3005

3006 [ASSEMBLY]

they were totally under the control of the Stateis that that country knows that economically itis the only way to achieve success. It knowseconomic growth can only be achieved whenpeople have the freedom to work and compete,that the market place is the best arbiter interms of supply and demand-not the centraleconomic planning authority, because it gets itso wrong. Why has the People's Republic ofChina decided to do this? Because that countryhad the experience of the Cultural Revolution,of total State control-even more total thanperhaps in many other Communist countries.And it was a disaster. Never were economicobjectives met, never was production appropri-ate to the demands. Either it fell grossly shortof what was required or the production of aparticular item so far exceedcd the needs of themarket that the effort was wasted.

That is why the People's Republic of Chinahas moved down the road of privatisation.

Within our own society, we will never be ableto accomplish the leap from the pre-post indus-trial society to the post industrial society unlesswe can attain flexibility and allow resourceswithin our economy to be most appropriatelyplaced and distributed. As long as vestedinterests and monopolies, both in the publicand private sectors, are protected by reaction-ary governments, there will be no chance forthe society to adjust. The result will be thesame as in those countries which, during thefirst industrial revolution, had the same sort ofproblem.

If we look at the difference between the wayin which the industrial revolution was used toadvance the wealth of the nation in GreatBritain and compare it with, at that time,Czarist Russia, which had a particularly rigidautocratic system of government, or even withthat of Germany in the initial stages, it will beclearly seen that that society which was flexiblein its economic matters and in its relationshipto social change, and fundamentally demo-cratic, far outstripped those societies whichprotected the structures which existed prior tothe introduction of the new technology.

What I am saying is that unless we are pre-pared to grasp that nettle and free up our so-ciety to allow it to change to meet the demandsof the new situation, we will be left behind inthe future generation of wealth in this countryin the same way that Czarist Russia was leftbehind when, at the beginning of the twentiethcentury, it had a social system and economic

structure that was geared, probably, to latemedieval times. We will appear like that, if weare not very careful, in the context of ourneighbours in South-East Asia. We have only tocompare their economic growth, social devel-opment, and generation of wealth in relation toours to see that over a period of 10 or 20 yearsthey will far outstrip us.

Where do the main vested monopolies lie inour society? One of the fundamentalmonopolies relates to labour markets. In fact,the pre-eminent monopoly in our society is themonopoly in relation to labour. It is not re-sponsive to market change. It is protective ofits existing situation in spite of economic andsocial realities and there is no mechanism thatfundamentally allows that adjustment to takeplace. This Government and the FederalGovernment are reactionary in the way inwhich they support the view of the organisedlabour monopolies.

We had a classic example earlier this eveningwhen, in discussing privatisation, the memberfor Kalamunda spoke about the kind of changeinvolved in it. He spoke about the way inwhich, under Liberal privatisation policies,people would not be sacked, but that a situ-ation of attrition would take place and thatprobably overall there would be a reduction inlabour content. The Premier said, "That's notright. We have to maintain the same level oflabour in that occupation." He said that be-cause he knows that that is what the tradeunion movement says.

When faced with the argument put forwardby the member for Kalamunda, what would thePremier do? Would he go back to the situationobtaining perhaps 30 or 40 years ago when ittook 100 men with wheelbarrows to dig sewermains and load the spoil onto draught horse-drawn drays to take it away? Would he go backto that-because that is the same sort ofblinkered reactionary argument-or would heagree that the current situation of employingmore capital in the form of higher technology,such as backhoes and deep grab shovels, is themore appropriate way with perhaps a labourforce of five, seven, or 10 to do the sameamount of work? In the long run the lattercourse gives greater benefit to society. Cer-tainly there are fewer jobs, but those jobs arebeing placed elsewhere in the society.

Mr Gordon Hill: What guarantee is there ofthat?

3006

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 30

Mr TRETHO WAN: The member for Helenasounds like one of the landowners at the timeof the first industrial revolution. He soundslike one of the people who want to protect theexisting structure.

The clear thing is that unless we are flexibleand let the market operate to redistribute theresources to the most productive areas, we slowdown the rate of economic growth and makeeveryone in the society poorer.

Mr Tonkin: Does the marketplace look aftermorality too?

Mr TRETHOWAN: No, nor do Govern-ments in most cases, but they may have aninfluence upon it. The morality comes from thebeliefs of the people, the ethos of the people.That is another argument I might talk about if Iget time in relation to the breakdown of thosesorts of standards in our society, a breakdownwhich has been encouraged by societies of thepersuasion of the Leader of the House.

Mr Tonkin: I was not talking about moralityin those terms. I was speaking about themorality in the marketplace where people whohave not got the economic leverage cannot getwhat you might think a human being shouldhave.

Mr TRETHOWAN: That was exactly the ar-gument I put up. The Leader of the House, infact, is reinforcing my argument. Yes, Govern-ments do have a role. They have a role to en-sure competition, and effective competition. Ifthe Government sets the rules for the oper-ations of the marketplace, if people are dra-matically disadvantaged in the way that com-petition occurs, if they find they have notenough bargaining points, there may be an ar-gument for the Government to review thestructure of that competition to ensure that amore competitive situation occurs. But funda-mentally it is the marketplace, it is those whowant to buy and those who want to sell, whomost efficiently distribute the economic cake,the resources of production within a society. Ifit was not so, there would not be such a dra-matic rise in productivity in socialist states thatstart moving towards greater increases in pri-vate ownership and private business direction.But it is the case that as soon as socialistsocieties, in which all means of production areowned by the State, move to free that up toallow private enterprise to occur, productivitygoes up and the overall wealth of that societygoes up. In addition, the allocation of resourcesin that society becomes more efficient. That isdue to the fact that the mechanism of the mar-

ketplace does not require a bureaucracy to en-force it; the marketplace mechanism itself en-forces it. The Government has to set the rulesto ensure that fairness and equity occur, but,apart from that, the marketplace itself willproduce the greatest wealth for the individual.

I have little hope, if this State and thiscountry remain under the control of LaborGovernments, that we will see occur the kindsof changes within our society which will lead togreater prosperity, the most effective use ofnew technology, better management practices,the least pain and discomfort to individuals,and greater employment. I have little confi-dence that that will occur under Labor Govern-ments because they are so protective of vestedinterest and monopolies, particularly thevested interests and monopolies in the LaborParty. They have established this over and overagain. The Premier established it in his answersto and interjections on the member forKalamunda today.

The policies that the Liberal Party put for-ward in regard to privatisation are policieswhich are forward-looking and which will leadto the potential for greater wealth generation inour society. They are policies which will help inthe long run to reduce the growth of the publicsector, reduce the ever-increasing demands forrevenue from the public sector and allow thatrevenue to go back to those people who gener-ate it. It will refocus benchmark efficiency inmany areas of Government.

I am not saying that there are not some veryefficient and effective areas of Government atpresent, because there certainly are. I maintainthat some of the senior executives in the publicsector in this State could gain jobs in any pri-vate enterprise situation and they wouldprobably do so at a great increase in salary.They are very competent. But what I am sayingis that the system under which they arerequired to operate does not provide the incen-tives and the disincentives that apply in theprivate sector when the pressure of the market-place is upon an individual firm. The undertak-ings that have been given by our party in regardto privatisation is that it will not involvewholesale sackings; it will not involve dramaticdislocation. But it is the kind of review of allfunctions of the Public Service that is dramati-cally called for.

In order to fit ourselves to be competitivewith our near neighbours in South-East Asia, inorder to fit ourselves to allow greater pro-ductivity to take place and export industriesagain to become competitive, we need to follow

3007

3008 ASSEMBLY]

policies essentially similar to those that havebeen followed in the United States and UnitedKingdom.

The other matter I wanted to raise-theLeader of the House brought it up, perhapsinadvertently-was the problem of moralitywithin a changing society, a society under thepressure of structural change. One of the prob)-lems of technological and economic dislocationis that it affects the traditional structure of thesociety and it puts a lot of pressure on thosestructures that held the society together. inmany cases, those traditional social structuresmay not be sufficient to support the change inthemselves. In that situation a crisis develops.It is the Government which can lead the wayout of that crisis to the benefit of the society asa whole.

As the member for Kalamunda pointed outearlier this evening, we are faced with somevery serious problems. We are faced with adramatic increase in the level of crime, particu-larly violent crime, in our society. We are facedwith a dramatic increase in the use of drugs,ranging from hard drugs such as heroin to thelegally available drugs such as alcohol andtobacco, all of which represent a very signifi-cant cost to our society.

We are faced with an enormous demand forresources to support the family, which is thebasis upon which the society works, in a waythat Governments were not called upon to do20 years ago. That burden is being carried byall taxpayers. The question is whether the poli-cies that are implemented by Governments arethose which in the long term will benefit themost people within the society. I suspect thatthe Government in this State and the Govern-ment federally have not really come to termswith what is happening.

In relation to crime, violent crime particu-larly, there was a recent article in the DailyNews which clearly established the direct re-lation between violent crime of a sexual natureand the growth and distribution of pornogra-phy, particularly violent pornography.

The moral dilemma facing any Governmentis to what degree personal freedom should beinfringed. I suspect that Governments in oursociety have erred far too leniently on the sideof allowing the individual to make choices, per-haps at the expense of other sections of thesociety when taken as a whole. It certainlyseems that we are faced with the breakdown oftraditional values which is being contributed toby the Federal and State Governments. We see

very little Government support for some of ourtraditional family and moral values and thetraditional beliefs in our country.

Mr Davies: Where do you think it is lacking?We are all anxious to pick this up.

Mr TRETHOWAN: I think it relates in partto a misunderstanding about pluralisticsocieties. Such societies can operate but are notnecessarily cohesive. They will be cohesive onlyif all the members share beliefs in common.Unfortunately, I believe the policies being pur-sued by the Federal Government at presenthave lacked an understanding in themulticulturalism about the dangers of plural-ism when it is not based on some fundamentalvalues shared by the society as a whole. Wemust have a society with freedom and a societywhich can appreciate the different backgroundsof its citizens. I see nothing wrong with peoplebeing proud of having forebears who comefrom different countries and different societies.However, there are certain things that mostAustralians believe and if someone comes tothis country and wants to become a citizen thatperson needs to understand that being anAustralian means adopting those beliefs andthe culture that goes with it.

It is wrong for Government to try to breakdown and not reinforce the established culturalbeliefs of our society-particularly those thatdeal with the cohesiveness of the family-andhonesty to the belief that one's country needsto be put in an important place in the life ofevery citizen, and that each citizen owes thecountry a duty as well as that country owingeach citizen a duty.

Mr Tonkin: Do you think that people owethe planet a duty? Should they have that widerresponsibility?

Mr TRETHOWAN: Fundamentally, peoplemust understand that if they live in an environ-ment which is enclosed, if that environment isdamaged to any significant degree their livesare affected.

Mr Tonkin: That includes the physical en-vironment?

Mr TRETHOWAN: It includes the life-sup-porting environment which is principallyphysical. In the competitive world in which weexist people need to have a strong belief in theircountry. Maybe they can take an overridingworld view but fundamentally their belief intheir country is important.

Mr Tonkin: My country, right or wrong.

3009

[Thursday, 24 October 1985]100

Mr TRETHO WAN: My country, fundamen-tally right because it is a country in which if 1think it is not going right, I am in a position todo something about putting it right. A countryis an expression of the individual citizens. Per-haps the interjections by the Leader of theHouse would be appropriate in a society inwhich there was no freedom of the ballot boxand democracy did not exist. In a democraticsociety the people are affected by what theGovernment does and if they do not like whathappens, they can change the Government. Onthat basis people have every right to believethat their country is right and to support it.

A Government member inteijected.Mr TRETHO WAN: Anyone who says that i t

does not occur in Western Australia is speakingrubbish because if it did not, why is theGovernment sitting on that side of the Houseat present?

A Government member: What happens inthe other place?

Mr TRETHOWAN: The people of WesternAustralia are very wise and they want to hedgetheir bets.

It is extremely important that we takeseriously the very difficult position in which wefind ourselves in this society at Present. We areat a crossroad and I do not think that is puttingit too precisely. We need to take a good longview about the road we shall walk down; weneed to take a good look at what our neighbour-ing countries which are competitors will bedoing in the next 10 or I5 years; and we mustlook at what countries such as OECD countrieswill be doing because it is important that weshould not be the odd man out. It is importantthat we should not protect our vested interestsand power structures at the expense of the long-term Prosperity of our society.

I believe that one of the fundamental mech-anisms that can be used to allow our society toreadjust in the current turbulent times is that ofprivatisation. We should be encouraging com-petition in the public sector and growth in theprivate sector, and we should be reducing theburden of taxation upon individuals, particu-larly those who generate the wealth in our so-ciety. If we do not face that situation and adoptthose long-term policies,we shall be out of step,not only with certain Governments in theOECD area, but also with some of the socialistGovernments in the area. They haverecognised the problem and have taken steps toimplement those policies. The blinkered ap-proach and dream world existence of the

Premier and Deputy Premier when it comes tothe concept of privatisation is doubly concern-ing.

They do not understand the seriousness ofthe problem we are now facing. I do not thinkthey understand the importance of having theright solutions that have been proved to work.Those solutions are the ones based on the con-aept of privatisation. If we do not go down thatroad and seek to improve efficiency in the Pub-lic Service, and allow market forces, includingthe labour market, to operate more effectivelyin our society, we shall consign ourselves to adownward spiral and a backwater economicexistence that this country and its people donot deserve.

I can assure members that when the Oppo-sition becomes the Government of this Stateafter the next election, forward looking andconstructive policies will be implemented inthese areas. They will not be undertaken at theexpense of individuals or the important andproductive areas of our society. I am sure a trueconservative approach will be adopted; that isto conserve what is good, valuable and import-ant; but at the same time we should not befrightened to change that which is holding usback from the kind of future this State andcountry deserve.

MRS HENDERSON (Gosnells) [8.19 p.m.]:I would like to address my remarks in this de-bate to the tired old concept which used to beknown as deregulation but now comes underthe new heading of privatisation. This principleis essentially a con because it means that onetells people that one will sell them shares insomething they already own. The enterprisesare owned by the people of the State, yet theyare told that they can buy shares in thoseenterprises if they can afford to. Some peopleperhaps are able to afford to buy those shares,but the vast majority cannot.

We witnessed about six weeks ago a visit byan expert on privatisation from Britain, DrPinie. He came to give the Western AustralianLiberal Party some good news on privatisation.He is a close adviser to Margaret Thatcher.Pan of his address to the Liberal Party was tothe effect that it took I8 months to turn Britainaround and the State Sector of the British econ-omy was down by one-quarter.

Several members interjected.

(951

3009

3010 [ASSEMBLY]

Mrs HENDERSON: That is what he actuallysaid. The State sector of the economy is downby one-quarter. He continued-

The British economy is booming withunemployment coming down.

He said the same could be done in Australia.The same thing for Australia means, as variousmembers on this side of the House havepointed out, unemployment levels of between13 per cent and 14 per cent. The gap in Britainbetween the haves and the have-nots hasalready increased to such a degree that we haveseen the very sad spectacle in the last few weeksof inner city youth gangs on the rampage, andugly race riots tearing apart the city areas thatare simmering with discontent. This discontentthrives on unemployment and poverty.

Yet Dr Pirie comes to tell the WesternAustralian Liberals he can give them advice onhow to give us the same social conditionswhich are being experienced under MargaretThatcher in Britain. That is the last thing wewant in Australia.

I would like to turn to the situation inAmerica, beca 'use it would appear that the Lib-erals have no examples of privatisation to showus close to home, so they are grasping atexamples overseas to hold up as things weshould be following.

In America, the telephone services have beenderegulated. With the breakup of the BellGroup and AT&T there have been substantialproblems with telecommunications inAmerica. That is the result of private enterpriseoperating in an area that was regulated. Thefairly reputable private enterprise journal,Business Week, commented on the breakupand deregulation of telecommunications inAmerica as follows-

To prevent their revenue base fromshrinking, local phone companies are try-ing. to move prices closer to costs, whichcould lead to a doubling in residential ratesby 1990.

The Opposition talks about privatisation. Inthe same breath it says this will not !ead to anyincrease in cost- Business Week says that theway things are going in America withderegulation, telephone costs will double by1990 for private residential telephones.

Some large telecommunications users arcstudying ways of avoiding using these newderegulated telephone companies. Largecompanies like Boeing are setting up their ownnetworks of telecommunications because thenew deregulated telecommunications oper-

at ions are so inefficient and they take so long tohave telephones installed that they are losingpatience. The service is inferior to thatprovided prior to deregulation.

As these large companies such as Boeing optout of using the established companies, so theprices for those who have no choice but toremain within the existing system increase.Studies have shown that local phonecompanies will lose half their revenue if the sixbiggest companies in America set up their owntelecommumnication networks, as Boeing hasdone.

In some American States charges have beenincreased for resident ia] rural customers whilethey have been lowered for business and urbansubscribers. For example, in the State ofIllinois rural rates have increased by an averageof $3.08 while subscribers in the city pay 46cless for each basic service.

This is exactly what would happen inAustralia if the same sort of thing were broughtin here.

It has been said by Business Week that thedecision to deregulate the Bell system inAmerica was probably the worst miscalculationin American corporate history. Instead of a bet-ter service it has led to confusion, duplication,inefficiency, and lower technical standardswith higher tariffs.

Mr Hassell: That was not a Governmentmonopoly.

Mrs HENDERSON: No, it was not, but itwas a monopoly. It was broken up byderegulation.

Mr Hassell: It was a highly protected privatemonopoly which was highly regulated.

Mrs HENDERSON: It was very similar toTelecom.

The conservative business magazine Fortunecontained an article on the dismantling of Bell,and its headline was, "What was it we weretrying to fix?" In other words, what was wrongwith the system? We now have the disastrousspectacle of subscribers struggling to cope.

Mr Hassell: That was not a privatisation pol-icy.

Mrs HENDERSON: It was.

Mr Hassell: It was totally private to beginwith. It was one of the best telephone systemsin the world.

Mrs HENDERSON: It shows exactly whatthe effect would be here if Telecom werederegulated in the same way.

30tO

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 31

In America the situation now is that peopleset up trestle tables in the street and flog offtelephone receivers and other gimmicks forpeople to buy. Most of them are of inferiorstandards. They do not tell people that if theybuy one telephone receiver it may not connectup with the services provided by a differentprivate company.

The services have declined. The time it takesto have a telephone service installed hasincreased dramatically and costs have gone up.

Before deregulation, 97 per cent of privatelines in America were installed on the datepromised. That has now fallen to less than 20per cent. In July of 1984 the order backlog forservices grew by 16 per cent over the previousyear-a service similar to that provided byTelecom.

The New York Times said this-In view of this continuing business ser-

vice deterioration we must now begin toseriously consider whether a regulated re-sponse is needed to avoid the direconsequences which lie ahead.

In other words The New York Times now saysperhaps they should go back to the regulatedservice system.

Mr Hassell: They are not proposing aGovernment system, are they?

Mrs HENDERSON: I have just explainedtheir regulated service was similar to ourTelecom. We cannot hold America out as aglowing example of something to follow interms of the deregulation of private enterprise.We had the breakup of the Bell group andAT&T. The result was less service at greatercost. There was an overall loss, particularly tothe small consumer.

The Opposition says that AT&T and othercorporations in America are achieving greatprofits, so the fact they are not providing theservice they used to is an unfortunate side ef-fect.

I turn now to Australia. The interesting situ-ation is that the Liberals cannot agree amongstthemselves on this new privatisation schemewhich seems to be rapidly shaping up as amajor election plank in this State. It is hardlysurprising that the Liberals are having diffi-culty convincing the public of the need for awholesale jettisoning of public services andunits in this State. The reason the Liberals arehaving difficulty with privatisation is that thepublic know that the economy is strengthening,

unemployment is falling, and inflation is abouthalf what it was when we came into Govern-ment.

Mr Clarko: Interest rates are higher.Mrs HENDERSON: The Liberal Party is

interested in privatisation as a panacea foreverything. It cannot show examples of any-thing from anywhere around the world where itworks and where it is effective.

It is quite remarkable that the Liberals inWestern Australia are falling over this conceptwhen their own national president, JohnValder, made a famous speech where he saidthat if one is really talking about reducingGovernment spending it is all very well to sayone will privatise this, one will do that andfiddle about. This is all fiddling about theedges. That is quite a famous quote which JohnValder made about privatisation. I guess itcaused some severe embarrassment to the Lib-eral Party generally. His message onprivatisation was that it constitutes fiddlingabout the edges.

There are other Liberals who also have notbeen too keen on the concept. Senator Missen,a Liberal Senator, produced a document thathe called "The Winter of our Discontent".Under the heading "Slogans and liberalism" hehad this to say-

Anyone reading the determinations ofour recent Federal Council or the writingsof 'new right' dries or conservatives (whomthe media czars promote as 'Liberals') willbe surprised to see the lack of detail andthe reliance on repeated slogans that arefrequently employed. 'Privatisation', thatugly modem word, is in vogue and seen asa panacea for everything.

He went on to ask how anyone could possiblytalk about privatising the CommonwealthBank, the Post Office and Telecom. He went onto say-

Even the selling off of profitable pants ofthese enterprises will leave the ordinarycitizen with a vast burden to pay for unec-onomic (but necessary) services.

This is the main problem with which the Lib-erals are grappling. It does not deter most ofthem, but some of the more sensible ones likeSenator Missen are honest enough to say thatthe concept involves some problems. He wenton to say-

Meanwhile, the speeches of Liberals ex-tolling the virtues of privatisation are no-tably lacking in detail, both as to the

3011

3012 (ASSEMBLY]

reasons for disposal of public assets (savefor an assertion of greater efficiency) andalso as to the methods to be adopted.

He continued with this point-

Perhaps a greater concentration ondeveloping a needs based social welfareservice would afford a more sensibleresolution of the problem of burgeoningpublic expenditure.

He finished by saying-

Lately we have listened too closely tovested interest and not followed a logicalcourse.

So not only is the National President of theLiberal Party calling privatisation a "Fiddlingat the edges" but also Senator Missen in theFederal Parliament says that the Liberals havebeen listening too closely to vested interestsand are not being logical.

We have had a few more Liberals declarethat if it came to the crunch in the FederalParliament they would not vote forprivatisation- We have had the example ofSenator Steele Hall and a couple of other Lib-eral Senators saying that if it came to the Sen-ate they would not vote for privatisation. TheLiberal member for Boothby said-

[ certainly won't vote for such aproposition, and those who are currentlytalking about privatisation ... owe thepublic an explanation of how far they wantto go.

A very deep ideological division exists withinthe Liberal Party on this concept ofprivatisation, and that really does not surpriseme because it is not a concept that seems tohave any readily apparent advantages.

Senator Steele Hall, a former SouthAustralian Liberal Premier, has described as"extreme" Liberal policies to sell the Common-wealth Bank and Qantas. He hit out at theDries in the Liberal Party and called them"1primitive and arid". At the same time, wehave seen the Liberal Party's Federal Council,in July this year, supporting privatisation. Sowe have a very clear rift among Liberals.

John Howard, the newly elected FederalLeader of the Liberal Party, has had a fewinteresting things to say about privatisation.On 12 August he attended the New SouthWales Liberal Party's convention and said thatprivatisation would not allow the FederalGovernment to cut taxes. He pointed out thatprivatisation raised money only once and that

is when an enterprise is sold off;, that is the endof it and the Government does not get anymore money.

As our Minister for Housing has said, quiterightly, this form of selling off is morecommonly called asset stripping.

An Opposition member: Why is it an asset?Mrs HENDERSON: It is an asset because it

belongs to the people of the State and becauseit is valuable.

The New South Wales Liberal Party's confer-ence was told by John Howard, when speakingabout privatisation, that it would be politicallynaive to expose publicly all the options theparty was considering. Why is it politicallynaive? Is this a recognition that there is no realpublic support for selling off national assetsthat belong to the people of this State and ofAustralia? Indeed, The Australian reported that180 delegates of the New South Wales LiberalParty's convention called privatisation a redherring. This red herring in Western Australiawill be the Liberal Party's major plank of itselection manifesto.

It is well known that the National Presidentof the Liberal Party, Mr John Valder, wascriticised as being naive in revealing on hisprivate tape circulated among Westpac clientsthat the real area for cuts would be welfarespending and that to talk about privatisat ionwould not produce anything at all in the longrun. Remember, he has called privatisation"just fiddling at the edges". It is more dis-honest than naive to say that perhaps they hadbetter not reveal to the public all the thingsthey plan to do in this area.

The effects of privatisation overseas has beensobering indeed. It has created increased unem-ployment as we have seen in Britain, and adecline in services. It has also resulted, ofcourse, in a loss of Government revenue, be-cause privatisation is not about selling offeverything but about selling off those profitableconcerns which return substantial revenue toGovernment. The Opposition has referred toan ever-increasing demand for public services.It cannot mean that those services are incom-petent if the public wants more of them. It doessuggest that if we sell off most of the profitablesections that provide revenue, Governmentshave trouble providing those services.

This is the difficult stumbling block facingthe Opposition because it knows that WA is aclassic example of a State where, because thepopulation is small and scattered over a largearea, we need to eross-subsidise from city to the

3012

[Thursday, 24 October 1985])01

country, yet privatisation presents real prob-lems in this area. No-one will want to buy thebits which service the country; people will wantto buy only those parts which are profitableand therefore are serving the metropolitanarea. The Opposition does not have an answerto this major problem.

Let me now consider the one clear examplethe Opposition has given of a service it has saidit would like to sell off. Opposition membersspoke a few weeks ago about their plans to selloff the Hospital Laundry and Linen Service.

Mr Laurance: That will not disadvantage theremote people;

Mrs HENDERSON: No, but it was beingpropounded strongly until we reminded theOpposition that when it was in Government in1973 it commissioned a survey of the HospitalLaundry and Linen Service. They com-missioned private consultants to examine theservice and the consultants decided that if theservice were to revert to private management itwould have only marginal prospects of success.The private consultants indicated that the ben-efits could be equalled or surpassed by quitemodest improvements in efficiency under theexisting management. The report went on tosay that a private operator would have to re-duce both linen stocks and labour costs by 30per cent-cutting an estimated 28 jobs-to geta commercially acceptable return.

Tonight we have heard members of the Op-position say time and time again thatprivatisation does not mean a loss of jobs, yethere we have a privately conducted surveywhich has produced a report on the HospitalLaundry and Linen Service, a service which theLiberals want to sell off, which clearly statesthat there would be a need to cut out 28 jobsand to reduce linen stocks by a third in order toget a commercially acceptable return. The re-port went on to say that the Government wouldbe likely to pay a higher price for the serviceunder private management. So much for thebenefits of privatisation. I am amazed that theone service the Opposition targeted as being aprime example of an enterprise ripe forprivatisation has been shown that itsprivatisation would provide no benefit what-ever. In fact, the private consultants' reportindicated that only disadvantages wouldemerge. The report stated that the servicecompared favourably with most similar privateand Government laundries.

No matter where we look, whether to Britainor America or to the Liberals nationally or tothe Liberals in WA, we find that privatisationis something that has come forward and beenpresented as a new and wonderful idea but forwhich there has been no evidence or examplesto show that this is so. Therefore, the LiberalParty's privatisation concept can rightly beshown to be erroneous and to offer no pros-pects whatever.

It was an election gimmick. No wonder theydid not want to tell people too much about theidea. The people of Western Australia are notstupid and they will not accept that kind of aselling-off of the Government's assets, publiclyowned properties and enterprises for a once-offreturn when they ultimately will have to bepropped up afterwards.

I would like to comment very briefly on thestatements the member for East Melville madeabout the situation in China. He cited China asan example of a country that is moving rapidlytowards privatisation. I would certainly disputethat claim. I spent 2'/2 weeks in China inAugust and that visit revealed precisely the op-posite. We visited, for example, a large petro-chemical plant where 30 000 people workedand lived in the precincts of that plant. Theplant was wholly Government-owned. All theprofits from that enterprise went to theGovernment and of course that revenue wasneeded to provide people with their standard ofliving.

Similarly, when we visited shirt factories,ceramics factories and so on it was the samestory. There were only two areas where thatwas not the case. The member for East Melvillementioned the farming community. It is cer-tainly true that the farming community doesnot now have to sell all its produce to theGovernment. The people are allowed to sell onthe open market any surplus produce grown insmall plots close to their homes, but thefarmers we met were certainly very enthusiasticabout the fact that the bulk of their producealready had its market price. They knew howmuch they would get an,' how much they couldproduce. They knew they would be able tomaintain a reason ife standard of living. Wedid not perceive ny discontent or ill-feelingamong them that lacy would like to sell all theirproduce on the open market because on thewhole the people were happy with the system.The people we met were very aware of theenormous forward strides China has madesince 1948. They were very aware that in acountry with a quarter of the world's popu-

3013

3014 [ASSEMBLY)

lation-the people were clothed, fed andhoused. Certainly they did not have the samestandard of living as we do. However, we didnot see poverty or people living in dire circum-stances. It is truly remarkable for China to havemade such great progress in that time.

The only area where we saw anything thatcame close to representing what the memberfor East Melville mentioned was in thesouthern pant of China where there are somejoint ventures between the Government andprivate industry. Those joint ventures arereally an attempt by the Government to moveforward into the technological era as quickly aspossible. They are doing that by using the ideasand techniques provided by overseas privatecompanies combined with training their ownpeople. The Government makes sure thepeople have a stake in the profits. The Govern-ment gets half the profits and in that way theyensure that in time when their people havelearned all the techniques and acquired all theexpertise they will be able to carry out the sameprocedures themselves.

The only other area I wanted to touch onbriefly tonight is completely different: It is mydisappointment that the Opposition in boththis House and the other place has seen fit tomove to disallow Education Act regulations.They aligned themselves with a very smallgroup of-extremists, I suppose one could callthem-primary school principals who haveconsistently opposed extending equal oppor-tunity to female teachers to gain promotionwithin our education system.

Iam sure every member of this House knowsthat the Beazley Committee of Inquiry intoEducation-one of the most far-reaching in-quiries ever conducted in WA-came downvery heavily in favour of promotion or merit.One of its recommendations was that morepromotion should be given on merit.

Pant of the implementation of thatrecommendation meant that people lookedvery closely at the current situation andwhether people were beinc promoted on merit.As members probably know, 63 per cent of allprimary school teachers in WA arewomen-that equals 3 896 female primaryteachers-and of those teachers only 30 femaleprimary teachers occupy promotional positionswhich are not sex-linked; in other words, theyare not reserved for people of either sex. Bycomparison, over 500 men occupy those sortsof positions.

The Beazley inquiry examined why thatmight be the case. Why is it that we have asituation where for years and years teachingand nursing were the two prime occupationsthat were offered to young women upon leavingschool and entering tertiary education as beinggood careers to undertake, yet in primaryteaching while two-thirds of teachers werewomen, only 30 of them occupied Promotionalpositions. This has happened for a variety ofreasons, one of which is undoubtedly socialexpectations about women's careers. We allknow this has changed enormously in the last10 years. The idea that women's careers werevery much secondary to their husbands' ca-reers and that while a husband could pick upthe family and traipse around the State fromschool to school, often this was not really asocially acceptable thing for women to do.Most women would find that their husbandswere not able or perhaps willing to pack up thefamily and travel around the country in orderfor the woman to further her career. That wascertainly one reason for women not seekingpromotion. Probably a lack of aspiration wasalso tied in with that reason. This lack of aspir-ation is probably due to the lack of role models.

If people do not ever see women in positionsof authority within a school it is not surprisingthat young female teachers do not really con-sider those positions as a possibility.

However, perhaps the most important reasonfor very few women becoming principals of pri-mary schools is because of some very well-es-tablished and entrenched regulations laid downby the Education Department which actuallyworked towards preventing them from gainingpromotion. Until 1969 women had to resignWhen they got married; they had no choice. Infact, I knew many female teachers who weremarrid over the Christmas break. It was a verypopular time to get married. They would teachuntil, say, 17 December and return to dutyafter Christmas in February. They were obligedto resign between when they left in Decemberand returned to duty in February. They wouldcome back to the same school and teach thesame children, but their previous years of ser-vice were cancelled or wiped off the recordbecause as soon as a teacher resigned andreapplied for her job she lost her previous ser-vice. Because promotion in the Education De-partment has always been dependent uponyears of service those women were put on thebottom of the list because they had no years ofservice.

Mr Clarko: That is not the full story.

3014

[Thursday, 24 October 1 985J]01

Mrs HENDERSON: I am going to tell thefull story.

Mr Clarko: From 1972 there were no bars.

Mrs HENDERSON: I am coming to that. Isaid that until 1969 women had to resign whenthey got maried.

Acouchement leave was not available untilrelatively recently. This meant when they had achild the majority of women of course had togive up their jobs. If they went back to teachingtwo or three years later their years of serviceprior to having their children was wiped off.Even when acouchement leave was introducedwomen were given 12 months' unpaid leaveand for many of them this was not enough andthey chose to remain home for a further two orthree years. They too had to resign. When theyreturned to teaching they lost all theiraccumulated years of service.

In a nutshell, the promotional system in theEducation Department favoured people whohad many years of unbroken service and whowere able to move around the State fromschool to school. If a teacher marries or leavesto have a baby, he or she now does not have toresign. They now have a good chance ofmaintaining a long, unbroken record of service.They also have better prospects of promotion.

It does not take much to work out that boththose factors contradicted the lifestyle of mostwomen teachers and fitted the lifestyle of mostmale teachers. It is not really surprising.

Mr Clarko: Hundreds of single women chosenot to take Promotional positions.

Mrs HENDERSON: It is certainly significantthat those women who gained promotion wereby and large single women with no children. Ido not think anyone can say it is a healthysituation to have people selected for promotionon the basis of whether they have children orare married.

Mr Clarko: You gave the reason earlier. Thewomen in the main chose not to go, includingsingle and married women. Those with the bar-riers did not go, and those without the barriersdid not go either.

Mrs HENDERSON: That is a veryinteresting use of the word "chose." If a mar-ried women with two children says to her hus-band, "Next year I am going to apply for a jobin Mukinbudin; would you like to give up yourjob and come with me, dear?" It is hardly sur-prising that mast men would choose not to dothat.

Mr Clarko: I do not disagree with that. Thereare thousands of single women who could havegone and chose not to do so.

Mrs HENDERSON: I would dispute that be-cause the member will probably find that whenmost single women go teaching they are auto-matically sent to the country; and they go.

Mr Clarko: And single men too.Mrs HENDERSON: And single men too, but

93 per cent of women marry and when theyfirst go to the country to teach it does not assisttheir promotion. It is 10 years down the trackwhen they are 35 or thereabouts and want toapply for a principal's or deputy principal'sposition that they need to go to the country.

Mr Clarko: Some of them were advantaged,as you know,

Mrs HENDERSON: I am coming to that ifthe member will let me proceed, and then hecan ask the question.

As I was saying, those two things fit in neatlywith the average male lifestyle but not withwomen's lifestyle, so most could not apply forpromotion under the old system. I ask mem-bers to consider whether the most competentperson is one who is able to move readilyaround the countryside. Is that the bestmeasure of a person's competence to becomethe principal of a primary school? What reallyhappened with these new regulations is thatthey seek to allow women to enter the race.Once they are in the race they are judged onmerit. Under the old system they could not getinto the race at all. The odds were stackedagainst them so heavily that they were unableto enter.

Mr MacKinnon: How long ago was thesystem in force?

Mrs HENDERSON: Until those regulationswere tabled. I believe that the talent of 63 percent of women teachers-and their leadershippotential-cannot be ignored by a State edu-cation system. So we have brought in regu-lations to give promotion on merit, and I donot think anyone could argue with that.

The regulations provide that women can beadmitted to the race. Once they are in the racethey are considered on the same basis as men.What do they need to have to get into the race?Under the new regulations they must have ateacher's higher certificate. That means theymust have a university degree and four years'minimum teaching experience. How can any-one say that the women admitted under theseregulations were not well-qualified? They had

3015

3016 [ASSEMBLY]

to have a university degree and a minimum offour years' teaching experience. They musthave not less than 15 years' service, of which10 must be spent as deputy principal of a pri-mary school or a district high school. So theyhave to have high qualifications and long ex-perience in order to be admitted to the race.

When these regulations were gazetted andthe floodgates were opened, how many of the3 000 women applied? The answer is that 50applied to be considered for promotion. Ofthose 50, nine were seen as being eligible andfour got positions-four out of 50. Where werethe four appointed? One went to Esperance,one to Katanning, one to Boulder, and one toGeraldton. How can anyone say they wereadvantaged? They all went to the country.

Mr Old: Is that being disadvantaged?

Mrs HENDERSON: No, but the argumenthas been put forward that men who have beenprepared to go around the country have beendisadvantaged by these women leapfroggingover them. That is nonsense? All four went tothe country. All four had to agree to go any-where in the State. The average length of ser-vice of those women was 24 years, and theiraverage experience in administrative positionswas 15 years. Just by chance the average oftheir teaching experience and their administrative experience was greater than that of the suc-cessful male teachers who were appointed thisyear. Still there is a tiny group, a minority ofmales, who are claiming these women wereadvantaged. All four women had extensive ex-perience; they were all appointed to thecountry. They were prepared to go anywhere.The average length of their country service was12 years.

Those women gained promotion as the resultof their own qualifications and experience. Allthat happened was that the new regulations al-lowed them to enter the race. It is my beliefthat if the Opposition disallows these regu-lations in this House it will again be turning itsback on the women of this State.

The message is becoming clearer and clearer.In this case the Opposition is throwing itsweight alongside a tiny group of disgruntledmale principals. Those principals are not reallyconcerned about the four women at all. Theydo not like the idea of promotion on meritbecause it is not a comfortable concept for

someone who is settled in a nice country townlike Bun bury or Albany, and who wants to staythere for the rest of his life until he retires.

The next step in promotion on merit is thatone does not get a job and keep it for life. Oneis assessed every five years, and some of thepeople who do the assessment are one's subor-dinates, some are one's peers, and some areone's superiors. Some of the male principalswhose names sat on those long lists of 300names, who worked their way up to the top, gotthe school they wanted, and who are estab-lished, do not like the idea, and I am not sur-prised. That is why they are opposing theseregulations. They see it as the thin edge of thewedge towards promotion on merit. They arenot concerned about the four women with anaverage of 24 years' experience getting appoint-mernts to four country schools; they are con-cerned about promotion on merit. The Oppo-sition says it supports the concept of promotionon merit but it does not support these fourwomen.

We have a situation now where 94 per centof primary school principals are men and sixper cent are women. At the same time, two-thirds of all primary school teachers arewomen. What a massive waste of talent, experi-ence, and potential. We cannot afford ini thisState to tolerate that loss. We cannot afford thelack of benefit to the children in our schools.They need role models of competent women incharge of schools. These regulations in a smallway open up the promotional pathways towomen teachers. There is no doubt that femalestudents are very much influenced by the wayin which they see women occupying positionsof responsibility around them in their schools.

Any talk of the floodgates opening up as aresult of these regulations is negated by the factthat only four women gained promotion by thegazettal of these regulations. Incidentally, allthe same arguments were first put up whenwomen were allowed to become principals ofhigh schools. It was said the floodgates wouldbe opened and women would take over all highschools. When the regulations were changedone women became the principal of a highschool.

I hope these regulations will not be opposedin this House. I hope the Opposition will seethe error of its ways because members oppositeare rapidly alienating themselves from thewomen of this State who are reading thewriting on the wall very clearly.

3016

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 31

MR CRANE (Moore) [8.59 p~m.]: ThisBudget has not really taken me by surprise.There are points in it which give me a little joy,and others which do not give me any joy at all.I suppose one could call it a hot and coldBudget. One thing I would say about theBudget is that it is probably the best presentedBudget 1 have seen in the 12 years I have beenhere. I contratulate the Government for thetrouble it has gone to in preparing the Budgetin the lovely folder. When we as members ofParliament have to talk on matters such as thiswe need to keep our papers in a convenient andtidy way. I think that is a fair enough commentto say it is well presented, and even though itmay have cost a few dollars it is well worth itwhen one considers the importance of Parlia-ment and the important work we parliamen-tarians are called upon to do.

Before criticising it too severely, I would justlike to say that I am quite satisfied with oneparticular matter dealt with in the Budget. Iwill need to do a Cooks tour of my electorate tobring these things to the fore.

Firstly, I was very happy to see that theGovernment has continued to honour thepromises which had been made by providingtwo facilities that the Opposition, before wewent out of office three years ago, was workingon. One, Of Course, was the Jurien boat har-bour, which had been under review for a longtime and which we had decided to make a starton when we were in government. I am verypleased with the progress of the harbour today.I was in Jurien recently with the member forAlbany on Public Accounts Committee busi-ness and I visited the harbour. On that particu-lar occasion I noticed that the groynes had beenput in and a certain amount of money had beenexpended there.

I noticed that in this year's Budget $1.8million has been allocated for the excavation ofthe harbour, which is an inland harbour andthus has to be excavated. I say to the Govern-ment, "Thank you very much for carrying onwith that work." It is very important for thefishing industry and for Jurien. We on this sideare glad that it is to go ahead because rumourswere rife that with all the marinas being builtadjacent to the metropolitan area-new ma-rinas are being announced at such a rate that itis almost as if they are going out of fashion-itwas felt that some of the money would besiphoned away from Jurien. However, it isquite obvious that the harbour is going to pro-ceed.

When in office, we promised to build a jettyat Lancelin, a facility that is very much needed.The previous Minister for Fisheries andWildlife undertook to do this in the next threeyears of government, if that Government werere-elected. Nothing has been done as yet butsome steps have been taken to secure land. Inotice that in the Budget there is an allocationof $200 000 for the purchase of the land and$ 400 000 for the co nst ruction of the j etty. As itis there in the Budget, I am sure that the work'will proceed. I am thankful for that and I hopethat perhaps next year we will be in govern-ment, and in that case it will be a very happyoccasion when we go up to Lancelin to open thejetty.

I notice that fast year some of the projectswhich we had under way when in governmentwere taken on by the present Government. Ithas received the honour and glory of openingthese projects, but I do not think that mattersvery much because the important thing is thatthose projects will continue. I am sure theLeader of the House will recall one such projectin particular. He visited Bindoon and openedthe water supply there, and that service hasbeen a great boon to the town. It hasencouraged the sale of a lot of blocks in theBindoon township where people are nowadopting a different lifestyle-although not anoptional choice lifestyle. It certainly hasincreased the activity in the area and onlywater, of course, could do that.

I refer now to the Miling township which hasbeen under water restrictions for eight years.These water restrictions apply year-round andwere not simply enforced in sumnmer. WhileMiling is not a big town, it is a very importantone and it has earned a great deal of money forthe benefit of Western Australia. As with somecountry towns which have had diminishing ser-vices, have had their services taken away fromthem, or possibly had no services to begin with,I believe the Government should look seriouslyat Miling. The obvious way to serve that townwould be to build the Agaton water scheme. Ihave spoken on this matter many times in thisplace before and I do not want to labour thepoint again because I have probably spokenmore often about the Agaton scheme than allthe other members of this Parliament puttogether. I would remind the Government thatit is a bold project which requires courage andinitiative from any government to undertake it.

The Agaton scheme would not only serviceMiling and Bindi Bindi, but would extend toserve the eastern wheatbelt 'areas, which have

3017

3018 [ASSEMBLY)

been deficient in water since they were devel-oped. The construction of the Agaton waterscheme would take a lot of the water load fromthe Mundaring scheme, which would then al-low more water for the goldfields and theKalgoorlie area. The Kalgoorlie area in particu-tar has expressed concern about its future watersupplies and this is one project which wouldensure an adequate supply was made available.It would take the pressure off the Mundaringsupply and so make more water available forthe goldfields.

I refer again to .Jurien. On previous occasionsI have brought a couple of problems to theHouse and I have certainly taken them to theMinister for Education because they concernthat portfolio. I am sorry the Minister is nothere today, but I mention that Jurien hasalmost arrived at the stage of growth where it isready for the primary school to be extended toa district high school. I said "ready" but theactual school population required is 125students and the school does not yet have quitethat number. I understand that in 1986 therewill be 121 students so the school is only fourstudents short, but I point out that their situ-ation is rather unique.

Jurien is situated on the coast in the centre ofan area that is a fair distance from other sec-ondary education facilities. The nearest highschool is at Moora. North of lurien is the townof Leeman and, as the crow flies, it is onlyabout 15 or 16 miles, while to the south ofJurien is Cervantes which is about 17 milesaway. This makes Jurien the most centrallylocated of those three townships, and whileJurien will have only 121 children on its schoolroll in 1986, if we were to add the numbers ofchildren at those two other schools, the numberof children necessary for a district high schoolwould increase considerably.

Jurien, *because of its unique situation in be-ing a long way from other types of educationalfacilities, would be ideal for a district highschool. It is too far to bus the children toMoora, and in any event the high school hostelat Moora is always bursting at the seams. Thishas meant that in the past, parents of childrenin those areas have found it necessary to findother accommodation in other centres for theirchildren or to send them to Northam, toSwanleigh at Midland, or to Geraldton. It isalways a very expensive exercise, and thosepeople who have had to send their childrenaway to attend education facilities appreciatethat most parents do not do that for the oldschool tie purposes; they send them away be-

cause they have to if the children are to get aneducation. There is simply nowhere else forchildren in these regions to receive their sec-ondary education.

This is another burden which falls on ruralpeople and requests for assistance fall on deafears in most places. I air this matter on theirbehalf again tonight and make a plea to theGovernment-not that it will matter verymuch because I think this is a problem which Ishould address to the Leader of the Oppositionbecause we will be the Government next year. Iwill require him to give an undertaking that theJurien district high school will commence. I amsure that he will take my comments on board.

In addition to that, a matter which I under-stand has been under review for some littlewhile is the need to connect the direct roadfrom Cervantes north to Jurien. This coastalroad, and another from Leeman in the northrunning south to Jurien, will help the situation.

The Cervantes link road has been plannedfor some time. I understand that the survey isbeing undertaken and the alignment of the roadwill be carried out in the very near future. Oneproblem is that the road will have to cross theHill River which will necessitate the building ofa bridge unless we do what we used to do manyyears ago and put a concrete crossing on theriver bed. The river would flood only for a fewweeks of the year and only then would it beimpassable. It would be inconvenient to an ex-tent. However, it would not be impossible fortraffic to go around the existing road which isonly an additional 48 kilometres or so.

I know that we cannot have everything thatwe want. The modem day feeling seems to bethat we must have everything before we start. Isuppose I am one of the old squares of the oldschool. I am used to having to put up with acertain amount of inconvenience. I am surethat the countr-y people in that area would beprepared to manage for a year or two with thatconcrete crossing until more money is found tobuild a bridge across that river.

A useful suggestion is that the Army enigin-eers be asked to design and build some of thesebridges as pant of their training. That would bea good way of using some Commonwealthfunds to pay the Army. It would also be goodtraining for Army engineers or sappers as weused to call them many years ago. I do notknow whether the Minister has heard thatsuggestion before but I think it is a sound one. Ido not see any point to Army exercises in

3018

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 31

which they build sandcastles. and then knockthem down. It would be far better for them tobuild something of value that could be used bythe general public for years to come. After all,during the war, the Australian and British pris-oners of war built the bridge over the RiverKwai that we have heard so much about. Theydid not receive any pay for building that bridgeeither.

Those sorts of things can be done. I believethat, if there is a way of saving money by doingthings that way, they should be considered. It isso easy for us to knock. The world is full ofknockers. We want builders. We want peoplewho are prepared to put forward an idea thatwill be of benefit to everybody.

Mr Bridge: There are plenty of knockers inthis place.

Mr CRANE: Yes, this place seems to be aplace of knockers. However, some of us docome up with some brilliant ideas. I came upwith one a month ago. It concerned rural hard-ship. I noticed that two speakers from theGovernment side on the Rural Mortgage Pro-tection and Relief Bill fitted that category verywell. I believe that while there may have beensome weaknesses in my Bill and some ways toimprove it because I deliberately left a fewthings out in order to give this House an oppor-tunity to form it up even better, I did notnotice or hear any suggestions from anyoneabout how we could amend the legislation. Allwe heard was condemnation from members op-posite to the extent that they said the Bill notonly covered mortgages which existed now, butalso mortgages that would be entered into inthe future. That would have been a relativelysimple amendment to put in the Bill so that itonly covered mortgages which are in existenceat the moment.

It was also suggested that the legislationwould go on ad inflnitumz. Again, it was a rela-tively simple matter to insert a sunset clause inthe Bill. They are two amendments that couldhave been made which I did not include in thelegislation. I would be happy if the House wereto insert those amendments. However, theGovernment was not interested. I was ex-tremely disappointed last night when I foundthat, for the second time that the Bill had beenpresented for discussion by the House, theGovernment adjourned it.

About a fortnight ago I asked the Premier,because of the serious situation of the ruralindustry, whether he would bring my Bill for-ward and discuss it urgently so that appropriateaction could be taken to alleviate the problems

regarding mortgagee sales. The Premier, in hisusual manner, grandstanded to the extent thathe said it was a private member's Bill and if theOpposition brought it forward, he would bevery happy to help. He said he was mindful ofthe serious problem being faced by owners ofrural properties over which mortgagee sales areimminent. However, on both occasions that theBill was presented to the House for debate, thePremier was not in his seat. He was not even inthe House.

It was most unfortunate, also, that on thefirst occasion that it was presented to theHouse and the member for Greenough spokeon it, not one of the three Government mem-bers of the Rura] Sector Hardship Select Com-mittee were present in the Chamber. The mem-ber for Mt Marshall and I were here, but thethree Government members were not. Thatsuggests that perhaps the Government criesonly crocodile tears. I would hate to think thatwas the case.

I have said in this place before, as did themember for Kalgoorlie the other day, that thethree Government members of the committeechanged their minds about this matter after thecommittee had been in the country for a shortwhile and seen the extent of rural hardship andhad spoken with and taken evidence frompeople. I give credit now as I have previouslygiven credit in this place: These memberswere genuinely concerned. Yet, how much helphave we had from them on this Bill? One mem-ber spoke last night and poured copiousamounts of cold water over the legislation with-out suggesting how it could be improved.

Mr Hassell: The Government was not pre-pared to vote on it. It forced private members'day to deal with private members' business.

Mr CRANE: That is right. I wasdisappointed. I sat patiently last night andlistened to speaker after speaker ont the Bill. Iheard many criticisms of it. While it was stillfresh in my mind, I felt that it was an appropri-ate time for me, as the mover of the Bill, toreply to it. I stood to do so but the Bill wasadjourned and is still on the Notice Paper.There may be some joy in that. Possibly thePremier has a solution in mind. Possibly heintends to introduce amendments next weekbecause we cannot now deal with them today.If he attempts to do that, I am sure he will havethe agreement of this side of the House onanything he wishes to do, because we promisedhim that agreement. That may be the reasonthe Premier wanted the Bill adjourned. I canthink of no other reason. If that was not the

3019

3020 [ASSEMBLY]

reason, it is evident that the Government doesnot have the courage to make a decision on theBill. I would not like to think that would be thecase. I am hopeful that, in the coming week, theGovernment will introduce amendments andthat we will pass the Bill. That is the only waythat we can buy time so that other steps can betaken to help the rural industry.

There appears to be a media freeze on any-thing I have said regarding the Bill, and I wasvery disappointed with the Farmers Weeklywhich belonged to the Farmers Union, ofwhich I was a member, when it came into exist-ence in 1947. The Farmers Union was the re-suit of an amalgamation of the Wheat GrowersUnion and the Primary Producers Association.I was a foundation member of the FarmersUnion and now I am a member of the PrimaryIndustry Association. However, the FarmersWeekly did not print one word of what I wasproposing to do on behalf of the rural industry,which would have enabled farmers to read itand comment accordingly. I considered that tobe pathetic. In fact, it was so pathetic that Iposted my Press releases and second readingspeech to the PIA and asked if I could buy apage in that paper, at a cost of between $600and $700, to have that information printed asan advertisement. I did this because thefarmers own paper was not prepared to print it.

It appears that the responsibility of the Pressis to suppress, and it has done that well as far asthis legislation I am proposing is concerned.

Mr Gargett, the Executive Director of thePTA, rang my secretary and said that the dead-line for advertisements for that paper was10.30 a.m. yesterday and said that he was sorrythat the material had not arrived on his desk ontime. She told him that it was strange because Ihad had the material hand delivered the daybefore. Apparently it missed the deadline, butthat was because it was never intended that itbe published. I make that comment becauseIfeel justified to make it.

I wrote to the PIA and expressed my disap-pointment that it was necessary for a foun-dation member of the organisation and onewho has worked hard for the farmers'cause-even though I have not been in the Par-liament all that time, I have worked hard forthe industry since the I 940s-not to have theopportunity to have something printed in hisown paper. As far as I am concerned it is a sadstate of affairs. it does not represent the samedemocracy for which some of us fought and forwhich our countrymen died.

When I wrote to Mr Crane, who is mynephew, I said that we had disposed of DrGoebbels in 1940, but it appears that hislessons had been well taught because the art ofkeeping out of the paper what one does notwant has been well learned.

I am disappointed to have to make com-ments about an organistion for which I havebeen a member for many years. I was a mem-ber of the Wheat Growers Union before itsamalgamation with the Primary Producers As-sociation.

My comments tonight about this subjecthave been more of a grievance. I am not im-portant and it is not important what happens tome. However, I am here to serve the industryand if the industry wants to crucify me it cando it upside down like St Peter. I am only oneperson and I am not very important, but I willnot allow anyone, and that includes this Parlia-mnent and the farmer organisations, to crucifythe rural industry. I am fighting for the ruralindustry tonight, and I ask members to appreci-ate the problems facing it. Having appreciatedthose problems I ask them to have the courageto take the first step to do something aboutsolving them.

1 took the first step by introducing the legis-lation, albeit it may have been a small step: butone cannot take a second step until the firststep has been taken. In taking the first step Igave this House the opportunity to take a sec-ond and subsequent steps which will need to betaken for the benefit of the industry.

What do we find now? We find that theGovernment is talking about a Moratorium onthe sale of farmers' properties for six weeks.What will happen after that? Will a committeebe set up to see what will happen after the sixweeks' moratorium? I do not know. However,it is not good enough and we must do morethan that.

At the invitation of the PIA the other day theshadow Minister for Agriculture and I spoke toits president, executive officer, and legalofficer. The executive officer asked me if Iwould withdraw the legislation because the PIAwanted to do something else. I told him that Iwas not prepared to do that until another partyputs on the Notice Paper of this House betterlegislation, and only then will I considerwithdrawing it. They must chink that I am ab-solutely dumb. If I were to withdraw the legis-lation it would be the end of the story-I amnot that stupid.

An Opposition member interjected.

3020

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 32

Mr CRANE: I understand that that was thecase, but I believe they have been postponed.Perhaps they could be asked to withdraw them.Perhaps the Minister for Agriculture made anoffer to the auctioneer which he could notrefuse.

I hope that what I am saying will not bemisconstrued, but I was disappointed when Ilearned that it was necessary for farmers to takethe law out of the hands of the authorities in anendeavour to prevent a lawful auction beingconducted. That situation arose at Carnamahonly last week.

I can understand that farmers are very angry,because I share their anger, but it is just asunlawful for them to take the action they did asit is for the BLE to hold the gun at the head ofthe building industry, as it has been doing forso many years. It is just as bad as the thuggerythat has been taking place on the wharvesaround Australia. If it is unlawful for thosepeople to take action, it is also unlawful for thefarmers to take the action they did.

I was giving the rural industry an oppor-tunity to take lawful action by presenting thislegislation to the Parliament. I know whatsome people will make from what I have said. Iam not condemning the farmers for the feelingsthey have shown, but I am warning them thatthey must not take the law into their hands.The mortgagee's auction was an obnoxious ac-tion against people whom I have known formany years and who are good farmers. Theyare leaders in the farming industry and theyhave filled many mouths and clothed manypeople in this world. It is unfortunate that thisaction was taken, because they are progressi .vefarmers who found themselves in a situationwhich has been brought about because ofchanging circumstances, particularly theescalation in interest rates.

I will not say any more about this subjecttonight. I really did not intend to speak about itbecause I will have the opportunity to do sowhen I reply to the second reading debate onthe Bill I have introduced. When I do, I willanswer the questions that have been put for-ward by members in this House.

I refer now to the water supply at Yanchep.This year the water supply was taken over bythe Water Authority of WA from WA Utilities.As a result of that takeover the people ofYanchep have found that there have beensubstantial increases in their water rates. Insome cases the increase has been as high as 300)per cent. It is a tremendous increase and that

was the reason I presented to you, Mr Speaker.a petition regarding the water charges whichthe people in the area felt were exorbitant.

These are matters which country people haveto face and they have no way of getting awayfrom them. The people of Yanchep must have awater supply and if WA Utilities, which is aprivate company, could find the water in thefirst place to supply the bores and the tanks, theGovernment could take over the existingequipment. The bores, the pumps, the reticu-lation and holding tanks are there. TheGovernment took over this equipment, yet putthe price up 300 per cent. It makes one wonderwhether private enterprise could do these jobsbetter than the Government can. That thoughthas a great deal of substance.

I am a keen supporter of private enterpriseand believe there is a case to look seriously atwhy the Government found it necessary tocharge a higher price in country areas. It tendsto forget there is also a surcharge in countryareas of approximately $80 on a water account,so country people are treated differently frommetropolitan people regarding water charges.The matter regarding the deficiency betweencountry people and city people could be thebasis for further discussion by other membersin the House. I do not believe there should be asurcharge. There certainly is a difference in thecharges country people have to pay.

Members should not forget that if we im-prove the transport system in the metropolitanarea by electrifying the rail service at a cost of$140 million, a contribution will be asked ofcountry people as well as city people. There-fore, surely it is reasonable to expect thatcountry people should be able to becompensated in some way for the fact thatwater is more costly per head in the countrybecause of the smaller population.

While on the subject of Yanchep, I notice inthe Budget that an allocation has been made fornew police stations; $350 000 for Fremantle,$200 000 for Gosnells, and $250 000 forMandurah. It is coincidental that these areasare in the electorates held by Governmentmembers. For a number of years I have askedfor a police station to be built at Yanchep.There is a need for one there; it is quite adistance from Wanneroo. I am not in any waycasting any aspersions on the police. I have thegreatest respect for the police and I would likethe Minister for Police and Emergency Servicesto take note of my comments. I have a highrespect for the way in which the police carryout their duties, but what I am saying is that it

3021

3022 [ASSEMBLY]

is very difficult to give a reliable service toYanchep which is so far from the Warwickpolice station. I know the police do their bestand I admire the work they do, but it would beever so much easier for people in Yanchep ifthey could at least look forward to having apolice station in the near future. I ask theGovernment to take note of my requestbecause I see other areas have not been forgot-ten-they have been included in the Budget.Maybe those areas have a much higher priorityand I presume that is so, but I must befair-and it hurts sometimes because I do tryto be fair-and ask the Minister to take noticeof my plea. I raised this subject before the Min-ister became a member of the Government. Wewere lax in this regard and I believe the timehas come when something ought to be done atthe police station at Yanchep.

I now wish to refer to the subject of edu-cation. We do have a few problems. Moremoney needs to be spent on the Quinns Rockand Lancelin schools. I have written to theMinister for Education concerning both thesematters. I hope the Government takes my com-ments on board because I am very concernedabout this matter. I have been very patient. Ihave had help from the Government in relationto the proposed schools at Carnamah,Toodyay, and Gingin, but help was warranted.At the same time, I was concerned to hear of somany new schools being built in the northernsuburbs in electorates where the voting is thesubject of much speculation. I wonder whetherthis activity is more about buying votes thaneducating children. It may be coincidental, butI have a suspicion it is not.

Mr Taylor: There is an increase in popu-lation in the northern suburbs.

Mr CRANE: I know. I was responsible forthe provision of the school at Edgewater anumber of years ago. Due to an electoral redis-tribution the school was then in another elec-torate a couple of months prior to its opening. Iknow there are problems and there has been agrowth in the northern suburbs but I do pointout that we must not spend all our money inone area. I bring these points forward becausethis is the place I should do it.

I would like to lend support to a commentmade the other night by the member for MtLawley when he said that the State Govern-ment should set aside a sum of money for thepurchase of State flags. I agree with that pointbecause most of our schools seem to want theWestern Australian flag. 1 have been asked forWestern Australian flags by a number of

schools and I generally find that I have to buythem myself. That is okay. I do not buy themout of my perks, because I have been here for12 years and I have never seen any perks.Maybe the Federal boys get them, but I cer-tainly do not. 1 bought those flags out of mysalary and it is an expensive exercise.

Mr Court: They are not cheap.Mr CRANE: The four-breadth flags cost $46.

It is rather expensive when one considers that 1look after 30 schools, so I have to multiply $46by 30. That will break into the perks I do notget! Perhaps each electorate could receive half adozen flags a year for its schools. There is nodoubt about the pride the schools have in want-ing to display the Western Australian flag andwe love to see them flying; just as we love to seethe Commonwealth blue ensign flying.

Mr Court: People at the senior citizens'homes want them also.

Mr CRANE: There is a great demand forthem. We cannot put a cost on patriotism,whether it is for our national flag or State em-blem. As we cannot supply these flags all atonce, I would like to see a Budget allocation sowe could cover all these places progressively,even if we could buy them at a discountedprice. Perhaps the Government could subsidisethe price by $23 a flag. I would certainly bequite happy to make a contribution. I do notmind doing that, because in another 30 years Iwill be dead and I want to be able to make acontribution to the State. So while I am here,people might as well get what they can.

Mr Tonkin: There is such a thing as compost!Mr CRANE: My mother lived to the age of

92 and my father to 87 so members may haveto put up with me for many years to come. Ijust give them warning.

There is not very much time left, but I wishto reiterate my concern for the rural situation,country people generally, and the price of fuelin particular.

[ know we are all playing around and makingall sorts of promises to take a bit of excise hereand make a great plunge somewhere else. Butthat does not amount to anything, as I havesaid this before in this House, and no-one tookmy comments on board; they obviously think Iam an idiot, so I will repeat my remarks andmake my points very carefully and clearly.

It is estimated that 75 per cent of the fuelthat is used in Australia is used in the metro-politan areas; that is, the metropolitan areas ofall the States. Twenty-five per cent is used in

3022

[Thursday, 24 October 1 9851]02

the country. In the metropolitan areas, that fuelis delivered free to the service stations and theairports. If 0.5 cents a litre is paid on the deliv-ery of that 75 per cent of fuel, it would meanthat fuel could be delivered all over Australiafor the same price.

It would also mean that some of the fly-by-fighter service stations such as Southern Crassand the ACTU station, Solo which only feedlike parasites on the metropolitan area and donot get out into the real Australia, could betaken away or could be required to perform inthe country before they would be given a li-cence. The Shell company comes to mind be-fore any others, because wherever one goes inAustralia-and we must give credit where it isdue-one is never far away from a Shell servicepump. Mobil would be another one, but I canalmost count on one hand the number of fuelcompanies which do really service the outback.If these few companies were given the sole rightto supply fuel throughout Australia-that is, tothe metropolitan areas and the countr-wewould ind that they would be able to make anadded contribution to what they are alreadydoing. Fuel would therefore be the same priceall over Australia.

Why should the member for Kimberley,when he fills up his car at Kununurra, have topay so much more than he does when he buysfuel in the city? I ask the member forKimberley, what is the current price of fuel atKununurra? Is it 60c a litre, or more?

Mr Bridge: And the rest-

Mr CRANE: And the rest. Why should thatbe so? Why can the people of Kununurra notbuy fuel for the same price as we pay here?People going to the country fill their tanks upbefore they leave the metropolitan area andalmost breathe their whisky fumes into thetank in order to get back to the Metropolitanarea; so the service stations in the country aremissing out on that service also. I ask theGovernment to please take my comments onboard. People should pay the same price forfuel all over Australia and it would cost verylittle money to enable that to happen-it wouldbe a contribution from the companies and fromthe people in the metropolitan area who haveall the added advantages of a transport system.

Why could they not make this contribution?After all, we talk about giving everyone a fairgo. Let us give all a fair go.

MR READ (Mandurah) [9.44 pm.]: I rise tomake some comments in the Budget debate.My comments will be short as I realise the houris late and I do not want to keep members hereany longer than necessary.

I will start by making mention of two verysignificant points. The first is that I think itwould do some members opposite a great dealof good to walk outside through the doors be-hind their benches and consider the copies ofHansard there. When one looks at those co piesof Hansard one sees that the volumes contain-ing debates between 1890 and 1974 fit into onesection. From the year 1975 to the present, thevolumes almost completely take up the othersection. The lesson there is that, when peoplerise to speak in this House, they should aim tospeak to a point-to get the point across andthen sit down. My father used to say to mewhen I was young, "Stand up, speak up, andshut up." However, I was a disobedient childand I am a disobedient adult.

I suggest to Opposition members that whenthey come into this place they are really doingthemselves and their State a great disservice bytrying to paint this great State of ours as beingon its last legs. Members opposite are trying todestroy the confidence being experienced be-cause of our buoyant economy and the steadyprogress and achievement being reached by thisState. I will use the Opposition's own word todescribe them-they are knockers. The Oppo-sition has hit out at everything, and it nevergives praise for anything that is done. Membersopposite criticise, and by that constant criti-cism I feel they are trying to destroy the credi-bility of the Burke Government; but they willnot do that.

I see a certain desperation entering into thecriticisms made by members opposite. Theyare starting to attack minority groups-we hadthe attack on homosexuals during the recentContraceptives Amendment Bill debate; andthe attack made on women to the effect thatthey should go back to the kitchen.

Mr MacKinnon: Who said that?Mr READ: The member for Floreat.Mr MacKinnon: He never said anything of

the sort.Mr READ: Of course, he did.Several members interjected.Mr READ: I cannot answer all members at

once. I think I answered the member forMurdoch already and he has not come backwith the $250!

3023

3024 ASSEMBLY]

Mr MacKinnon; You should go back andcheck the Hansard transcript.

Several members interjected.

Mr READ: What you said and what wasrecorded in Mansard may have been different.Mansard was having a great deal of trouble,because we had the member for Murray-Wellington constantly trying to get my atten-tion. The member for Nedlands was constantlytrying to find out what was happening aboutthe Mandurah bar, and I asked him to be silentand we eventually told him.

The Opposition is really trying to create div-isions within society and focus communityhatred on various minority groups. If I sat onthe other side of the House, I would feel acertain amount of shame. Opposition membersare walking in what I would term a politicalwilderness. They are without leadership-thereappear to be two or three leaders-and they arenot really proving to be a constructive Oppo-sition, which is their job.

I remind members opposite that when theyspeak about how badly this State is doing, theyshould hark back to what has been presented inthis House before-the information providedin The Australian on 17 September 1985. Wehad this great tie-in with Queensland by theLeader of the Opposition in this State sometime ago. He sang the praises of Mr Bjelke-Petersen; but when one compares how MrBjelke-Petersen is performing in Queensland tohow Brian Burke is performing in WesternAustralia, and one looks at the facts presentedby Mr Greiner-the Leader of the Oppositionin New South Wales-one sees that there issome disparity between what the Oppositionsays and what is fact. These figures have appar-ently been collected by the Australian Bureauof Statistics, so I do not think members op-posite can claim they are inaccurate.

If we look at the figures, such as those show-ing the growth in employment, we see that webeat Queensland handsomely, If we look at thegrowth in unemployment, we see thatQueensland beat us quite handsomely. If welook at the inflation rate we see that it hasdecreased more quickly in Western Australiathan in Queensland, and so on. I do not want tolabour that point. I think members oppositehave had the figures presented to them on anumber of occasions. If they are absolutelyhonest about it, they will accept that this Stateis performing exceptionally well by comparisonwith all other States in Australia. Perhaps one

day the Opposition will be big enough to admitthat. Unfortunately, I do not see that day beingin the near future.

Mr Bradshaw: When are you going to reduceinterest rates?

Mr READ: I will tell the member something.The degree of interest in what the Opposition isdoing is not very high in Murray-Wellington. Ihave been getting several phone calls about themember.

Mr Bradshaw: That is just like the stupidstatements you made last time, but youwouldn't come up with any names in theHouse.

Mr READ: Does the member refer 10 thestupid statement that I gained $250 for him forthe Mandurah Aquatic Centre? I thought thatwas Pretty good dealing.

I move on to the Budget and what it has in itfor Mandurah. I looked quickly through theBudget papers tonight. Under the Marine andHarbours vote there is an allocation for theDawesville proposal of $300 000 for land ac-quisition and $509 000 for the channel investi-gation. I mentioned that investigation when Ispoke in this place on 26 September. An allo-cation of $22 000 for the ocean entrance willcomplete the $200 000 programme which wasset in place last year. Unfortunately, that pro-gram me was beaten by bad weather, so thatmoney will be expended this year. The navi-gable channel is to attract $1 .443 million andwill allow two-metre channels to be open allyear.

The member for Nedlands spoke earlierabout the sand bar. I keep trying to explain tohim that for the first time in the history ofMandurah a definite proposal has been put for-ward to keep that bar open all year. Last nightat question time, T asked a question of the Min-ister for Transport regarding the problems be-ing experienced with crayfishing boats.

Mr Blaikie interjected.Mr READ: The local crayfish ing boats.Mr Blaikie: And the low tides?Mr READ: Yes, and the low spring tides.

Everybody would be aware that crayfishing isan important industry in Mandurab and someconcern was expressed by those crayfishermenthat the boats would not be able to get out andacross the sandbar in time for the commence-ment of the season. They have to be out to droptheir pots in the water approximately one weekbefore the opening of the season so that thepots soak up the water. Then, of course, they

3024

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 32

will go out and bait their pots on the day beforethe season opens and will pull them on 15November when the season officially opens.

Mr Court: You don't put any of your horsesdown with them, do you?

Mr READ: Fancy talking like that abouthorses!

Mr Brian Burke: Don't let them distract you,member for Mandurah.

Mr READ: I am just disgusted at the mannerin which the member for Nedlands deals withthe kindest and greatest animal to man. Thereare portions of the horse to which I could com-pare the member for Nedlands, but I will notdo so.

The health vote under the heading "PublicBuildings" contains an allocation of $350 000for first aid for the Mandurah Hospital. I wassomewhat shocked earlier today to learn thatthe Mandurab Shire Council was deferringrezoning approval.

Mr Bradshaw: It happened Monday night,and you found out only today?

Mr READ: No, the shire meets on Tuesdaynight.

Mr MacKinnon: Who told you?Mr READ: I heard it today by phone.Mr MacKinnon: But who told you?Mr READ: It is all over town. People were

amazed. There were many phone calls to myoffice. Actually, I am just wondering whetherthe Opposition agrees with what the MandurakShire Council has done.

Mr MacKinnon: If you heard about it onlytoday and it has not been in the papers how arewe supposed to know what the council de-cided?

Mr READ: I phoned the shire directly forinforrnaton. I just wonder what the Oppo-sition's policy is on a hospital for Mandurah.

Mr Brian Burke: It doesn't have a policy, butit is working on it.

Mr READ: It is working on the policy. TheLeader of the Opposition is here now. I drawhis attention to a couple of comments I madein the Address-in-Reply debate. I mentionedthat the member of the Legislative Council forLower West, Colin Bell, in August 1983issued a Press release urging that a public hos-pital be built in Mandurah. The Leader of theOpposition then launched the Liberal Partypolicy. At that stage he supported the buildingof a private hospital until the need for a publicone was demonstrated. He was reported in the

local Press as having said that the proposedhospital was years away. I just want to find outhow be relates that statement to the statementof the shadow Minister for Health who, asreported in the local paper on 15 August, saidthat if the Liberal Party could not approve aprivate A-class hospital it would provide a pub-lic one in the first year of office. I just wonderhow this priority was suddenly established for apublic hospital after being told just somemonths previously that there would be no pub-lic hospital in Mandurah and that the publichospital was years away.

Mr Court: Are you asking us a question?

Mr READ: I was just wondering whether theLeader of the Opposition had anything to sayon the matter.

Mr Court: Have you still got two officesdown there?

Mr READ: No, only one. Was the Leader ofthe Opposition correct or was the shadow Min-ister for Health correct? Obviously nothing isforthcoming from the Leader of the Oppositionso I judge from that that he does not have apolicy on the Mandurah Hospital, as thePremier stated.

Under the section in the Budget papers deal-ing with schools and public buildings, we findan additional allocation of $215 000 which,together with last year's Budget allocation of$198 655, goes towards the payment for thecompleted stage of the classrooms and coveredassembly area in the Glencoe Primary School. Iadvise members opposite that I will have greatpleasure next Saturday, in the absence of theMinister for Education, in officially openingthis stage of the school. We are very proud ofwhat we have done for the Glencoe School.

Under the heading of "Sewerage", we havean allocation of $3.213 million, an increase of$1 .799 million or approximately 127 per cent. Ithink that that allocation really shows that thisGovernment is prepared to quickly address theneeds of Mandurah as it continues to grow.

Under the heading of "Drainage" there is anallocation of $125 000, an increase of $21 475,or approximately 20 per cent. The figure forthe country water supply was $2.326 millionwhich is an increase of $436 013.

The increase in expenditure in Mandurah iswell in tune with the development taking place.I have already referred to the police station andcourthouse and I remind members oppositethat those items were on the Opposition's

3025

3026 [ASSEMBLY]

works programme for four years when it was inGovernment but no money was allocated tothem.

I advise the member for Murray-Wellingtonthat I have had several telephone calls frompeople within his electorate who had been ad-vised that the money for the redevelopment ofthe Murray District Hospital had not beenallocated in this year's Budget. I have informedthose people where to find that allocation inthe Budget and I was only too happy to answertheir questions on behalf of the member forMurray-Wellington.

Mr Brian Burke: The member for Mandurahmust get tired of doing the member for Murray-Wellington's work as well as his own.

Mr READ: I do get many inquiries frompeople in the member's electorate because Itaught in that area for I I years and after thatperiod many people have come to trust me.

The last time I spoke I mentionedprivatisation and I now have some figureswhich are relevant to the argument onprivatisation. We have heard how privatisationwill be the saviour of this State. I do not knowwhether the State can improve that much whenit is already outperforming all other States inits economic management and growth.

in 1978 the move began to privatise certainsections of industry in Britain, and I have un-employment figures provided by the EconomicTrends Publication Central Statistics Office ofthe United Kingdom. The following figures donot include school leavers. In 1979 the percent-age of the work force unemployed was 5.1 percent; in 1980 it increased to 6.4 per cent; in1981 it grew to 9.9 per cent; in 1982 it jumpedto 11.5 per cent; in 1983 it went to t2_4 percent; in 1984 it went to 12.6 per cent; and Ibelieve it is currently rnnning between 13 and14 per cent. In the seven-year period duringwhich privatisation has been in effect in theUnited Kingdom unemployment has increasedby 300 per cent.

I know that statements have been made thatprivatisation will not result in a loss of jobs.However, on the basis of those unemploymentfigures, privatisation does not seem to be themedicine needed for the British economy.

My father was a very wise man who gave memany guidelines to follow in life. One of thethings he told me was that if a person tells a lieoften enough, it will be accepted as the truth.That is the basis on which the Opposition isworking at present. It is the only policy beingpursued by the Opposition. We are still waiting

to see that famous document on privatisation,pans of which have been leaked to the Press.When one considers what has been leaked itappears that some of it has been donedeliberately. I find it hard to believe that somepeople will not lose their jobs as a result of theOpposition's policy for the SGlO. Similarly, itspolicies with regard to the GovernmentPrinter, water supply, public works, and otherservices, appear to spell an end to employmentopportunities for many people. Also the Oppo-.sition's policy on health care where it does notwant to create any more public hospital bedsbut wants to move this area into the privatesector will have ati effect. What will happen tothe proposed Mandurah public hospital if theLiberal Party gets into Government? Presum-ably, the hospital will not be built because theOpposition has said it will not create any morepublic beds.

The public of Western Australia are rapidlybecoming wise to the gimmickry presented bythe Opposition as its policy, It will be excellentfor the public of Western Australia to have theopportunity to examine the Opposition's policywhen it comes to light, if ever, before the nextelection, because they will be able to seethrough the gimmickry. I can remember in the1970s a large headline stating that there Were100 000 jobs for Western Australians. A coupleof years later the infamous Job Bank was setup. I can see privatisation falling into the samehole that those two schemes did.

While discussing the failings of the Oppo-sition, I wish to comment on the recent spon-sorship by the Liberal Party of the televisionprogramme " The Anzacs". I do not knowwhether the Leader of the Opposition is awarethat many Anzacs did not have a very highopinion of the Liberal Party, particularly one ofits members who later became Prime Minister.I can remember my father, who was a veteranof the first World War, going red in the face atthe mention of that person's name. He wasabsolutely disgusted with that man's behav-iour. That man missed out on taking pant in thefirst World War when he resigned his rank. Atthe outbreak of the second World War a LaborGovernment was left to take control and to getAustralia through the wartime difificulties. Thatsame person wanted to go to England duringthe second World War to become pant ofWinston Churchill's war Cabinet. He also didwhat he could to get Australian troops intoVietnam. On consideration, it is rather incon-gruous for the Liberal Party to associate itselfwith a programme such as "The Anzacs". it is

3026

[Thursday, 24 October 198 5] 32

completely out of character with its philosophy.The only pant I enjoyed in the advertisementswas the red jumper worn by the Leader of theOpposition. It was the most attractive item ofthe advertisement.

Reverting to Mandurab, some problems havebeen experienced within the shire council withregard to pecuniary interests. The problemshave caused a great deal of heartache for sev-eral council members.

I draw the attention of members opposite toa statement by the deputy shire president, whois also the President of the Liberal Party inMandurab. I would like members to thinkabout this when dealing with Bills concernedwith the pecuniary interests of members of Par-liament. He says we are shackled by the Act,and when one considers that the people whohave made this Act are not asked to declareinterests as members of Parliament, it is a bitrough. I think that shows support for the Bill atpresent on the Notice Paper. I expect somesupport for that Bill from members opposite.

It is a great pity a decision has been made tocarry out an investigation into the efficiency ofthe staff in the Mandurah Shire. I wonderwhether that investigation should not extend tosome of the shire councillors. Some shire coun-cillors do not bother to acquaint themselvesfully with the material with which they aredealing. Towards the end of last year, onemember was debating trading hours, and hementioned at a meeting something about theKelly inquiry. It was stated by the deputy shirepresident that the situation was not covered inany of the terms of reference of that inquiry.Only a brief examination was required to estab-lish that the terms of reference of the inquirycovered Mandurah's situation completely.

The other thing which caused some concernwas the fact that that same person referred tothe Mandurah situation and the holiday resorttrading hours Act. I think members will beaware that there is no such Act; the shops inholiday resorts are covered under section 92(a)of the Factories and Shops Act.

I wonder how the Liberal Party will deal withthe South West Development Authority inMandurah. The authority is doing an excellentjob, but I want to present some commentsmade in council. I am concerned that thepeople who made these comments have absol-utely no idea of what the South West Develop-ment Authority is about. The authority offeredthe shire councillors the opportunity to travelto Bunbury to study what it was doing and

what it was all about. It is a pity that the twocouncillors to wham I shall refer did not takeup that opportuntity.

I would like to pass on the comments of CrRichard Shalders. He is the President of theLiberal Party there. There are no party politicsin local government! There was that famousletter in which the Liberal Party proudlyclaimed two of its members were on a localshire council as a means of lifting the LiberalParty's image in Mandurab. I read sections ofthat letter when I spoke in this place onWednesday, 9 May 1984. 1 would like to readfrom a Press clipping from a recent edition ofthe Coastal Districts Times which gives CrShalders' comments. It reads-

Cr Richard Shalders said that there weremore effective ways of spending moneyand more efficient methods than creatinganother authority to use up money whichcould go to the community.

"We need another quango like a hole inthe head," he said.

"If you need local experts to advise onhow, where and why to spend money, thereis no better vehicle than the local auth-ority."

He said there was only one representa-tive on SWDA with any knowlege ofMandura and decisions were being madeabout the distribution of funds whichreflected that.

Thai distribution of funds made me wonder, soI read on. The article continues-

"it all boils down to the fact that theamount of money to go around is reducedby the cost of the administration ofSWDA, and for the life of me I can't seethe need for it," he said.

"But if the only way to get funds is toj ump on t he gravy train, l et's j ump. "

Shire councillors are obviously unaware thatthe South West Development Authority is notthere to distribute funds and nobody jumps onthe gravy train to get funds.

I would like to pass on the comments of thesecond councillor. Cr Wayne McRostie is also aLiberal Party candidate for Mandurah, and, bythe way, he has said that the South West Devel-opment Authority is a social and economic dis-

3027

3028 [ASSEMBLY]

aster for Mandurah. He is not qualified to saythat; it is something which came straight fromthe hip. The ankile continues-

Cr Wayne McRostie, who is also theLiberal Party candidate for Mandurab,spoke of the difference betweenregionalism and autonomy and suggestedthat SWDA was "white-anting" localgovernment.

He objected to the fact that people whohad been appointed to positions of monet-ar-y reward were being asked to performceremonies at public functions which werenormally done by the shire president.

I would like to explain his objection and howmisguided it was. A private gallery, theThrelfall Gallery, was opened in Mandurah.The lady who opened that gallery and her hus-band, knowing Dr Manea. of the South WestDevelopment Authority, asked him if he wouldofficially open the gallery. Obviously we haveanother councillor who is shooting from the hipwhen he does not know what he is talkingabout.

Another problem concerning the Mandurahcouncil at present, apart from the pecuniaryinterests question, is trading hours. The LiberalParty document says that Mandurah should de-cide its own trading hours. I wonder who inMandurah will decide the trading hours. Will itbe the shire council, the Chamber of Com-merce, or who? Perhaps the South West Devel-opment Authority should undertake that task.No direction is given as to who will decidetrading hours, so the situation is very open.

The question of trading hours is a vexingone, because the Mandurah Chamber of Com-merce and the Mandurab Shire Council do notreally agree on what is wanted. A survey wasconducted and its results were to guide theshire council's application for extended tradinghours. The recommendation from that surveywas for extended trading hours fromSeptember to Easter, and that was to be thebasis for the council's application for extendedtrading hours.

The shire council overrode this. Shalders. wasagain to the Core and said the majority of coun-cillors favoured an optional seven-day tradingweek for the full year. Here is a conflict be-tween the Chamber of Commerce and theMandurah Shire Council.

We find some senior members of the LiberalParty visit Mandurah, buitunfortunately theykeep messing things up. For example, someweeks ago there was a problem in regard to

peninsular boat hire. The Premier may recallthat that problem was referred to on the BobMaumill Show. I was contacted and I got intouch with the Minister for Transport. Aftereverything had been resolved, the DeputyLeader of the Opposition and the Oppositionspokesman on transport came down toMandurah. I would like to quote from thenewspaper of that time. It reads-

After a visit to Mandurah last Friday toexamine the problem he-

He is Hon. Norman Moore. To continue--promised that his party would keep aneye on the situation to ensure that sensibleconditions were offered and that sanityand commonsense prevailed.

They came down to have a look at the problemafter it had been fixed.

We then had the Opposition shadow Minis-ter for Small Business came to Mandurah in anattempt to stir up some trouble in regard to theFederal Labor Government's taxation pro-posals for the tourism and entertainment in-dustries. However, the function the LiberalParty organised was not well attended, accord-ing to a very good source, with just 15 peopleturning up. The comment of one Mandurabbusinessman who was supposed to be con-cerned about the situation was that he might bewrong but that he did not think it would affectthe people in Mandurah afl that much and thatpeople would still go out and discuss things.The general manager of one of the leading ho-tel-motels agreed with that comment. Anotherperson, the manager of a hotel, said that hewould not be affected as his restaurant did nothave many businessmen coming for lunch.Again, the Liberals came to Mandurah to stirup some trouble, but their attempt did notwork. Mandurah people are very suspicious ofthe Liberals who keep coming into their townand suggesting that things are terrible inMandurah.

I was thinking of commenting on this"famous" Liberal Party document headed"Future Direetions-Mandurah", but when Iconsider some of the first things that caught myeye, items such as "These options do not rep-resent final policy", and "All should be con-sidered within the wider framework", andwhen we realise that they are just giving under-takings to consider things, it is just a waste oftime. I will not bore the House any further withthis indication of Liberal Party policy forMandurah except to say that it represents acomplete and abject failure.

3028

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 02

I assure the Premier and his Ministers thatthey are doing well in Mandurah-except-ionally well. The people of Mandurali wouldbe happy to have them stay in office for thenext nine years.

MR BRIAN BURKE (Balga-Treasurer)[10.23 p.m.]: I thank all the members of theGovernment and of the Opposition who havespoken for their contributions to the Budgetdebate. The debate was marked by an absenceof any major objection raised except in the pol-itical sense by the Opposition. From the Oppo-sition we heard, apart from electorate mattersand other matters of specific interest tospeakers, the same general refrains that havebeen practised by the Leader of the Oppositionfrom time to time.

First of all he maintained that the Govern-menit was a high taxing Government, but hefailed to substantiate that claim except by refer-ence to an expansion in revenue, an expansionwhich occurred despite, in most cases, lowerrates of tax that were imposed by the presentGovernment in critical areas that included pay-roll tax and the financial institutions duty.

I suppose there is an argument to bemounted by the Opposition in respect of thefinancial institutions duty and that argument isthat somehow or other, because the duty wasfirst introduced by the present Government, itis not appropriate for the present Governmentto claim any credit for the reductions in theduty that have been made in two successiveyears. The public can judge that argument forthemselves. All I can say is that we hope to beable to continue making reductions in thefinancial institutions duty as the State's ca-pacity permits those reductions.

However, the same argument cannot be ad-mitted in respect of payroll tax, a tax which theprevious Government, the now Opposition,levied without remittance almost from the timethe tax was introduced as a State taxingmeasure. The Opposition really does have todo a bit more now than simply to say theGovernment is not doing enough to reducepayroll tax. The enormity of that argumentreally does stagger the understanding or com-prehension of reasonable people, particularlywhen we consider that this Government is thefirst State Government in the country to havereduced payroll tax and to have made somequite substantial reductions at that.

For example, employers in New South Walesand Victoria with payrolls of more than $1million are paying rates of six per cent; em-

ployers in this State with payrolls of more than$I million are paying rates of 4.7 5 per cent orless. WA employers with payrolls of less than$1 million are paying substantially less than thefive per cent being paid by similar employers inother States. We are very pleased to have beenable to achieve the reductions.

I turn now to comment on land tax becausethe Opposition keeps coming back to the tiredold story of increases in land tax, but fails toadmit honestly that the rates of land tax whichit imposed when in Government were the ratesthat persisted until we decided to give anacross-the-board 10 per cent reduction topeople paying land tax bills. Land tax has goneup as a result of land valuations; there has beenno change in the rate. It is less than honest ofthe Opposition to claim massive increases inland tax without saying that those increases areaccording to rates which the Opposition itselfset when in Government, and in most casesaccording to valuations which have beenphased in but which were completed when theOpposition was in Government. It is not a verystraightforward or honest presentation thatfails to touch upon those facts. While land taxbills have increased, the truth is that the in-crease is due to the revaluation and not to anychange in the rate at which land tax is payable.

Mr Mensaros: There is an option for theGovernment to index it.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: We accept the problem.I do not think the member for Floreat can com-plain that we have not acted. We immediatelyand unilaterally reduced accounts by 10 percent and instituted an inquiry which we hopewill see in place from the start of the nextfinancial year, a new system of collecting landtax. With due respect to the member, that issomething his Government did not do in nineyears. Although he accuses us of dereliction ofduty, what does he say about his own party forthose nine years?

Mr Mensarois: It is a fairly weak argument ifyou always go back to the situation that be-cause we are trying to do it better than youwere, we are all right.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The argument is,firstly, that the Opposition has charged us inrespect of land tax with not doing enough, butthe Opposition has neglected to say that, inrespect of the second pay period for which weare responsible, we have allowed a 10 per centacross-the-board reduction and, at the sametime, committed ourselves to revising andrevamping the system to be operative in a new

3029

3030 [ASSEMBLY)

form from the next financial year. That is not abad effort after nine years of inaction frommembers opposite and, if the Opposition likes,one year of inaction from us. But it is certainlyless than generous of the Opposition not toadmit that we have made the changes Imentioned and have implied a new system thatwill operate from next financial year.

The other general point I want to make be-fare resuming my seat is this: No matter howthe Opposition presents its case it cannot de-ceive the public into thinking that things areworse than they were when this Governmentassumed office at the start of 1983. Things aremuch better. In all of the important economicindicators by which comparative performanceof State economies are measured, WA isperforming far better than the other States andmuch better than it was when it was left in astate of disrepair by the Opposition.

Even in those areas which are inevitably thepolitical meat of the Opposition's argument,areas like industrial disruption and the result-ant days lost, partly as a result of the Govern-ment's performance things have improved.' Isuggest that the improvement reflects the factthat the policy of confrontation was the wrongpolicy. It did not work. No-one has gone softon the unions, but with firm and fair policieswe believe there has been a dramaticturnaround in the industrial relationship thataffects so much of this State's economic per-formance.

Mr Cash: Do you think you were fair withthe John O'Connor affair?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I have said previouslythat the Attorney General has the Govern-ment's full support. We believe he acted per-fectly properly within the nights orresponsibilities of his office.

Mr Cash: It is interesting that the communityas a whole obviously does not reflect that view.

Mr Bridge: That is not necessarily the case.Mr Trethowan: It is interesting that you

twice chose not to pursue the deregistration ofthe BLE.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Is the member for MtLawley saying-even if he is right, and I amnot sure if he is-

Mr MacKinnon: He is dead right.Mr BRIAN BURKE: -that the community

inevitably makes the right decision?Mr Cash: I am suggesting too that your ac-

tion is not accepted by the community as awhole.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The abolition of capitalpunishment was not accepted by the com-munity as a whole either.

Mr MacKinnon: What has that got to dowith John O'Connor? Do you think he shouldbe hanged?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Does not the memberunderstand that a Government has an obli-gation to do what it believes to be the rightthing? The member is saying that the Govern-ment shall not do anything unless a clearmaj ority of the public support it.

Mr Cash: I just make the point to you: Areyou suggesting that the community as a wholehas accepted your actions in the J. J. O'Connoraffair?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I did not say that.Mr Cash: Then you admit that the com-

munity does not accept what you did?Mr BRIAN BURKE: I just said I do not

know whether the member for Mt Lawley wasright or wrong in saying the majority opposedthe Government's decision in that case. That iswhat I said. The member can interpret mycomments in any way he likes, but he cannotinterpret them to indicate that I am agreeingwith him that the majority believes the de-cision is wrong. The member for Mt Lawleymay feel that; he may think it or know it. It isup to him. I do not agree. Ilam making a muchmore substantial point which is simply that if aGovernment does not commit itself it im-pliedly permits itself to do nothing apartfrom that which a clear majority of the publicthink is the right thing, that which is pretty fair.

Mr Cash: I don't think that is what I said.Mr BRIAN BURKE: I put to the member the

analogy of abolishing capital punishment to in-dicate that was something the Government did.I do not think there is any disagreement. TheGovernment abolished capital punishment andI do not think there is any disagreement as tothe majority view of the public. I am simplyunderlining that the Government does not takewhat appears to be the member's stand whichis: Do not do anything unless the majority ofthe public agree with it.

Mr Cash: How would you apply that in re-spect of the Scarborough high-rise buildingwhere you seem to indicate that the councilshould be guided by a majority decision?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Who said that?Mr Cash: I understood that is what you have

been saying for weeks.

3030

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 03

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I have not said that atall.

Mr Cash: The Minister for Planning seems tosay that all the time.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I have not heard theMinister for Planning say it either. The mem-ber for Mt Lawley seems to make things up.

Mr Cash: I don't make things up.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The member for MtLawley said I had been saying that for weeks.Tell me when I said it.

Mr Cash: Don't be silly. Get on with the job.

Mr Tonkin: Caught out again!

Mr BRIAN BURKE It is terribly hard toreply to a member who has said, "You havebeen saying that for weeks", and when I deniedit, because I have not been saying it, and askthe member to tell me when I said it or toproduce some evidence about my saying it, hecould not do so.

Mr Tonkin: Yes, and he said, "Don't be silly.Get on with it."

Mr Cash: Do you say your Government doesnot support the majority of people inScarborough?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I do not know what themajority of people in Scarborough want.

Mr Cash: Thanks. I am pleased to hear yousaying that. At least it is an admission.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: An admission of what?

Mr Cash: That you do not know everythingabout the Scarborough situation.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The member for MtLawley is crazy. As I was saying, it is absolutelyessential to understand that in all the import-ant economic areas to which I started to referby talking about industrial relations, the per-formance of the present Government surpassesthe performance of the State under the pre-vious Government, and that applies to the in-dustrial relationship and to its losses as a resultof disruptions of an industrial nature.

Mr Hassell: You have certainly done wellwith interest rates. They have hit absolutelyrecord levels.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I am not certain thatinterest rates were not as high in respect ofhome loans anyway under the previousGovernment.

Mr H-assell: They were not as high. Realinterest rates have gone up very substantially.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Mark that down on thebook, Mr Speaker, The Leader of the Oppo-sition has said tonight, without any equivo-cation, that home loan interest rates were notas high at any time under his Government asthey are now.

Mr Hassell: I am saying that home loaninterest rates have gone up substantially.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Let us mark that com-ment. down. That is what the Leader of theOpposition said.

Mr H-assell: They have gone up substantially.Real interest rates have gone up verysubstantially.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Leader of the Op-position said that home loan interest rates werenever as high under his Governiment as theyare now.

Mr Mensaros: In real terms.Mr BRIAN BURKE: The member for

Floreat should not tell me what th~e Leader ofthe Opposition said.

Mr Mensaros: I heard him.Mr BRIAN BURKE: He did not say "in real

terms". The member for Floreat can go backand fill in the Leader of the Opposition asmuch as he likes; I will not be terribly worried.Opposition members may caro on and saywhatever they like because they seem to wanitto do so, but as soon as anyone challenges themthey say nothing. I suppose it is best to let themgo unchallenged and to meander around.

Let me move onto the area of employment.Once again I make the point that as far as thisGovernment's performance is concerned, thereduction in unemployment from 10.4 per centto 7.4 per cent is a startlingly successful reflec-tion of the Government's operations. Insteadof being niggardly about it, the Oppositionshould say it can do better, that its policies willreduce it even further, but what it should notargue about is the benefit to the community ofthat reduction from 10.4 per cent to 7.4 percent in unemployment. Self-evidently that is agood thing. Why is the Opposition at suchpains to try to convict the Government of fail-ure in that area?

Business bankruptcies were at record levelsunder the previous Government and now WAis among the lowest in the country. We areoutperforming other States.

In terms of housing approvals, the WA econ-omy is outperforming its neighbours and doingit exceptionally well. What I do suggest to theOpposition, and what we adopted as a tactic

3031

3032 [ASSEMBLY]

when we were in Opposition, was the devel-opment of policies to say; "We give creditwhere credit is due. However we believe thatmore can be done or that better policies can beimplemented."

The Opposition still has not learned that bycontinually knocking our performance and bycontinually being absolutely negative and notadmitting the light, it does itself an electoraldisservice. After 2/4 years the Opposition's per-formance is reflected in the fact that it hasdeveloped no policies. The Opposition has nopolicies and, as far as I am able to ascertain byasking people to check the situation for me, aseries of papers dealing with options are avail-able, so I suggest to the Opposition that ratherthan carrying on in such a negative fashion, itshould try positively to develop issues and poli-cies that will advance its position in the pub-lic' s summation.

We are very pleased to say that for the firsttime in 40 years we have a surplus. It is a verysmall surplus of$1I million, but it is a surplus.

The Leader of the Opposition is naive tosuggest that because we have a surplus we aretaxing people too much. We may well be taxingpeople too much, but that is not reflected in thesurplus. There are reasons for the Leader of theOpposition claiming that we are imposing taxeswhich are far too harsh, but he cannot drawstrength for that argument by saying it is due tothe surplus. That is just arrant nonsense. TheLeader of the Opposition may not have knownit before, but he knows it now because I havetold him.

In practical terms, our Government has beenable to make a number of changes that willbenefit the community in this area, and I speakspecifically of the community services pant ofthe Budget. I believe that some of theinnovative thinking applied by the Ministerand his department is starting to pay dividendsin the fields that the Budget embodies.

The Minister for Health has done a marvel-lous job in his portfolio.

Mr MacKinnon: What were all those peopleprotesting about in your office the other day?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: We put guidelines onthe distribution of aid to the needy. Does theDeputy Leader of the Opposition oppose thoseguidelines?

Mr MacKinnon: I have not seen them, to tellyou the truth.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: He does not know any-thing about them.

Mr MacKinnon: You are claiming all thegroups are happy in the garden.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I did not say that.Mr MacKinnon: You implied it.Mr BRIAN BURKE: I implied it! The Depu-

ty Leader of the Opposition is crazy, too. Henever had a problem with guidelines about aidfor the needy because his Government nevergave any aid to the needy.

Mr MacKinnon. You have a problem follow-ing guidelines.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: That point has alreadybeen made.

We believe that the guidelines are absolutelynecessary. Aid to the needy over a period oftwo, three, or four years went from $1 millionto $5 million. We were not convinced that thepeople most in need were benefiting from theaid so we introduced guidelines which founddisfavour in certain pants of the community.We do not apologise for that. We intend tomaintain the guidelines to direct scarce re-sources to areas of most need. I suspect theDeputy Leader of the Opposition, if he bothersto acquaint himself with the situation, wouldagree with that proposition. The guidelines willstay.

The Minister for Education has done excep-tion ally well; there is no question about that.That is best reflected in the inability of theOpposition to produce any education policy. Itreally is getting a bit late to have a policy oneducation. The Opposition will not have muchtime to explain it. It will have to be a very smallpolicy with not much in it.

Mr Hodge: They have a good policy onhealth. They will flog it to private enterprise.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: They have announcedthey are not going to proceed with theMandurab Hospital because they are not goingto build any public hospitals.

The Minister for Education has done amighty job. There have been two major re-ports-the Beazley committee and the McGawreport-both of which have been implemented,bringing benefit to the children of this State.The education vote has been maintained in realterms, and in fact has improved its share of thetotal Budget in real terms.

The Minister for Water Resources and Par-liamentary and Electoral Reform has success-fully established that electoral reform is absol-utely inevitable in this State, and in a verythorough and comprehensive way hasconvinced the public-the Opposition being

3032

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 33

the last likely to be convinced, but it wasalways thus. I believe the prospects for electoralreform have been advanced further in the pastthree years than ever before mainly through thecommitment of the Minister. He has alsodischarged his obligations in a way that historywill remember in respect of the amalgamationof the country and metropolitan waterauthorities into one unit. That is something forwhich he will be remembered in his firsttriennium. Who knows what he might do in thenext six, nine or 12 years? Parliament Week isanother milestone. It is true the Oppositiondoes not support it because it does not likepeople coming up here.

The Minister for Conservation and LandManagement, the Environment, Multiculturaland Ethnic Affairs, and the Arts is doing amarvellous job. He is superintending one of thethreshold-breaking initiatives, the Departmentof Conservation and Land Management and isdoing it very well.

As far as the Minister for Agriculture is con-cerned, when can the people of this State re-member a Labor Government which has beenheld in such high esteem by agricultural pro-ducers and their representative organisations?

Mr Court: Get the smile off your face.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I am not smiling. Ihave never seen headlines such as those in theFarmers Weekly. Members know that is a"Communist Party rag"; it is consistently serv-ing it up to the Opposition in no uncertainterms. Look at this headline which says,"Government calls for urgent talks on mort-gagee sales of farm land". Another headlinesays "PIA angry at political bias of PAR con-ference". The initials there stand for "PutAustralia Right". If one turns the page one seesa cartoon which shows me riding on a horsewith my gun drawn saying, "Freeze", to a Lib-eral who is banging up a sign saying,"Mortgagees Auction". There is the farmingcouple looking with relief at me coming torescue them. This radical rag-it is not really,it is the Farmers Weeky-is consistentlyreflecting a broad support for the Governmentwithin rural areas.

I know that may be hurtful, and perhapsmembers opposite may have to go back to theirown 3000 hectare lots and do a commercialthere. I am pleased to say the Minister forAgriculture has been the mainspring in seeing aLabor Government established that has broadsupport within the countryside.

The Deputy Premier, who is not here be-cause he is beavering away somewhere else, nodoubt assisting small business, has been re-sponsible for a remarkable expansion in thingstechnological within the State of WesternAustralia. No-one can deny that. Members onthat side of the House thought that high tech-nology was a meccano set until we came alongand put them right. Let us be absolutely honestand shuck off politics for a moment if we can. Iknow that is difficult. The way the Leader ofthe Opposition looks at me I cannot help get-ting the impression he wants my job. If heleaves that sort of menial thought alone andconsiders what the Deputy Premier has done inthe field of technology, in the Technology De-velopment Authority and Technology Park andall those things-if be gives credit where it isdue-he will become one of the devotees of theDeputy Premier. The Deputy Premier has donea marvellous job in revitalising that aspect ofGovernment as he has in respect of the Depart-ment of Industrial Development and smallbusiness.

There used to be a time when small businessfell squarely behind the Liberal Party when wespeak about constituencies that support politi-cal parties. That is no longer the case. Smallbusiness in this State is starting to wake up tosomething my father told me years ago. I donot know that he knew the member forMandurah's father, but my father told me yearsago that small business people make moneyand do good business when the average work-ing man or woman has a dollar in his or herpocket-he said, "pound"-to spend. That istrue, and people are starting to wake up to thefact that this Labor Government is sympatheticto, and intelligently supportive of, small busi-ness. That is largely the result of the efforts ofthe Deputy Premier.

The Minister for Police and Emergency Ser-vices has done more to assist the Police Forceand to repair Strained relationships betweenthe Labor Party and the Police Force than hasever previously been done.

Who can forget the days when the LiberalParty in Government refused to provide anyextra manpower for the Police Force? I do notknow whether it was the result of Liberal Partypolicies but I can definitely remember oc-casions when people complained about bigcardboard cutout figures of policemen thatused to be put up by the road. I do not knowwhether it was the previous Government's pol-icy but those big cutout pictures of policemen,looking fierce with their caps on, used to line

3033

3034 [ASSEMBLY]

the side of the road; but they could not arrestanyone. I am sure I can remember that situ-ation under the previous Government. There isabsolutely no doubt that the previous Govern-ment's policies of staffing the Police Force paiddividends in terms of the mushrooming inci-dences of crime within the community.

The Minister for Police and Emergency Ser-vices has done a marvellous job, not only inpolice matters but also in local governmentmatters. Who can remember previous oc-casions when local government associationshave voted to support Labor Government poli-cies with such consistency? The Oppositionmust be truly concerned about its dwindlingsupport in the public arena generally. As far asI know, the only consistent area from which theOpposition draws support is the radical greenieelement, which seems to be lining up very sol-idly behind the member for Vasse. I think it istrue that this new-found love affair between theradical greenies and the Liberal Party providesthe Liberal Party with almost its only susten-ance. Still, as far as the Government is con-cerned, we will continue to try to do the rightthing with the environment, but we cannotsatisfy the new-found cohorts of the memberfor Vasse and the member for Subiaco.

I have also mentioned the Minister forHealth and the way in which he has done sucha good job in a very difficult area. This Statecan be very pleased with the way in which hehas discharged his responsibilities. The Minis-ter for Lands and Surveys has also done verywell in supervising the restructuring of the Pub-lic Works Department into the Building Man-agement Authority. I believe that in doing that,he has achieved more than the Liberal Partyachieved, despite all its rhetoric during nineyears about small government.

Let me also give credit to the Minister forLands and Surveys for his restructuring of theKimberley pastoral industry; something left un-done by the Liberals for 1 do not know howmany years has now been taken on by this ten-acious Minister and is likely to result in thatindustry playing a much greater part in benefit-ing. this State's economy in the years to come.

The Minister for Minerals and Energy, in amuch quieter way, has achieved much morethan Sir Charles Court did in nine years ofnewspaper headlines. During that nine years Icannot recall one new project-unless it wasthe Bunbury Foods projects-which got off theground. I do not know where Dr Oskar is butwherever he is he must be grinning like aCheshire cat and rubbing skin from his palms

after he ran into the last Liberal Government. Ihave no doubt he wrote back to Paraguay, orwherever he comes from, and said, "Come overhere. The weather is fine. You won't believewhat you will find over here. These people willguarantee everything that moves and a fewthings that do not." So the Minister for Min-erals and Energy has completed a number ofmajor negotiations and discussions and he haspulled the North-West Shelf gas project intoshape-a gigantic problem that was left to himby the previous Government which he hasturned into a project that will benefit the wholeState. He has done a marvellous job.

I have only to refer to the Minister for Hous-ing who is a personal friend of mine. He is aperson with undoubted ability and great com-passion and he has done a marvellous job.There was a 256 per cent increase in allocationsfor housing in the Budget during the period forwhich he has been Minister. What did the Lib-eral Government do? The only thing it did wasto increase the waiting list of people for rentalor purchase accommodation and it let the StateHousing Commission, revamped and renamed"Homeswest" under this administration,wither on the vine. Members of the previousGovernment have a lot to be ashamed of inthat respect. In his other responsibilities ofcommunity services and Aboriginal affairs, theMinister for Housing has done an excellent job.

The Minister for Transport has revitalisedthe whole transport system. H-e re-opened thePerth to Fremantle rail system and kept theunions committed to reducing the deficit in thepublic transport system. The transport budgetblew out under the Liberal Government to analarming degree, under a funny sort of manage-ment that did not seem to know where it wasgoing, why it was going there, or how to getthere anyway. Now the Opposition is proposingsome half-baked idea of privatising that half ofa bus service that will run at night under pri-vate ownership.

The Minister for Transport has done an ex-cellent job in making sure that the Statetransport system continues to run efficientlyand well, and full credit is due to him for that. Ithink that the Government in a self-effacingand quiet way can say that it has discharged itsresponsibilities as reflected in this Budget in away that the Opposition will see fit to acknowl-edge by supporting the Budget. I would notexpect the Opposition to vote against theBudget because I think the Opposition really

3034

[Thursday, 24 October 1985]

does realise that this Budget is an importantdocument, which, in its quieter moments, itmight find quite to its liking-

Mr MacKinnon: Not in our quieter momentsnor in our loud moments.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Does that mean thatthe Opposition is going to vote against theBudget? No, I thought not. The Opposition willsupport the Budget because it is an excellentdocument. If the Opposition applies the samepractice to all of its disagreements withGovernment policies, then in its louder mo-ments and its quieter moments, it will disagreewith them, but vote for them.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

ELECTORAL DISTICTS AMENDMENTBILL

Returned

Bill returned from the Council withoutamendment.

House adjourned at 10.57 p.m.

3035

3036 [ASSEMBLY]

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

1232. Postponed.

UNION: BUILDERS LABOURERSFEDERATION

Student: Work Experience1261. Mr BRA DSHAW, to the Minister

representing the Minister for IndustrialRelations:(1) Is the Minister aware of the recent ac-

tion by the Builders Labourers Feder-ation in Victoria to force a landscapegardener to pay a fortnight's wages toa student on work experience?

(2) Is the Minister aware that because ofthe action in Victoria, work experi-ence schemes in Western Australia arein jeopardy through fear by landscapegardeners of similar action by unions?

Mr PARKER replied:(1) Yes.(2) 1 am not aware of any actions or

threats of actions in this State whichwould give rise to such concerns bylandscape gardeners.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTDEPARTMENT

Advertisements: Production1268- Mr COURT, to the Minister far

Industrial Development:(1) Could the current advertisements be-

ing run by his department beproduced in Western Australia usingEastern States expertise where appli-cable?

(2) Could the advertisements have beenpmoduced within the bounds of West-emn Australian film technology?

198319841985

* 1986

Cunderdin(i) (ii)96 5296 5396 5996 95

Denmark(I) (ii)40 2540 1340 2140 23

(3) Will the Government guarantee thatfuture Government advertisements re-quiring computer graphics will beproduced in Western Australiaallowing the local industry to furtherdevelop these facilities?

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) to (3) See the answers to questions

without notice 230, 232, and 233 ofTuesday, 8 October 1985.

1270. Postponed.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOLSAgricultural: Enrolments

1274. Mr STEPHENS, to the Minister forEducation:(1) In each of the school years-

(a) 1983;(b) l984;and(c) 1985,and with respect to each of the agricul-tural high schools-

(i) how many students can beaccommodated in each yearof the course;

(ii) how many students appliedto attend each school as afirst Choice?

(2) Are there any plans to open any newagricultural high schools?

(3) If "Yes" to (2), what areas are underconsideration?

(4) Will first consideration be given tohigh schools with attached farmwings?

Mr PEARCE replied:

Harvey(i) (ii)48 3048 3848 2448 -26

Narrogi n(i) (ii)108 79108 95108 70108 59

TotalMorawa Applications

36 18636 19942 17442 203

'Allocations. and offers made 21110195 fr 1986.(i) Total accommodation places available. Roughly halreach year for

Years I I and 12.(ii) Total applicants, to ll about halfthe places shown under(iJ.

-Momw-a handles it own applications. They are slightly in excessorthe places available.

-Total application excluding Moma-a.

(2) No, but there have been approachesfrom Hoyup Brook.

(3) None.(4) In the event of any expansion being

warranted, yes.

3036

(Thursday, 24 October 1985] 33

POLICE OFFICERSFemale

1275. Mr TUBBY, to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:

(1) What is the total number of women inthe Western Australian Police Force?

(2) What is the total number of men inthe Western Australian Police Force?

(3) How many policewomen areemployed in country areas that areoutside the metropolitan area?

(4) How many policemen are employedoutside the metropolitan area?

(5) What is the Government's policy con-cerning the male:female ratio of policeassigned to country areas?

(6) As Geraldton has a populationexceeding 20 000 and only onepolicewoman, how many men areworking in the force in Geraldton?

(7) Has the Government a policy ofrecruiting women to redress the imbal-ance of sexes in the Police Force?

(8) How many women and mengraduated and joined the force in1985?

(9) Has the Government set targets for re-cruit numbers for 1986?

(10) Is there a long-term policy to equalisethe numbers of women and men in theforce?

(11) Can he give an assurance that at leastone more woman will be transferredto the Geraldton police force before31 December 1985?

Mr CARR replied:(1) 113.

(2) 2921.

(3) 7.

(4) 799.

(5) The Commissioner of Police isempowered to determine the assign-ment of police officers within WesternAustralia. In strict compliance withthe provisions of the Equal Oppor-tunity Act 1984, the policy is to ap-point to any position within the Police

Force that may arise the police officerconsidered most suited to that ap-pointment, irrespective of sex.

(6) 51.

(7) No. Such a deliberate policy wouldcontravene the provisions of the EqualOpportunity Act 1984. All applicantsare assessed on their merits, and thosedeemed most suitable are recruited.

(8) Forty-five women and 234 men willhave graduated in 1985.

(9) Yes. This was announced by thePremier when delivering the 1985-86Budget speech. Provision has beenmade for the appointment of 150 ad-ditional police officers and 12 policeaides.

(10) No. Refer to answer to pant (7).

(11) When a vacancy occurs, all appli-cations will be taken into consider-ation and the most suitable applicantappointed.

WATER RESOURCES: DAMStinton Creek: Objections

1276. Mr RUSHTON, to the Minister forWater Resources:(1) Is he aware the people of Karragullen

are strongly against the gazettal of andguidelines for the Stinton Creek catch-ment area?

(2) Does he intend to take notice of thepeople's wishes and withdraw regis-tration and control over the StintonCreek catchment area?

Mr TONKIN replied:(1) Yes, I have been very much aware of

the landowners' concern on this mat-ter since they were advised of the pro-posal in October 1983. 1 have carefullyconsidered all the points made inlandowners' submissions and metwith deputations. Furthermore Cabi-net, when considering the proposal inMay 1984, noted the points raised bythe residents. However, because of theoverall benefit to the community andthe minimal effect on landowners inthe catchment, the Governiment felt

3037

3038 [ASSEMBLY)

that there was insufficent justificationfor the abandofiment of Stinton Creekas a future public water source.it was in recognition of the localpeople's concern that I offered to forma special six-member committee, in-cluding three local representativesnominated by the Town of Armadale,to prepare the management guidelineswhich would provide the basis for theby-laws for the Proposed catchment.The committee has been activelyworking on the guidelines, with thelocal representatives making a veryvaluable input.I emphasise that one of the aims of thecatchment management guidelines isto permit the continued application ofsound agricultural practices as used inthe area at present so that orchardistsand pastoralists do not suffer any lossof income due to the creation of thewater reserve.

(2) I feel significant notice has been takenof the points raised by the local peopleand there is still an opportunity forthem to raise any further points ofconcern through the committee. How-ever, Stinton Creek is still a viablepotential public water source which inthe interests of the overall benefit tothe community should not be aban-doned.

FORESTSTimber Industry:- Agreement

1277. Mr RUSHTON, to the Premier:(1) Regarding the Lane-Poole Reserve,

why did he and the Minister for Con-servation and Land Management denythere was an agreement in existencebetween the timber industry and him-self?

(2) Why did the Government continue todeny there was an agreement evenafter Dr Shea had publicly stated anagreement exists?

(3) What is the difference between aformal and an informal agreement?

(4) What is the agreement?(5) What conditions does the agreement

impose on-(a) the Government;(b) the timber industry?

(6) Who were the parties who negotiatedthe agreement for-(a) the Government;(b) the industry?

(7) Does the agreement impose privilegesor responsibilities on any other par-ties?

(8) If "Yes", who?

(9) Is not the existence of this agreementin direct conflict with his and the Min-ister's undertakings in answer to ques-tion Ill of 1985 and question 693 of1985 to allow for public participationprior to making a decision in relationto the extraction of timber and landuse in the Lane-Poole Reserve?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) There was no formal agreement.(2) Answered by (1),(3) A formal agreement has legal stand-

ing.(4) There is an informal agreement that

some of the timber resources in therecreation zone of the Lane-Poole Re-serve will be available at some time inthe future.

(5) (a) and (b) Answered by (4).(6) Negotiations were conducted by the

Reserves Review Committee.('7) Answered by (4).(8) Not applicable.(9) No.

LANDPrince Regent Biosphere Reserve:- Road

1278. Mr RUSHTON, to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:(1) Is he aware of a road bulldozed into

the Prince Regent biosphere reserve?(2) If so-

(a) when was it made;(b) by whom was it made;(c) where did it lead;(d) where did it start;(e) is the road currently in use;

(f) if so, by whom;(g) what steps did the Government

take against the maker of theroad;

3038

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 03

(h) what steps is he taking to preventsuch roads being made in the fu-ture?

Mr DAVIES replied:(1) 1 am not aware of a road having been

bulldozed into the Prince Regentnature reserve.

(2) Not applicable.

1279. Postponed.

FORESTS: WOODCHIPPING,Denmark: Environmental Review and

Management Program me1280. Dr DADOUR, to the Minister for

Conservation and Land Management:(1) What are the guidelines for the en-

vironmental review and managementprogramme that the EnvironmentalProtection Authority will require ofMcLeans Sawmills Pty Ltd ofDenmark for that company'sproposed woodchipping developmenton the south coast?

(2) When will the environmental reviewand management programme for theproject be released for public com-ment?

Mr DAVIES replied:(1) The guidelines have not been ratified

by the Environmental ProtectionAuthority.

(2) When the Environmental ProtectionAuthority has approved the ERMP forpublic comment.

1281. Postponed.

FORESTS: WOODCHIPPINGNew Industries: Government Guarantees

1282. Dr DADOUR, to the Premier:(1) Has any State Government body-

(a) made a prant;(b) made a loan; and/or(c) guaranteed a loan,to any company or person seeking toestablish a new woodchipping indus-try in Western Australia?

(2) If "Yes"-(a) to what company or person;(b) what is the amount involved;

(c) are there any conditions; and(d) if so, what are they?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) 1 am advised that no such arrange-

ments have been made.(2) Not applicable.

FORESTSKarri: Clearfelling

1283. Dr DADOUR, to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:

For each of the financial years1973-74 to 1984-85 would he pleasegive the total area of karri forestclearfelled, the figure for each year toinclude the area clearfelled and thearea cut to seed trees?

Mr DAVIES replied:1984-85-2 362 ha1983-84-1 487 ha1982-83- 985 ha1981-82-2 121 ha1980-81-2 079 ha1979-80-2 108 ha1978-79-2 707 ha1977-78-2 294 ha1976-77-1 404 ha1975-76-2 3l11 ha1974-5-1 596 ha1973-74-3 603 ha

LAND: RESERVEShannon River Basin: Private Ownership

1284. Dr DADOUR, to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:(1) Is any part of the Shannon River

Basin under consideration for releaseto private ownership?

(2) If "Yes", how many hectares areinvolved?

(3) Where is the land located-pleasetable map?

(4) How many hectares of-(a) logged; and(b) unlogged,

(i) karri forest;(ii) jarrab forest; and(iii) other forest-please specify'

type,are there on the land under consider-ation?

3039

3040 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr DAVIES replied:

(1) No.

(2) to (4) Not applicable.

WILDLIFE: DOLPHINS

Atlantis Marine Park: Permits

1285. Mr CRANE, to the Minister forConservation and Land Management:

Should Atlantis Marine Park applythrough the Fisheries Department fora permit to capture additional dol-phins for its marine park, is it necess-ary for it to make a public notice of itsintention to do so?

Mr DAVIES replied:

There is no legal requirement to do so.

ARTISTS

Visiting: Work Permits

1286. Mr CRANE, to the Minister for theArts:

(1) is he aware that the Department ofImmigration and Ethnic Affairs can-not issue work permits for visiting art-ists until approval has been receivedfrom Actors Equity?

(2) Is he also aware of the difficulty this iscausing the entertainment industry iniWestern Australia?

(3) Would he make the necessary inquir-ies with his Federal counterparts witha view to having them take steps toalleviate this problem?

Mr DAVIES replied:

(1) to (3) Actors Equity is consulted aboutthe admission to Australia of thevisiting actors. This occasionallycauses some disappointments forentrepreneurs but is designed to pro-tect the jobs of talented Australian ac-tors who are an important part of ourentertainment industry. I am in con-tact with my Federal counterpartwhenever the situation requires.

RACING AND TROTTING: TROTTINGByford: A ut/wrised Meetings

1287. Mr RUSHTON, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Racing andGaming:

(1) Has the Minister kept his commit-ment to have the Chairman of theWestern Australian Trotting Associ-ation confer with the Byford trottingtraining complex towards approvingthe Byford complex racetrack forauthorised race meetings?

(2) If "No", why not?

(3) Why is it not satisfactory for theByford complex to hold country meet-ings on behalf of an authorised club-for example, a Wagin meeting-if thiscan be satisfactorily negotiated be-tween the Wagin Club and the Byfordcomplex?

(4) Is the Minister aware a considerableproportion of the trotting horsesattending country trotting meetingscome from the Byford district and ad-jacent districts?

(5) Is the Minister aware of the large costsincurred by local Byford owners intravelling to country meetings?

(6) Will the Minister please act to giveByford and adjacent districts trottingowners and trainers some relief fromlarge costs of travelling to country re-gions and towns by arranging approvalfor the meetings as mentioned in (3)being held at Byford?

(7) If "No" to (6), what are the reasonsfor refusing this request?

Mr PEARCE replied:

(1) to (7) The Minister cannot recallhaving made a commitment that theChairman of the Western AustralianTrotting Association would meet withthe Byford trotting complex com-mittee.It is understood, however, that thechairman's representatives attended ameeting of the Byford committee on12 September 1985. At that meetingthe representatives fully explained anddocumented the position of the West-ern Australian Trotting Associationand indicated that it had no objectionto the Byford committee discussing

3040

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 34

and negotiating direct with the WestAustralian Country Trotting Associ-ation Management Committee.

MR D. T. A. ROWEEmployment: Government

1288. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier(1) Is Mr D. T. A. Rowe employed by the

Government?(2) If not, when did his employment

cease?(3) Between 1983 and the cessation of his

employment, how much in total waspaid to Mr Rowe?

(4) Who replaced him?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) Mr D. T. A. Rowe is a consultant and

as such is not an employee of theGovernment.

(2) to (4) Not applicable.

1289. Postponed.

ABATTOIR: ALBANYReopening:, Government Assistance

1290. Mr HASSELL, to the Minister forIndustrial Development:(1) Will he provide details of any

financial assistance the Governmenthas provided to facilitate thereopening of the Albany abattoir?

(2) Will he explain what deal has beenarranged with the new proprietors re-garding the conditions of employ-ment, particularly the nature of awardcoverage which will apply at theAlbany abattoir?

(3) Will he name the pantics involved inthe negotiations concerning con-ditions of employment and, specifi-cally, was Alex Payne or another tradeunion official involved in that pro-cess?

Mr BRYCE replied:

(1) The Government has agreed, in prin-ciple, to provide assistance to the newowners of the Albany abattoir, MetroMeat Ltd.Discussions concerning the level of as-sistance are currently being finalised.

(2) and (3) The Governiment has not beeninvolved in negotiations between thenew owner and the employees of theabattoir.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS: BUILDINGSOCIETIES

Interest Rates: Borrowers'Details1291. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier:

On what date or dates did the Govern-ment ask the building societies or theirrepresentatives to provide details ofthe names and addresses of borrowersto enable letters to be written to themadvising them of the Government'sinterest subsidy to the buildingsocieties?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:The Government did not ask thebuilding societies to provide lists ofnames and addresses to the Govern-ment. These details were provided to aprivate contractor by the buildingsocieties and at no time were suppliedto the Government.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTION: BANKIBJ (Austalia) Bank Lid:- Equity Sale

1292. Mr COURT, to the Premier:(1) When will the Western Australian De-

velopment Corporation be selling 15per cent of its equity in the new bank,International Bank of Japan AustraliaBank Limited to the Tokyo-based In-ternational Bank of Japan?

(2) Has a price been agreed for this sale?(3) Has approval for the sale been given

by the Foreign Investment ReviewBoard?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) to (3) I assume that the member is

referring to the proposed IBJ(Australia) Bank Ltd and The Indus-trial Bank of Japan. If that is the case Iwould direct his attention to the 1985annual report of the WesternAustralian Development Corporationin which it is disclosed that "under anoption arrangement agreed betweenIBJ and WADC, and agreed in prin-ciple by the Federal Treasurer, IBJ hasthe right to acquire 15 million sharesfrom WADC during the first year ofoperat ion of IBI A".

196)

3041

3042 [ASSEMBLY]

TOURISMCountry Tourism Association: Executive

Meetings1293. Mr LAURANCE, to the Minister

representing the Minister for Tourism:(1) Further to my question 1099 of 16

October 1985, will the Minister pro-vide, for each of the meetings listed,the names of those aitending-(a) Country Tourism Association;

and(b) Western Australian Tourism

Commission, meetings?(2) (a) How many members of each were

flown to meetings;(b) on what dates; and(c)

(3)at what cost per trip?

(a) How many members wereentitled to a motor vehicle allow-ance for travel to and from meet-ings;

(b) on what dates; and(c) at what cost per trip?

(4) What other fees, allowances, or ex-penses were incurred by each memberfor each meeting?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) (a) Country Tourism Association

17/7/84Rob HydeLindsay DelahauntyKeith TrittonKevin CahillReg Fox.Bill Gill

21/8/84Rob HydeMurray Strachan.Bill GillReg FoxKeith TrittonKevin Cahill

18/9/84Kevin CahillKeith TrittonReg FoxLindsay DelahauntyRob HydeMurray Strachan

16/10/84Murray StrachanRob HydeLindsay DelahauntyReg Fox

Keith TrittonKevin CahillBill Gill

31/1/85Murray StrachanKevin CahillKeith TrittonReg FoxBill Gill

25/2/85Rob HydeKevin CahillKeith TrittonReg FoxIan MoffatBill Gill

19/3/85Kevin CahillKeith TrittonReg FoxIan MoffatRob Hyde

16/4/85Kevin CahillKeith TrittonRob Hyde[an MoffatBill Gill

20/11/84Lindsay DelahauntyReg FoxRob HydeKeith TriutonKevin CahillBill Gill

18/12/84Kevin CahillKeith TrittonRob HydeReg FoxLindsay DelahauntyBill GillMurray Strachan

2 1/5/85Rob HydeKeith TrittonKevin CahillReg FoxGeoff Warnock

18/6/85Ian MoffatGeoff WarnockReg FoxKevin CaillKeith Tritton.Rob Hyde

3042

[Thursday, 24 October 1985J]04

(b) WA Tourism Commission4/1/8 5

Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

8/8/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill GillCheri Gardiner

9/1/85Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

25/1/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherBill GillCheri Gardiner

5/9/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill GillCheri Gardiner

25/9/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill GillCheri Gardiner

8/ 10/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

7/11 /84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

13/2/85Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherBill Gill

1313/85Basil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

17/4/85Basil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill GillCheri Gardiner

8/5/85Basil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

13/11/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

11/12/84Len HitchenBasil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill GillCheri Gardiner

12/6/85Basil AtkinsonStephen HalesTed ArcherWarren TuckerBill Gill

(2) Country Tourism Association(a) Four.(b) All meetings.

3043

3044 ASSEMBLY]

(c) 17/07/84-S$80.3021l/08/84-$345501 8/09/84-$345.2016/1 0/84-$44 7.2020/1 1184-$ 182.0018/12/84-$530.2031l/01/85-$85.002 5/02/8 5-$63 1.60I19/03/85-$85.0016/04/85-$149.5021i/05/85-$85.8018/06/85-$138.30

WA Tourism Commission(a) One.(b) 7/11/84.

25/01/85.(c) 7/1l/84$101.00.

25/0 1185 $101.00.(3) Country Tourism Association

(a) All members were entitled butsome utilised air travel.

(b) For all meetings held.(c) 17/07/84-$506.87

21/08/84-$7 16.6618/09/84-$ 519-4216/10/84-3519.4220/1 1/84-519.4218/1 2/84-519.4231/01/85-$793.3025/02/8 5-$457. 5619/03/85-$457.5616/04/85-$457.5621l/05/85-$457.5618/06/85-$48033.

WA Tourism Commission(a) All members were entitled.(b) For all meetings held.(c) 04/07/84-3270.20

08108/84-$270.2005/09/84-$2 59.7625/09/84-$259. 7608/10/84-$128.4513/1 1/84-$270.3213/03/85-$333.601 7/04/85-$262.64

(4) Country Tourism AssociationMiscellaneous expenses.

WA Tourism CommissionSitting fees and miscellaneous ex-penses.

NOTE: In respect to Country Tourism As-sociation meeting in question 1099, thatshould have read 25 February and not 28Febmuary 1985.

HEALTHAlcohol and Drug Authority

1294. Mr CASH, to the Minister for Health:(1) When will the Alcohol and Drug Auth-

ority take occupation of the FieldStreet, Mount Lawley, annexe?

(2) When will the first inpatients be ad-mitted to the annexe?

(3) When will the first outpatients betreated at the annexe?

(4) Will he provide a detailed breakdownof the costs of the alterations, reno-vations, and all other work associatedwith the Alcohol and Drug Authorityannexe in Mount Lawley?

(5) Does the Government intend to ac-quire or provide additional parking fa-cilities in the near vicinity of the an-nexe?

(6) Will he provide details of theproposed detoxification assessmentfacility for which $524 000 has beenprovided in the 1985-86 Budget?

Mr HODGE replied:(1) to (3) Early 1986.(4) The total estimated project cost is

SI 040 000. The breakdown of actualcosts is not currently available.

(5) No.(6) The proposed detoxification assess-

ment facility is at the planning stage,although a site has been set aside inEast Perth.

1295. Postponed.

ENVIRONMENTPollution Control. Budget Allocation

1296. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister forthe Environment:

What are the details of the pollutioncontrol to be exercised using the$226 000 allocated under Item 10 ofDivision 43?

3044

[Thursday, 24 October 1985) 04

Mr DAVIES replied:AIR QUALITY BRANCH

1. General licensing, inspection,monitoring, etc.

2. Oxidant studies3. Wittenoom studies4. Urban lead studies

NOISE CONTROL BRANCH1. General inspections, complaints,

etc.2. Equipment

ADMINISTRATION

82 600100003 8003 000

18 6004000068000

$226 000

1297. Postponed.

HEALTH: HOSPITALKojonup District: Building Alterations

1298. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister forHealth:(1) With regard to the Kojonup District

Hospital, has agreement been reachedwith the hospital board regarding theproposed building alterations?

(2) Is there some delay with commencingthe proposed and previously agreedalterations?

(3) If not, when will the works becommenced?

Mr HODGE replied:(1) and (2) Revised plans have been dis-

cussed with the hospital's executiveofficers and arrangements have beenmade for a presentation to the boardon 12 November 1985.

(3) The commencement date will be de-pendent upon the outcome of the 12November meeting, the extent of anyamendments to the proposals, andtheir effect on currently availablefunding.

WOMEN'S ADVISORY COUNCILFunding

1299. Mr PETER JONES, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:(1) Are funds voted for the Western

Australian Women's Advisory Coun-cil transferred to that body for it toadminister?

(2) If so, what audit or control does theGovernment retain over funds madeavailable to this body?

(3) For what reason is it intended todouble the funding for this body in thecurrent year?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) Funds voted for the Western

Australian Women's Advisory Coun-cil are administered by the Depart-ment of Premier and Cabinet.

(2) The council's expenditure is subject tothe same audit controls as the Depart-ment of Premier and Cabinet.

(3) The 1985-86 budget for the councilincludes "salaries" previously in-cluded in the Department of Premierand Cabinet vote.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PUBLICSERVICE

Regionalisation: Budget Allocation1300. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister

representing the Minister for BudgetManagement:(I) For what precise reasons has $220 000

been allocated under Item 151 of Div-ision 33 of the Consolidated RevenueFund Estimates?

(2) To how many public servants doesthis sum apply?

(3) By what method has this amount beendetermined?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) To implement the Government's com-

mitment under "Bunbury 2000" toregionalise State Government admin-istrative agencies and services.

(2) The overall plan is to transfer 340 jabsto Bunbury, but the number involvedin 1985-86 will depend on thecompletion date of the Austrnarkbuilding.

(3) The provision is based on existingaward entitlements and provides forthe pant-year cost of relocating officersand their families.

ENVIRONMENTHeritage Committee: Budget Allocation

1301. Mr PETER JONES, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:(1) For what reason has $379000 been

allocated to the Western AustralianHeritage Committee?

(2) For what reason is this amount somuch greater than the 1984-85 expen-diture on this item?

3045

3046 ASSEMBLY]

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

(1) Details of the 1985-86 allocation areas follows-

s(a) Administration expenses

(b) Grants for special projects

(c) Commonwealth/Statetennial programme

bicen-

(d) Provision for estimated costsassociated with the establish-ment of a Heritage Council

51 500

57 500

170 000

100 000

$379 000

(2) The increased allocation reflectsmainly the provisions provided for tomeet expenses in respect of 1(c) andI1(d).

GAMBLING

Casino: Budget Allocation

1302. Mr PETER JONES, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:

For what detailed purposes is theGovernment seeking to commit$3 913 000 to the Burswood Island ca-sino, listed as Item 130 within Div-ision 33 of the Consolidated RevenueFund Estimates?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:Details of the item are as follows-

(a) Payment to the Perth CityCouncil for freehold landacquired in respect of theBurswood Island casino site

(b) Cost of relocating State En-ergy Commission pylonsexempted under clause9(4Xb) of the agreement

(c) Statutory levy in respect ofCrown grant paid into theland tidles assurance trustfund in accordance with theprovisions of the Transferof Land Act

3 393 000

500000

20000

$3913000

AMERICA'S CUP PROJECTSBudget Allocation

1303. Mr PETER JONES, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:

What projects are to be funded by theamount of $1 761 000 identified inItem 126 of Division 33 of theConsolidated Revenue Fund Expendi-ture Estimates?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:I refer the member to my reply toquestion 11 50.I am advised that the nature of theprojects being considered falls broadlyinto the category of operational costsrelating to spectator craft control, im-provements to recreation camps,upgrading communications, pro-motions, etc.

TRANSPORT: BUSESBunbury: Budget Allocation

1304. Mr PETER JONES, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for BudgetManagement:(1) With regard to Division 33 Miscel-

laneous Services, for what purposehave funds been allocated as indicatedin Item 106, and how has this amountbeen determined?

(2) On what basis was the funding in Item109 calculated?

(3) On what basis was the funding in ItemIll calculated?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) This item provides for a subsidy pay-

ment for an intra-town bus service atBunbury. The estimate was deter-mined through the tender process andsubsequent evaluation by the Com-missioner of Transport. Thirty thou-sand dollars has also been included fora market promotional campaign lead-ing up to the introduction of the busservice.

(2) The rate charged by Westrail for thecartage of grain is billed at the agreedcontract rates. Under the new com-petitive freight rate arrangementsbrought forward by two years,Co-operative Bulk Handling Ltd isentitled to pay the rate for the cartageof grain as agreed by Cabinet, which is

3046

[Thursday, 24 October 198 5] 34

lower than the rate under the existingcontract. This item provides for thedifference of lost revenue thatWestrail would have received underthe normal freight rate arrangements.

(3) The estimate of $8 million representsthe calculation of interest and otherexpenses on the estimated borrowingsrequired to implement the interestsubsidy scheme for permanent build-ing societies in the current financialyear.

1305 and 1306. Postponed.

AGRICULTURE: FARMS

Fire Trucks: Licensing

1307. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister forPolice and Emergency Services:

(1) What regulations apply to the licens-ing of farm fire trucks?

(2) What are the vehicle inspection re-quirements applying to such fire ve-hicles?

(3) Is it fact that farm fire trucks arerequired to satisfy the same vehicleinspection standards as are requiredfor normal farm trucks and commer-cial vehicles?

(4) If not, what lesser standards are ap-plied to farm fire trucks in view oftheir specific and limited use?

Mr CARR replied:

(1) Vehicle Standards Regulations 1977and Road Traffic (Licensing) Regu-lations 1975.

(2) Inspection is required prior toregistration.

(3) No.

(4) In the case of safety-related items suchas brakes and steering components,the same minimum standards as allother vehicles apply. However, exam-ination staff may use individual dis-cretion in accepting items which arenon-safety related such asnon-structural rust, crackedwindscreen, etc.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOLDarkan District: Reticulation

1308. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister forEducation:(1) With regard to the reticulation scheme

for the Darkan District High School,is the originally agreed funding stillavailable to complete this projectimmediately?

(2) As the local shire is now completingthe project, for what reason has therebeen delay in completing the involve-ment of the school in the project?

Mr PEARCE replied:

(1) and (2) The originally agreed amountof contribution to this phase of workby the Education Department was$2 000. This amount is available. It isunderstood that the amount nowrequested of the department is $5 900.Funding arrangements will now benegotiated with the shire.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOLDarkan District: Reticulation

1309. Mr PETER JONES, to the Minister forWorks:(1) Has the Building Management Auth-

ority approved the arrangements anddesign of the reticulation system forthe Darkan District High School?

(2) Is there any delay in approving thecompletion of this project as a part ofthe West Arthur Shire reticulationscheme?

(3) Has the Building Management Auth-ority acted quickly to discharge anyresponsibility it has to pursue andfinalise this project?

Mr McIVER replied:

(1) Yes.(2) and (3) The BMA did spend consider-

able time on investigations into thereticulation system, including thenecessity for earthworks in levellingthe Darkan High School oval, so as tofully capitalise on the proposedscheme.Regretfully some delay did occur inthe transfer of appropriate infor-mation from the authority to the Edu-cation Department.

3047

3048 [ASSEMBLY]

Completion of the project is now de-pendent on funding arrangements cur-rently being considered by the Edu-cation Department.

13 10. Postponed

STATE FINANCEState Development Fund: Revenue

1311. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer(1) Why was $41 498 000 brought to ac-

count as pan of the Consolidated Rev-enue Fund for the year ending 30 June1986 from the State DevelopmentFund?

(2) Have any funds previously beenbrought to account in theConsolidated Revenue Fund in pre-vious years from the State Develop-ment Fund?

(3) If so, will he detail these allocations?Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) The money was transferred to the

Consolidated Revenue Fund to be ap-propriated by Parliament for theannual services of Government.

(2) No.(3) Not applicable.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENTAmerica's Cup Defence: Budget Allocation

1312. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer:(1) For what reason is an amount of

$440 000 being paid to the EducationDepartment for the America's Cup de-fence?

(2) From what source is this revenueobtained?

(3) For what purposes are these funds tobe used?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) An amount of $590 000 over two

years has been allocated to the Techni-cal and Further Education Divisionfor a TAFE hospitality and tourismproject.

(2) Commonwealth Government.(3) Through a consultative committee of

the tourism and hospitality industry,representatives develop America'sCup tourism and hospitality courses,industry-based training, and com-

inunity-based training. Up to 2 500people will be trained under this pro-gramme.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTAssisted Industries:- Losses

1313. Mr MacKINNON, to the DeputyPremier:(1) Will he list for me the detail of losses

on assisted industries that totalled$1548 480 as listed in Division 16 ofthe Estimates for the year ending 30June 1986?

(2) What losses are estimated to takeplace for the year ending 30 June 1986to total the estimated $1 396 000?

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) Lasses incurred for the year ending 30

June 1985 comprise-

Bunbury Foods Pty LtdManjimup Canning Coop-erative Co LtdOrd River District Cooper-ative

1262 119

285 500

861(2) Lasses estimated for the year ending

30 June 1986 are made up of-

Bunbury Foods Pty LtdManjimup Canning Coop-erative Co Ltd

1 136000

260000

GAMBLING: TOTALISATOR AGENCYBOARD

Revenue Casino Effect1314. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer-

(1) Has the impact that the casino is likelyto have on the Totalisator AgencyBoard and other betting tax revenuebeen taken into account in this year'sEstimates?

(2) If so, what is the amount that theestimated revenue from these sourceswill fall by during the year ending 30June 1986?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) Yes.(2) The impact was allowed for by an

assumed reduction in the growth ratein revenue from total betting taxes-with a 5.1 per cent growth rateestimated for 1985-86 compared witha 9.9 per cent growth in 1984-85.

3048

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 34

STATE FINANCE: CONSOLIDATEDREVENUE FUND

Receipts: Detailsl315. Mr MacKINNON, to the Treasurer:

Will he list the detail of the "otherincome" listed in the answer to ques-tion 1133 of 17 October 1985 con-cerning amounts received by Govern-ment under "Treasury Other" inConsolidated Revenue Fund Esti-mates as being received in 1984-85and estimated to be received in1985-86?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

country wate supplies.sewerage, irrflition, anddrainage assets, replacemen' fun'd

Public Works Dequirinen,payroll surcharg account

Plant suapena trust fund ac-count

Rural and Industries lBankUnclaimed moncysRailways - recaup

superaomnuiOfl easier.Ineret-oherOther

AclualReceipts1984-85

Estimted

RS'

- 5700000

- 645000

- 2200000- 317000202 538 640000

1 225 8001 175 1462129029

1 2330OW' 200 000

992 OW0

S4 732 513 S312 92 7000

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PUBLICSERVICE BOARDTraining Allocation

1316. Mr MacKINNON, to the Premier:(1) What is the reason for the increase in

amounts allocated to staff undergoingtraining in Division IlI-Public Ser-vice Board-of the Estimates for theyear ending 30 June 1986?

(2) On what is the amount expended?Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) and (2) The Public Service Board has

committed itself to increasing theautonomy of Government depart-ments in order to assist them to be-come more accountable in all areas ofmanagement e.g. Financial Adminis-tration and Audit Act. This involvesthe phased delegation of certainpowers and functions currently vestedin the board.The strategies involve the training anddevelopment of all managers andexecutives with particular emphasis

on the personnel and financial areas.The funds are expended on courses inthese areas.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PUBLICSERVICE BOARD

Services and Contracts1317. Mr MacKINNON, to the Premier:

(1) What is the reason for the increase inamounts allocated to services and con-tracts in Division I11-Public ServiceBoard-of the Estimates for the yearending 30 June 1986?

(2) On what is the amount to beexpended?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

(1) and (2) The net increase in the pro-vision reflects mainly increases in con-sultants' fees of $64 000-e.g. devel-opment of strategic systems PIMS;data processing charges associatedwith strategic systems $253 000; andgeneral printing including $7 000 forthe printing of EEO brochures.

PORTS AND HARBOURS: MARINAMandurah: Investigations

1318. Mr BRADSHAW, to the Premier:(1) Is the Government involved or

investigating being involved in theproposed Mandurah ocean marina?

(2) If not, is the Western Australian De-velopment Corporation investigatingthe possibility of becoming involvedin the Mandurah ocean marina?

(3) If so, alone or in a consortium?(4) If so, at what stage is the investi-

gation?Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) and (2) The Government has

requested the Western Australian De-velopment Corporation to investigateand report on the redevelopmentopportunities for the Mandurab oceanmanina area.

(3) and (4) The Western Australian De-velopment Corporation's investi-gations are only at a preliminary stage.The corporation has had expressionsof interest from private organisationsto be involved in redevelopment pro-

3049

3050 ASSEMBLY)

posals. The WADC will liaise closelywith the Mandurab Shire Council onany redevelopment proposals.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: PUBLICSERVICE BOARD

Plant and Equipment1319. Mr MacKINNON, to the Premier:

What plant and equipment will bepurchased for the $390 000 allocatedto that item under Division 11I-Pub-tic Service Board-of the Estimatesfor the year ending 30 June 1986?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:The increase provides funds to up-grade the board's word processingequipment-office automation-$333 000; computer equipmentassociated with the personnel infor-mation management system $33 000;and computer equipment $12 000 forthe Office of Government Accommo-dation.

TECHNOLOGY: COMPUTING ANDINFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENTSupport Services: Budget Allocation

1320. Mr MacKINNON, to the DeputyPremier:(1) What is the reason for the increase in

amounts allocated to departmentalsupport services in Division 18-Computing and Information Tech-nology-of the Estimates for the yearending 30 June 1986?

(2) On what is the amount to beexpended?

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) The increase in funds allocated to de-

partmental support services-Div-ision 18, Item 10-provides for thepurchase, commissioning, and oper-ation of a new Amdahl computermainframe. This facility caters for theprovision of major computer services,such as Government accounting andpayroll, to a large number of depart-ments.

(2) The expenditure increase providesfor-

Mainframe acquisitionSoftware acquisitionTdcconmunicasionS and servicesSystems conversionOperational expensesAdditional staflingwosu

2 400000O570 000290000G224000

730O057000

$3 614 000

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY

Grants, Subsidies, and Transfer Payments

1321. Mr MacKriNNON, to the Minister forTechnology:(1) What is the reason for the increase in

amounts allocated to grants, subsidies,and transfer payments in Division20-Western Australian TechnologyDevelopment Authority-of the Esti-mates for the year ending 30 June1986?

(2) On what is the amount to beexpended?

Mr BRYCE replied:

(1) The increase in the amount allocatedto grants, subsidies, and transfer pay-ments in Division 20-WesternAustralian Technology DevelopmentAuthority-in the Estimates for theyear ending 30 June 1986 relates toexpenses associated with capital worksborrowings of $6 million made in thefinancial year ended 30 June 1985.

(2) The amount allocated will beexpended on interest and sinking fundpayments due in the 1985-86 financialyear.

EDUCATION: PRIMARY SCHOOLLake King: Water Supplies

1322. Mr OLD, to the Minister for Works:What has been the cost of supplyingwater to the school at Lake King forthe financial years-

(a) 1983-84; and

(b) 1984-85?

Mr McOVER replied:

As the information sought is notreadily available, I will convey therequested data to the member inwriting as soon as possible. This fol-lows his discussion with a rep resenta-tive from the Building ManagementAuthority.

3050

(Thursday, 24 October 1985] 35

WATER RESOURCES

Lake King; Housing1323. Mr OLD, to the Minister for Housing:

What has been the cost of supplyingwater to-(a) Homeswest homes;(b) Government Employees' Housing

Authority homes,in Lake King for the financial years-

(i) 1983-84; and

(ii) 1984-85?Mr WILSON replied:

As the information is not readilyavailable and will require some inves-tigation, I will advise the member inwriting.

1324. Postponed

TAXES AND CHARGESLand Ta:, Assessment Notices

1325. Mr OLD, to the Minister representingthe Minister for Budget Management:(1) How many land tax assessment no-

tices have been issued during thefinancial year 1985-86?

(2) Has the issue of notices beencompleted?

(3) What is the total expected return fromland tax for the financial year1985-86?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

(1) Approximately 45 000.(2) No.(3) $54 million.

1326. Postponed

HEALTH: HOSPITALS

Job Vacancies: Advertisements1327. Mr BRADSHTAW, to the Minister for

Health:(1) Is he aware that all job vacancies in

public hospitals are circulated to allpublic hospitals, whether the positionis from a domestic to the director ofnursing?

(2) Is he aware that these circulars have tobe pinned to a notice board in thepublic hospitals?

(3) Is he aware of the large number ofcirculars and the difficulties createdfor the director of nursing trying todisplay these circulars?

(4) What is the cost of sending out thesejob vacancy circulars to public hospi-tals?

Mr HODGE replied:

(1) and (2) Only specified promotionalpositions within departmentalnon-teaching hospitals are circulatedbetween those hospitals. Other jobvacancies within each public hospitalneed only be displayed on the officialnotice board of the hospital in whichthe vacancy occurs.

(3) The directors of nursing are respon-sible for nursing vacancies only.

(4) The cost is negligible as job vacancycirculars are distributed with the once,weekly distribution of departmentalcirculars.

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

Health Portfolio

1328. Mr BRADS-AW, to the Minister forHealth:

(1) What was the total number of peopleemployed under the Health portfoliofor-

(a) 1982-83;(b) 1983-84; and

(c) 1984-85?

(2) (a) Has there been a reclassificationof certain jobs in that time;

(b) if so, what are they?

Mr HODGE replied:

(1) and (2) The health portfolio consistsof very diverse activities, and includesnumerous statutory boards andauthorities. The considerable amountof work involved in providing ananswer to this very general questiondoes not appear to be justified.

If the member will be more specific, Iwill be able to provide an appropriateanswer.

3051

3052 [ASSEMBLY]

INSURANCE: MOTOR VEHICLEINSURANCE TRUST

Review' Report

1329. Mr BRADSHAW, to the Premier:(1) Further to qkistion 1 180 of 1985, was

the review of the Motor Vehicle In-surance Trust by PriceWaterhouse-Rothwells made public?

(2) Was the internal Government study ofthe Price Waterhouse-Rothwell reportmade public?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

(1) No.(2) No.

1330 to 1333. Postponed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PLANNING: HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENTScarborough.: Berringa Beach

330. Mr CLARKO, to the Minister forPlanning:(1) Is it correct, as recorded in today's

Press, that the Minister is unawarewhether stage 2 of the Berringa Beachproject has been approved?

(2) If the Minister subsequently finds thatit has been approved, will he seek toprevent its construction?

(3) If it has not been approved by theMetropolitan Region Planning Auth-ority, will the Minister seek to preventit being approved?

Mr PEARCE replied:(1) to (3) 1 have previously written to the

City of Stirling, asking precisely whatthe state of approval is for the furtherstages of Berringa Beach and other de-velopment projects with which theCity of Stirling may be concerned. Ihave done that in order to clarify thesituation so that all the things whichthe City of Stirling has not been tellingme it will now tell me, and we can actto make changes accordingly.I understand from the Mayor of theCity of Stirling, in a comment made tome in the ABC studios yesterday, thatthere is no building approval forfurther stages for the Berringa Beach

project, so the kind of questions whichthe member raises in that sense arepurely hypothetical.

Mr Clarko: Building permits don't matterto planning.

Mr PEARCE: There is no legal basis at themoment on which an additional stageof the Berringa Beach project could beconstructed. Under these circum-stances, I will not prefigure what theGovernment's stance may be becausealthough it is the case that we areopposed to any further high-rise devel-opment on the Scarborough beachfront, and that includes additionalstages of the Burringa Beach-Observ-ation City development, nevertheless,I will need to know precisely what thesituation is before I can make a judg-ment about what steps the Governmentwould be able to take to prevent that.It may not be necessary because theCity of Stirling-

Mr Hassell: What deals have been done bythe Mayor of Stirling?

Mr PEARCE: With whom, Noddy'?

Mr Hassell: I just asked what deals hadbeen done.

Mr PEARCE: Regrettably, as the Oppo-sition flounders towards the election,that kind of tactic more and.more isbeing used.

It is a thrown-out innuendo made inthe hope that it will give an indicationthat somebody knows something, andit really is an implied claim that a dealhas been made. I ask the Leader of theOpposition: With whom has the im-plied deal been made? He goes towater and cannot even suggest withwhom some sort of covert deal mighthave been made. What a disgrace tothe Parliament.

The simple answer is that the Govern-ment does not favour any furtherhigh-rise developments on theScarborough beach front. I have writ-ten to the City of Stirling to find out atwhat stage approvals are to see whataction the Government may be able totake.

3052

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 35

PLANNING: HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENTScarborough: Spindrifier

331. Mr BURKETT, to the Minister forPlanning:

Has the Minister been able to take anyfurther steps to prevent constructionof the Spindrifter high-rise develop-ment on the Scarborough beach front?

Mr PEARCE replied:

Indeed, I have, and I can confidentlypredict that the Spindrifter proposal,as a result of my work today, will notgo ahead. I do that on the basis, Imighlt say, of the discovered incom-petence of the City of Stirling becausefor the Spindrifter proposal to goahead it needed, among a whole rangeof other requirements, three particularthings.Firstly, it required an amalgamationof the title of the four blocks, and Iannounced in the House yesterdaythat there has been no such amnalga-mation. A request for the amalga-mation was received this morning bythe Department of Town Planning,and I need not hesitate to say to theHouse that I have taken steps to blockthat amalgamation.Secondly, a valid building permit wasrequired, with substantial progressmade on the building by 8 Novemberthis year. I have indicated to theHouse that I have taken steps to getlegal advice on the court actions whichthe Government might be able to taketo get a declaration from the court thatsubstantial progress had not beenmade by that time.Thirdly, the most compelling piece ofadditional information that came myway today was the fact that to goahead with the project, the companyneeds a valid development approval,which it does not have.The fact of the matter is that thecompany's development approval ex-pired on 8 November 1984 and by thetime it got the building permit, it hadnot got a renewal of the developmentapproval. That is according to recordswhich are held in the Department ofTown Planning, and the photocopy ofit is held by myself in this Parliament.There is no record anywhere in the

Department of Town Planning thatthat approval was ever extended. Ifthat is the case, the development cur-rently going on is illegal and wouldhave to stop immediately. I havedrawn that to the attention of the Cityof Stirling by writing a letter, whichwas sent by special courier to theMayor of Stirling early this afternoon,pointing out the fact that ourrecords-

Mr Court: You wouldn't want to send it byAustralia Post.

Mr PEARCE: Let members oppositesquirm. Their Liberal mates in theCity of Stirling have messed up in re-gard to this.

Mr Court: Your list of achievements isgetting smaller and smaller.

Mr PEARCE: All the member forNedlands or his Leader needs to do isto stand up and say, "We are all infavour of high-rise on the Scarboroughbeach front and we are really opposedto your efforts to stop it." If the mem-ber for Nedlands takes the view of themember for Karrinyup that he too isopposed to the Scarborough high-risedevelopment, why does not the mem-ber for Nedlands honestly applaud theefforts the Government has made tostop these developments going ahead?

Mr Court: It will take your mind off edu-cation.

Mr PEARCE: Members opposite should beputting their minds to education be-cause their declared policy Jooks alittle thin. When I read about it in thepaper this morning I thought onecould not run an education policy likethat if one hopes to appeal to the edu-cation vote.I have written a letter, which will nowhave been delivered, to the Mayor ofthe City of Stirling pointing out thatour records show that there is no validapproval for this building, and there-fore the city should take action to en-sure that work on the project stops. Ifit is the case that the City of Stirlinghas extended that development ap-proval and their incompetence onlyran to not sending copies of theform-which they are obliged to doand which they kept to themselves-Ihave asked the Mayor of the City of

3053

3054 [ASSEMBLY]

Stirling to indicate to me the evidencethat might be available to suggest thatthere is valid development approval.As of this moment, there has been noresponse from the City of Stirling, butif the situation is as I have said-andit certainly is the case according to ourrecords-this proposal is dead.

TOURISM COMMISSIONInvestment: Spindrifter Development

332. Mr CASH, to the Premier:(1) Was he aware of the application by the

Western Australian Tourism Comn-mission to the Treasury seekingTreasury approval to invest in theSpindrifter high-rise development inScarborough?

(2) Did he support this application fromthe WA Tourism Commission?

(3) Will he table the papers involved inthis matter?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) to (3) 1 was aware of the application

and 1 told the then Chairman of theTourism Commission that it shouldnot be proceeded with.

PRICES: CONSUMER PRICE INDEXTa-xes and Charges: Con tribuuion

333. Mr TAYLOR, to the Premier:I refer the Premier to the ConsumerPrice Index figures for the Septemberquarter which were released today bythe Australian Bureau of Statistics.(1) Has he yet been able to study the

figures?(2) If so, what contribution has been

made by State taxes and chargesto movements in the index?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) and (2) The figures released by the

Australian Bureau of Statistics todayreflect the State Government's effortsto contain taxes and charges and toreduce the burden of government onbusiness and families.Today's Consumer Price Index showsthat the contribution of State taxesand charges to inflation in WA wasagain below the national average. This

is the eighth consecutive quarter inwhich they have been below thenational average.

In the latest quarter, changes in thecharges added only 0.09 per cent tothe movement in Perth's CPI, with thesix-State capital average at 0. 14 percent. The figures reflect the deter-mined effort the Government hasmade to reduce the burden of govern-ment on families and business.

Tax cuts worth almost $65 million inthe last two Budgets and real re-ductions in major State Governmentcharges in the last two years are themajor factors. It is estimated that dur-ing the present Government'sthree-year term, changes in StateGovernment taxes and charges willadd only 0.5 per cent to the CPT,compared with 2.2 per cent during theprevious Government's last three-yearterm.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN: GIFTrS

Air Travel: List

334. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier:

Will he now table the list of 23examples of free flights by CabinetMinisters which he quoted at a Pressconference last Thurday and which Iasked him to table last Tuesday?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:

As I indicated in my previous answer Istill do not have the information withme. The list was distributed to somereporters with a cautionary word thatit was perhaps not complete.

All I can say to the Leader of the Op-position is that, in terms of my answerthe other evening, if there is any prob-lem with any of the trips on that list-presumably he has access to it throughhis own means-he could ask a ques-tion about that particular problemtrip.

As I said to the Deputy Leader of theOpposition previously, to the best ofmy knowledge all those trips related toor were directly part of ministerialrespons ibil ities.

3054

[Thursday, 24 October 19851)05

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT: SWANVALLEY POLICY

Grape Growers: Funding

335. Mr TROY, to the Minister forAgriculture:

(1) Can the Minister give details of fundsmade available to grape producersunder the Swan Valley policy?

(2) Can he also detail the conditionsunder which the funds will be madeavailable?

Mr EVANS replied:

(1) and (2) In September 1985 theGovernment announced the launchingof the Swan Valley policy with thedual objective of increasing the stab-ility and viability of Swan Valley viti-culture while providing a unique tour-ist asset close to the metropolitanarea.

As part of the policy, some $500 000was made available through the RuralAdjustment and Finance Corporationto growers who wished to install orupgrade cool storage, reticulation andwater -supply, planting material, andtrellising. The purpose of these fundsis to increase the quality and quantityof table grapes for the export market.

It will be necessary for growers todemonstrate to the Rural Adjustmentand Finance Corporation their com-mitment to the aims of the policy; thatis, an improvement in both the qualityand quantity of grapes available forexport. The first 10 applicants wereinterviewed today by the Rural Ad-justment and Finance Corporation.

As the details are quite lengthy Iwould like to table them in the House,and in doing so, remind interestedgrowers that they may gain further in-formation by contacting the Rural Ad-justment and Finance Corporation ofWestern Australia, 16th Floor, StMartin's Tower, 44 St George's Ter-race, Perth, WA, 6000, telephone325 7288. All applications should beaddressed to the administrator.

(See paper Na 241.)

MINISTER OF THE CROWN: PREMIERMinisterial Services Officer: Conditions

336. Mr MacKINNON, to the Premier:(1) During the year ended 30 June 1985

what was the total amount paid to thePremier's Ministerial Services Officer,Mr Shervington?

(2) Is Mr Shervingion paid overtime or ishe a salaried officer?

(3) How much time-off in lieu of over-time worked did Mr Shervington takewhilst on holiday with the Premierand his family in Fiji?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:Mr Shervington always travels withme on the same plane and arrives atthe airport at the same time as I do. Ifwe travel he always travels with me.

Mr MacKinnon: Even on holiday?Mr BRIAN BURKE: I am making the

point that I do not attempt to hide hispresence.I have the information about theamount paid to Mr Shervington, but Iam reticent to reveal it to the Parlia-ment because it is a private matterinvolving him.

Mr MacKinnon: Every senior Governmentofficer in this town is paid a salarywhich is public knowledge. Everyonein the Premier's department knowswhat everyone else earns.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I am in two mindsabout revealing the information. If theDeputy Leader of the Oppositionwants to press the point about the per-sonal business of a relatively juniorpublic servant, it says somethingabout him.

Mr MacKin non: No it does not.Mr Bryce: It does. It speaks volumes.Mr BRIAN BURKE: Can I say the follow-

ing to the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition? Mr Shervington's total incomewas about $3 000 more than that paidto the Leader of the Opposition'sdriver for the year and about $2 000more than the Deputy Premier'sdriver for the year.I do not mind giving the information,but I think the Deputy Leader of theOpposition should think aboutwhether or not he wants that standard

3055

3056 ASSEMBLY]

to be the standard of the Parliament.If he asks me again I wilt give him theanswer.This evening, the answer to the Depu-ty Leader of the Opposition's ques-tions is as follows-(1) This is a matter between

the Government and MrShervington. However, I aminformed his payment is in keep-ing with the earnings; of otherdrivers, including, the Leader ofthe Opposition's driver.

(2) Mr Shervington is employedunder the Public Service Act andas such is subject to the pro-visions of the Public Service over-time award of 1978.

(3) Thirty hours.If the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition asks me the question again I willgive him the answer, but I do notthink it is a fair thing.

MR BRIAN EASTONExim Corporation: Managing Director

337. Mr P. 3. SMITH, to the Premier:Earlier this month, in response to aquestion from the Leader of the Oppo-sition, the Premier undertook to in-vestigate his charges that the Govern-ment-appointed Managing Director ofExim Corporation was compromisedby his position as a partner in the Por-ridge Oats company. The Leader ofthe Opposition asserted that a majorEducation Department contract hadbeen given to Porridge Oats, a Perthdrapery supplier.Could the Premier give details of hisinvestigation carried out as a result ofthis undertaking?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:I do recall the general intent of thequestion, although I do not recall theexact detail. I did request informationin relation to the things the Leader ofthe Opposition said in his question.Firstly, the Leader of the Oppositionis wrong when he claims Mr Easton isoccupying his position as ManagingDirector of Exim as a result of aGovernment appointment. Responsesto other parliamentary questions by

his colleagues clearly show that MrEaston was appointed by the Board ofExim Corporation. The judgment ofsuch a board of private enterprisepeople does not need Government in-terference.Secondly, in The West Australian of21 September 1985, The Western Mailof 21-22 September 1985, and theSunday Times of 22 September 1985,Mr Easton's resignation as anon-executive director of Easttnarcand all its subsidiaries, including Por-ridge Oats, was publicly announced.Mr Easton also divested himself of allshareholding and financial connec-tions prior to this action. All theseprocedures were properly registeredwith the Corporate Affairs Office.Thirdly, the Leader of the Oppo-sition's reference to a major Edu-cation Department contract isdeliberately misleading. The true situ-ation as outlined to me is that in earlyAugust a representative of the interiordesign department of the BMArequested that Porridge Oats supplythe HMA with 52 assorted cushions.Apparently these cushions were to bedistributed to some schools by theBMA through the Education Depart-ment. No contract was entered intobecause the stock was on hand andthe price-$2 500-was competitive.Other than this transaction, no busi-ness has been transacted between theDepartment of Education and Por-ridge Oats since the beginning of1985.For the Leader of the Opposition tosuggest a major contract hascompromised a respected member ofour business community with so littlesupporting information is disgraceful.It demonstrates the lengths to whichhe is prepared to go to discredit EximCorporation in his usual ideologicallyblinkered fashion. This Parliamenthas been subjected to a stream ofill-conceived questions and statementsdesigned to undermine the efforts ofExim's private sector expertise whichis dedicated to improving the tradingactivities of our State.Exim has in fact offered to brief theOpposition on its aims and oper-ations. That offer has not been taken

3056

[Thursday, 24 October 19851 05

up. Rather, the Opposition seems con-tent to snipe in a snide and unpro-ductive fashion at individuals who donot have the opportunity to defendthemselves in this House.

SHOPPING: TRADING HOURSInquiry: Report

338. Mr COURT, to the Minister for SmallBusiness:(1) When will the Kelly report into

trading hours be finalised and releasedto the public?

(2) Will the recommendation made in theinterim report which was releasedsome months ago be implementedprior to Christmas?

(3) Is the Minister aware of any smallbusinesses which have equipped theirbusinesses in anticipation of these in-terim recommendations beingintroduced?

Mr BRYCE replied:(1) to (3) It is not expected that the full

report of the Kelly inquiry will beavailable to the Government untilsome time next year.

Mr MacKinnon: I'll bet.Mr Hassell: Another one.Mr BRYCE: If the Leader of the Oppo-

sition has any substance to him in re-spect of that matter, he may care tomake a submission. He may even careto came out and provide a policy. Iwould be very interested to seewhether he has one. I suspect that hehas not.It is my impression-I would prefer tocheck before I give an unequivocalanswer-that Cabinet has consideredthat matter. I do not think that it islikely that those decisions will beimplemented by Christmas.

WATER RESOURCES: UNDERGROUNDKimnberley.- Driling Programme

339. Mr BRIDGE, to the Minister for Landsand Surveys:

Can the Minister give details of theresults of the emergency subsidisedwater drilling programme to helpdrought-affected Kimberley .cattlestations.

Mr MeIVER replied:Yes. I am most enthusiastic about thesuccess of the emergency subsidisedwater drilling programme. This is thefirst time this Government hasembarked on this type of assistancefor the Kimberley. Of the 27 bores putdown, 10 produced viable water flows.The results endorse the Government'sconfidence in the Kimberley pastoralindustry's future.The successful bores will allow thepastoralists to establish water distri-bution points in previously ungrazedareas, and to shift cattle to these areas.This eases the pressure on other pas-ture, saves many hundreds of head ofcattle, maintains the herd structure,and helps to tide over pastoralists un-til the rains in the forthcoming wetseason. Bores were sunk on FossilDowns, Margaret River, Moolabulla,Lambo, Ruby Plains, and Stunt CreekStations. The cost of the programmeso far is about $40 000.Under the programme, pastoralistspay for the drilling if water is found.The cost of the dry wells has been metby the State Government.The drilling programme is part of apackage of measures available to 22drought declared pastoral stations inthe East Kimberley. Limited rainfallin the region has seriously affectedwater supplies and threatened thecattle industry.Other Government drought reliefmeasures are a 50 per cent freight sub-sidy on stock transport, andconcessional loans.The Government is considering otherassistance measures. These include afreight subsidy for molasses and ureafrom Queensland to supplement thefeed of the vital breeding cattle andhorses in the drought-affected EastKimberley.

PLANNING: HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENTScarborough: Berringz Beach

340. Mr CLARKO, to the Minister forPlanning:(1) 1 have been informed that the MRPA

in its approval of the Berringa Beachproject approved the three separate

3057

3058 [ASSEMBLY]

buildings at the one time; that is, stageone and stage two. Will the Ministerconfirm that both stages have been ap-proved by the MRPA?

(2) If "Yes", would the Minister agreethat any action on his partsubsequently to prevent stage twowould completely destroy the plan-nling process in Western Australia andseriously undermine business confi-dence in this State?

Mr PEARCE replied:(1) and (2) 1 have sought advice from the

MRPA in the same way as I havesought advice from the City of Stirlingas to what approvals have been given.When I have those responses I will bebetter placed to make the kinds ofjudgments which the-

Mr Clarko: You said you made the de-cisions known.

Mr PEARCE: Made what decisions?Mr Clarko: You have made known all

these statements about the Spindrifterbuildings.

Mr PEARCE: I have made a series ofstatements about the Spindrifter de-velopment which we have nowprevented. The question of BerringaBeach has been raised by the Mayor ofStirling. I am seeking advice on thosematters. When we have the infor-mation, as I have told the member ona number of occasions, we will takethe proper action.

PUTITING AUSTRALIA RIGHTCONFERENCE

Sponsorship341. Mr READ, to the Premier:

On Tuesday, 8 October I asked thePremier a question concerning StateGovernment involvement in a confer-ence entitled "Putting AustraliaRight". Is the Government concernedat whether the sponsorship of this con-ference was misleading, and has itreceived complaints about the matter?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:Yes, this conference has been drawnto my attention. It has also come tothe attention of one of the other spon-sors, who is disappointed and angrythat the conference was used as a Lib-eral Party platform.

The General President of the PrimaryIndustry Association, Mr WinstonCrane, said the PIA had agreed toback the conference only after the or-ganisers had given a firm understand-ing that it was not connected with apolitical party.Advance publicity published for theconference listed the keynote speakersas National Farmers Federation Presi-dent (Mr Ian McLachlan), Australianrugby coach and motivator (Mr AlanJones), and political scientist (MsKatherine West). However, on the daythe Leader of the Opposition openedthe meeting he was rated, in publicityissued from his office, as one of thekeynote speakers.Mr Crane said the PIA has rigidlymaintained a non-party politicalstance and is embarrassed that be-cause of the Liberal overtones appar-ent at the conference, it could appearit was supporting the Liberal Party inthe coming State Elections. Mr Cranesaid-

This is just not so as the PIA hasalways maintained that its memn-bers should vote according totheir beliefs and the organisationshould be in a position to dealwith whatever party happens tobe in 'power'.

The Leader of the Opposition did notmiss the opportunity Provided by thepromoters of the conference and wentso far as to use the catchcry of hispresent television advertising cam-paign, "That's worth hasselling for",during his address. In answering aquestion on whether or not his partywould favour total abolition of thedole he also engaged in blatantpoliticking by referring to the StateGovernment's FID and fuel taxes. Heeventually answered that he was infavour of abolishing the dole in favourof a scheme of part-time work for theunemployed.NET President, Mr Ian McLachlan,was also deeply concerned by theparty-political overtones of the confer-ence. He said-

I want to make NFFs position,and the position of farmers inAustralia very clear.

3058

[Thursday, 24 October 1985J 05

We are not the tool of any politi-cal panty or any party philosophy.

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTSDeaths

342. Mr WATT, to the Minister for Policeand Emergency Services:(1) Is it a fact that road deaths in WA are

up by 20 on the total for the same datelast year?

(2) Does this not bear out the assertionthat I and others made when the RoadTraffic Authority was abolished thateffective manpower for traffic wouldbe reduced, especially in the country,resulting in worsening of the road toll?

()Is it correct that most of the additionaldeaths have been in the countr?

(4) Is the Minister aware ofundermanning in the traffic patrol inAlbany?

(5) Will he take action to see that staffinglevels for traffic control in the countryare increased to adequate levels?

Mr CARR replied:(1) It is a fact that the road toll to this

time of the year is standing at 20deaths more than at the same time lastyear, namely, 1 87 compared with 167.

(2) 1 make it clear to the member thatthere has not been a reduction in thelevel of manpower available for trafficpatrol duties as a result of the RoadTraffic Authority being abolished. Infact, the Western Australian PoliceForce devotes a larger proportion ofits available manpower resources totraffic policing than do other States.Indeed, if we look at the change in theroad toll figures since the abolition ofthe Road Traffic Authority, we findthat while this year has shown an up-turn, in the last couple of years therehave been better results than in theperiod when the Road Traffic Auth-ority was in place. Last year's and theprevious yea?'s results were relativelygood compared with previous years.I also make the point that while thetraffic branch might say that it wouldlike more patrolmen, that puts it inthe same category as every other sec-tion of the Police Force; they would alllike more men made available tothem.

Of course, I make the point that theGovernment has attempted to re-spond to the run-down in the numberof police officers allowed to occurunder the previous Administration.During the last three years of the pre-vious Liberal Government thenumber of police officers wasincreased by only 160 for the threeyears, and included in that period wasone year in which no increase wasmade in the number of police officersavailable.By the end of the three years that thisGovernment has been in office it willhave increased the number of policeofficers by 380, which is a dramaticincrease. Indeed, if we allow for thefact that the increase in the early1 970s related to the transfer of shiretraffic officers to the Police Force, theperformance of this Government inthe last three years represents thegreatest increase that has taken placein the number of police officers in thehistory of Western Australia.

(3) With regard to the additional deathsin the country or the city, the reality isthat the number is up in both the cityand the country although this year thelevel of increase in the country hasbeen greater than in the city. It is im-portant to trace the history of this; ifwe go back four or five years a con-siderably higher number of deaths oc-curred in the country than in the city.There has been a trend in the last twoor three years which has brought thenumber of deaths close to even andlast year the number of deaths waseven for the country and city. Thisyear the trend again has been for anincrease in the toll in the country.

(4) With regard to the question of allegedundermanning of the traffic patrol inAlbany, I am not aware off the top ofmy head of the specific manning de-tails of police stations around thestate. However, I will have some in-quiries made into the Albany trafficpatrol to see if a situation exists thatneeds consideration by the com-missioner.

(5) With regard to the question concern-ing staffing levels for the traffic patrolin country areas being increased to ad-equate levels, first of all I deny thatthe levels are not adequate. Neventhe-

3059

3060 [ASSEMBLY]

less, I will discuss the whole questionof traffic manning with the com-missioner. I conclude by emphasisingthat the commissioner is responsiblefor allocation of his manpower re-sources and I would only be discussingit with him and it is then up to him tomake any decision he considers appro-priate.

HEALTH: HOSPITALMandurak

343. Mr READ, to the Minister for Health:(1) Can the Minister confirm that the

Mandurah Shire Council has deferredthe rezoning of the land on which it isproposed to build the Governmenthospital?

(2) If so, does be know why?(3) Can he also advise why this particular

site, Lot No. 202 Paterson and LakesRoad, was selected by Government asthe most appropriate site?

Mr HODGE replied:(1) In reply to the member I can confirm

that my department has advised methat the Mandurah council deferredthe decision to rezone the proposedhospital site at the last meeting ofcouncil.

(2) As to why the council has deferred thedecision, I understand that the moverof the motion to defer was none otherthan Cr Shalders who may or may notbe remembered as the former memberfor Murray and who, I understand, isthe president of the Liberal Party'sMandurah branch.

Mr Blaikie: What are you suggesting?Mr HODGE: I am glad that the member

for Vasse asked that question. I amsuggesting that the deferment waspurely a political stunt on the part ofRichard Shalders. The Liberal Partyhas shown no commitment to a publichospital in Mandurab, unlike thepresent Government. This seemsanother petty move by the LiberalParty in Mandurah to try to frustratethe Government in its wish to providethe people of Mandurah with a hospi-tal. It is almost unbelievable.

(3) The selection of the site was based onaccessibility to the major access roadsin Mandurah from the north, south,

and east. The central point of theseaxes is the junction of By-Pass Roadand Pinjarra Road, to which Lot No.202 is in close proximity. As well, theselection took account of the severaldistinct population areas andpotential future growth along theseaxes and in central Mandurah.The minimum requirement of landarea was 10 hectares of relatively flat,dry land in appropriate surrounds,relative to domestic and industrialareas.Another factor is price-including thecost of services such as electricity,water, etc., which in the case of hospi-tals can be considerable.Of the sites considered, Lot No. 202best met all the above criteria. TheValuer General's estimate of$10 000-$12 000 a hectare as theupper limit was exceeded quite con-siderably by all other sites consideredwhich ranged from $13 000 to$25 000 a hectare.Other sites, such as the Halls Readproposal, were eliminated in the firstinstance, because of their distancefrom the desired location.The council is to meet again on 6November and has requested infor-mation on the selection of the site,and I will be very pleased to ensurethat it has full details.I should point out to the member thatliaison and consultation with counciland council officers took place when-ever appropriate within the restraintsof the confidential purchase nego-tiation.

COMMUNITY SERVICES: CHILDRENAccess: Avoidance

344. Mr MENSAROS, to the Minister forCommunity Services:(1) Is it the policy and practice of the De-

partment for Community Services tofinancially assist, by paying air faresand other costs, separated wives withchildren who leave the State for any ofthe Eastern States to avoid the serviceof the father's child access order?

(2) In any event has any such assistancebeen rendered by his department inthe past?

3060

[Thursday, 24 October 1985] 36

(3) If so, will the Minister supply me at alater stage with a list of instances andthe amounts involved?

Mr WILSON replied:(1) No.(2) There has been one celebrated case

where it was shown that such assist-ance was made available, but it oc-curred during the time of the previousGovernment. As a result of that and asa result of appearances before theState Ombudsman, compensation hasbeen paid to the person concerned atan agreed amount.

(3) Not applicable.

MINISTER OF THE CROWN: PREMIERSingapore Trip

345. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier:(1) When the Premier returned from his

trip to America in March 1984, did hestop for a period of days in Singaporeon the way back to Western Australia?

(2) If so, was the Premier at work or wasthe time spent in Singapore a holiday?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:(1) and (2) 1 do not immediately recall

whether or not I stopped in Singapore.However, I can say that I am notaware of any travel I have taken thathas not been directly connected withor related to ministerial duties. I donot know whether I was in Singaporefor one day or two days, and I cannotrecall whether I went throughSingapore at all.I know, and the Leader of the Oppo-sition must know, of instances wheremembers have diverted to Tasmaniaon trips and had holidays and havealso taken holidays for a week whilevisiting America. On the face of it Iwould not say there was anythingwrong with that.I have been handed a note from RonBarry which states that I did not stopin Singapore on the way back from theUSA.I still do not recollect it myself, butthere are members sitting on the frontbench of the Opposition who divertedto their former home base on holidaysin the course of their official business.I do not see anything wrong with that.

Mr Hassell: I didn't say there was.Mr BRIAN BURKE: I just thought, in the

unlikely possibility that a thought likethat might have entered the Leader ofthe Opposition's head, that I shouldtake the opportunity of covering it.I am not aware of the answer to thequestion and I am informed that I didnot stop in Singapore. In any case Ican say that I would not have stayedin Singapore for a week or two weeksand had a holiday there.

Mr Hassell: I didn't ask about a week ortwo weeks.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: No, but it is my rightto answer a question as I see fit-withthe Leader of the Opposition's per-mission, of course. I was taking theopportunity of pointing out to himthat some of his members, as I aminformed, interrupted trips to have aweek's holiday, and I do not see any-thing wrong with that.

MINISTERS OF THE CROWN: GIFTSAir Travel: List

346. Mr HASSELL, to the Premier:Why is it that he refuses to table in theHouse a document which he had pre-pared by public officers and which hemade available at a Press conference,namely the document I have askedhim about twice which lists the freetrips taken this year by his Ministers?

Mr BRIAN BURKE replied:We have a Standing Order which Ithink rules out of order questions thatrepeat themselves endlessly, or per-haps not endlessly but only once ortwice.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once or twice;that is correct.

Mr MacKinnon: It is a different question.The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Perhaps

I could help and give a bit of guidanceto the Opposition on this matterraised by the Premier. Questionswhich are repetitious in terms of thesubstance of questions asked pre-viously are out of order. In the last fewdays it has been the practice for Oppo-sition members to ask the same ques-tion, or if not the same question, onevery similar, time and time again.

3061

3062 [ASSEMBLY]

Really, the time has come when thatStanding Order ought to beimplemented. I am not intending toimplement it on this question, but Iam seriously considering imple-menting it on further questions of thissort.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: As I have explainedon a number of occasions, the infor-mation compiled was not complete, ashas been demonstrated and statedpublicly by me in the Parliament whenI have given additional instances thatmay well have been included on thelist in the same category. That is thefirst thing.

Mr MacKinnon: Was it a printed list thatyou handed out?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I did not hand it outso I do not know what was handedout; it could have been printed, typed,or written.

Mr MacKinnon: I didn't say it was handedout at all.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Leader of theOpposition said it was.

Mr MacKinnon: No, he didn't.Mr BRIAN BURKE: The question now is:

Why will I not table a list that I didnot hand out?

Mr Hassell: You were prepared to use it onyour own motivation to impresseveryone at the Press conference.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Perhaps the Leaderof the Opposition is more impressed.In any case, the information waspublished in its entirety in the Press. Ido not believe I should set a precedentby providing information of that sortin the Parliament and contradictingwhat the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition said in his speech yesterday;that is, he said, "If the member has aparticular worry about a particulartrip, let him ask a question." That iswhat the Deputy Leader of the Oppo-sition said yesterday. I have had ques-tions and allegations about hypocrisyand things like that; but the DeputyLeader of the Opposition himself said,in answer to a question, "I am notgoing to tell you. If you have a particu-lar worry about something I havedone, give me the details." He said toa Minister, "If you have a particularconcern, point it up and I will answerthe question." Now members oppositewant to impose on us a differentregime. They want us to tug ourforelocks to a morality that they fail torecognise, let alone live by.

3062