2906 [COUNCIL.]

up that freight, and if that were done, itmight be possible to exempt from land taxthose whose land is of small value.

Mr. Ackland: Have you not left outsome very important items In the cost ofproduction of wheat?

Mr. JOHNSON: I am dealing only withfreight.

Mr. Ackland: You are talking of thecost of production.

Mr. JOHNSON: I am taking the figuressupplied by the Bureau of AgriculturalStatistics.

Mr. Ackland: Ours is a 12-bushel aver-age instead of 16.

Mr. JOHNSON: That is all allowed for.Mr. Ackland: No.Mr. JOHNSON: Yet, it Is. I have the

figures and can show them to the hon.member.

Mr. Court: Do you put this forwardas an argument for imposing a land taxon agricultural land?

Mr. JOHNSON: I am saying that theagricultural Industries are heavily subsi-dized by the taxpayer and it is only justthat those engaged In agriculture shouldJoin those of us in the metropolitan areawho pay the tax. It is Just, honest , de-cent and reasonable that they should paytheir share.

Mr. Court: You are overlooking onemighty factor, that the wheat industrysubsidised this country to the extent ofa heavy sum at one stage.

Mr. Ackland: Yes, £230,000.O00.Mr. JOHNSON: A long time ago.

Mr. Ackland: Up to two years ago.Mr. JOHNSON: I think even that Is no

argument for failing now to do what isJust. These subsidies have been goingon since 1931; they have been going onnot only when times were prosperous Inthe wheat industry and when It couldstand the cost, but when times were diffi-cult, not only in the wheat industry butwith all of us. The wheat industry hasdeserved well of the people of WesternAustralia and it has been mighty welltreated. I feel that the whole of our agri-cultural industry should get itself awayfrom the peasant outlook of crying allthe time, and should try to be realisticand fair because of the wealth of thiscountry-not just the exportable wealthbut the real wealth; the national income-farm produce is not the major factor.

Mr. Ackland: There would be a lotmore unemployed in the metropolitan areaif It were not for the wheat farmer.

On motion by Mr. Cornell, debate ad-journed.

House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.

Wednesday, 5th December, 1956.CONTENTS.

Questions : Milk, treatment plants and pgsupplies to schools _. 112906

Public work;, deferred payment con-tracts - ... .. ... .1 2907

Standing Orders suspension, closing days ofsession ro.e.. .. .. .1. 20

Sitting days and hours, additional sittingday...............2906

Bills: Criminal Code Amendment .(No. 2 ),3r,....... ............... 296

Licensing Act Amendment (No. 4), L 908Architects Act Amendment 2r... . 2908Royal Commissioners' Powers Act

Amendment, 2r., remaining stages ... 29Trade Descriptions and False Advertise-

ments Act Amendment, 2r. .... ... 219Workers' Compensation Act Amend-

ment, Corn recoin., further recoin..,,. 2910Druids Act Amendment (No. 1), ir. 2936Land Act Amendment (No. 2), Ir. 296Bread Act Amendment, 2r.......2936Farmers' Debts Adjustment Act Amend-

ment (Continuance), Zr.......... 293Adjeumnment, special .... .. 1 2937

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

QUESTIONS.

Treatment Plants and Supplies to Schools.

Hon. J. M. A- CUNNINGHAM asked theChief Secretary:

(1) Who is chairman of the SchoolMilk Advisory Committee?

(2) Is he the officer authorised tofinally approve a registered treatmentplant operator to supply school milk?

(3) Is it the policy of the School MilkAdvisory Committee to contract directlywith the treatment plants to supply schoolm?

(4) When a treatment Plant licence isissued to an operator, does this mean thathe has met all requirements of the MilkBoard of W.A.?

(5) Having obtained such a licence, isthere anything to debar a supplier fromcontracting to supply school milk if thesaid milk is fit for human consumptionand for children of pre-school age?

The CHIEF SECRETARY repiled:(1) The Public Health Commissioner

or his representative.(2) No. The Director of Education.(3) There are no contracts for the

supply of liquid milk. The supply of liquidmilk to schools has been allocated by theEducation Department, In the case ofbottled pasteurised milk, to various treat-ment plants and, for raw milk, to licenseddairymen.

2906

[5 December, 1956.1 20

(4) Not necessarily. The treatmentlicence entitles the holder to treat milkonly in the manner specified in thelicence.

(5) Yes. This is dependent on themanner of treatment specified in thelicence,

PUBLIC WORKS.Deferred Patnnent Contracts.

Hon. J. McI. THOMSON asked the ChiefSecretary:.

(1) Was the estimated expenditure of£211,894 of deferred payment to buildersexceeded in the 1955-56 financial year;If so, to what extent; and what were thecontracts other than the 14 schools as de-tailed in answer to my questions ofl the10th August, 1955?

(2) Of the contracts referred to above,how many are completed?

(3) Have the contractors been paid infull, including Interest 'on the contractscompleted?

(4) If not, what is the balance outstand-Ing on

(a) contract figures;(b) interest?

(5) What is the total figure paid by wayof Interest to all contractors under thedeferred payment system since the 1952-53 financial Year, up to the end of the1955-56 financial year?

The CHIEF SECRETARY replied:(1) (a) Yes.

(b) £834,527 In accordance with theundermentioned list.

(2) Thirty-three contracts, includingthe 14 referred to in question No. (1), havebeen fully completed. Tlwenty-three othercontracts have been completed and areunder maintenance.

(3) Yes.(4) Answered by No. (3).(5) £11,115 uls, lid.

Deferred Payment Contracts-Subsequent to 10/8/55.

Contract.

Ashfield School-AdditionsBelmont High School (1st

Section) .... .. ..Belmont School-AdditionsBeverley School-AdditionsBicton School-Additions ..Brentwood New School ..Bunbury High School-Ad-

ditions to Girls' HostelByford School-Additions ..Cannington Sc h o ol-Ad-

ditions .. .. ..City Beach-New School ..Coolbinnia S ch ol-Ad-

ditions .. .. ..Dalkeith School-AdditionsDarkan School-AdditionsDowerin School-Additions

Amount.£

6,398

73,9478,8184,3994,280

16,811

9,6505,125

8,75325,901

7,54010,2342,6004,350

Oeraldton (Back Beach)New School ... ..

Glen Forest School-Ad-ditions ... .. "

Gnowangerup School-Ad-ditions ..

Helena Valley School-Ad-ditions ..

Kenwick School-AdditionsKoonawarra-New School ..Maddingtan Sob o olI-Ad-

ditions ..Manjlmup-New High

School (1st Section) ..Manning Park School-Ad-

ditions ... I.. ..Melville-New School ..Merredin-New High School

(1st Section) ..Midvale School-AdditionsMoora--New School ..Morley Park School-Ad-

ditions. .. ... ..Mt. Helena School-Con-

vert Classroom forScience .. .. ..

Northampton School-Ad-ditions ... .. ..I

North Cottesloe School-Latrines .. .. ..

North Innaloo School-Ad-ditions .. .. ..

North Scarborough School-Additions I.. ..

PalmYra School-AdditionsPerenlori School-AdditionsRedcllffe School-AdditionsRiverton School-AdditionsHoleystone--New School ..South Kalgoorlie School-

Additions ... ..Stoneville Boys' Home-New

School ... .. ..ITuart Hill School-LatrinesWagin School-Additions ..Watherco School-AdditionsWelshpool School-AdditionsWestminster School-Addi-

tions ... ..I 'lYericoin School-AdditionsNorth Northam School-Ad-

ditions .. .. ..Armadale Hospital-Addi-

tions I.. ... ..Bunbury Hospital-Addi-

tions .. .. ..Bunbury Hospital-LaundryCunderdin Hospital-Nurses'

Quarters .... ... ..Harvey Hospital-Nurses'

Quarters .... .. k . .-Moora H os pi tal 1Nres'Quarters .... . . -

Wyalkatchem Hospital-Ad-ditions .. .. ..

Whitby Falls Mental Hospi-tal-Additions

Victoria Park Police Station-Additions ... ..

Total

18,181

3,577

3,766

5,0604,622

15,073

10,987

58,900

9,03919,987

63,6705,3859,624

6,414

903

0,876

810

13,894

19,9307,8719.3506,3347,669

16,266

2,747

5,6893,1048,3106.8133,198

15,2234,970

8,391

26,433

28,81219.600

18,689

13,896

15,987

40,870

91,238

9,565

834,527

2907

2905 COUNCIJ.

STANDING ORDERS SUSPENSION.Closing Days of Session.

on motion by the Chief Secretary re-solved:

That during the remainder of thesession so much of the StandingOrders be suspended as is necessaryto enable Bills to be passed throughall stages in any one sitting, andall messages from the Legislative As-sembly to be taken into considera-tion forthwith.

ADDITIONAL SITTING DAY.

On motion by the Chief Secretary re-solved:

* That for the remainder of the ses-sion, the House, unless otherwiseordered, shall meet for the despatchof business on Fridays at 2.30 p.m.in addition to the ordinary sittingdays.

BILLS (2)-THRMD READING.1. Criminal Code Amendment (No.2, Licensing Act Amendment (No.

Returned to the Assembly withIamendment.

2).4).an

'BILL-ARCHITECTS ACTAMENDMENT.Second Reading.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. G.Fraser-West) [4.101 in moving the sec-ond reading said: This Bill does not con-tain any major amendments. In 1921,when the parent Act was passed, theRoyal Australian Institute of Architectshad not been formed, and it was notpossible, therefore, to include a provisionthat, membership of the institute was aqualification for registration as an archi-tect. Now that the institute is in exist-ence, it is considered desirable that mern-bership of that association should be aqualification, and the Bill provides thatthis shall be so.

Another amendment seeks to give theArchitects' Board more control over thearchitects registered with the board andmore power to prevent unprofessional con-duct. The board has reported that someregistered architects have been guilty ofactions described as unprofessional andunfair to fellow architects and the pub-lic, and that the board should be enabledto deal with such instances.

The Bill seeks to enlarge the' definitionof "misconduct" in Section 21 of the Actto give the board the power to disciplineits members. At present the Act pro-vides that application must be made tothe Supreme Court to discipline a mem-ber; but in the Bill provision is made thatthe Architects' Board shall be empowered

to take this action, and the aggrieved per-son will be given the right to appeal toa magistrate if he disagrees with the de-cision.

A similar provision is contained In theBuilders' Registration Act whereby theBuilders' Registration Board has the powerto deregister a builder, the aggrieved per-son having the right of appeal to a magis-trate against the decision.

Section 21 details those acts and prac-tices by architects which are prohibitedand are deemed to be misconduct. A newsection is proposed by the Bill for thepurpose of amplifying that definition. Thisincludes the acceptance of reward, eitherdirect or indirect, other than professionalremuneration; the acceptance of architect-ural work on condition that the architectwill receive a discount, gift, or commissionfrom the contractor or tradesman; andfailure to disclose direct or Indirectpecuniary Interest in material used In con-nection with the work.

The Government was advised that somearchitects advocated the use of certainmaterials; and, as a reward, required anadditional return, either directly or in-directly, from the use of those materials.That is regarded as misconduct, or un-professional conduct, and it is desired toprevent It. An architect should be re-munerated in accordance with the scale offees for the work he does; and should notendeavour to carrry out work cheaply andthen make up the difference by indirectreturns from the use of certain materials,or certain other Items in the construction.

The proposed new section also treatsadvertising as misconduct unless theadvertising Is approved by the board-Failure on the part of a man to advise thecancellation of his qualification on whichhe was admitted as an architect-or, inother words, continuing to hold himselfout as an architect when no longer entitledto do so-I4s also included in the categoryof misconduct.

An architect might be negligent with theresult that the owner of a building suffersloss and damage. There Is power to takeaction against the architect who is re-sponsible, for such loss or damage and toprotect members of the general public whoengage architects to watch their interests.

The Architects' Board was desirous thatno person other than an architect shoulddo work that architects normally carry out,but the Government did not consider thatsuch a severe restriction should be applied.However, it was considered that it was afair and reasonable proposition that aPerson who was not an architect shouldnot masquerade as an architect; and thepurpose of this amendment is to givepower to the board to deal with any caseswhere that happens.

If there are people who desire to designbuildings the Bill will not prevent thetafrom doing so, unless they allege they are

2:908

(5 December, 1959.)

architects. If they describe themselves asarchitects and endeavour to obtain busi-ness on such false pretences, the amend-ment will give the board power to takeaction. But any Person, such as anengineer, who wishes to design a buildingfor someone else can still do so, so longas he does it in his proper capacity anddoes not assert he is an architect.

The Architects' Association consideredthat it and the general public should beprotected from sell-described architects.If a person engages the services of such aPerson and then discovers he is not anarchitect, there is no remedy.

However, the Bill will not prevent anymember of the Public from utilising theservice of any person other than anarchitect to design a building, providedhe is aware the person is not a qualifiedarchitect. I move-

That the Bil be now read a secondtime.

Gn motion by Hon. Sir Charles Latham,debate adjourned.

BIELL-ROYAL CODMSSIONERS'POWERS ACT AMENDMENT.

Second Reading.

BON. L. V. DIVER (Central) t4.45J Inmoving the second reading said: This Isa very small Bill, which has been broughtdown in consequence of an experience Ihild arising out of the appointment lastyear of a select committee of this Rouseto inquire into petrol marketing. Owingto the rising of Parliament. it was neces-sary for that select committee to be con-verted Into an Honorary Royal Commis-sion in order that it might complete itsinvestigations.

Amongst other things, the majority ofthis select committee, on being appointedan Honorary Royal Commission, decidedthat counsel should be allowed to assistthe various parties. With the passage oftime, It was suggested that Certain parties,through their counsel, would Insist on allof the commissioners being Present; other-wise they would not constitute the RoyalCommission created by the Government.

I therefore made certain representa-tions to the Crown Law Department witha view to ascertaining the position; andI was informed that, if the various partiesinsisted that all the commissioners bePresent at the hearings, it would be wiseif I did not challenge them. In otherwords, the Royal Commissioners' PowersAct was meant to apply in the singularand not in the plural. It makes no allow-ance for a body of commissioners to makean inquiry. There is no provision in theAct as to what constitutes a quorum.

Subsequently, I conveyed my experienceto the leader of my party who, in turn,Introduced this measure in another place:with a view to avoiding a repetition infuture of such events, should either House

of Parliament appoint a select committeewhich is eventually turned Into an Hon-orary Royal Commission. If the measureis agreed to, so long as a majority ofmembers of the Honorary Royal Commnis-sion are present at a sitting or meetingthat shall be sufficient and its decision.shall be final.

Had this measure been passed last ses-sion I have no doubt that the HonoraryRoyal Commission into petrol marketingwould have completed its work at least onemonth earlier than it did, as, owing tothe calls on the time of various membersof that commission, it was difficult to getthe whole five members assembled to-gether at a given date for the purposeof hearings such as were held.

The measure will not interfere with thepresent requirements regarding the re-port of an Hohorary Royal Commission,inasmuch as in the event of there notbeing a unanimous report, it will benecessary for a minority report to be sub-mitted. one paragraph of a letter receivedby Ron, A, F, Watts from the Crown Soli-citor reads-

The proposed new section is ex-pressed to be for the Purposes of thisAct and since the report of the com-mission is not mentioned in the Acta decision of the majority would notbind the commission in the matter ofits report.

Consequently there need be no fear thatthe passage of the Hill will have any effecton the final report of such Royal Com-mission. I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

Question put and passed.Bill read a second time.

In Committee, etc.Bill passed through Committee without

debate, reported without amendment andthe report adopted.

Bill read a third time and Passed.

BILL-TRADE DESCRIEPTIONS ANDFALSE ADVERTISEMENTS ACT

AMENDMENT.Second Reading.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. G.Fraser-West) [4.55] in moving thesecond reading said: This small Bill isintroduced as a result of representationsmade to the Minister for Labour bya deputation representative of the W.A.Chamber of Manufactures, the PerthChamber of Commerce and the RetailTraders' Association of W.A. The requestof the deputation was that Section 4Cof the parent Act be repealed. This sec-tion reads--

(1) Every manufacturer and everydistributor shall when deliveringtextile Products to a. wholesaler

2910 COUNCIL.]

or a retailer furnish to suchwholesaler or retailer a numberedinvoice which shall contain de-tails of the constituent fibrescomprising such textile productsrespectively as prescribed.

(2) Any person who contravenes thissection shall be guilty of anoffence. Penalty-fifty pounds fora. first offence and two hundredpounds for a subsequent offence.

This particular provision is not con-tained in the legislation of any of the otherStates or of the Commonwealth; and sinceIts inclusion in the parent Act in 1044.it has not been enforced by the FactoriesInspection Branch. At least 75 per cent.of the merchandise for distribution inthis State Is manufactured outside West-ern Australia. As a result, the invoicesfor such goods do not provide details ofthe constituent fibres in the garments.The deputation contended that a fulldescription on invoices of each garment'sfibre content was unnecessary as this in-formation could readily be verified byreference to the cutting slip.

It was stated that, as it was, textilelabelling cost thousands of pounds, andthat if Section 4C was insisted on thelarge volume of extra work would in-crease greatly overhead expenses. TheGovernment agrees that so long as thegarments themselves are labelled as re-quired by Section 4A of the parent Act,there is no need for invoices to containsimilar information. Since this measurehas been brought down as the result ofrepresentations of the bodies which Imentioned. I do not think it will meetwith much opposition. I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

on motion by Hon. H. K. Watson, de-bate adjourned.

BILL-WORKERS' COMPENSATIONACT AMENDMENT,

In Committe.Resumed from the previous day. Hon.

W. Rt. Hail In the Chair; the Chief Sec-retary In charge of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Progress was reportedafter Clause 4 had been put and negatived.

Clause 5-Section 8 amended;Hon. H. K. WATSON: There is an

amendment on the notice paper standingin my name, but I do not intend to pro-ceed with It. instead, I ask the Commit-tee to vote against the clause as it stands.if agreed to, my amendment would donothing more than clarify Section 8 ofthe parent Act; but I do not think thereis any necessity to alter the Act.

The Chief Secretary has explained thatthis section provides, in effect, that wherea worker is suffering from both an Indus-trial and a non-industrial disease, he is

entitled only to the same percentage ofcompensation as the percentage of hisdisability which is due to the industrialdisease.

In other words, if he Is suffering froma disease which is compensable, and partlyfrom a, disease which is not, the share ofthe lump sum which he gets is a propor-tionate share, and the share of the weeklypayments that he gets Is a proportionateshare. The amendment in the Bill is de-signed to eliminate the proportion as far asthe weekly payments are concerned. Thereis no reason why the weekly payments, noless than the total payment, should not beon a pro rata basis. At the moment theAct provides that they should be. The FlCourt of Western Australia recently decidedthat that was the position.

Some doubt arose as to what Section 8meant, but the court ruled that the pro-portion applies to weekly payments In thesame way as it does to the total payment.I see no reason why that should be dis-turbed, but the proposal In the Bill seeksto disturb it. Therefore, I ask the Com-mittee to vote against this clause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I hope theCommittee will not listen to the case putup by Mr. Watson and support it. I con-sider the amendment he had on the noticepaper was bad enough, and was even re-dlundant; but what he proposes now isunthinkable. If the Committee supportshis present contention, a worker who iscertified as having a 10 per cent. disa-bility would get only a 10 per cent. weeklypayment.

Hon. H. K. Watson: Why shouldn't he?The CHIEF SECRETARY: How is he

going to live?Hon, H-. K. Watson: flow is he going to

live If he gets 100 per cent.?The CHIEF SECRETARY: If he gets 100

per cent., he draws the full weekly pay-ment; and the Bill seeks to give him thefull weekly payment up to the extent of hisdisability, which may be 10 per cent. How-ever, 10 per cent. of a weekly payment toan injured worker is ridiculous. Surelythe Committee will not entertaiA such anidea as that!

Hon. H. K, WATSON: I am not movinganything. I am merely saying that theAct should stand as It is. The Chief Secre-tary is right off the beam when he saysthat I asked the Committee to accept anyproposition. I only asked that the Actshould remain as it is.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: No matterhow the question is approached, it is theeffect that we are concerned with. Thisprovision has been Introduced because ofthe Full Court ruling which found thatwhat I have told the Committee is theproper interpretation. Because of that, weseek to amend the Act to make it reason-able. The one most concerned about this

2910

(5 December. 1956.1 2911

proposal Is the State Government InsuranceOffice, mainly because of the workers whoare affected with silicosis on the Goldfields.Not many other insurance companies areaffected.

Clause put and a division called for.The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,

I give my vote with the ayes.

Remarks during Division.The Chief Secretary: The worker will

get 26s. a week if the Committee defeatsthis clause: That is what he will get!Twenty-six shillings a week!

Division Resumed.Division taken with the following re-

sut:-AyesNoes

Hon. N. E. Baxter: Will you ask for£:3,500 next year?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: Let nextyear look after itself!I We are dealing withthis year now, and we say that £3,000 istoo little. I. know it is useless telling theCommittee what amounts are being paidin the other States. There are some thatare not paying £3,000; but, on the otherhand, there are others that are paying agreat deal more than £2,400. That figurewas fixed two years ago, and I defy anymember to say that £2,400 today is thesame value as £2,400 two years ago.

Hon. N. E. Baxter: That is plus ad-justments.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The worker

... .. ... 14 1 think that this increase to £3,000 to the

... .. ... 13 relatives of an injured worker is justified.

Majority for

Ayes.Eon.Hon.Hon.Hon.Ron.HOD.HOn.

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

N. E. Baxter0. BennettsE. IML Davies0. FraserW. H. HailE. ML. MeansnJ. U. Hislop

L. C. DiverA. P. GriffithA. Rt. JonesSir Chas. LathramL. A. Logan0. MacKInnonR. C. Mattiake

I

Hon. R. P. HlutchisonEton. G. E. JefferyHon. P. R. H. LaveryHon. J. D. TeahanHon. W. P. WilieseeRon. F. J. S. wiseHon. J. J. Cairrigan

(Toulr.)1

Noes.Hon.Hon.Hon.Ron.Hon.Hon.

J. MurrayH. L. HocheC. H. SimpsonH. K. WatsonF. D. WItimotJ. ML. Thomson

(Teller.)Fair.

Aye. NO.Hon. H. C. Strickland Hon. J. Cunningham

Clause thus passed.

Clause 6-Section 11 amended:Hon. H. K. WATSON: I ask the Com-

mittee to vote against this clause. itseeks to increase the maximum paymentof compensation from £2,400 to £3,000.Last night, we defeated a similar provisioncontained in Clause 4.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I supposethat after the last vote, it Is hopeless ap-pealing to the Committee in regard to thisclause. However. I still ask why membersshould not have to grant £3,000 to therelatives of a worker who is killed in In-dustry. Does any member think that thatis too much money to grant to a deceasedworker's dependants? Members do notstick to the facts. Last night we were deal-ing with payments to an injured workerand not the payment of a lump sum tothe relatives of a worker who is killed.Who can justify a statement that £3,000is too much to grant to the dependantsof a worker who is killed In Industry,especially when we bear in mind what isgranted under common law to a personkilled in an ordinary accident?

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I do notknow whether the Chief Secretary is righton this point, because Section 11 of theAct refers to a worker who is permanentlyor partially incapacitated, but it does notsay anything in regard to his being killed.In 1954 we Increased the amount payableto such a worker from £2,100 to £2,400.

The Chief Secretary: I accept yourcorrection.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: TheChief Secretary Is very often wrong, andit is nice to know that sometimes he willagree that he is wrong. Alter all is saidand done, it is a question of whether weshall eontinue to agree to increasing thisamount to the same extent every year.It is a continued charge on industry, whichdepends on the markets which it can ob-tain to sell its products. It is all very wellbeing generous, especially when it is a caseof being generous with someone else'smoney.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I retractthe phrase about the gain to an injuredworker; it is a totally incapacitatedworker, and everything I said about thatman stands. In fact, I would say it oughtto be a greater amount for a totally in-capacitated worker than for a personkilled, because that person has to be kepton that amount. A man who receivedthe maximum amount would not be par-tially incapacitated-and we are talkingabout the maximum amount, not the mini-mum payable to a person under thatheading.

Honl. Sir Charles Lathamn:titled to compensation as well.

He is en-

The CHIEF SECRETARY: In what way?

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Read Sub-section 3! 1 think you had better get yourlesson earlier in the morning.

2912 [ COUNCIL.]I

The CHIEF SECRETARY: Portion ofSection 11 (3) of the Act reads-

during any period of total Incapacityresulting from that injury and anysum so paid shall not be deductedfront the compensation.

It is only dealing with the final adjust-ment. I would say that only a personpermanently injured would receive thetotal payment; not a person partially in-capacitated.

Ron. J. G3. Hislop: He would get a per-centage of the total.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: Yes. Whatwe are aiming to do Is to raise themaximum, and only the persons per-manently incapacitated could hope toobtain the maximum. Therefore I wouldsay £3,000 was little enough in the cir-cumstances.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: This becomesextremely confusing indeed when in oneclause we range from death to permanentpartial Incapacity. From the original Actone gains the impression that it Is de-signed to alleviate distress. There doesnot seem to be any idea that the Acttakes over the entire responsbillty for thecomplete economic welfare of every em-ployed man. That seems to be the basisof the Act: yet from the way the ChiefSecretary speaks to these amendments, Itwould appear that he is giving this Acta basis of complete and utter responsibilityfor all sickness In Industry, or he wants itto be that way.

Hon. F. R_ H. Lavery: A lot of amend-ments would be needed before we couldreach that stage.

Hon. G. C_ MacKINNON: It is not amatter for an Act like this; it is a matterfor a national insurance scheme. I wouldlike the Chief Secretary to explain, be-cause the last amendment was extremelyconfusing to me.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I think theamount for which we are asking willanswer the hon. member. Who would saythat to provide £3,000 would be to acceptcomplete economic responsibility for aworker during the time he was out ofwork?

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: It does notseem to be the basis of the original Act.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: When a per-son is injured at work, and is permanentlypartially Incapacitated, he should be re-compensed up to £3,000. That Is whatwe are after, and I do not think it isasking too much. There is no doubt thatquite aL number of people have gone beyondthat stage. Generally, that is the amountwhich would cover most persons who wouldcome under the Act. It is only during thatperiod that I am asking for permanenteconomic responsibility.

Hon. R. F. HUTCHISON: I am amazedat the hon. member asking if we acceptfull economic responsibility. He refers tothe Act as providing alleviation. U1 aman is permanently Incapacitated throughbeing injured at work, does the hon.member want him to be on a pittance, sothat he, with his wife and family, willlive In misery and not have sufficent onwhich to manage? Even the amount pro-vided in this Bill is not sufficient. Weare asking that If a worker meets with anaccident which makes him permanentlyincapacitated-

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: It does notrefer to permanency.

Hon. R. V. HUTCHISON: He does notget £3,000 for an injury If he Is incapaci-tated for a week or a month. We are talk-ing about the permanently Incapacitated.I think It is dreadful to hear men arguethat a man should not be allowed enoughto keep his family in the way he was ableto provide for them-the frugal way-white he was working. It takes more tokeep a sick or injured man in the homein every way. An extra burden is put onthe wife immediately; and she, togetherwith her family, has to go short of manythings. If the Injury were to a machine inindustry, there would be no question aboutit, whether the cost was £3,000 or £6,000;but apparently a human being does notmatter.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: You are per-suading me to vote against this.

Hon. R. F. HUJTCHISON: I have heardSir Charles talk about charges on Industry.If it cannot stand this amount, it shouldStop.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: You wouldstarve.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Hon. R. F. HUTCISON: I am ashamedto listen to some of the arguments here,and they are not going by without mychallenging them. The time to be gener-ous and Christian is after a man has beeninjured while working for his living. Whenthe hon. member talks about taking fulleconomic responsibility, I would say, "Yes,most certainly we do!" If ever there wasa time when a Christian spirit should beexhibited, it is now. I call myself aChristian, and hope to hear no more aboutthis full economic responsibility. I trust'that what the Chief Secretary Is asking forin this clause will be granted, even if itmeans not agreeing to other clauses inthe Bill,

Hon. G. C. MacKfl4NON: I have beenaccused, tried and found guilty by theonly person in the House with principles.I did not say at any time that we shouldnot look after people. I am grateful toMrs. Hutchison, because she gave us theLabour outlook on this Bill, Despite what

2912

tO December, 1956.1 21

the Chief Secretary said, it seems that theGovernment's desire is to accept complete,utter economic responsibility.

Hon. P. Rt. H. Lavery: For the period ofinjury.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. mem-ber will address the chair.

Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: It has beendefinitely stated here that this Bill is de-sired to give complete and utter economicresponsibility.

The Chief Secretary: During the time ofinjury,

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: My mainpurpose in rising is to say that I objectto the hon. member accusing, trying andfinding a member guilty.

Point oI Order.Hon. R~. F. Hutchison: I object to that.

I did no such thing. I repeated what Mr.MacKinnon said. I want the hon. mem-ber to withdraw.

The Chairman: Order! Does the hon.member want a withdrawal of. a state-ment?i

Hon. Rt. F. Hutchison: Of the state-ment that I tried and found him guilty,when I had not even been speaking abouthim, but was repeating what he said.

The Chairman: All right.

Committee Resumed.Hon. R. C. MATTSKE: The Committee

is getting confused over a very simplepoint. Confusion arose when the ChiefSecretary said the amount was fixed at£.2,400 for permanent or total incapacity.That is misleading because the figurevaries automatically with the basic wageand at present it has been increased to£2,546. The purpose of the Act is to pro-vide compensation for an injured, worker,not to give him the full amount of wagesthat he. was previously earning. At presenta male worker who is injured is able toreceive up to £13 3s. Id. per week. Icannot see anything un-Christian in that.The Workers' Compensation Act is de-signed to give relief to a person who is inreceipt of wages.

Hon. R. F. Hutchison: Should he nothave full wages if he is Ill?

Hon. Rt. C. MArrISKE: Under the Act,an injured worker receives compensationThe individual who has sufficient Initiativand Intestinal fortitude to conduct hisowbusiness and give employment to others,gets nothing if he is Ill. The present figureof £13 3s. Id. was £12 8s. when the amountwas last fixed by Parliament in 1954. Ithas increased by l~s, id. per week becauseit is tied to the basic wage, and it will con-tinue to go up as the basic wage increases.

At present, an injured person is entitledto receive £13 3s. id. per week, and he mayreceive up to a maximum of £2,546. This

figure is not designed to provide him withsuccour for the rest of his life. If the£2,546 is cut out the worker may then drawon the Commonwealth social servicebenefits. The Chief Secretary said "Howcan we expect a fellow to live on a paltry2,.546?" That is not the point. This isthe Primary amount and he may then goon to the relief provided by the Common-wealth Government.

Yesterday many members asked "Whatis happening in the Eastern States?", andwe had the Eastern States position thrownat us. Would those who were so vocalon the point then like to say thatbecause in some of the other States anamount considerably less than £2,546 Isprovided, we should come down to thatlevel? We cannot have all the good with-out having all the bad. We must takea broad view of this. I sincerely hopethat the Committee will not agree to theamendment.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: I am sure mem-bers are confused as to what Mr. Wat-son's amendment-

The CHAIRMAN: Order! There is noamendmnt before the Chair.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN:. Clause 6 simplyproposes to increase the figure of £2,400to £3,000. Occasionally a worker meetswith an accident and is totally incapaci-tated for some time, and during that periodhe would draw the amount set out inthe First Schedule. That might applyfor a Year or two. Then he is dischargedas partially Incapacitated. He may bepermanently partially incapacitated andhave a 30 per cent. disability for the re-mainder of his life. In those circum-stances, the total amount of compensa-tion at present, for the period that hewas totally incapacitated and for the re-mainder of the time when he was par-tially incapacitated, cannot exceed £2,400.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Plus the in-creases.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: Yes, but let usstick to the figure of £:2,400. More thanhalf of this amount might have been ex-hausted when he was totally incapaci-tated. I think it is reasonable to increasethe figure to E3,000. Even if we do that.it does not mean that he will necessarilyget £3,000, but that the amount he doesreceive may not exceed £3,000.

Hon. J. G. Hislop. Do you mean to saythat the weekly amounts are taken outof the lump sum?

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: Yes, they are. Theweekly amounts, plus the subsequent pay-ment for Partial incapacity cannot ex-ceed £2,400 at the present time.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: You want toread the second paragraph of Subsection(3).

Hon. E. M. HEENANq: If I am wrong, Iam sure someone will correct me.

2913

[COUNCIL.]

Hon. H. K. WATSON: The whole pro-position is that once Parliament has de-cided the maximum compensation Pay-able, we have to amend up to, probably,half a dozen sections which alter thatamount. In 1954, upon the recommenda-tion of the select committee, we increasedthe amount from £1,700 to £2,400, plusfurther increases in accordance with thebasic wage. The whole question is: Arewe going to depart from that, or arewe going to accept the proposition In theBill? I ask the Committee to vote againstthe clause.

Hon. J. J. GARRIGAN: I ask membersto get back to the report of 1954. Therecommendation made then on behalf ofour Government was that the amount beraised to £2,800. Mr. Davies and 1, whowere members of the select committee,submitted a minority report, and weagreed to take £2,400. How are widowsand young children going to live and beeducated on the miserable sum of £2,400)?I would say that £3,000 is little enough.

Hon. R. C. lvAflISfl: I would liketo ask Mr. Garrigan: What is the differ-ence between £2,546 and £3,000? If aperson is permanently incapacitated, itsimply means that the Payments of£13 3s. id. per week will continue for afurther few weeks until the difference be-tween the two figures I have Just mnen-tioned is exhausted. He then goes on tothe Commonwealth social services benefits.

The Chief Secretary: That's all!Hon. R. C. MATTISKE: The worker is

not suffering any disability because ofthat.

H-on. F. R. H. LAVERY: Mr. Mattiskehas put the position very briefly. He hasasked us what is the difference between£2,546 and £3,000.

Hon. R. F. Hutchison: He ought to liveon the same wages as these people and hewould know.

Hon. F. R. H. LAVERY: It means an-other 32 weeks at £12 a week before theygo on to social services.

Hon. J. J. GARRIGAN: In reply to Mr.Mattiske, a sum of £300-odd in the handsof a widow with two or three children-

Hon. L. A. Logan: This does not applyto a widow.

Hon. J. J. GARRIGAN: Then in theevent of a husband being incapacitatedand being unable to work. Sometimes awoman would be better off without ahusband in those circumstances, becausehe has to be kept, clothed and fed.

Hon. R. C. Mattiske: You are assumingthat she gets nothing from social servicebenefits.

Hon. J. J. GARRIGAN: A sum of 000to a woman in those circumstances wouldbe a good deal. The social service benefits

are a miserable Pittance of £4 a week anda few shillings for kiddies. I think theclause should be agreed to.

Hon. A. R. JONES: I would like to in-quire, from somebody who knows, thedifference between £13-odd a week and thesocial service benefit payable.

The Chief Secretary: The difference fora man and wife would be £5 13s. id.

Clause Put and a division called for.The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,

I give my vote with the ayes.Division taken with the following re-

sut:-Ayes ..Noes ..

.... .... .... 13.... .... 14

Majority against

HOn. 0. Bennett.HOD. E. MA. DaviesHOD. L. C. DiverHon. 0. FraserRon. J. J. CarriganHon. W. ft. HaillHOn. X. MA. Heenan

HOD.Hon.Hon.Ron.Hon.HOD.HOD.

Ayes.HOD.Hon.Hon.HOn.Hon.Son,

Noes.N. E. BaxterJ. 0. HisopA. R. JonesSir Chas.. LathamL. A. loga0. ..~inoH. C. mattialke

Ron.Hon.HOn.Hon.Hon.HOn.Hon.

pair.Ba.I.Aye.enH.C. Strickland HOD.

Clause thus negatived.

R. F. Hutchison0. R. JefferyF. H. H. LaveryW. F. WilieeeF. J. S. WiseJ. D. Teahan

(Teller.)

J. MurryH. L. RocheC. H. SimpsonJ. M. ThomsonH. K. WatsonF. fl. WltlmottA. F. Griffith

(Teller.)

No.J. Cunningham

Clause 7-Section 13 amended:Hon. R. C. MAfl'ISKE: I hope the

Committee will not agree to this clause.Actually it does not affect the benefitsPayable to workers, but is merely amachinery clause in connection with thefixing of various premiums. However,there is one Point which makes me askthe Committee to vote against it. and thatIs that holiday Pay and sick Pay shouldbe included in the annual return of wagessubmitted by an employer. I contend thatis wrong in principle; because if a workeris on holidays or away from work sick, hecannot qualify for any compensation.Therefore It is wrong in principle forpremiums to be paid on those wages inthe knowledge that no compensation couldbe claimed. I hope the Committee willnot agree to this clause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: This israther remarkable. If we want to dosomething to improve the position of theworkers we get it in the neck, and if wewant to improve the Position of the in-surers we get it in the neck also.

Hon. L. A. Logan That is consistent.The CHIEF SECRETARY: So far as

getting it in the neck Is concerned. Thisclause is only to set down a standard.Some employers are complying with It

(5 December, 1956.1 21

now and some are not; a lot of the smallmining companies are Including theseitems in their wages sheets and othersare not.

Hon. L. A. Logan: What advantagewould it be?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: it wouldmean less ratio premiums-it is a 70 percent. ratio at present. Probably somecompanies are paying more because theyare complying with these provisions whileothers are not, and I believe that all in-surers would like it to be done. Also, anumber of employers would like to see thiisbecome part of the Act, and it would savea certain amount of cost in compilation.I would like the Committee to give us amajority on this one, irrespective of whatis done with the other amendments.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: The Chief Sec-retary says that when he tries to do some-thing for the employees, he is criticised:and if he tries to do something for theInsurance companies, he Is criticised. Iwould like to make one plea for the manwho is the meat in the sandwich-the manwho is between the insurance companiesand the employees; and that is, the em-ployer, the man who pays the piper. Mr.Mattiske has summarised the position ina nutshell. As the employer has to payon the annual wages, why should he haveto include In the return holiday pay andsick pay? To my mind the question ofuniformity does not enter into the picture.If uniformity is wanted we can get thatby not including holiday and sick pay inthe returns.

Hon. R. C. MATI'ISKE: There is only onepoint in reply to the Chief Secretary. IfI heard him correctly he said that manyemployers are including these figures intheir annual returns. That may be thecase with a number of smaller employers.In my office when we are preparing theannual returns, the cost of extracting theholiday and sick pay content would notbe warranted because of the small amountof additional premium which would be paidby an employer overstating the amount oftotal wages. But where the business ismuch bigger and would warrant the ex-traction. I maintain the employer shouldhave that opportunity.

The annual premiums are calculatedeach year; and if this clause is included,it will mean a greater payment for the firstyear of application, because in that yearthey will be working on the higher annualwage figures submitted. That would bequite a burden to the larger employersin the first year of application. So I hopethe Committee will not agree to this clause.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: Earlier I hadthought that with a few small amend-ments this clause might be all right. Ihad In mind removing from the clause the

reference to overtime work because I can-not regard overtime as something thatcan be measured annually. It is some-thing that does not come into the avenagerate of pay of an individual. After ex-amination, however, I must agree with theChief Secretary who so frequently reiter-ates that the more we put into a Bill themore we restrict the Individual. By agree-ing to this clause we will be restrictingthe employer and the insured. So far asuniformity Is concerned, it might be ofa type which all parties concerned mightregret.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: There is onephase that neither Dr. Hislop nor anyother member of this Chamber would re-gret. I am told that instead of returningthe full wages sheet they take so muchfor overtime and holiday pay; in one caseit amounted to as much as 50 per cent.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: Did you in-vestigate?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: There Is nopower provided to investigate or call forthe pay sheets. The figure must be ac-cepted. While this loophole exists it willencourage that practice.

Hon. R. C. MATTISKE: One of thefirst latin phrases I1 learnit in accountingwas uberrima fides, which means that anycontract of assurance is a contract of goodfaith. If good faith were broken, then thecontract would be set aside. If the em-ployer understates the amount of the an-nual wages, the Insurance company willsurely go into It with a view to takingaction against that employer to set asidethat contract.

Hon. L. C. DIVER: I cannot agree withthe amendment in the Bill. 'Unless thereis good faith the whole Structure will beundermined. I have consistently tried torecord my vote so as to permit Increasesto the worker. While conceding the factthat overtime and bonuses, etc., are In-cluded in wages statements, some con-sideration should be given to the employerwhen an employee meets with an accident.At present he is only looked upon asan ordinary worker, and I trust that nexttime we have an amendment brought downto the Workers' Compensation Act Some-thing will be done to permit the employerto claim where he can show that the em-ployee has Consistently earned bonuses ofa certain amount. It could be that theemployer at present is making a rod forhis own back by paying that extra amount.Unless amounts are recorded and premiumsPaid, the system we are trying to build upWill Ultimately be destroyed.

Hon. N. E. BAXTER: We must look atthis fairly and ascertain the liabilities ofthe Insurance companies, When an em-ployee is employved on overtime he is paidat overtime rates and certainly represents

2915

2916 COUINCIL.)

a liability to the Insurance company. Hemay be injured and put in a position tocollect compensation. On the other hand,while sick pay and holiday pay are includedin the statement, for the time the employeemight be on holidays he 'would not beentitled to compensation because he wouldnot have worked in the first instance; and,secondly. he would be covered because hewould be getting time and a half anddouble time. The proper way to treat thisis to provide a statement for overtime andnot for holiday pay and sick pay. I movean amendment-

That the words "and as holiday payand sick pay, and as remuneration ofany other form", in lines 31 and 32,page 4, be struck out.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: I do not opposethe amendment; but If the clause isamended, I 'will still oppose the entireclause. 1 think the amendment is designedto leave overtime In the wages schedule tobe returned. Because an employer paysdouble rates on Sunday. that does notmean he has a double amount of actions.He is not paying a normal wage; he ispaying double wage, and he does not havedouble actions.

We must be guided by the expert opinionof the Underwriters' Association on theone hand, and an organisation like theEmployers' Federation on the other. Myinformation Is that both these bodies axeagreeable to the Act as it stands. Thatbeing so, it Ill becomes us to rush In whereangels fear to tread. This provision maybe of special benefit to the State InsuranceOffice for a. variety of complicated reasons;but that is beside the point. I oppose theclause.

Ron. L. A. LOGAN: I take it that on theform submitted by the employer the totalwages are supposed to be Included, andsick pay and holiday pay would and shouldbe Included In that total payment. All theclause tends to do is to segregate what isactual wages and what is overtime and sickpay.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: Why shouldhe be paid compensation while on holidays?

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: That is laid down bythe Arbitration Court. All this proposesto do Is to segregate these amounts.

The Chief Secretary: No.Hon. L. A. LOGAN: What does It propose

to do?7The Chief Secretary: To get the, actual

amount.Hon. L, A. LOGAN: If the Chief Secre-

tary Is right, then this is not worth thepaper it is printed on.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: We do notwant to segregate it at all. We want to getthe actual amount. There is no power PrO-vided to segregate it from the payroll, andthat is why we want this provision. Two

of the biggest coalmining companies haveasked for this to be done to save themhaving to segregate these things on theirpayrolls. It would be handy to a numberof large concerns. I cannot accept Mr.Baxter's amendment because it still leavesa loophole regarding holiday pay and sickpay. Holiday pay and sick pay onlyamount to 8 per cent. of the extra pay-ments, so why should we leave a loopholefor the sake of 8 per cent.?

Sitting sus-pended from 6.15 to 7.30 p.m.

Hon. C. H1. SIMPSON: Before a vote istaken it might be worth while to give theclause further thought, because the prac-tice varies from company to company andfrom small insurer to big Insurer. At firstsight that might not appear to mattervery much, provided they were all on thesame scale, the assumption being that thePremium Rates Committee would assumethat a certain amount of income woulddetermine the rate against the actual riskinvolved.

We have to remember that there aredifferential rates imposed on certain risks,and in the mining section particularly-which carries the heaviest rates and is theleast able to bear any increase in thoserates because it has a wasting asset whichIs being eaten Into more and more throughrising costs--that item ought to be takenInto account.

I suggest to the mover of the amend-ment that this aspect has not been con-sidered. In view of the condition of themining Industry, on which this Impostwould fall, I1 would ask the Committee togive serious consideration not only to notaccepting the amendment but to deletingthe clause.

Amendment put and passed.Hon. H. K. WATSON: I ask the Com-

mittee to vote against the clause asamended. If I understood the Chief Sec-retary correctly, he said that two coal-mining companies had requested theamendment contained in the Clause.

The Chief Secretary: If the hon.member were to ask me to name them,I would not like to do so InI this Chamber.11 can assure him that two of the miningcompanies desire the clause.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: It is not my in-tention to ask for the names of those twocompanies. My advice Is that two coal-mining companies have been rendering re-turns to the State Insurance Office. Al-though the Act requires them only tomake a return of the actual wages paid,those two companies had in fact beenMaking a return of all the wages, includ-ing overtime, holiday and sick pay. An-other coalmining company recently tookup insurance with the State Insuranceoffice, but It refused to furnish a return ofall the wages Including overtime. It told

2916

[5 December. 1956.] 2917?

the State Insurance Office that that officewas not entitled to have a return of allthe wages.

Naturally when the first two companiesfound out their legal position they sug-gested that they should be able to leaveout particulars, other than the actualwages from their return. The reason forthis clause is that the three companieswant to retain the existing provision inthe Act. Furthermore, it will have theeffect of extracting from the goldmlningcompanies a premium that was never in-tended under the Act, so there is a lotmore in the clause than meets the eye.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I mentionedtwo mining companies, but the hon. mem-ber has traced the history leading up tothis position. He gave some but not allof the facts. The position Is that thosetwo mining companies paid on the whole,but when the third company came In anddid not pay on the whole, the first two.companies wanted to follow suit. How-ever, they did say they wanted to remainas they were and pay on the whole be-cause they did not want to go to thetrouble of extracting the holiday, over-time and sick pay from the sheets.

Clause, as amended, put and a divisiontaken with the foliowing re

wAyes..Noes .. .. ..

Majority for ..

HOn.Ron.HOD.Hon.Hon.Hon.lion.

Hon.HOn.Hon.HOD.Hon.Bon.

Ayes.0. BennettsK. M. DaviesL. C. Diver0. FraserJ. J. Carrigan,E. Mi. HeenanIL P. Hutchison

NoesJ. 0. HialopA. R. JonesSir Chas. LathamL. A. Logan0. MacsinnonB. C. Mattiske

Eon. 0.HOn. P.HOD. H.HOD,. J.HOD. WHot. P.Hon. N.

HOD. J.Hon. C.HOD. J.Hon. H.Hon. P.HOD. A.

Pair.Aye.

Hon. H. C. Strickland Eon. J.Clause, as amended, thusClause 8-agreed to.

Clause 9--Section 29 ameiHon. R. C. MATTISKE:

amendment-That all words after th

sage" in line 19, page 5,and the following insert

By the last days oof March. June. SeDecember In each ycshall publish in bookform, together withtherefor, every awaring, determination oivolving a determine

Chairman of any Question of lawmade or delivered by the Boardduring the quarter ending twomonths prior to each of such daysand following publication shallmake available at cost Price acopy of the same to any Personmaking a. request therefor, andthe.

The reason for the amendment is thatunder the clause it will be obligatory forevery decision of the board to be printedand circularised which, In practice, willbe quite an immense task. It is felt thatconfining it wholly to the question of law,the intention of the Government will beput into effect-that is. the principal rul-ings of the board will be circularised, butthe unnecessary material will be elimi-nated.

The CHIEF SECRET'ARY: The onlyexplanation that ought to be given is bythe person moving the amendment. Heshould give an explanation of what actu-ally is required. The hon. member couldnot even state the case properly. He saidthat If the Bill is accepted all cases willhave to be reported on.

Hon. J. G. Hislop: That is so.suit:- The CHIEF SECRETARY: It is not so.

... 14 only cases in dispute will have to be re-

... 12 ported on. As Et matter of fact, that was- done for quite a long time. It was dis-

2 continued some time ago, and It Is desired- that the practice be resumed. I emphasise

that only cases in dispute will be reportedE. Jeffery on. In his amendment, the hon. member

R. H. Lavery mentions points of law; but whoever sup-L,. Roche

1). Teahan plied the hon. member with his Informa-F. WUillsOC tion was again wrong, because the mainJ. S. wise decisions of the board are not decisions ofE. Baxter

(Teller.) law but fact. Ninety per cent. of themare in that category. We want the whole

Murray of these disputed decisions circulated--andH. Sipo for a good reason. Once a decision isMi. Thomson given, it will provide valuable informationK. Watson for the companies; and quite a lot of ex-D. WillmottF. GIlfflth pense will be saved, because they will be

(Teller.) able to deal with cases of a similar kindwithout sending them to the board.

No.Cunningham Hon. R. C. MATTISKE: The Chief Secre-

tar' is trying to create the Impression thatpassed. there are a lot of matters referred to the

board which are not disputes. I would likended: to ask what matters that are not disputes

come before the board.I move an The Chief Secretary: Quite a lot that is

not in dispute comes before the board.e word "Pas- Ho.RC.MTI E:G dns ebe struck out hne C.e Secrtary: oodnaes me!goed in lieu:- the ChllIefoSrtar:ohvent.othe monthsthfulifraon

ptember and Hon. R. C. MArI'ISKE: This is some-ear the board thing on which I would like the Chiefor loose-leaf Secretary to get further information; be-the reasons cause if there Is no dispute, there is no

d, order, rul- reference to the board. This amendmentr decision in- proposes to eliminate all the minor dis-ktlon by the putes and boll it down to questions of law.

218[COUNCIL.

The Chief Secretary: What about thequestions of fact; which are 90 per cent.of the eases?

Hon. H. XC. WATSON: The answer to theChief Secretary's query is that all disputeson questions of fact are decided on thefacts of the particular case and do notcreate a Precedent. Questions of law docreate precedents. This amendment refersnot merely to questions of law but also toany other question which in the opinion ofthe chairman is of outstanding importance.

Amendment put and a division calledfor.

The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,I give my vote with the noes.

Division taken with the following re-sut,

Ayes ... .. 13Noes ... 14

Majority against .... 1

Ron. L,. 0, DiverHon' A. F. GriffithHon. J. 0. HisiopHon. Sir Chas. LathamHon. L. A. LoganHon. 0. MacKinnonHon. J. Murray

NonHon. N. E. BaxterHon. 0. BennetteNon. E. M. DaviesHon. 0. FraserHon. W. R. HailHon. E. M. HeenanHon. R. P. Hutchison

es.Iron. H. L. RocheHon. C. H. SimpsonHon. J. Mv. ThomsonHoD. H, K. WatsonIron. F. D. WuimotHon. R. C. MAtttfe

(Tellet.,,es.

Hon. Gl. H. JTefferyRon. A. Rt. JonesHon, F. R. H. Laverylion. J. D. TeabanHon. W. F. wmleseeHon. F, 3. a. wiseHon. J. J. Qarrigan

(Teller.)

Aye. No.Hon, J. Cunningham Bon. H. C. Strickland

Amendment thus negatived.Clause put and passed.Clause 10--Sections 29A and 2DB

added:Hon. At. C. MATIKE: I hope the Com-

mittee will not agree to this clause. Itprovides for the setting up of a jointcommittee in a manner which would becumbersome and costly, and. it would notachieve anything that Is not being doneunder the present system. There is atpresent a voluntary committee consistingof four representatives of the insurers andfour representatives of the British Medi-cal Association. The two sides, as it were,In turn appoint a chairman, and all theinquiries are conducted on a purely vol-untary basis.

The disputes that have been referredto the committee In the past have beensettled quite amicably, and the decisionshave been widely acclaimed. Under theproposed set-up, we would have a farmore cumbersome arrangement; and Ithink It would destroy one of the princi-pal factors in the successful operation ofthe committee. I mean that the goodwillof the parties would be taken away throughthe element of compulsion. I stronglyurge the Committee to let the voluntary

committee continue to operate and not toagree to the formation of this cumber-some joint committee.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: Actually theagreements reached by the voluntary bodyare purely gentlemen's agreements. WhileI understand that the members of the*3M.A. have generally a1bided by thoseagreem~ents, it has to be remembered thatthere are 20 or 21 doctors who are notmembers of the B,M.A. and are not boundby the committee's decisions. The pur-pose of the amendment Is to establish thecommittee as a statutory body withpowers over the whole of the medicalfraternity in this State and not only thosein the B.M.A.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon". How manytroubles of that type have you had upto date?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I do notknow that there have been many. but Ido know that only last week there wasa little argument.

Hon. G. C. MacKinnon: Was it over-come all right?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I[ do notknow the conclusion that was reached.The point Is that the person concernedis not a member of the B.M.A., and thereis nothing to bind him.

Hon. A. F. GRIFFITH., I would liketo ask the Chief Secretary whether it isnot a fact that the decisions of the com-mittee in the past have been, al-most without exception, completely unani-mous, and that the difficulties encounteredhave been so small that they would notbe of any consequence. If that is not thecase, would he do more than suggest thatthere has been only one case of dispute?

Hon. J. 0. HISLO)P: I spoke againstthis clause at the second reading. I saidI thought it was ill-advised and unneces-sary. The situation as it exists has beenadmirably placed before the Committeeby Mr. Mattiske. There is the difficultyof which the Chief Secretary spoke, inthat certain doctors are not members ofthe E.MA. But they are all membersof the profession and have to rely to avery large extent on the co-operation theygive to other members of the professionand receive from those other members.They are not outside the B.M.A. becauseof misbehaviour. It is simply that theydo not like Joining associations, but theyare amenable to reason, in the main.

There is no difficulty about this at all.If a member of the profession who isnot a member of the association refusesto do what is requested by this commit-tee, the Act may be called Into opera-tion, because years ago there was a pro-vision along those lines inserted in themeasure. All that is necessary is that acomplaint be madle to the board and the

2918

(5 December, 1956.1

board can then carry out an investigationInto the conduct of any registeredmedical practitioner.

Instead of that we are asked now toagree to this statutory committee. Iwould inform members that some mem-bers of my profession have resented cer-tain of the committees appointed by theCommonwealth Government under thenational health scheme, and I think thisprovision would create disharmony andthat we should therefore allow the presentposition to remain.

Members of the Profession who havebeen on this committee told me recentlythat in the 25 years or more during whichIt has functioned it has worked exceed-ingly well, and I see no reason for settingup an elaborate committee and paying themembers' expenses. Under the proposalbefore us the side appointing a chairmanwould be at a disadvantage because thechairman has no casting vote. As againstthat, a committee of eight, if the chair-man had a deliberative vote, could reacha deadlock on many issues.

A further difficulty is that over the yearsan arrangement has been made betweenthe B.M.A., the underwriters and insurerbodies as to the fees charged, and recentlyI obtained from the 3.VLA. a printed listof the fees which have been accepted bythat body and the insurers. That list wasarrived at by amicable agreement; butunder the mesaure, it would only need oneside to say it did not want the agreementaltered, and no new agreement could bemade, owing to the wording of the clause.

It is easier to fix a schedule of feesunder a gentlemen's agreement thanunder a provision such as this, becauseit would allow either side to use the veto,just as Russia has so often done. I againask the Committee not to agree to theclause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I cannotunderstand Dr. Hislop raising his pointabout the method of appointment andoperation of the committee, because theclause would preserve the status quo ex-cept that we desire the committee to bemade a statutory body; because there isalso provision for wiping out the £100 feeand, if that Is agreed to, the sky will bethe limit, We think it wise to have astatutory body to ensure that the feesclaimed are justified. When the restric-tions were lifted In Victoria the fees roseconsiderably, and therefore we prefer astatutory committee rather than the pre-sent voluntary body which has no controlover a section of the medical profession inthis State.

Hon. J. G, HISLOP: I take it discus-sion on a subsequent clause Is allowed, Mr.Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN: The Chief Secretarydid refer to a subsequent clause.

Ron. J. 0. HISLOP: The members ofthe B.M.A. on this committee are all busymen and some are members of many otherbodies and subcommittees, and I think thatthis clause would be placing on them animpossible task as it would be asking themto supervise the fees of about 600 doctors.

Hon. E. M~. Heenan: Is there not a scaleoif fees laid down?

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: That is not thePoint. There are other charges over whichdifficulty can arise and the work of thestatutory committee could be enormous.Eventually the E.M.A. might refuse to act,and then Parliament would have to formsome other statutory body for the purpose.Again I say that the Wvhole of the clauseshould be struck out. Admittedly there aremebmbers of the profession who are of frailnature, and If the fees are raised the in-aureis will question them and disputes tillarise.

Clause put and a division called for.The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,

I give my vote with the ayes,Division taken with the following re-

suit:-Ayes ..Noes ..

12.... .... 15

Majority against

Ayes.Hon. 0. Bennettg Ron. 0.Non. , . M. Davies Hon. F.Hon. 0. Fraser Hon. J.Hon. W. R. Hall Bon. W.Hon, E, M5. Heenan Hon. F.Hon. H. F. Hutchison Hon. 3..

Noes.non. N4, R. Hazier Hon. H.Hon. L. C. Diver Hon. J.:Hon. A. F. Griffit H-on. H .Hon. J. 0. Hislop lion. 0.Hon. A. R. Jones Hon. 3.Hon. Sir Chas. Latham Hon. F.Hon. L. A. Logan Eon. H.Hon. 0. MacKinnon

Pair.

3

E. JefferyR. H. LaveryD. TeahanF. wieseeJ. S3, wiseJ. Oarrlgsn

(resler.)

a. MattiakeMiurrayL. HocheH. SimpsonE.ScI. Thomson2). WillmottK. Watson

(Tefler.)

Hon. 8. 0. Strickland Hon. 3. Cunningiiam

Clause thus negatived.Clause 1 1-agreed to.Clause 12-Frst Schedule, Clause 1

amended:-Mon. H, K. WATSON: I had hoped the

Committee would delete this clause. How-ever, I1 notice that there are one or twoamendments on the notice paper. So Itwould seem that we had better deal withit paragraph by paragraph. I move anamendment-

That paragraph (a), lines 17 to 20,page 8, be struck out.

This is a consequential paragraph whichrefers to the maximum compensation. Itproposes to increase the amount from£2,400 to £3,000. The arguments which

2920 (COUNCIL.]

applied to previous clauses apply withequal force to this paragraph. Previously,the maximum was increased from £1,700to £2,400, plus the addition of basic wageadjustments. This Paragraph seeks to up-set that provision.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I hope theCommittee will not agree to the amend-ment. Ur. Watson has said that it isa consequential paragraph, but it is notIn the true sense of the word. This clauserelates to the widow of the deceased workerwho receives the payment. I ask any hon.member: How would he like his widowto be left with even £3,000 after he hadbeen killed? Have there been no rises,apart from those in the basic wage, since1964? I always deal with the figure inthe Act, which fluctuates. I have been inthis Chamber when the figure has beendown. The actual amount in the Act atthe moment is £2,500.

I have a newspaper here in which itis reported that a doctor claimed a bill for£1,092. However, there is another reportof a farm-hand being awarded £8,000 forgeneral damages. Yet we are being toldhere that we cannot grant £3,000 to thewidow of a worker who is killed at hiswork.

Hon. H. IC. Watson: Will you pursueyour story about the £8,000 damages beingawarded? That amount was granted undercommon law. The same rights apply here.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: That is justthe difference. Here we have a law underwhich we set down the maximum amountwhich the widow of a deceased workercan obtain; and yet, under another law,a man can be awarded £8,000 for generaldamages. All we are asking is an increaseof £300 to £400 over what was awardedtwo or three Years ago.

Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: I think wemust Protest at the attitude of the ChiefSecretary, who is trying to imply that webelieve that a breadwinner Is not worth£3,000 to his wife. I am quite sure thatevery member is firmly convinced that ifIt were in his Power he would like to seea widow get £20,000 or £30,000. But weare dealing with a workers compensationBill.

The Chief Secretary: I do not carewhat it Is.

Hon. E. M. Davies: It is dealing withmen who lose their lives in industry.

Hon. 0. C. MaCKINNON: If I insuremy life for £2,000, that is what my wifegets, Plus bonuses. Therefore, that is whatmy life is worth to my wife. This Actat no time envisaged the assessing of theactual value of what a man would beworth to his wife.

Hon. R. P. Hutchison: Who said that?

Hon. 0. C. MdacKINNON: The ChiefSecretary said that. He was contradictedby hm. Hutchison, who said that the Gov-ernment's policy was to reimburse com-pletely. The whole Purpose of this Act isto alleviate suffering. The legislationdealing with war pensions does not setout to assess the actual value of damagesincurred to a greater extent than thedamages granted at common law. There-fore, the Chief Secretary set out to mis-lead the Committee.

The Chief Secretary: I never misleadanybody. That is not a fair statement.I could ask for a withdrawal, but I donot believe in that.

Hon. G. C. MacKflqON: The ChiefSecretary made a comparison with whatIs awarded under common law, where thejudge endeavours to assess the economicvalue of the damages sustained by anyperson. This Bill endeavours to assess,under a system, what would be partial

reopense.Hon. Sir Charles Latham: It Is a kind

of insurance for which a premium is paid.Hon. G. C. MaCKINNON: Yes; a pre-

mium is paid, for which a certain valueis returned. If we want national in-surance, let us have it. If one man werereceiving £4,000 a year on the basis setout under this Bill, obviously his recom-pense would be much higher than thatof a man who was getting only £1,000. Itis not a good comparison to bring inmatters that are contested under commonlaw. The Chief Secretary should en-deavour to prove his case. To base hisargument concerning the provisions con-tained in this Bill upon a common-lawcase is not an argument at all. This isa question of insurance, and the other isa common-law matter. The two thingsare poles apart. Nobody denied that wewould all be extremely happy if we couldselect every person who was receiving lessthan £1,000 and give him a courtesy pay-ment of £1,000 with which to have a goodtime.

The Chief Secretary: We do not wanta good time; we want Justice.

Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON:not dealing with that typeare dealing with insurance.

But we areof thing; we

The Chief Secretary: That is the pointI made.

.Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: The ChiefSecretary quoted a common-law case.

The Chief Secretary: I quoted a thirdParty insurance case.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: The ChiefSecretary should read the whole of thenewspaper report concerning the case.*

Hon. H. F. HUTCISON: As I said dur-ing the second reading debate, we have notreached the standard of fairness that

E5 December. 1956.] 92

should be shown In workers' compensa-tion legislation, especially in regard to thisclause. The Commonwealth Labour Party,when it takes office again-which I amsure it will very shortly-intends, not tomake a lump-sum Payment to the widow ofa deceased worker, but to make a paymentwhich is equal to the full amount of herhusband's wages up to a maximum of £25a week: that is, while she still is left withdependants.

I cannot follow Mr. MacKinnon'sreasoning when he refers to a comparisonbetween cases that come under thisworkers' compensation Bill and otherswhich are decided at common law. We arestill dealing with men's lives and those oftheir widows and children. Members are 50years behind the times with this legislation.For a widow who loses her husband in anaccident in industry, £3,000 is not a greatamount. We are taking extremely slowsteps in the progress of workers' com-pensation because of the opposition wehave. Each decade we strive to get themembers of society to seek better things.But what is the use of seeking these im-proved standards If we cannot make theworld a better place to live In?

We are tired of the hardship that issuffered by workers. Industry Is well ableto pay workers' compensation premiums.After all, money Is only a means of ex-change and should be shared by the massof the people. I hope this clause will besupported. Society has a moral duty tothe wife and family of a deceased worker.and £3,000 is a fair and just amount.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I thinkthe lbon, member fails to realise this Is aform of insurance which industry has topay. But I do not know why industryshould be picked out and treated differentlyfrom anything else. We have anothersection of the community against whomwe are laying this char'ge, and that is thesmall storekeepers, who are as badly offas the workers. They go out into theback country with very little money, butI do not hear the hon. member puttingup a story for them.

The Chief Secretary: They get a lot ofGovernment assistance.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I re-member some of the Government assist-ance in the past. I can tell the ChiefSecretary of a Labour Government whichmortgaged everything, including life in-surance Policies to ensure that people paidtheir interest to the Agricultural Bank.It is not my intention to allow a chargeto be put on industry and passed on tosomeone else who can ill afford to carryIt. Let us have a policy where we all pay,and compensate everybody. To hear thehon. member, one would think she wasspeaking to folk on street corners insteadof to intelligent people..

Hon. Rt. F. Hutchison: That is youropinion.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! I ask the hon.member to confine his remarks to theclause.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: Peopleshould not try to force terrific charges onto industry. I know what a person's lifeis worth; but I do not feel there are onlytwo sections of people-those who wereborn with wealth and those who were not.At the moment we are enjoying an era ofprosperity and are giving to the workersof this State a set of conditions of whichwe are very proud. However, we canreach a maximum; and if we go too far,It makes the £ worth a lot less as eachyear passes. It is silly. _

Hon. ft. F. Hutchison: Is it?Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: Yes.

The hon. member does not Influence mewith her ideas,

The CHAIRMAN: Order!Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I think

we have to be reasonable, but we mustnot make. any mistakes. I only wish Icould see five years ahead.

Hon. P. ft. H. Lavery: You have beensaying that for the last five years.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LLATHAM: I canremember when the hon. member was onlya boy. I have not forgotten the 1902period, nor the 1931-32 period, whenpeople had to sleep on the Esplanade.What could wealth and industry do forthem?

Hon. F. Rt. H. Lavery: We do not wantthose times again.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: No. Atthat time the goods we were producingwere unsaleable overseas. make no mis-take about It, this sort of thing will bringthose conditions on again! There comesa time when not only individuals arebankrupt, but industries too. We canonly charge for our industrial productswhat the world can pay, and our mainwealth comes from goods which we exportoverseas. The goldmining industry isalmost down to its minimum and cannotget much lower.

The CHAIRMAN: Order!Hon. Sfr CHARLES LATHAM: It is an

Industry that has to pay.The CHAIRMAN: The hon. member is

talking about things outside the subjectunder discussion.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: I wouldsay that If a miner were killed on themines, his widow would be compensated.That is why I referred to mines. I re-member conditions In 1902.

Hon. E. M. Davies: And in 1892, whenthe banks went broke and people flockedhere from the East.

2921

2922 [COUNCIL.]

The CHAIRlMAN: Order! I want mem-bers to understand that I do not intendthese interjections to continue. I drawthe attention of members to StandingOrders 395 and 398.

Hon. Sir CHARLES LATHAM: Thatperiod in New South Wales was broughtabout by the failure of primary industriesthere. I could easily be popular by say-ing "Yes" to a Provision such as this, butI am responsible and have to exercisecommonsense in these matters.

Hon. F. M. HEENAN: This clause simplyproposes to Increase the amount paid inthe event of a worker's death from £2,500,which it is at present, to £3,000. We havejust heard Sir Charles Latham putting upthe proposition that we have to be afraidof the future and cannot load industry.It is a familiar argument; and, with re-spect. I think that in recent years he hasused it more than ever before. If we lookdown St. George's Terrace we will flnd anarray of buildings which must be costingmillions of pounds; and In the Esperanceand Albany districts, and up north, theState is expanding. We have to be carefulnot to overload industry, but . the argu-ment about being afraid implies beingunjust to someone. Mr. Mattiske says thebasis of workers' compensation law is toalleviate and partially recompense.

Hon. R. C. Mattiske: Workers' com-pensation means what it says.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: Compensate.Hon. . C. Mattiske: Not wholly.Hon. E. M. HEENAN: It is not sup-

posed to.Hon. Rt. C. Mattiske: Therefore it is

partially.Hon. E. M. HEENAN: I am sure not

many members In this Chamber wouldagree workers' compensation is not de-signed to adequately or wholly compen-sate a worker. I agree there is a sectionwhich unfortunately always seems to missout. They are not working for anyone:they are not employed; and if they go tohospital they have to pay their own ex-penses and doctor's fees. However, thegreat number of people are employed Inindustry, and we cannot deny them theirrights simply because a few others missout in the process. My idea of workers'compensation law is that It shouldfairly and adequately, according to exist-Ing standards, compensate anyone who.through no fault of his own, is injuredor loses his life in employment. Surelythat is a fair and proper basis to work on.

This Is how It works unfairly at present:A man can be killed at work and hiswidow will receive £2,500. If he had lefthis work and were crossing the street andsomeone In a motorcar, driving In anegligent manner, killed, him, the widowwould be much better off. She would getthe amount which a Judge estimated hislife to be worth. The widow of a young

man with a great expectancy of life, orwhose earning capacity was high, wouldget a greater amount than Is providedhere.

Hon. A. Rt. Jones: She might not getanything.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: That is true. Iam assuming he was killed through nofault of his own. Surely the principle isthe same, and a life is worth so much. Itis not ma~ny Years since £600 was the totalamount, and it was a great struggle tohave it increased to £1,000. I do notthink anyone can logically argue that itis wrong for the Government to try to in-crease the present amount from £2,500 to£3,000.

Hon. H. K. Watson: Do you want tomake it £5,000?

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: No. Possiblyin the years to come it will be increased;but at the present time, £3,000 would bea fair thing. I am not saying that thisamount is adequate for a widow whosehusband has been killed, but as Mr. Mac-Kinnon has said, it is diffcult to make anestimate in hard cold money. Everyonewould like to give such a person £10,000or £30,000, but that is out of the question.

I think that £3,000 is rational and iswithin the Possibility of accomplishment.Frtunately in these days of safety devicesand so on not many men are killed atwork-and I think the percentage is beingreduced each Year. If we can reduce italmost to nil, that will be the happiestda of all. Today some members aredriving around in motorcars that cost£2,000.

Hon. A. R. Jones: They have had topay for them.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: Yes: but in-dustry must be in a fairly buoyant statefor members to be able to Pay for them.

Hon. . C. MacKINNON: Mr. Heenanmentioned that the widow of a man killedat work received £2,500, but if he werekilled when coming home from work.through the negligence of a motorcardriver, she could collect £8,000 or £10,000.

Hon. E. M. Heenan: I did not specifyany amount.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: Well, shecould collect something in excess of £2,500.This touches on a fundamental issue. thatIf an employer through negligence, bynot having proper safeguards, contributestowards a man's death, he is liable undera separate scale. The Workers' Com-pensation Act sets up, f rom an academicpoint of view, an artificial liability. Itis arbitrary and automatic.

Hon. E. M. Heenan: It Is not auto-matic.

Hon. 0. C. MdacKINNON: To a largeextent it is. If an employee injures him-sell in a modern factory equipped with

2922

[5 December. 1956.) 32

all safeguards, there Is an arbitrary andvirtually an artificial liability on the em-ployer. The extent of it is covered bythe amount of the premium paid.

The second instance quoted by Mr.Heenan concerned a man going home fromwork and being injured through negli-gence. This is a totally different matter.To compare that with workers' compensa-tion is not exactly fair, because it wouldbe comparable to an employer allowinga high speed belt or motor to operatewithout proper safeguards; or working hismen in a fatigued condition.

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: Members shouldknow what is in the Act. The sum of£3,000 is not the maximum that can bedrawn even today. It is possible for awidow to get more than £3,000 because£75 is provided for each dependent child.On top of that it is possible for a, widowto receive £2,600 in weekly payments whilethe worker is sick and then, when he dies,for her to receive another £800. Theposition is not quite as bad as is made out.

I remind members that In 1954 the totalamount payable to a widow was £1,900and we then increased it to £2,500, yetwe in this Chamber are accused of notgoing forward.

Hon. J, J. Garrigan: It Is not what weasked for.

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: That is so; butwe can, of course, give away other people'smoney without any trouble! The hon.member talks about giving a widow £25a week for life. That, of course, can bedone; but we have to exercise some respon-sibility. We are dealing with money paidIn by industry. The conditions we gavein 1954 are equitable. If members wantto include the widow In some other typeof fund, where she can get more, then itis someone else's pigeon; it is not the con-cern of workers' compensation. The pre-sent amount payable is, in my opinion,quite adequate.

Hon. 0, E. JEFFERY: Clause 12 Isprobably the most humanitarian one Inthe Bill. Some members have dealt withpast history, but I believe that a countrythat lives in the past has no future. Thesum of £3,000 is not too much to ask forthe widow of a worker. If a widow gets£3,000, spread over five years, It meansshe has about £12 a week on which torear a family. That is not a great amountthese days.

I live in an Industrial town where quitea few workers have been killed--some ofthem intimate friends of mine-and I havewitnessed the struggle their wives have hadto rear their families. Quite a few workersare purchasing their own homes, and inmost cases when a lump sum is receivedthe first thing that Is done is to f~inalethe payment on the home.

(100]

A lot has been said about the cost toindustry. This Is one circumstance in in-dustry where no one wants to make a claim,because most people want to see the bread-winner alive. The difference between£2,500 and £3,000 is quite small when com-pared to the total amount paid out inworkers' compensation.

Much has been said about workers be-Ing killed through the neglect of the em-ployer, and the widow then having theright to sue at common law. I have saton coroners' juries, and I know that tothese people a bird in the hand is worthtwo In the bush; that rather than take therisk of a legal action, they would settlefor the compensation. I suggest that theamount of £3,000 would, possibly payoff a home that was being bought andleave a small nest egg for the future. Icommend the clause.

Hon. J. J. GARRIGAN: I supported thisclause In 1954. and I support it again in1950. We did a good job on the selectcommittee, and we raised the amount bya few hundred pounds. People give theirlives to industry, and they are entitled tothe money. Take the mining industry. Aman might work in it when he is 21 yearsof age and then get married and have ayoung family, and get killed, and hisfamily would receive only £2.500. Thesemen are not employed for their good looks;they give their whole lives to the industryand the employers are making a profit outof them-commercialising their labour.Therefore, members should vote for thisclause as It stands.

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: A lot has beensaid about this clause and we have listenedto some Immoderate speeches. This is asimple measure, but I find myself in greatdifficulty regarding it. I would like tovote for this clause because it upholdswhat I have always said in this Chamber-that the widow Is deserving of every-thing we can give her. But when I madean attempt last time to do somethingabout it, the hand was held out and theysaid, "Yes, we will take that and every-thing else, too."

Therefore I am wary of increasing theamount In case I am left later on withhaving to increase a schedule which isbasically unsound; and everybody is be-ginning to realise that it is basically un-sound.' I would like to take the risk ofvoting for this clause, but I wish to makeIt quite clear that I shall vote against anyincrease In the schedule until such timeas it is amended on a proper basis.

Hon. R. C. MArflSKE: We had alengthy debate on this question this after-noon when we discussed the merits anddemerits of increasing the maximumamount for permanent and total incapa-city. Some of those who wanted the maxi-mum increased in that Instance said that

2923

2924 [COUNCIL.)

the wife who had to care for a per-manently incapacitated husband and chil-dren was at a far greater disadvantagethan a widow. Therefore, to be consist-ent, on this occasion we should reject themove to Increase the maximum amountand so agree to the amendment. I thinkI should refer to a statement or a half-statement made by the Chief Secretary.He read from a magazine where in Vic-toria a widow was granted compensa-tion-

The Chief Secretary: I did not.

Hon. R. C. MATfl[SKE: Very well,damages.

The Chief Secretary: I said that it wasa farm-hand, not a widow.

Hon. R. C. MIATflSKE: Damages tothe tune of £8,000 were granted. Hewants us to compare that £8,000 to £3,000In this instance. We cannot compare twothings which are poles apart. In onecase damages were awarded by thecourt because the death was caused throughthe fault of another party.

The Chief Secretary: It was not a deathat all.

Hon. R. C. MAfl'ISKE: Very well. In-Juries were suffered through the fault ofanother party. In this Instance, if deathoccurred through the fault of anotherparty, in addition to the amount payableunder the Workers' Compensation Act, anamount would be awarded under commonlaw for damages. It Is possible, if a workeris killed as a result of an accident, forhis widow to receive the full amount ofdamages awarded by a court of law. if thefault is attributable to a third party; andalso for the children to apply for and re-ceive the maimum amount payable underthe Workers' Compensation Act. There-fore In that instance the relatives wouldbe considerably better off than the relativesOf an individual killed outside his work. Inorder to be consistent we must apply thesame arguments to this as we applied tothe other case this afternoon.

Hon. F. R. H. Lavery: Why must we dothat?

Ron. A. R. JONE: I move-That the question be now put.

Motion put and passed.Amendment put and a division called

for.The CHAIRtMAN: Before the tellers tell,

I give mny vote with the noes.Division taken with the following re-

sult:-Ayes ...Noes ..

Hon. N. E. BaiterHon. A. P. GriffithHon. Sir Chas. LathamHom. L. A. LoganHon. 0. MacKinnonHon. R. C. MattiskeHon, J. Murray

Hon. 0. DennetteHon. L. C. DiverHon. 0. FraserHon. J. J. GarriganRon. W. R. HallHon. B. MA. HeenanMon. J. 0. Hisiop

W.Hon. H. L. RocheHon. C. H. SimapsonHon. J. M. ThomnsonRon. H. K. WatsonHon. F. D. WillmottHon. A. R. Jones

(Teller.)Noes.

Hon. R. F. HutchisonHon. 0. E. JefferyHon. F. R. H. LaveryHon. J. D. TeahanHon. W. F. WilleseeHon. F. J. S. WiseRon. E. M. Davies

(Teller.)Fair.

Aye. NO.Hon. J. Cunningham Hon. H. 0. Strickland

Amendment thus negatived.Hon. R. C. MA'rrISKE: I move an

amendment-That Paragraph (b) be struck out.

The whole of this paragraph breaks rightthrough the principle Act. Under the Actit is provided that a female, regardless ofher earning capacity, will, if injured, re-ceive benefits on a certain scale; and amale, regardless of his earnings, will re-ceive benefits on a certain scale. It doesnot matter whether a female worker isreceiving the basic wage or considerablyin excess of it, if she is Injured she re-ceives compensation at a fixed rate. There-fore this clause, by Providing that a femaleworker who may ordinarily be receivingwages at the same rate as a male shall betreated as a male for the purposes of thisAct, is entirely wrong In principle and Ihope the Committee will support thisamendment.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I hope theCommittee will not agree to this amend-ment and I cannot understand the sup-posed logic of the hon. member. Thereare two People. irrespective of sex, whoare drawing the same amount of money,and the hon. member says it is quite rightthat one should receive aL lesser rate, ifinjured at work, than the person workingalongside her, even though they are gettingthe same rate of pay.

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: Does a foremanget a greater rate of compensation thana labourer?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: That is notthe point at Issue.

Hon. G. C, MacKinnon: Just answer thequestion.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The foremanand the worker would not be getting thesame rate of pay.

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: But do they getthe same rate of compensation?

Tne CHIEF S REsTsAaR: If a male anda female are working alongside one another... .. ... 13 doing the same Job and getting the same

... 14 . rate of pay, and they are both injured,- why should one receive a lesser rate of

Majority against 1 compensation than the other? Do not let- us forget that this rate of pay has been

2924

(5 December, 1956.3 22

awarded by an Arbitration Court which hasinvestigated all the facts. Yet In thosecircumstances the hon. member says theyshould receive different treatment if theyare Injured. I cannot see the logic in hisargument.

Ron. R.. C. MArflSKE: I cannot under-stand the Chief Secretary's logic. Rightthrough the Act the principle is that a cer-tain amount of compensation will be paidto a male worker and a certain amount toa female worker, the reason being, obvi-ously, that under normal conditions themale worker has a wife and family tosupport; whereas under the same condi-tions the female worker has no suchresponsibility. It is possible that a manand his wife could be working and receiv-ing the same rate of pay.

The Chief Secretary: They would bothhave the same responsibility.

Hon. RL. C. MATflSKE: They would beconsidered as single individuals; but theman is still responsible under all laws forthe upkeep of the family and the home;and he has, therefore, an additional burdento carry. Surely the Chief Secretary is nottrying to tell us that in all cases the femalehas the same responsibilities as the male!If we are to include this provision then thewhole of the Act will need to go back intothe melting pot.

H-on. R, F. HUTfCHISON: There aremany women on the same rate of pay asmen.

Hon. N. E. Baxter:. Where?Hon. F. RL. H. Lavery; The barmen and

barmaids; and you should know aboutthem.

Hon. RL. P. HUTCHISON: More thantwo-thirds of the women that work havefamily responsibilities. Par more womenthan men look after parents and ailingrelatives. It is not logical to say that ifa woman is paid the same as a man andshe gets injured she should receive 16s.Instead of 20s. That is not lair at all.I hope the Committee supports the clause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: There Is lustone Point, namely that the same amount ofpremium would be paid for the one asthe other.

Hon. H. K WATSON: The Chief Secre-tary appeals for logic, but, that seems tobe singularly lacking In his submission.The Act states that the maximum wagefor a male shall be £12 8s. plus the basic-wage Increase, regardless of what hissalary is-whether It be £12, £16 or £20 aweek. The amount fixed for him hasnothing to do with the amount of salaryhe receives. Similarly, the Act states thatthe compensation payable to a female shallbe a maximum of £9 plus basic wage in-creases. Again that Is regardless of whatthe female is earning. Logically there Isno reason why a woman should be given

Increased compensation because she hap-Pens to be getting more than other femaleseven though she may be drawing as muchas the male.

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Ayes ... .. 1. ... 1 13Noes .. .. ... .. 13

A tie ..

Ron. N. E. BaxterRon, A. F. GriffithRon. J. 0. HlisiopHon, A. ft. JonesHon. L. A. LoganRon. 0. MacKinnonHon. 1R. 0. Mattiske

0£7.1

Hon. G. BennettsHon. E. M. DaviesHon. L. C. DiverHon. 0. FraserHon. J, J. GarriganHon. E. M , HeenmnHon. R. F. Hutchison

Pali

Hon, J. MurrayRon. C. H, SimpsonRon. J. M. ThomsonNon, IL K. WatsonHon, F. D. 'WillmottHon. H. L. Rocbe

(Teller.)

Non. 0. E. JefferyHlon. Sir Chas. LatbamHon. J1. D. Teahan.Hon. W. P. WillesseHon, F. J.. S. WiseHon, F. H. H. Lavery

(Teller.)

Aye. NO.Hon. J. Cunningham Hon. H. 0. Strickland

The CHAIRMAN: The voting being equalthe question passes In the negative.

Amnendment thus negatived.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: I move an amend-ment-!

That paragraph (g).* on page 9, bestruck out.

The Act provides the maximum com-pensation to the male shall be £12 8s.plus the basic wage increases. At themoment that figure is £13 3a. ld. It seemsas though some bright boy at Trades Hallhas said, "See if you can get another10s.' .1 object to the clause on principle.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I hope theCommittee will not agree to the amend-ment. Again the hon. member is notcorrect. The amendment Is not ioe but7s. 11. There are no bright boys from theTrades Hall in the Chamber at present,but I can see other interested people herewho are certainly not from the Trades Hall.I know where the Interest lies. How manyworkers today receive the basic wage?.

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: Fifty per cent.

The CHll SECRETARY: And the re-mainder are getting more, are they not?There are not a great number of workersreceiving the basic wage; and, for thatreason, we consider It is reasonable thatthey should get this few shillings above thebasic wage. 'it Is more in conformity withthe amount they are receiving. When theAct was first framed and the basic wagewas inserted, many of the workers receivedonly the basic wage. This is a method ofshowing that progress has been made..

Amendment put and a division calledfor.

2925

[COUNCIL.)

The CHAmRMAI give my vote N

Division takeresult:-

Ayes ..Noes ..

Majorit

Ron.Hon.Hon.Hon.Ron.Hon.Ron.HOD.

Hon.Hon.Ron.Hon.Ron.Ron.

L. C. DiverA. F. Unifit?J. 0. HislooA. R. JonesSir Chas. LoL. A. Logan0. MacKinnR. C. Mattisi

0. DannettsZ. M. Davies0. FraserJ. J. Garriga.W. H. HallB. M. Heena,

:t Before the tellers tell, I ask that they be taken together becausevith the noes. they have the same import. This is an with the following laudable attempt to do something in con-

nection with a matter which will ulti-15 mately become a serious problem-and

.... .... .... 15 that is, the hospital care of a seriously* -- ... ... 12 injured worker. The previous custom was

,y or .. ... - that if a seriously injured worker claimedy forcompensation under the Act, he would be

-yi treated in some private hospital in theHOn. J. Murry country or in the city; if in the latter

h Hon. H. L. Rochie possibly in St. John of God Hospital whichHon. C. H. Simpson in those days made a considerable reduc-Hon. J. M. Thomson

tham Hon. H. K. Watson tion for treatment of injured workers.Hon. P. D. Wiiiznott When the amount of money Provided by

an Hon. N. N. Baxter the Act was exhausted, the injured workeraNoes, Tle. would be transferred to a Public hospital,

Hon. R. F. Hutchison maybe to a public bed, or he might beHon. 0. E. Jeff ery brought down to the Royal Perth Hospital.Hon. V. Ri. H. Lavery

.n Hon. J. D. Teahan There he would be treated by one of theHon. W. F. Witiesee honorary staff.

0 Hon.Pair.

Aye.Eon. J. Cunningham, Eon.

r. a. S. wise(Teller,

No.H. C_ Stikland

Amendment thus passed.Hon. H. K. WATSON: I move an

amendment-That paragraph (h), on page 9, be

struck out.I would much prefer to see the wholeclause deleted. This paragraph refers toadjustments of the limit. I can describeit as consequential.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I also claimthat this paragraph is consequential, butIt is consequential on an amendment car-ried in this clause, and not consequentialon another amendment to the Bill.

Amendment put and a division takenwith the following result:-

Majority for .... .... 2

Ayes.Hon. N. E. BaxterMon. A. F. GriffithHon. J. U. HislopH5on. A. Rt. JonesBon. Sir Chas. LathamHon. P. R. H. LaveryHon. G. 1xiaKinnon

Ron.Hon.HOD.Hon.Hon.Hon.

0. BonnetteE. M. DaviesL. C. Diver0. FraserJ. J. GarriganE. M. Heenan

Noes

Hon. R. C. MattlakeHanl. J. MurrayHon. H. L. RocheHon. C. H. SimpsonHon. J. U. Thomsonson. H. K. Watsonlion. F D. Wlllmott

(Teller.)

Eon. 0. F. SefferyHon. P. R. H. Lavery,Hon. J. fl. TeahanHon. W. P. WilieseHon. F. J. S. WiseHon. R. P. Hutchison

(Teller.)Pair.

Aye. No.Hon. J. CunnIngham Hon. H. C. Strickland

Amendment thus passed.Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I move an amend-

ment- -That paragraphs (I), (j) and (k).

on Page 9, be struck out.

In days gone by, when hospitals did notmake any charge for the occupancy ofbeds, such a person had no liability inrespect of the treatment of his condition.The result was that no great burden wasplaced on the injured worker by the factthat the money available to him had beenexhausted. But times have changed andhospitals find themselves In considerablefinancial difficulty.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I would askthe mover to restrict his amendment toparagraphs (j and (M) because Para-graph (I) seeks to delete the words "orsurgical"; whereas, at present, surgicaltreatment comes within the £100. On thenext page of the Bill it Is set out thatsurgical treatment Shall not be included.If the paragraph In question is struck outthere will be an anomaly.

Hon. J. 0. HIBLOP: I seek leave toalter my amendment in the terms sug-gested by the Chief Secretary.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: The conditions inhospitals have radically altered and theyare in financial difficulties. The result isthat after a seriously injured worker hasexhausted the money available under com-pensation, he will be presented with a Bilfrom the public hospital. If that were theonly side of the story, then either theparagraphs as they stand, or the amend-ment which I have put forward would bereasonable; but the following possibilitycomes Into the picture :-Under thenational health service and the HospitalBenefit Fund, the State would have topay the whole of the cost for hospitaltreatment of the Injured worker If thefunds under the Act were exhausted.While the worker Is still under workers'compensation. I believe that neither thenational health service nor the HospitalsBenefit Fund is liable to pay anythingto the injured Person.

15 December, 1956.] 2927

Hon. L. A. Logan: He cannot claimhospital fees while he is under compensa-tion.

Hon. J. . HISLOP: The result Is thatif we take the limit of hospital chargesaway, it looks as though the State willbear the whole burden of the extraamount: whereas if the limit is left, andsome arrangement is arrived at to providethat the worker is insured for the mini-mum of the hospital benefits then the costsof maintenance by the State would bereasonable. The difficulty is that undermy amendment the same thing exists. Iask the Committee to agree to the deletionof paragraphs (j) and (k); but I wouldask leave to withdraw my further amend-ment so that considerable thought mightbe given by those interested In this mat-ter to see that something real is done forthe injured worker.

We are not Justified in making the Statepay the whole cost when there is a Com-monwealth benefit fund to be used; nor canI agree that we should expect a workerto insure himself to the maximum in casehis injury exceeds £150 for treatment.Some arrangement must be come to be-tween the parties as to the best method ofarriving at a solution to this very seriousproblem.

The whole of this Dill looks after the manwith a minor injury and does little for aman with a serious injury. A completealteration Is necessary; and in future weshould focus our attention on compensatinga man for serious Injury and forget themonetary details at the back of it. Whenwe do that, we will come to some definitearrangement about the hospital costs ofthese patients.

As regards the medical costs, they arenot very great We had a meeting of thecommittee of the British Medical Associa-tion Council to inquire Into the possiblefinancial loss to members of the profes-sion by the limiting of this amount to £.100for medical expenses; and, at the verymost, we could not imagine that the in-creased costs that would arise would bemore than £2,000 per annum.

But it must be remembered that if thewhole cost is lifted, we may find a Con-siderable number of cases cropping upover the £100; and whereas we feel thatthe profession may lose about £2,000 onthe present system, we would have greatdifficulty in Policing the Act efficiently ifthis clause were allowed. So I suggestthat until we can get together on this mat-ter and see whether we can do somethingto protect the seriously injured In regardto hospital costs, Paragraphs (j) and (k)should be deleted.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: So long asI can be sure that the hon. member in-tends to move his further amendment, Iwill raise no objection to this proposal.

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I do not thinkI can do that. In the first amendmentthat the Bill proposes the limit is takenoff the total amount of fees available forthe treatment of the worker. My amend-ment was designed to get over that diffi-culty by suggesting that either the medicalPractitioner or the injured worker couldapply to the board for the right to increasethe fees. But there is still that same diffi-culty that when the board did decide toraise the fees, the State would carry thewhole burden: because the man would stillcome under workers' compensation, and nomatter what he paid to the Hospital Bene-fits Fund, that would not contribute to hishospital maintenance. I think we are onlyplacing a burden upon ourselves when, bypostponing consideration of this altogether,we could arrive at a conclusion whichwould be satisfactory to all concerned.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I was ask-ing whether the hon. member was goingon with his amendment on the noticepaper.

Hon. J. 0. Hislop: No.The CHIEF SECRETARY: if he had,

I was going to be co-operative and accepthis further amendment.

Hon. J. 0. Hislap: I will wait and seewhat hapens to paragraphs (j) and (k)before I do anything else. They both havethe same difficulty.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I would notOppose the amendment if I knew that thehon. member would move his furtheramendment on the notice paper. ThePosition Is altered if I do not knowwhether the hon. member will move hisfurther amendment. I know there arecomplications; but, earlier, I mentionedthat later on we proposed to lift the lidso far as expenses were concerned. Thatis why I wanted statutory authority.

I thought there was something in thehon. member's proposed amendment whichwould be satisfactory. If I have no guar-antee that that will be moved, however,I must oppose the deletion of paragraphs(J) and (k). We consider that with theProtection of the board there would beno necessity for these limitations. As amatter of fact, I think It would be bet-ter if we went back to the old orderwhere there was permission to go beyondthe figure stated in the Act.

Hon. 3. G. Hislop: I do not mind Ifwe go back to the old order and it isacceptable. This only intends to do whatwas done before.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: We wantedto do something to rectify a position wethought needed rectifying; and the onlyway we could see that it could be donewas to have inserted paragraphs (j) and(k) which take out the maximum of £100and £150.

LCOtINCfl.1

Ron. J. G. ISLOP: Would the ChiefSecretary agree to report progress or post-Done consideration of this clause withthe idea of our getting together and us-ing the Hospital Benefits Fund in orderto prevent the whole cast over £150 falling,on the State? I think he can see what Iamn driving at. I do not see any reasonwhy we should put a burden on our-

:selves when there is a Hospital Benefitstpund that can be used.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: They have tobe subscribers. How would you ensurethat?

Hon. J. C. HISLOP: I do not know.Ron. Sir Charles Latham: You would

have to compel them to be subscribers11 they are to be tied.

Eon. J. 0. HISLOP: I feel that if anindividual has not the communal senseto accept what is almost a national hos-pital insurance, we cannot expect someother section of the community to be re-sponsible for the whole of his hospitalcosts. So long as he has that offer bythe Commonwealth to insure himself andhe insures himself to the minimum, any-thing in excess should be paid for underthe Workers' Compensation Act. But Ido not think we are Justified in loadingthe State with the whole of the Bill whenthere is Commonwealth money whichcould assist us. I would be quite willingto spend time with the Chief Secretaryto see whether it is possible to make analteration in his clause or my amend-ment which would fit the occasion.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I am afraidtime is running out. How would the hon.member view an increase In medical ex-penses by another £50 or E100, with thepermission of the board: and then be-tween now and the next session we couldgo into the matter of seeing about theother medical fund he has in mind?

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I would not mindIf there were no increase in the medicalfees If we could find some way of meet-ing the problem I have outlined.

Amendment put and passed.Clause, as amended, put and a division

called for.The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,

I give my. vote with the ayes.Division taken with the following re-

suit:-AyesNoes

Majority for ..

Ayes.Hon. G. flennettaRon. E. M. DaviesHon. L. C. DiverHon. Ci. FraserEon. J. J. GarriganBan. W. R. Haill

Ron. E. Mi. Heenan

.... .... .... 1413

Hon. J. 0. H1sHon. 0. E. JetfHon. P. R. H.Hon. J. D. TeaHon. W. F. WiHon. F. J. 8.'Hon. R. F. Hu

No"s.Eon.Hon.Hon.Hon.Hon.Hon.Hon.

N. E. EfltarA. F. GriffithA. R. JonesSir Chas. LathamnL. A. Logan,0. MacKinnonR. C_ Mattiske

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

J. MurrayC. H. SimpsonJ. M. ThomsonHf. K. WatsonF. D. WlllmottH. L. Roche

(Te ll".)Clause, as amended, thus passed.Clause 13-First Schedule, Clause 3, re-

pealed and re-enacted:Hon. H. K. WATSON: I would ask the

Committee to vote against the clause. Atthe moment the Act provides that a Per-son who Is partially unfitted and is work-Ing for less than his pre-accident paymust receive the difference between hispre-accident pay and, his present earnings.subject to the maximum weekly limit fixedunder the Act. which is two-thirds of histotal salary. It was never the intentionthat the injured employee should receivefull compensation for his financial loss.Paragraph (a) of the clause cuts acrossthat principle aind would give a man noinducement to return to work as it wouldallow him to draw the full amount of hissalary.

In effect, paragraphs (b) and (c) saythat a partially unfit worker who cannotfind employment shall receive full weeklycompensation, and in view of the wordingof subparagraph (b) I think the pro-visions of Paragraph (c) are unlikely to beused. That subparagraph provides that ifthe employer cannot find light work forthe injured employee full weekly com-pensation must be paid and under thisprovision he would need to make no effortto secure suitable employment from anyother source. The provisions of Clause 3of the First Schedule have operated satis-factorily for many years and there shouldbe something to prevent malingering andcompel a man to return to work as soonas possible. I think we should voteagainst the clause.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: This clause Is apoor attempt at rehabilitation. Five orsix years ago the board was given autho-rity to set aside funds for rehabilitationof Injured, workers and to make inquirieswith a view to preventing accidents.Those associated with the treatment ofinjured workers realise that their re-habilitation Is a difficult task. I think wecould dispense with this clause and thennext Year amendments covering rehabili-tation could be brought before thisChamber.

- Earlier in the year the Minister1 appointed a committee to investigate re-

- habilitation, and It has reached definiteconclusions. All concerned desire that a

slop rehabilitation centre or organisation belaey set up to rehabilitate the injured worker

han without loss of time and with benefit toUoses him and the. community generally. ThisWise cas ol eoeteicniet etehison cas oldrmv h ncniet e(Teller.J turn to work and would make it mandatory

[5 December, 1956.122

for the employer to find work for the in-jured employee, which I think is the func-tion of the rehabilitation organisation. Inview of the progress made, and the accept-ance by the Minister of certain sugges-tions, I think definite proposals regardingrehabilitation will be brought before thisChamber next year, and then we will beable to set up a rehabilitation organiza-tion such as I have mentioned.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I agree withDr. Hislop's remarks regarding rehabilita-tion; but until a rehabilitation OrganizationIs established, we want to give the Injuredworker this extra payment. I do not agreewith Mr. Watson that the Injured workerwould indulge in malingering and wouldnot lock for a job.

Hon. H. K. Watson: Why should he lookfor work?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: If the em-Ployer offered suitable work and theemployee would not take it he would notreceive the extra compensation. This Isonly a stopgap until the whole question ofrehabilitation can be properly dealt with.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I do not see how wecan place on the employer the onus ofobtaining work for the injured worker. IsIt suggested that he should try to per-suade someone else to employ an injuredman if he cannot do so? The injuredworker must be educated Into doing someother job and the employers must beeducated into employing partially incapac-itated men. It may be only In the biggerestablishments that work will be found forsuch people. We are not justified in sayingthat the employer should look elsewherefor posts for men that he cannot employ.

Hon. E. Mv. HEENAN: I agree with whatDr. Hislop has said but feel that untila. rehabilitation organisation Is establishedwe should agree to the clause. I have oftenseen men discharged from hospital andable only to take light employment. Suchmen are hard to place and the proposal isthat their condition should be treated astotal incapacity and that they should bepaid accordingly until the employer canobtain suitable light work for them. Anemployee is not incapacitated through hisown fault.

Hon. H. K. Watson: He might be.Hon. E. Mi. HEENAN* Then he would get

no compensation.Hon. H. K, Watson: Yes, he could.

Hon. E. Mi. HEENAN. The Act says thatif it Is proved that the Injury to the workeris attributable to his serious and wilfulmisconduct he need receive no compensa-tion. That has happened In Kalgoorlie ona number of occasions.

Hon. L. C. Diver: But Is the workerpenalised under the Act for that sort ofthing?

Hon. E. M. HEENAN, He is penalizedthrough not receiving compensation. Iknow a man who lost his band throughflouting the directions of the shift boss, andthe court would not award compensation.

Hon. L. C. Diver: Such was not myexperience.

Hon. E. Mv. HEENAN: Perhaps the hon.member has worked on farms all his life,but all my life I have been connected withmen who work In the mining industry.Another man had two fingers blown off asa result of clamping the end of a detona-tar with his fingers. He should have usedsome implement that is provided for thispurpose and consequently the court re-fused to grant that worker any compensa-tion.

Hon. Sir Charles Latham: The clamp-ing together of the ends of a detonatoris a stupid practice, but the miners stilldo it.

Sitting suspended from 10.16 to 10.30 p.m.

Hon. E. M. HEENAN: There is no obli-gation on an employer. Uf a man Is offeredsuitable work and does not take It, thatis the end of it. It Is a problem to allconcerned. Doctors do their best and tella man he can engage only In a certainclass of work. If he were to defy thedoctor's Instructions and engage In some-thing heavier or more onerous and injurehis beant or leg again, he would not getany compensation. That would amount tomisconduct. If he is told he can engageonly in light work and he defies the In-structions, and his complaint starts all.over again he is out as regards compensa-tion. Surely it is someone's obligation tofind him a job; and until he gets work,he should be regarded as totally In-capacitated.

Clause put and a division taken withthe following result:-

Noes .. .... .... .... 15

Majority against

Ayes.Hon. G. DennettaRon. E. M0. DaviesHon. 0. FraserRon. J. J. Garrlgan'Ron. E. M. HeenanBon. R. P. Hutchison

NoesHon. N. E. BaxterHon. L. C. DiverHon. J. 0. HislopHon, A. R. JonesHon. Sir Cites. LathamnHon. L. A. LoganRon. 0. MakcKinnonHon. R. C. Mattiske

4

Hon. 0. 3. JefferyHon. F. R. H. LaveryRon. W. F. Witleseelion. F. J. a. wiseHon. J. D, Teahan

(Teller.)

Hon. J. MurrayHon. H, L. RocheHon. C. H. SimpsonHon. J. M0. ThomsonHon. H. K. WatsonRon, F. D. WlllmotHon. A. P. Griffith

(Tellr.)Pail.

Aye. No.Hon. H. C. Strickland Hon. J. Cunningham

Clause thus negatived.

2929

rcouzqTcmJ

Clause 14-First Schedule, Clause 7,amended:

Mon. J. 0. HISLOP: This clause shouldbe reviewed very carefully by the Cham-ber. I am not certain that it does whatIt is intended should be done. It is:likely to be dangerous. It provides thatwhere an injured worker refuses to obtaintreatment, when so required, his right to-weekVi Payments is suspended. I do notthink we should bind a worker to accept;tceabment.

-1 have been assisting a man who has'bad opinions from five specialists, in thesame branch of work, regarding his con-dition. Same have suggested an opera-tion, same that it might be better to lettime take its course, and one that whilstan operation might do no harm it mightor might not relieve the condition. Inview of the doubtful information ex-pressed by the specialists, the man feelshe Is entitled to use his own judgment, andI think quite rightly so. If we take thisright away from him and say that if hegoes to a specialist and does not take theadvice, he will lose his weekly paymentswe do something that is unjust. I am notprepared to do that at the present stage.

At present In the Act there is a sectionproviding that if a man does not submitto a, hernia, operation when It Is advised.'his payments are suspended or he Is sub-ject to some other penalty. That is ratherdifferent from the position here becausewe know that the treatment for that-particular condition is surgical, but there,can be varying opinions about otherinjuries.

I realise that what lies behind this Is-an attempt to get the worker to have-specialist advice earlier than has been theease in the past. But I do not think thiswill help the position. The rehabilitationcommittee has discussed the problem, andwe believe that a more detailed first cer-tificate of the man's accident would getover many of the difficulties that this pro-vision is designed to cover.

it is also a firmly expressed opinion ofthe committee of the British MedicalAssociation that met with me to considerthe Bill, that a trial should be given tothe new first certificate, rather than goto this limit of saying to the worker thathe can go to a specialist and, having doneso, he must take the specialist's advice.We are not superhuman; even thespecialists In the profession make mis-takes, and they have different opinionsabout treatment.

The CHIEF SECRET'ARY: All we aretrying to do here is to help the worker.We think it is necessary that this be donein some cases because we have found byexperience that quite a lot of G.P's. hangon to a case too long: it ought to go toa specialist.

Hon. J. 0. Hislop: Take out the word"lot" and say "some" and I will agree.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I beg yourpardon-some O.P's. I have an instanceof a chap at Kal~goorlie who had a badlyfractured thigh. He was kept at Ktalgoor-lie for seven months when there wasobviously little possibility of the boneuniting. In fact, the medical officer ofthe State Insurance Office said in one re-port that the plate affixed was keepingthe ends of the bone apart. He discussedthe case with the Kalgoorlie doctor andrecommended removal of the plate andbone grafting which obviously was a jobfor an orthopaedic specialist. A furthermonth elapsed before any effort was madeto arrange for the patient to be trans-ferred to Perth for specialist treatment.

Another case in Kalgoorlie concerns aperson who received a serious injury to afoot which was partially amputated.Amputation at a higher level was Indi-cated. The State Insurance Office askedthat the local doctor should advise thepatient that he could elect to continuetreatment under him or go to Perth forspecialist treatment if he so desired. ThatInformation was niot conveyed to thepatient, who was retained at Kalgoorliefor a further two months and then, atthe request of the same doctor, wasbrought to Perth for specialist treatment.I have other cases that I can quote.

We want to avoid this sort of thing andthat Is why the provision is included. Wedo not want to dictate to a man and saythat he cannot choose his own doctor, butwe believe that some men are not thebest Judges of whether they are gettingcorrect treatment. I agree with Dr. Hislopabout the provision which takes the payfrom the man, and I will willingly acceptan amendment in connection with it. Inregard to the other part, it is just a ques-tion of whether what is in the Bill achieveswhat we want. I have had a suggestionmade that we should prefix the clausewith the following words:-

Where, following a clinical exam-ination. and/or an examination ofx-ray films the specialist is of theopinion that specialist treatment Isdesirable.

Would this get over the hon. member'sobjection?

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I have not thewording In front of me,. but it sounds abit difficult, because it appears as thoughthe specialist says that he wants to treatthe case.

The Chief Secretary: To an extent, thatIs so.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: This could causea good deal of ill-feeling in the profes-sion.

ES December, 1956.) 2931

The Chief Secretary: He would havethe choice of five or six.

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: Yes, but he hasbeen seen by one specialist. There aredifficulties, and there is very little needfor this. The unions could notify theirmembers that If they are injured theycan ask for specialist opinion very earlyin the piece. If I, or any member of myfamily, were injured I would want aspecialist's opinion very early in the treat-ment. The worker is entitled to havespecialist opinion.

Hon. E. M. Heenan: Would* not somelocal doctors resent that?

Hon. 3. 0. ISLOP: I do not knowthat we can worry about that aspect. Thesooner we realise that a specialist can helpa worker, the better for all concerned. Inthe Medical Act there is a section statingthat any medical man who refuses to ar-range a consultation commits an offenceagainst the Act. I think that all we needdo is to draw the attention of the workerto his rights under the Workers' Compen-sation Act. Only recently an insurancemanager called up the wife of an injuredworker, told her that he thought her hus-band was progressing too slowly, and sug-gested to her that a specialist be consulted.We can do that sort of thing without put-ting a section in the Act to cover it; andunless we tell the injured worker that hecan do what is set out in this Bill, nothingwill happen.

We should take steps to educate theworker and tell him his rights under thisAct. The unions and the insurance com-panies could issue a small pamphlet settingIt all out, and there would not be any needfor doubtful clauses such as this. I amcertain that when the rehabilitation com-mittee brings up its findings next yeara lot of these difficulties will disappear.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I was hop-ig we could have come to some amicable

arrangement on this point: and memberswill realise, If they read this clause, thatit is a step in the right direction. I havea medical man In whom I have full con-fidence; and if I were an injured workerI would not attempt to consult a specialistwhile he was Prepared to treat me. Butthe doctor could mislead me when special-ist treatment was really required. A pro-vision such as this should be in the Actand I hope the Committee will agree to it.If someone likes to move that paragraphOIil be struck out I would be prepared togive it consideration.

Hon. L, C. DIVER: I cannot agee withthe Chief Secretary. From the instancesthat the Chief Secretary read out, it Isobvious that the insurance company con-cerned was very Inx-much more thanusual in these instances. When a case

is going on for several weeks, as a rulethe company makes some inquiries as towhy the Patient is not improving. I agreewith Dr. Hislop that it is quite pertinentfor the company concerned to get in touchwith the relatives of the injured workerand suggest that he be sent for aspecialist examination. I do not thinkthere is any necessity for this clause.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: From experi-ences that have been mentioned to me Itwould seem that the views expressed byMr. Diver are more apparent than real.I heard of a case where a man had beensent to a hospital for a bad back-andthese back cases are awkward for insur-ance companies. The company concernedwas not satisfied and wanted a specialistcalled in. They approached the GK.attending this man and he said he wouldarrange to have a specialist examine thepatient. A fortnight went by and thecompany approached the doctor and hesaid that he wanted to treat the man foranother week or two before he called inthe specialist.

At the end of the week the company de-cided to ask the specialist to go down andexamine this man; and when he did so,he found that while he was in hospitalas a certified workers' compensation case,he was in fact suffering from cancer ofthe spine; and he died a week later. Itwas only by good luck the insurance com-pany had a specialist examine the manbefore he died. Had it gone another fort-night, the 0.?. would have certified thatit was a workers' compensation case andthat death had resulted from the badback; whereas it had nothing to do withhis employment.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: At presentthey can send a man to be examined by aspecialist, but they cannot force him tohave treatment by a specialist. What Mr.Diver said was correct up to a point-theycannot make a worker take specialisttreatment after he has been examined.

Ron. L. A. LOGAN: I wonder whetherthis clause has been put in for the purposeof getting an injured worker to go to aspecialist for treatment or whether thewords "and the employer shall be liablefor the full cost of the specialist treatmentand for necessary hospital charges in-curred by the worker in connection withthat treatment" are the real reason. Thatseems to be a new phase, and I am in-dilned to believe that that is the Part of theclause which the Chief Secretary wants.

The Chief Secretary: No. I told youwhat I wanted. I do not hide behind abushel.

Hon. J. 0. HISLO0P: I think we shoulddispel any doubts that Mr. Logan mighthave. I believe that this clause was putin because in cases of long standing theremay be very little left of medical orhospital expenses. In that case it simply

2932 COUNCIL.]

means that the insurance company is re-sponsible for having called in a specialistand will agree to Pay whatever costs andhospital maintenance are required.

Clause put and a division taken with,the following result:-

Ayes ....-Noesa ..

Majority for

Hon.Hon.Hon.Eon.Non.Hon.Eon.Hon.Hon.

Ayes.0. BennettsE. M. naviesG. FraserJ. J. GlarrigafiE. M. HeenanR. F. Hutchison0. B. JefferyF. R. H. Lavery0. MacKinnon

NossHon. N. E. BaxterEon. L. C. DiverHOn. J. 0. HislopEon. A. Rt. JonesEon. Sir Chas. Latham

I

HOD. J. MurrayHon. 0. H. SimpsonHon. J. D. TeehnrHon. H. K. WatsonRon. W. F. WilleseeHon. P. D. WllimottHon. F. J. 5. WiseHOn. A. P. Griffith

(Teller.)

Hon. L. A. LoaganHon. It. C. MattlakeHon. H. L. RocheHon. J. M. Thomson

(Teller.)

Clause thus passed.Hon. J1. G. HISLOP: On a point of

order. Mr. Chairman, I understood theChief Secretary to say that he had no ob-jection to paragraph (ii) being struck outof the clause. As the clause has nowbeen passed, would the Chief Secretaryagree to remove that paragraph if theBill were recommitted, because that is thledangerous part of it?- The Chief Secretary: Yes; I made theoffer but no one moved for It.

Clause 15-First Schedule, Clause 8.aimended:

Hon. R. C. MATflSKE: I hope the Com-mittee will not agree to the clause. Underthe Act, if both the worker and the em-ployer agree, the worker's claim can bereferred to a medical board, which haspower to decide whether the worker is fitto return to work or the extent of hishandicap. The finding of the medicalboard Is final; there Is no appeal from it.As the finding of the board is decided onthe facts of the case, this should not beleft entirely to the medical men. For thatreason employers and Insurers rarely agreeto matters being left to medical boards.Under this proposal, either the worker orthe employer can insist on a matter beingreferred to the medical board. This is bad,as the medical board could usurp thefunctions and responsibilities of theWorkers' Compensation Board which, inmy opinion, Is the best authority to decidethese matters. The Act should remain asit stands.

Clause put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Ayes ..Roes ..

UMajority against -.

.... .... .... 11

.... .... .... 14

on. 0. Benett.Bon. E. M. DaviesBon. G. FreHon. J. J1. GarriganHon. E. M. HeenanHon. 0. E. Jeffery

Ayes

Noe7 Hon. N. N. Baxter* Hon. L. C. Diver- Hon. A. F. Griffith8 Hon. J. 0. Hislop

Hon. A. R. Jones- Bon. Sir Chas. Latham

Ron. L. A. Logan

Pal:

Hon. P. It. H. LaveryRon. J. D. Tefss.nHon. W. F. WIllessaRon. F. J. a. WiseHon. R. P. Hutchison

(Teller.)

Hon. Rt. C. )Aattiekeaon. .1. MurrayHon. C. H. SimpsonHon. J. M. ThomsonHon. H. K. WatsonHon. F. D. WillmottHon. 0. MacKinnon

(Teller,)

Aye. No.Hon. H. C. Strickland Hon. J. CunninghamClause thus negatived.Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: I move-

That the Chairman do now leave theChair.

Motion put and a division taken with thefollowing result:-

Ayes ... ..Noes ... ..

Hon.Hon.Ron.Hon.Hon.Hon.

Majority against

Ayes.N. E. Baxter HotA. F. Griffith Ho,Sir Chas. Latham Hon0. MacKinnon HonIt. C. Mattlake HotJ. Murray

Noes.Hon. 0.' BennettsHon. E. M. DaviesHOn. L. C. DiverHon. 0. FraserHon. J. J. GarriganHOn. E. M. HeenanRon. J. 0. HiIopBon. B. F. Hutchison

HOn.Hon.Hon.Hon.Hon.HOn.Hon-

.... .... 11... 15

4

C. H. Simpsonn. J3. M. Thomson

H. K. WatsonF. D. Wflrnott

n. H. L. Roche(Tell"r.)

0. E. JefferyA. R. JonesL. A. LoganJ. D. TeahanW. F. WilleseeF. J. S. WiseF. R. H. Lavery

(Teller.)Pair.

Aye. No.Hon. J. Cunningham Hon. H. C. Strickland

Motion thus negatived.Clause 16-First Schedule, Clause 15.

amended:Hon. R. C. MATTISKE: I move an

amendment-That after the word "entitled" In

line 32, page 12, the following provisobe added:-

Provided that this paragraphshall have no application to agree-ments for the redemption of futureweekly payments duly recordedunder the provisions of this clause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: In view ofthe recent kind action of the Committee.I will not oppose this amendment.

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

Clause Il-Second Schedule amended:

- Hon. H. X. WATSON: I hope the Corn-3 mittee will vote against this clause. It is

- the Third Schedule which proposes to base

2932

15 December, 1956.1 23

all Second Schedule claims on £3,000 In-stead of the existing base of £2,400. Themaximum at the moment Is £2,400 runningdown to £45. and it is proposed to makethe maximum!£3,000 running down to £56.The same arguments I adduced previouslyapply to this clause.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I wouldagree to paragraph (a) being struck out.Paragraph (b) increases the amount ofmoney for the person attending theparaplegic. .

Hon. J£ G. HISLOP: I would like theentire schdule looked at properly beforewe see it again. It contains a number ofanomalies. Amounts paid *for smallerinjuries are excessive and they could*. begiven tor the people who really need com-pensation. There are A number of items,such as facial disfigurement, which are riotcovered under the Act and which are a barto employment. Those are worth a con-siderable sum of money to the Individual.

One case concerning an injured workerwith a fractured Jaw was brought to mynotice. He finds mastication difficult andrequires special foods. It can happen thatonly certain Jobs are available to him.These things should be considered. ThereIs nothing in the Bill to advise what shouldbe done to improve the position of theinjured person. All the advice that hasbeen given in this Chamber Is to Increasethe monetary compensation for an injury.I hope the clause will be amended.

Hon. F. R,. H. LAVERY: One importantpoint has not been considered, and that iswhere a doubt arises in workers' compen-sation cases. In all parts of the BritishCommonwealth and under British justice.the injured person should receive the bene-fit of any doubt as to the cause. In thepast cases have occurred where injuredworkers have been deprived of compensa-tion on technical grounds. I have onecase in mind which happened many yearsago when the wheat silo at North Fre-mantle was being conistructed.

An Italian worker was thrown from thescaffolding to the ground 110 feet below.The bones in his body were smashed. Thewife of that worker was deprived of com-pensation benefits for a. considerable perioduntil pressure was used. The reason forthe refusal was that evidence had beengiven that the worker was wheeling abarrel of cement on a plank on top of thebuilding, which was rather a unique type.it went up In concrete slabs. The boardsagged a little and the worker overbal-anced slightly. The barrel tipped hisweight and threw him over. It was claimedthat he was walking around the plank witha loose bootlace- Many such cases of tech-nical objections have been brought to thenotice of the unions over the years. Whena revision Is made of the schedule, someconsideration in that direction could begiven.

Hon. H. K. WATSON: The select com-mittee which inquired into this phase ofworkers' compensation made a recom-mendation that a committee should beappointed to revise the whole basis of thesecond schedule. A year or two ago Dr.Hislop introduced an elaborate formuladesigned to that end. It seems that thewhole schedule needs revision.-

The Chief Secretary: Where do I getwith the suggestion I made?

Hon. H. K. WATSON: Regarding thatsuggestion, there is an unlimited liability,and it could go on for 20 or 30 years. Ileave that thought with the committee. Ido not know how many of these cases havearisen.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: We are nowdealing with the whole clause, and if It Isnot agreed to. everything containedtherein will be deleted.

Hon. R. C. MATTISKE: I move anamendment-

That paragraph (a), lines 5 to 10,page 17, be struck out.

Amendment put and passed.Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I do not oppose the

extension of benefits to paraplegic patientsbecause those are genuine cases deservingevery assistance. I want to know howi themoney will be raised to make these pay-mnents over a long period. I understandthere is no pool from which the. benefitscan be drawn. Will the company insuringthe paraplegic patient have to bear thecost?

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The amend-ment for the attendant is added to thecompensation In respect of the worker.The insurance company covering theworker will have to bear the cost. Accordingto my information there are only two orthree such cases.

Hon. 0. C. MacKINNON: It may betrue that paraplegics have not Increased inrecent years;, but as this is an unlimitedliability, a person could go on receiving £23a week for 30 years, or a total of £7,500.Would that not call for the establishmentof a pool? Actuarially, a company willhave to take a dim view of the position, be-cause it could be landed with two or threesuch patients. That would have the effectof raising the premium for handlingiworkers' compensation. Whilst I agreethat everything possible should be donefor paraplegics, I must point out that itcan only be done on an actuarial basis. Ifthis clause is passed, it 'will become law andexisting paraplegics will be ranted theamount. Premiums have not been called inIn respect of that. I would be pleased itthe Chief Secretary could obtain the in-formation I seek.

The GRIEF SECRETARY: The only in-formation I can obtain is that the presentprovision has been In the Act since 194&.

2933

[COUNCIL]

-The company to which I refer had two such-cases in that time. The amount for the-ttendant Is added to the compensation,and the Premium Rates Committee assessesthe rate and the loss ratio according to the

.,amnounts Involved.

Hon. 3. 0. HISLOP: This again raises-the question of rehabilitation. Much work.irns been done recently for paraplegics andtuany Important steps have been taken to.rehabilitate them at the Infectious Diseases.Brannh of the Royal Perth Hospital. This.may come to the point of requiring pay-unent to those who are responding to re-,hablltation methods. If such a case Isable to get around with the aid of walkingequipment he may not need the extra care.More thought should be given before thisChamber passes legislation to provide pay-ments for all cases concerned, unless weknow that the two cases referred to are in.such a. state that their wives are burdenedby the care and need extra assistance. Toblindly Insert provisions like this Into anAct, without knowing the actual condl-tions, Is unwise.

The Chief Secretary: That provision hasbeen In the Act for eight Years.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: The Bill seeks toIncrease the weekly amount from £1 to £3.It is no good Increasing the amount if itIs not Justified or not required.

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: I do not wantI* 4quote individual cases, but this onemight exemplify the position. There Isone paraplegic in a South-West town; andby the slight adjustment being made to acar and to a wheelchair, she is able to, getearound amazingly well. She works In ajob where she receives full Payment, andat present she is engaged to be married.Although there is some disadvantage, thereappears to be no need for any assistance tobe given to this person. This is a girlaged 18 and she could, under this clause,go on receiving payment for 50 years,although she has no need of it.

Eon. L. A. LOGAN: Dr. Hislop Is worry-ing about paraplegics responding to treat-ment. Under the Act a medical prac-titioner can certify total and Incurableparalysis of the limbs. Surely a medicalpractitioner could also say later that theperson was now fit for work?

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: I wish It were assimple as that. The position Is that inparaplegia, paralysis of the limbs is In-curable. But with modemn equipment, andwith training in the use of other muscles.individuals have now been able to do alot more than In the past; and whereasthree or four years ago they might havebeen classed as bed-ridden, they are nowable to progress around their own homeand may even have some means of trans-portation.

Hon. L,. A. LOGAN: I suggest that wemight pass this measure; and when theBill is recommitted, the Chief Secretarycould let us know what claims there havebeen against this provision since 1948.

The Chief Secretary: Two.Hon. L. A. LOGAN: That is only one

company. Surely the Chief Secretarycould give us the fgures by tomorrownigh t

The Chief Secretary: I was hoping torecommit the Bil straightaway.

Ron. L. A. LOGAN: I think It would bebetter to leave It until tomorrow night, sothat we can obtain the information. I

Hon. H. K. WATSON: I suggest that wedefeat the clause for the moment, withoutprejudicing the right of the Chief Secre-tary to recommit and give us the informa-tion. We are dealng with something onwhich we are not completely informed. Ido not want It to be taken that I amopposed to this provision, but I would likesome further Information.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: I wouldrather see the matter settled now. To pro-vide this Information on recommittaltomorrow would be impossible. It wouldbe necessary to get, in touch with 70 com-panIes and six non-tariff organisations.

Hon. H. K. Watson: The informationshould have been obtained before this wasbrought to us.

The CHIMF SECRETARY: Not neces-sarily. We have a look at a claim and seeIf It is Justified: and, if it is, we put it in.

Hon. 0. C. MacKinnon: The troubleis that it Is not universally Justified butonly in odd eases.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: We think Itis universally Justified. This was not putIn by a Labour Government.

Ron. H. K. Watson: We are not dis-cussing that.

The CIEF SECRETARY: The hon.member need not get So Impatient. I ampointing out that this is not a flight offancy on the part of a Labour Minister.This was provided in 1948. I would likethe matter to be decided here and now.We have a company which handles apretty big slice of workers' compensationin this State. and It has had only twocases since 1948,

Hon. C. H. SIMPSON: At first sightI am inclined to view this favourably. Iknow that eases of this kind are com-paratively rare. Sometimes they aretotally disassociated from any injury onemay sustain. We have an instance of avery rare occurrence which must be as-soclated with a worker's compensationclaim before it comes into this category;so the risk from an insurance point ofview would be very light. But having gone

[5 December. 1050.) 2935

as far as that. I would like to hear some-thing from somebody who could collectstatistics beyond what the Chief Secretaryhas been able to obtain which would sat-is!fy us that we were doing the rightthing in agreeing to the proposal.

Hon. R. C. MATflSKE: Under the Acta Person who is Inflicted with this incur-able disease will receive compensation ata certain weekly rate until he has cutout the total amount of £2,400. Would itbe practicable for us to provide that heshould receive in addition an amount of£3 Per week for the Period for whichhe was receiving the other compensation?Then, as soon as he had reached thestage where the £2,400 was completelyexhausted, the other Payment wouldautomatically cut out. and he would seekrelief from the Commonwealth or fromsome other source.

Hon. H. XC. WATSON: There is oneother point. If this Is going to be adopted.I think that the words in the secondschedule require modification. Powershould be taken for the certificate to bea quarterly or half-yearly one. As itstands, once a certificate Is given it is notrevocable. I think it should be. if andwhen circumstances arise, such as Dr.Hislop mentioned, under which a Person.through improved medical and mechanicalaids, Is in a different position.

Clause, as amended, put and divisioncalled for.

The CHAIRMAN: Before the tellers tell,I give my vote with the ayes.

Recommittal.On motion by Hon. H. K. Watson. DIll

recommitted for the further considerationOf Clauses 5 and 15.

In Committee.Hon. W. R. Hall in the Chair; the Chief

Secretary in charge of the Bill.Clause 5--Section 8 amended:Hon. H. K. WATSON: I move an

amendment-That paragraph (b) in lines 18 to

20. page 4. be struck out.The debate, when the clause was previouslyconsidered, dealt exclusively with the ques-tion of whether the weekly payment shouldbe the full weekly Payment or a propor-tionate Part according to the disabilitycompensable. Paragraph (b) seeks to in-crease the total maximum compensationfrom £2,400 to £3,000.

The Chief Secretary: I think the amend-ment is consequential.

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

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: I understood thatthe Chief Secretary had agreed to recom-mit Clause 14.

The CHAIRMAN: The Dill was recom-mitted for the further consideration ofClauses 5 and 15.

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: Then I would likeit to be further recommitted for the fur-ther consideration of Clause 14.

suit:-Ayes ..Noes ..

Majority for

0. flennettaE. M. DaiesL. C. Diver0. FraserJ1. J. GarriganW. R. HallE. M. Heenan

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

N. E. BaxterA. V. UraifthJ. 0. HislopA. R. JonesSir Chas. LathamU. MacKinnonB. C. Mattleke

Ayes.Ron. R. F. ISHon. 0. E. JiHon. P. R. HHon. L. A. IAHon. J. D. TiHOn. F. J. S.HOD. W. r.v

Noes.Hon. J. MunHon. H. L. HRon. C. H. SHon. H. K. V

Hon. J. M. T

Pair.Aye. No.

Ron. H. C. Strickland Hort. J. Cuni

Clause, as amended, thus passeTitle-agreed to.Bill reported with amendments.

w ng re- The Chief Secretary: Very well.14 Bill again reported with a further

14 amendment,

- Further Recommittal.1

- On motion by I-on. J. 0. Hislop, BIXagain recommitted for the further con-

utohison sideration of Clause 14.eiferY

LaveryIn Committee.'gaeahan Hon. W. R. Hall in the Chair; the Chief

Wise Secretary in charge of the Bill.Villese. Clause 14-First Schedule, Clause 7,

(Teller.) amended:Hon. J. G. EEISLOP: I move an amend-

SY ment-tche Ta uprgahQ nlnsItThtsbargah(I)I ins1t

atson5, page 12, be struck out.'llnott Hon. H. K. WATSON: This is a pro-honson vision which would compel the worker to

(Teller.) have his case examined by a specialist. Atpresent there is no power to do that.

ningham Hon. L. A. Logan: This is already pro-vided for in the Bill, and for a purpose.

~d. Hon. J. G. HISLOP: There is no parallelbetween the two matters. This would be

* a shocking principle; but that to which Mr.

*2936(COUNCIL.]

Logan refers is that if a man refuses tosubmit to examination by a specialist, he

.incurs the penalty provided. I have al-ready said that five specialists in one sec-tion of medicine and surgery cannot agreeas to whether a -certain man should beoperated on; and under this, If the special-

Ast selected by the worker decicdd on sur-gery, the wo'rker would have to submit orlose his compensation and that might con-stitute a great wrong to the injured worker.

Hon. L. A. LOGAN: If required to byhis employer, the Injured worker mustselect from the panel of names which ap-pears on the register a specialist to whomhe will go for treatment; and if he refuses,his weekly payments are stopped,

Hon. G. C. MacKINNON: If I brokemy leg and had to select a specialist, Imight choose the wrong man as I wouldhave no idea who to-pick. I think thewoter should have the right to secute a.second opinion, in the case of surgery par-ticularly.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP; I would point outto Mr. Logan that I have not seen thelist of specialists as it Is not yet broughtup to date; and whether It contains namesof specialists in their groups of specialties,I1 do not know. A list handed to a workerin alphabetical order would not distin-guish one from another.

Hon. L. A. Logan: His doctor couldadvise him.

Hon. J. G. HISLOP: He would havelittle choice and he would have to takesomeone's advice. Having made his selec-tion, the injured worker must abide, underthis clause, by the treatment laid down bythe specialist.

Ron. L. A. Logan: What other peoplecould he get?

Hon. J. 0. HISLOP: One cannot helpthose who will not understand. I think Ihave said sufficient to show that this Is adangerous provision.

Hon. F. iR. ff. LAVERY: I hope theCommittee will agree to Dr. Hislop'samendment. This Bill has been a sourceof worry to me ever since it came beforethe House. I do not think Mr. Loganhas got the full picture in regard to thispoint. There are many workers who havebeen injured in the transport industry, forexample,. and as a result have sufferedfrom bad backs. Over a long period theyhave tried to carry on with their work, andhave attended a general' medical prac-titioner when they come Off duty; buteventually they have had to attend aspecialist. In my opinion, no harm canresult from the amendment.

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

Bill again reported with a furtheramendment.

1,2,

BILLS (2) -FIRST READING.Brands Act Amendment (No.1).Land Act Amendment (No. 2).Received from the Assembly.

BXILBREAD ACT AMENITMENT.

.Second Reading,THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. G.

Fraser-West) 112.20) in moving thesecond reading said: At the outset I mightpoint out to the House that amendmentsto the Bread Act are generally broughtforward at this stage of the session.

Hion. J. 0. Hislop: Yes, and generallyin the last week of the session.

The CHIEF SECRETARY: The objectof this Bill is to ensure that In areaswhere it is considered desirable, it shallbe mandatory for bakers to deliver breadto any customer who orally or in writingrequests delivery. These deliveries wouldbe in reasonable Quantities and at reason-able intervals during the hours and withinsuch distance of the bakehouse that areprescribed by regulation. The Bill allowsbakers to refuse delivery to any personwho refuses to pay for the bread on de-livery. many bakers, however, may beprepared to accept payment weekly, fort-nightly or at s ome prearranged interval.

I have been informed that in New SouthWales the enforcement of bread deliveriesIs working satisfactorily and that no com-plaints of any moment have been received.If, following representations from anyparticular part of the State the Ministerfor Labour considers that bread deliveriesare warranted there, he can pronnilgate aregulation specifying such area as a "pre-scribed area" under the Bill.

Members will be aware that residentsin K~algoorlie have been perturbed aboutthe cessation of bread deliveries there.Following an Interview by the masterbakers held last night with the Ministerfor Labour, in Committee I intend to movean amendment to enable deliveries ofbread to be made on Saturdays and holi-days to commence at 4 am. instead of5 am. I move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

On motion by Hon. L. A. Logan, de-bate adjourned.

BILL-FARMERS' DEBTS ADJUSTMENTACT AMENDMENT (CONTINUANCE).

Second Reading.THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. G.

Fraser-West) [12.221 In moving the sec-ond reading said: Members representingcountry provinces will be aware that theprincipal Act came into operation inJanuary, 1931, and that many thousandsof farmers sought its protection duringthe early years of the Act's existence.With the introduction in 1935 of the Rural

,2936

IS December. 1956.] 2937

Relief Fund Act, a majority of the farm-era obtained financial assistance to adjusttheir creditors' claims and had their stayorders cancelled.

The two Acts are complementary, andIt is necessary to extend the Farmers'Debts Adjustment Act to enable the RuralRelief Fund Act to continue to function.as that Act provides for the continuoususe of the funds held by the trustees fordebt adjustment purposes only. Assist-ance under the Rural Relief Fund Act hasamounted to £1,291,130, of which£1,283,000 was granted by the Common-wealth Government. and the balancemade up from money repaid by farmers.

The fund at the St October. 1958,stood at L199,037 9s. Id. and is graduallybeing augmented by repayments by farm-ers. Since the Act was amended to pro-vide for the discharge of the mortgageson payment of 20 per cent, of the amount,2.172 farmers have taken advantage of theconcession and repaid £208,617 Ils, lid.

There is still a large number of farmerswho have not availed themselves of thisgenerous concession. As a result of theadvent of more Prosperous times in thefarming community, the two Acts arepractically dormant, and administrationwork is carried out by officers of theLands Department as Part of their nor-mal duties.

The principal Act over the years hasbeen of material benefit to many farmers,and it Is considered advisable to keep Iton the statute book, not only to enablethe functions of the Rural Relief FundAct to be carried out, but to ensure in anemergency that a farmer could be granteda stay order to give him an opportunityto put forward Proposals to his creditorsfor carrying on his farming operations.The Bill provides for an extension of theprincipal Act until the 31st March, 1962.1 move-

That the Bill be now read a secondtime.

On motion by Hon. Sir CharlesLatham, debate adjourned.

ADJOURNMENT-SPECIAL.

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Hon. 0.Fraser-West): I move-

That the House at its rising ad-journ till 3.30 P.m. today (Thursday).

Question put and passed.

House adlourned at 12.26 am. (ThursdaY).

&Grginlabiw AabembiMWednesday. 5th December. 1956.

CONTENTS.

Questions: Railways, (a) establishment ofmarshalling yard, Mfarbeflup, etc...

(b) condition of Eleker-Norrialupline, tabling of papers ... ..

(o) fires caused by Collie coal ..War service homes, proposed develop-

ment, Hackett estate, Floreat Park ..Hospitals, bed averages ... ..Shipping strike, Darwin, ships affected ..

Restrictive Trade Practices Select Committee,extension of time .. .. ..

Native Welfare Select Committee, extensionof time ......... ......... ...

Leave of absence ... .. ... ..Bills :Vermin Act Amendment (No. 1), 2r.,

Corn., report..... ........Criminal Code Amendment (No. 2),

Council's amendment ... ..licensing Act Amendment (No. 4).

Council's amendment ... ..Royal Commissioners' Powers Act

Amendment, returned ... ..Brands Act Amendment (No. 1), 2r.,

remaining stages . . ... ..Land Act Amendment (No. 5), Sr., re-

maiming stages .. .. ..Town Planning and Development Act

Amendment, Message, 2r.Land and Income Tax Assessment Act

Amendment, Sr. .. .. ..Land Tax Act Amendment, 2r. ... ...Vermin Act Amendment (No. 2), Sr. ..

page

2937

29872938

SON8291182918

238

29382938

2988

2949

2949

2949

2949

2949

2950

295229702975

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

QUESTIONS.

RAILWAYS.(a) Establishment of Marshalling Yard,

Marbeliup, etc.Mr. HALL asked the Minister represent-

ing the Minister for Railways:(1) Will the proposed closure of the

Elleker-Nornalup line mean the establish-Ing of rail head or marshalling yard atMarbeliup?

(2) If not, will he give an assurancethat goods will be taken to Albany formarshalling?

The MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT re-Pied:

(1) No.(2) Yes.

(b) Condition of Eileker-Nornalup Line,Tabling of Papers.

Hon. A. F. WATTS asked the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Railways:

Will he lay on the Table of the Housef or this week only, all papers coveringreports on the condition of the EDlcker-Nornalup, railway?