4314 [ASSEMBLY]

?1grjptilu Asnrmh1tiWednesday, 27 October 1982

The SPEAKER (Mr Thompson) took theChair at 2.15 p.m., and read prayers.

BILLS (3): INTRODUCT'ION AND FIRSTREADING

I . Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage,and Drainage Amendment Bill (No. 3).

2. Metropolitan Water Authority Amend-ment Bill.

Bills introduced without notice, on moti .onsby Mr Mensaros (Minister for WaterResources), and read a fi rst time.

3. Fire Brigades Amendment Bill (No. 2).

Sill introduced without notice, on motionby Mr Hassell (Minister for Police andPrisons), and read a first time.

HUMAN TISSUE AND TRANSPLANT BILL

Second Reading

MR YOUNG (Scarborough-Minister forHealth) [2.22 p.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.Transplantation of human body tissue is not acompletely new enterprise. Even setting aside thebiblical references to Adam and Eve, there is evi-dence of attempted transplants in very earlytimes. M. F. Woodruff, in his book TheTransplantation or Tissues and Organs refers toIndian surgeons using skin flaps in nose construc-tion operations, more than 2 000 years ago. Evenso, developments over the last two decades de-mand that difficult and emotive issues concerni .nghuman tissue transplantation be addressed by oursociety and its parliamentary representatives.

The Commonwealth Law Reform Commissionissued a report on human tissue transplants in1977. The report included a draft Bill which wasrecommended as a model for uniform legislationthroughout Australia. Queensland , the AustralianCapital Territory, and the Northern Territoryhave enacted legislation based on the findings ofthe commission. I understand South Australiaand Victoria are introducing similar legislationand New South Wales has accepted major el-ements of the Bill.

Our present legislation in this area reliesheavily on the Tissue Grafting and Processing Act1956, and the Sale of Human Blood Act 1963.These Acts have proved useful, but certain short-

comings have developed over the years with theadvances in medical and surgical procedures. ThisBill provides for the repeal of those two Acts, aswell as section 338A of the Health Act 1911.

Some related matters fall within the ambit ofthe Anatomy Act 1930. It has been decided tokeep this legislation separate from the legislationon transplant matters, and so the Anatomy Actwill be retained for the present.

The purpose or this Bill is to ensure that a suf-ficient supply of human tissue is obtained, withoutoffending widely-held community views on thesanctity or inviolability of the human body. Mod-ern techniques enable the transplantation of manytypes of tissue, both regenerative and non-regen-erative. Examples of regenerative tissue are skin,blood, and bone marrow. The kidney is anexample of non-regenerative tissue. Clearly, bodytissue from living and dead bodies is of great pub-lic benefit. At the same time, it is necessary toprotect the wishes of the person whose body isinvolved-whether alive or dead-or his family. Ibelieve these objectives are achieved in this legis-lation.

The main provisions of the Bill are as follows-

Live Donors: AdultsPersons over I8 years, of sound mind, and on

independent medical advice, may give their tissue,after signing a written consent. No action may betaken to commence removal of tissue within aperiod of 24 hours after the signing of the con-sent. This gives the potential donor the oppor-tunity to reflect on his decision. Non-regenerativetissues may be given only for transplant. Regener-ative tissues may be given for transplant, othertherapeutic purposes, or for medical or scientificpurposes. Blood is an exception to the require-ment for medical advice and Written consent.Live Donors: Children

In this legislation, a child is a person who hasnot attained the age of I8 years. He may give re-generative tissue if of sound mind, and if heagrees to the removal. A parent must consent. In-dependent medical advice must be given to thechild. The Act will prohibit the removal of non-re-generative tissue from the body of a living child.Dead Donors

A basic issue in this matter is whether the prin-ciple of "contracting in" or 'contracting out"should prevail. "Contracting in" involves the ideathat transplantation from a dead body should bepermitted only if the deceased, in his lifetime, hadauthorised the removal of tissue; if he had beensilent, it should then require a positive authoris-ation by specified persons, generally relatives.

4314

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 4,

"Contracting out" expresses the notion that tis-sue could be taken and used unless the deceased,during his lifetime, had specifically prohibitedsuch use. This Bill rejects the concept of"contracting out" and requires a positive consentbefore tissue may be removed.

A person should have the right to give his deadbody, or any part of it, for the purpose oftransplantation or other therapy or for medical orscientific purposes. His wishes should be para-mount and prevail over those of his relatives-butnot of the coroner. This Bill provides that tissuemay be removed from the body of a person whohas died, only on the authority of the designatedofficer for the hospital concerned. The designatedofficer will be required to establish whether thedeceased had consented or objected to the re-moval of tissue. If no consent or objection existsor is known, the designated officer will be re-quired to refer to the senior available next of kin.

The Bill establishes a ranking order of priorityfor relatives-namely, spouse, adult children,parents, and adult brothers and sisters in that or-der-who may give consent. Removal of tissue fortransplantation and other ' therapy,. includingmedical or scientific pu 'rp6 ses, will occur onlywhen there is an express consent by the deceasedperson or the most senior available next of kin.The authority of the designated officer is subjectto the coroner's jurisdiction to hold an inquestinto the manner and cause of death. This Bill doesnot in any way impose upon the provisions of theCoroners Act 1920.Post Mortem Examinations

If a designate officer has reason to believe thatthe circumstances are such that the coroner maywish to hold an inquest into the manner and causeof death, he shall not authorise a post mortem.examination.

If the coroner is not involved, the designatedofficer may authorise a post mortemn examinationwhen-

(a) he is satisfied that the deceased person,during his lifetime, gave consent-andhad not revoked it subsequently; or

(b) he has no reason to believe that the de-ceased person expressed a wish-positiveor negative-relating to the post mortemnexamination of his body, and has noreason to believe that the senioravailable next of kin has an objec-tion-or alternatively, he is unable toascertain the existence or whereaboutsof the next of kin.

It is important to understand that approval for apost mortem provides authority for removal from

the body of the person only such tissue as isnecessary for the purpose of the post mortemnexamination.

Scientific advances in recent years, such as arti-ficial respirators and ventilators, have made thediagnosis of death difficult in certain cases.

The model Bill incorporated in the Common-wealth Law Reform Commission report includeda definition of death, worded as follows-

a person has died when there has occurred-(a) irreversible cessation of all functions of

the brain of the person; or(b) irreversible cessation of circulation or

blood in the body of the person.

The model Bill suggested also that this definitionshould have application for the purpose of anyother State law, and thus would not be restrictedto the transplant legislation.

The suggested definition of "death" has beenomitted from the Western Australian version atthis stage. This has been done because it is feltthat much more public debate is needed on thisdifficult subject before the definition is embodiedin the Statute.

The classical criterion for establishing deathhas been the cessation of respiration and circu-lation of the blood, and this is the significant fac-tor in the vast majority of cases. The contentiouselement in the definition quoted previously refersto the concept of "brain death". At present, thereis no legal authority in this State to clearly estab-lish death by reference to brain function.

In contemplating the concept of brain deathmany factors must be considered. Relatives, doc-tors, and hospital staff are all subjected to greatemotional stress when they are involved with pro-longing procedures on a body they know or be-lieve to be a hopeless case. In these circumstances,the continuation of intensive care and the use ofsupport machinery may serve only to prolong thedistress of the relatives and hospital staff involved.In the absence of a statutory definition, these dif-ficult decisions will remain with the individualdoctors and relatives concerned with these unfor-tunate cases. Even so, it would be wrong tointroduce into law a definition of "death" which isnot known to be accepted by the general public.

There has been little community debate and itis my hope that the passage of this legislation willpromote informed discussions of the issuesinvolved. Legislation for a definition of "dleath"should follow when the community has had achance to formulate an opinion. It would be pre-cipitant to include a definition of "death" at thisstage, although an early amendment could be

4315

4316 [ASSEMBLY]

called for after the transplant legislation has op-erated for a short time.

Traditionally, Australians have been firmly op-posed to individuals being allowed to sell blood orother body tissue, although the practice is wide-spread in some overseas countries. The Sale ofHuman Blood Act 1963 presently prohibits un-authorised trading in human blood. This legis-lation will repeal that Act and extend the prohib-ition to include other body tissue, as well as blood.

Part V of the Bill prohibits advertising in re-lation to the buying, in Australia, of human tissueand provides for a penalty of $500 orimprisonment for three months, or both. A pen-alty of W100 is provided for a person who entersinto a contract which involves the sale or supplyof tissue for valuable consideration. This approachis qualified in the following two regards-

(1) The reimbursement of expenses incurredby a person in relation to the removal oftissue is allowable.

(11) The sale by reputable suppliers ofhuman tissue lawfully obtained and pre-pared for medical use if the tissue itselfwas obtained without payment. The Billprovides a mechanism whereby theGovernor, by Order-in-Council, may de-clare that classes of products of this kindmay continue to be sold.

The matter of blood transfusions upon children,without parental consent, has been incorporatedin part II. This provision is virtually the same asthe existing section 338A of the Health Act,which also will be repealed. As mentioned earlier,this Bill also provides for the repeal of the TissueGrafting and Processing Act.

The matters raised in this Bill involve deephuman emotions, and yet they must be addressedin order to derive the tremendous benefits to thecommunity that advances in medicine make poss-ible. I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Hodge.

ALUMINA REFINERY (WORSLEY) AGREE-MENT AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

MR OLD (Katanning-Minister for PrimaryIndustry) [2.34 p.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentaryratification of the agreement between the Stateand the Worsley joint venturers made on 21October 1982 to amend the Provisions of theexisting alumina refinery (Worsley) agreement.

The amendments primarily provide for theWorslcy joint venturers to apply for and begranted, in accordance with the procedures underthe Mining Act 1978, an all-minerals mininglease over areas within the "blue picture frame"area of the agreement special mining lease withthe areas so leased to remain under the provisionsof the Worsley agreement in the long term. Theyalso update the principal agreement to-

reflect the changes introduced by the 1978Mining Act;preclude the joint venturers from miningbauxite other than under the conditions im-posed pursuant to the principal agreement;enable the joint venturers under certain cir-cumstances to extract other minerals frombauxite mined, subject to conditions andsafeguards imposed in the interests of theState; andprovide the authority for the State to grant alease which it already is obligated to grantunder the agreement.

Apart from the last-mentioned item, these amend-ments have been made to cover circumstances inbauxitic areas within the "picture frame" areaover which a mining lease for bauxite is to beissued pursuant to the principal agreement.

The genesis of these amendments was the jointventurers' application, under the Mining Act1978,' for an all-minerals mining title over parts ofthe agreement mining lease "picture frame" area.That application was not under the Worslcyagreement, but the surrender of those areas is per-mitted under the agreement, and thus, subject tosuch surrender, the joint venturers could begranted the mining lease applied for under theMining Act 1978 for all minerals, includingbauxite.

The 1982 agreement contains an amendmentwhich will stop this by preventing the Ijoint ven-turers from mining bauxite under a Mining Acttitle, except with the approval of the Minister forResources Development, and then only undercertain conditions. This amendment, which en-sures that bauxite within the "picture frame" areaof the Worsley agreement will be mined onlyunder the terms of that agreement, will not affectthe existing rights of third parties within thatarea. Third parties still will have the right to

apply for Mining Act titles over parts of the"picture frame" land, and to be granted thosetitles, if the Minister for Resources Developmentdetermines that the grant will not unduly preju-dice or interfere with the joint venturers' bauxitemining operations. That condition is already con-tained in the existing agreement.

4316

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 41

The 1982 agreement contains provisions also tobe incorporated in the principal agreement so thatthe joint venturers, if need be, may place them-selves under the terms of the 1978 Mining Act todevelop minerals other than bauxite within theWorsley agreement "picture frame" area.

In regard to the lease matter mentioned earlier,the amendment to the principal agreement defi-nition of "Crown land", and the complementaryamendment to the clause whereby the State isempowered to grant leases to the joint venturers,are the amendments necessary to enable the Stateto comply with its lease obligations under theprincipal agreement. These amendments are inthe nature of enabling amendments only. I com-mend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Grill.

RESERVES BILL (No. 2)

Second ReadingMR LAURANCE (Gascoyne-Minister for

Lands) [2.39 p.m.]:. I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill now before the House is similar tomeasures dealing with variations to Class "A" re-serves which come before Parliament usuallytowards the end of each session. The purpose inpresenting the Bill late in the session is to ensurethat as many variations as possible to Class "A"reserves can be embraced in the one Bill. Sixteenseparate proposals are contained in this Bill.

Class "A" Reserve No. 22576 containing2.8456 hectares is set apart for "public park andprotection of natural flora" and is under the con-trol of the Kalamunda Shire Council.

The reserve, created in 1946 to retain the"'attractiveness of the rural and suburban country-side", now stands in the centre of the Kalamundatownsite and is used mainly as a short-cut to thebusiness area. Because the purpose includes"4protection of natural flora" the reserve is classi-flied under the Wildlife Conservation Act as anature reserve controlled by the Western Aus-tralian Wildlife Authority. However, as nosignificant flora occurs on the reserve, theWildlife Authority has requested the purpose bechanged to simply "park".

The Shire of Kalamunda agrees with the pro-posed change and requests the reserve be formallyvested in the council. As the reserve is of Class"A", parliamentary approval is required tochange the purpose, and this Bill seeks that ap-proval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 14289 situated betweenthe Shires of Capel and Donnybrook-Ralingup, isset aside for "re-a fforestation" and is not vested.

In 1928 the Forests Department revoked anumber of reserves and dedicated the subject landas "State Forest No. 27". It has been discoveredsubsequently that one of the reserves-No.14289-is of Class "A" and cannot be cancelledwithout parliamentary approval.

To avoid duplication of purpose, the ForestsDepartment has requested Formal cancellation ofthe reserve, and this Bill seeks approval to do this.

Approximately 25 years ago, the lessees of sev-eral hay locations near Irwin Inlet cleared andcultivated about 40 hectares of Crown land inconjunction with their own properties. Despite anumber of requests for alienation of the landbeing received, it was decided that the area shouldbe retained and allowed to regenerate, and ac-cordingly the land was included within the adjoin-ing Walpole-Nornalup National Park. Continualapplications for release of the area have been sub-mitted at various times and the National ParksAuthority has resolved now that the land be ex-cised from Class "A" Reserve No. 31362 andmade available to adjoining holders. As parlia-mentary approval is required to amend a Class"A" reserve, this Bill seeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 27a04, KalbarriNational Park, is vested in the National ParksAuthority for the purpose of "national park". TheShire of Northampton, supported by the MLA forGreenough and local business groups, favours therelease of part of the reserve for a tourist eques-trian centre.

The report of the west-coast working group,subsequently endorsed by the Environmental Pro-tection Authority, recommends a number ofchanges to the reserve, changes which ultimatelywill increase its area. The report makes provisionfor an equestrian facility, defining the most ap-propriate site and suitable management conditionsto minimise environmental disturbance.

To make the land available for release, an area,surveyed as Victoria Location 11493 containing21.7313 hectares, will require excision from thereserve. The balance of the working group's rec-ommendations affecting the reserve are being pro-cessed and will be presented to Parliament in asubsequent Reserves Bill. The importance of theplanned equestrian centre as an adjunct to touristdevelopment at Kalbarri warrants a separate sub-mission at this stage.

As Reserve No. 27004 is of Class "A", Parlia-ment's approval for the excision is required. Aclause seeks that approval.

4317

4318 [ASSEMBLY]

Class "A" Reserve No. 11681 is set apart for"parklands" and is under the control of the Cityof Gosnells. The reserve, which adjoins the east-ern boundary of the Gosnells granite quarry andoperated by the Readymix Group (WA), is thesubject of a land exchange proposal wherebyReadymix will swap about 255 hectares of free-hold land for about 143 hectares of Crown land.

The Government will benefit by the proposal,receiving nearly twice the area of land which itsurrenders and, in addition, will gain several natu-ral features contained on the freehold land andconsidered of high conservation value.

An environmental review and management pro-gramme commissioned by the company examinedall aspects of the exchange, and following con-sideration by the Environmental Protection Auth-ority, the Government approved the exchange.

In order to effect the exchange, an area ofabout 113.2976 hectares will need to be excisedfrom Reserve No. 11681, but as the reserve is ofClass "A", the approval of Parliament is required.A clause seeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 1814 situated at Yorkis set apart for "parklands" and vested in theShire of York. The reserve known as CentennialPark has an historical association with the pion-eers of York and because of this the York ShireCouncil wishes to build a frail-aged home on thereserve. To achieve this, portion of the reserve,now surveyed as York Lot 596 is to be excisedand the remainder landscaped to form a backdropto the development. As parliamentary approval isrequired to vary a Class "A" reserve, this Billseeks approval to effect the excision.

Class "A" Reserve No. 6922 situated in Dar-lington is vested in the Shire of Mundaring for thepurpose of "public park". The reserve containingabout 41 hectares is largely virgin bush except fora small portion adjacent to Great Eastern High-way which contains the Bilgoman Olympic Pooland associated facilities.

The shire has been approached by several firmsinterested in developing water slide facilities ad-jacent to the pool. Council has agreed in principleto a lease of land for the development providedthat a suitable area which includes the swimmingpool and facilities is excised from Reserve No.6922, the subject area reserved for the purpose of"aquatic centre", is vested in the council, and thecouncil is given power to lease for up to 21 years.

A suitable area containing about six hectaresand identified as Greenmount Sub Lot 556 hasbeen surveyed. However, as parliamentary ap-proval is required to vary a Class "A" reserve,this Bill seeks approval to effect the excision.

Class "A" Reserve No. 29977, containing71.7741 hectares, is situated near the Meenaartownsite and is vested in the Western AustralianWildlife Authority for the purpose of"conservation of flora and fauna". The MainRoads Department, as part of a Commonwealth-funded prgramme to improve the national high-way, proposes to realign Great Eastern Highway,east of Northam. Part of the realignment en-croaches onto Reserve No. 29977 necessitatingthe excision of an area of 7.2170 hectares fromthe reserve. The Department of Fisheries andWildlife is satisfied that the excision will have nosignificant impact on the reserve and accordinglyhas agreed to the proposal. As the reserve is ofClass "A", approval of Parliament is required toamend the boundaries. This Hill seeks that ap-proval.

Hamersicy Range National Park comprisingClass "A" Reserve No. 30082 is vested in theNational Parks Authority for the purpose of"national park".

The Main Roads Department, pursuant to anagreement between the State and CommonwealthGovernments, proposes to construct an 18-kilo-metre section of the national highway betweenNewman and Port Hedland through the north-east corner of the reserve. The National ParksAuthority has agreed to the proposal providedthat a number of environmental safeguards areimplemented during and after construction. AsReserve No. 30082 is of Class "A", parliamentaryapproval is sought to excise an area of about 400hectares from the reserve.

Class "A" Reserve No. 21054 situated in EastPerth is set apart as a "disused burial ground"under the control of the National Parks Auth-ority. A small portion identified as Perth LotEl 13 is separated from the bulk of the reserve byGovernment requirements Reserve No. 23812. Arecent inspection revealed that Lq; ELI13 is notbeing used for the reserve purpose and in fact nowforms part of the police vehicle testing centre lo-cated on Reserve No. 23812. Consequently theNational Parks Authority has requested excisionof Lot El 13 from Reserve No. 21054 as it is of nofurther use to the authority. As parliamentary ap-proval is required to vary a Class "A" reserve thisBill seeks approval to effect the excision.

Class "A" Reserve No. 11710 situated west ofWaroona is vested in the National Parks Auth-ority for the purpose of "national park". The re-serve comprising about 9079.1184 hectares isknown as Yalgorup National Park. As part of anongoing programme to increase national parksand nature reserves, the Public Works Depart-ment on the recommendation of the Environmen-

4318

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 41

tal Protection Authority has negotiated the pur-chase of freehold land now surveyed asWellington Location 5334 for subsequent in-clusion in Reserve No. 11710.

The subject land was transferred to Her Maj-esty Queen Elizabeth 11, revested, and removedfrom the operation of the Transfer of Land Act;however, it cannot be included in the reserve untilparliamentary approval is given to amend theboundaries of the Class "A" reserve. This Billseeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 27575, known asNeerabup National Park, is situated at QuinnsRocks and is vested in the National Parks Auth-ority for the purpose of "national park". Due toisolation of portion of the reserve and portions ofadjacent freehold land by the Mitchell Freewayalignment, the National Parks Authority and thefreehold landowner-Mindarie PropertyCompany Pty. Ltd.-have negotiated a landexchange.

The Shire or' Wanneroo and the Department ofConservation and Environment have agreed to theproposal and the land purchase board hasrecommended the exchange proceed on an equalvalue basis. The excision of portion of the Class"A" reserve has received parliamentary approvalin a previous Reserves Act. To complete theexchange, approval of Parliament now is requiredto include in the reserve the land formerly held bythe company. This Bill seeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 25141 at Cape Leeuwjnis set apart for the purpose "recreation" and isvested in the Augusta- Margaret River ShireCouncil. Following negotiations between the shirecouncil and the National Parks Authority, theshire agreed to surrender control over 7.0919 hec-tares of Class -A" Reserve No. 25141 so that theland could be included within adjoining Class"A" Leeuwin National Park Reserve No. 32376.The Lands and Surveys Department has effectedsurvey of the portion of reserve involved and auth-ority is required to exclude the land from the re-serve to enable its inclusion within the adjacentnational park. This Bill seeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 29713 located east ofRavensthorpe is set apart for a "stopping place".The freehold owner of Oldfield Location 995wishes to exchange the eastern part of the lo-cation which contains several sections of non-arable land for the southern portion of ReserveNo. 29713 on an equal value basis. The portion tobe surrendered from Location 995 is to be in-cluded in Class "A" "parklands" Reserve No.29715 which will provide extra protection to the

banks of the Oldfield River. Parliamentary ap-proval is sought to effect this exchange.

The Shire of Bayswater must relocate the Mu-nicipal Dog Pound to make way for theBeechboro-Gosnells controlled access highway. Asuitable replacement site comprising Class "A"Reserve No. 20956, vested in tbe shire for thepurpose of "recreation" has been located in theBayswater industrial area. The reserve which isundeveloped, appears to have been used as a sandquarry and is of minimal value as a recreationarea particularly as it is divided by a feeder roadconnecting with the controlled access highway. Inorder to make the site available to the shire, thepresent "A" classification must be cancelled andthe purpose changed to "municipal purposes".This will necessitate parliamentary approval andthis Bill seeks that approval.

Class "A" Reserve No. 13375 situated near theCauseway, East Perth, is set apart for "roads,park and public recreation" and is partly vested inthe City of Perth. The Perth City Council wishesto establish a helicopter landing site on portion ofthe reserve adjoining the council's No. 4 car park.In the past, the area has been used as an emer-gency landing area due to its close proximity toRoyal Perth Hospital and the council now seeksto provide a permanent facility which can be usedby commercial, general, and emergency traffic.

The Minister for Tourism supports the proposaland the Department of Aviation has no objectionsubject to a satisfactory inspection of the com-pleted site. In order to excise the area surveyed asPerth Lot 947 and containing 2580 square metres,from the Class "A" Reserve, the approval of Par-liament is required. The Bill seeks that approval.

As is desirable and in accordance with usualprocedure, the Leader of the Opposition in theHouse has been provided with copies of relevantnotes and plans applicable to each variation.Further copies are available for any otherinterested members.

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

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATED REV-ENUE FUND) DILL

Second Reading: Budget Debate

Debate resumed from 26 October.MR 1. F. TAYLOR (Kalgoorlie) [2.54 p.m.]:

My speech is in three parts. The first part dealswith the Budget in general, the second with per-haps the more technical sides of the Budget itself,and the third with the economies of both WesternAustralia and Australia.

4319

4320 ASSEMBLY]

I consider the Budget as a whole probably ismore remarkable for what it did not do ratherthan for what it did. I will deal firstly with thehealth area. The Opposition is very concernedthat the Budget provided no indication ofcutbacks in the health area, nor did it mention thenumber of jobs that will have to be done awaywith. We suggest the number of jobs which willhave to be terminated could be in the vicinity of200.

To give some indication of the concern felt byhospitals throughout the State, and particularly inthe metropolitan area, I will read a statementfrom the Administrator of King Edward Mem-orial Hospital for Women. It was sent out to allheads of department. It is headed "Budget 1982-83." The administrator says-

Details of this Hospital's allocation for1982-83 have now been received.

The year will be an extremely difficult onedespite indications to the contrary conveyedthrough the pres.

It is obvious that the Administrator of KingEdward Memorial Hospital is disgusted with theindications that have been conveyed through themouths of the Ministers of this Government andalso by the Premier ina particular, that the Budgetitself is one of job creation because, certainly, thatis not true of the health area and it is not the situ-ation at King Edward Memorial Hospital. Theadministrator goes on to Say-

The Budget provides a negative growthsituation. Salaries have been cut $450 000below last year's expenditure.

That probably represents something like 40 jobs.The administrator goes on to say-

The following immediate strategies havebeen introduced:

All Staff posts to be reviewed at thetime of vacancy.

No relief for Annual Leave or LongService Leave.

Absolutely no overtime other thanthat related to out-of-hours call-backsituations.

Gynaecological Clinics to be reducedin number on 1st November 1982.

Begot Road Clinic building to beclosed with transfer of activity to otherareas.

Many other measures are at present underconsideration by the Executive. Individualdiscussion will take place with Heads of Dc-

partments over the next week in respect ofthe details pertaining to their Department.

In the meantime any thoughts which maycontribute to economies will be appreciated.

Of course, the Minister for Health would beaware that not only King Edward Memorial Hos-pital is experiencing those difficulties; the Mt.Lawley Annexe of Royal Perth Hospital, which isto be closed and that involves something like 76beds and the loss of 89 jobs. Most metropolitanteaching hospitals have been badly hit with jobcutbacks, at a time when the Government admitsit has real difficulty recruiting people to staff thehospitals in this State. I know from my own ex-perience in the eastern goldfields that KalgoorlieRegional Hospital currently is facing those diffi-culties.

Mr Brian Burke: But the Minister said theBudget made allowance for wage increases.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Yes, the Minister did saythat the Budget made allowance for wage in-creases; all I can say is that it does not make suf-ficient allowance for wage increases, Or course, itmakes allowance for wage increases, but the al-lowance is not great enough.

Mr Young: They are sufficient for the wage in-creases that occurred in February this year. Areyou aware a drop of 28.5 per cent occurred in out-patient admissions to King Edward MemorialHospital this year?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: A drop in outpatient ad-missions occurred and that probably is because ofthe restrictions the Government has placed onthat hospital and other hospitals throughout theState. It is more expensive for people to go to out-patients now.

Mr Young: I think what you are saying is thatthe money should be increased regardless of thedemand and the actual output.

Mr Brian Burke: On the hook again!Mr Young: That is a good comment from an

ex-Treasury officer.Mr I. F. TAYLOR: The Government has pre-

vented people from using those facilities by in-creasing their cost.

Mr Young: Is this part of the efficiency order?You have a 28.5 per cent drop in outpatients, butyou have to keep spending the money?

Mr Brian Burke: On the hook again!Mr Young: What are you saying then?The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come

to order!Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I am certain the shadow

Minister for Health will be dealing with this situ-

4320

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 42

ation in detail when we come to the individualitems or the departmental estimates under thisBudget strategy.

Mr Young: If he doesn't do better than you, hewilt not get anywhere.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The Premier announcedthat money would be made available for welfarehousing for the construction of a large number ofhouses. It was suggested there would be con-structed this year 426 family housing rental units,124 pensioner rental units, and 250 purchasehomes. The shadow Minister for Housing, themember for Dianella, has asked a number ofquestions on this subject.

The Opposition has done a little delving intothis matter and round that 426 units are to beconstructed under family welfare accommodationat a cost of $12.2 million, which is $28 638 perunit. However, the average cost per family unit,as given by the Minister in reply to a question, is$37 526. With this cost per unit, the $12.2 millionwill provide only 325 units, not 426 units. So, wehave 101 units fewer than was stated by thisGovernment in its Budget speech.

This Government said it would build 250 pur-chase homes at a cost of $4 million. That wouldbe a total of £16 000 per unit. The average castper house, as given by this Government, is$21 250, which means that the $4 million willprovide 188 houses only, not 250 houses as wasstated. Altogether there will be about 160 fewerhouses than was stated in the Budget. That meansthat this Government allowed for houses to bebuilt in 1983-84. Again, it has misled us and theMinister for Housing has not said a word about it.

Mr Young: If anyone does, you just keepshouting.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!Mr Brian Burke: The Minister for Health has

to find out what is going on in his portfolio. Themember for Melville keeps him informed.

Mr Shalders interjected.Mr I. F. TAYLOR; The Minister is not

capable of answering. When the member forDianella asks a question without notice, the Min-ister complains that he has not been given suf-ficient notice.

Mr Brian Burke: Are you saying that there willnot be 800 houses built this year?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I am saying that 163houses fewer will be built, based on the infor-mation that this Government has given us inanswer to questions in this place.(1361

Mr Brian Burke: The Premier said they wouldbuild all these houses and shift that closer to thebeginning of the financial year.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is most misleading. I donot think the Premier understands the budgetaryprocesses sufficiently to come to these conclusionsor realise what is happening. It is not the Prem-ier's fault he is not capable of grasping the situ-ation.

Several members interjected.Mr I. F. TAYLOR: The Budget contains no

strategy at a political or Financial level and doesnot explain how we will come to grips with theproblems referred to by the Premier in relation toCommonwealth-State relations. In Budget afterBudget we have seen complaints that the Com-monwealth has not done the right thing.

Mr MacKinnon: What would you do about it?Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The member was here the

other night when the Leader of the Oppositionsaid exactly what we would do.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I have no intention of

wasting my time repeating what has been said.

Mr MacKinnon: What would you do if theysaid "No"?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Before the CommonwealthGovernment can say "No", it must have a prop-osition before it.

Several members interjected.Mr 1, F. TAYLOR: This Government is not

capable of putting a proposition before the Com-monwealth Government.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! There are too many

interjections.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: No reference was made in

the Budget as to how this Government, at a Stateor Federal level, would approach the problem ofthe economy today in Western Australia. Lastyear 1 said the Budget was an historical documentand I say again this year that the Budget is anhistorical document. It tells us what was done in198 1-82 and makes no attempt to give an indi-cation as to what this Government will do andwhat the people of this State can do to make surethe economy is back on the road.

The people in the State Treasury are more thancapable of giving this Government some indi-cation as to what it should be doing or the way inwhich it should be moving.

Mr Young: You were pouring buckets on thembe fore.

4321

4322 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: On a number of occasionsthe Premier has floated the comment that theLeader of the Opposition made things difficult forhim at the last Premiers' Conference by saying allwe needed was $903 million to get things going.That is not the truth of the matter. The Leader ofthe Opposition said that this State needed at least$903 million-

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR:-to provide a sufficient

level of services.Mr O'Connor: What a joke!

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The Premier was quoted inHansard of 23 March 1982 as saying that therewould be no way in which his Government wouldbe prepared to accept a cut of $162 million by theGrants Commission in funds to this State, be-cause we could not afford it.

Mr O'Connor: Correct.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: If we refer to the transcript

of the Premiers' Conference, we note the Premiersaid, "I support the views that have been ex-pressed by the three major States for the imn-plementation of the Grants Commission report,but also for a top-up of the three smaller States".He told us he was not prepared to accept a cut infunds from the commission, but in the transcripthe says he is prepared to support the Grants Com-mission report.

Mr O'Connor: You are misleading by quoting asection out of context.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is not out of context.Mr Rushton: You should not have it.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The Premier cannot back

away from that.Mr O'Connor: Yes I can.Mr I. F. TAYLOR: I would like to see him try.Several members interjected.Mr MacKinnon: Why don't you read the rest of

it?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is a thick transcript andif the member wishes me to read it I suggest thereare much more embarrassing pieces in the reportin relation to this Premier.

Mr Rushton: What is your source?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is a transcript of thePremiers' Conference.

Mr MacKinnon: Is that a public document?Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I just received a copy of it.

Mr Rushton: Off the back of a truck! Anotherstolen document.

Mr MacKinnon: I am giving an example of thelevels to which you will stoop.

Mr Wilson: Is it true or not?

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! The House will come

to order!

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The Grants Commissionrecommendations at the Premiers' Conferencemeant that Western Australia has agreed to aphasing in of the recommended relativities overthe three years ending 1984-85. It guaranteedWestern Australia would receive a real increase in1982-83 of two per cent and in each of the follow-ing two years a real'increase of one per cent. Ouractual tax share was $914.9 million. It shouldhave been an increase in the vicinity of 17 percent which would have meant an additional $32.5million for Western Australia.

That is the situation as taken from the Prem-ier's Budget speech. Prior to the Premiers' Con-ference the Leader of the Opposition said weneeded at least $903 million this financial year tomaintain the real value of Federal funds. ThePremier has not grasped this because he does notread everything in detail.

The Leader of the Opposition said that theState's share of the total personal income tax wasput at 20.73 per cent by the Commonwealth andwhat we should do is go back to a situation wherethe Commonwealth Government would agree to39.87 per cent of net personal income tax collec-tions to comply with the personal income tax col-lections for 1981-82 and share that total amountas a proportion of the total taxation payments. Onthat basis the total collection would have gonefrom 20.73 per cent to about 21.34 per cent. Itwould have meant a $358.9 million share betweenall six States.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: If all six States had got

together and put forward such a proposition thereis a possibility that it might have occurred.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: What we had was a div-

ision between the States. We had the three lesspopulous States versus the three more populousStates and as a result the Commonwealth was ina perfect position to divide and conquer. That iswhat the Commonwealth did-it divided theStates and conquered them.

Mr O'Connor: Again you are wrong.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Before the Premier went tothe conference he had a meeting-

4322

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 42

Mr O'Connor: The Treasury is lucky it got ridof you.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The Treasurer may be for-tunate to have me here.

As a result of the suggestions made by theLeader of the Opposition, this State should haveended up with $922.9 million and not the $914.9million that the State received in the end. That isthe factual situation. Had the Leader of the Op.position's suggestions been accepted, this Statecould have received in the vicinity of £923 millionand that does away with the suggestion of thePremier so he can forget about it from here on.

Mr O'Connor: We received more than the fig-ure suggested.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The State did not receivemore from the tax-sharing arrangements.

Mr O'Connor: Again you are wrong.Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I might be at a disadvan-

tage against the Premier's photographic memoryfor Figures!

1 refer now to a less controversial aspect of thisBudget and suggest that this State should looktowards the implementation of programme andperformance budgeting.

Several member interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The South Australian

Government has introduced what it terms pro-gramme and performance budgeting which hasled to increased public accountability in that area.It specifics the areas of public expenditure beingdealt with by the Government and it records theresults of that expenditure.

Programme and performance budgeting is nopanacea to Budget problems in any State. No lessan authority than the State Under Treasurer (MrMcCarry) said the following at a lunch-hourmeeting of the WA Group of the Australianinstitute of Public Admintstration earlier thisyea r-

The public expect a high standard of man-agement and efficiency in the public sector,because they are paying for it and they areentitled to the best we can produce.

It is, therefore, not surprising that pro-posals for the implementation throughout thepublic sector of modern management toolsare being put forward as a means of achiev-ing more efficient public administration.Techniques such as programme budgetingand performance monitoring, discounted cashflow and analysis, benefit cost analysis, and

zero based budgeting are all being put for-ward as desirable aids to improved account-ability for the expenditure of public funds.

Although management tools of this kindare used with good effect in a number ofareas in the State public sector, they are notas widely used as they should be. There ismuch to be gained from an intelligent anddiscriminating use of such analytical tech-niques as an aid to proper evaluation of ex-penditure proposals and as a means of moni-toring benefits realised against costs.

The Under Treasurer also said-... the Commonwealth and other States

of Australia are moving away from the moretraditional departmental and expendituretype classification of expenditure for pur-poses of Parliamentary appropriation andtowards programming, budgeting and evalu-ation.

He concluded part of his statement by saying-It has for long been the view of the

Treasury that programme budgeting andevaluation could provide a superior means forParliament and executive government to as-sess the effectiveness of functions and activi-ties and to determine priorities. However, thedecision to make the change to programmebudgeting must rest with Parliament becausequite substantial changes could be involved inthe form of presentation of the budget esti-mates, in government accounting and in thepresentation of the public accounts.

Further on be said-Moreover, it is not simply a matter of

deciding to change to programme budgetiagas other governments have found. If it is tobe done efficiently and the information ob-tained is to be meaningful, the basic account-ing data must be available in a form whichpermits appropriate identification of pro-gramme components and their correct aggre-gation.

The South Australian Government has set aboutimplementing programme and performance bud-geting. Public servants in that State have come togrips with budgeting and the public are aware ofwhat is happening. We have before us a Budgetwhich deals with salaries, contingencies, and capi-tal works, but it does not tell us very much and itcan be confusing. If programme and performancebudgeting were introduced, the public could betold what the programme would be, how muchwould be spent on it, not only now, but also in thefuture, and whether the programme was achievingthe ends for which it was designed.

4323

4324 [ASSEMBLY)

Programme and performance budgeting wasoriginally introduced in the United States Depart-ment of Defence in 1961 and since 1974 a numberof States have been using that system. Canada theUK and New Zealand also are involved in asystem of this nature.

I understand that the Western AustralianTreasury is in a position to implement suchBudget proposals and, in fact, it has undertaken amajor development study and its computerised ac-counting system will include information aboutprogrammes and their budgets. I hope thisGovernment will set about introducing some formof programme and performance budgeting-theOpposition, when it becomes the Governmentnext year, certainly will.

Another more technical aspect of the Budgetthat should be dealt with relates to an item shownin "Miscellaneous Services". This matter has beenpursued by me since the Budget was introduced.Last year the former Premier advised that $26.1million would be set aside to be used for unexpec-ted payment of wages and salaries. This year anamount was set aside, but there was no expendi-ture set against that item. I raised this matterwith the Treasury to try to ascertain a sensibleconclusion for this action. Unfortunately, it hasbeen to no avail because I have not received aconclusive statement as to where the $26.1 millionwas spent and what happened to the $7 millionthat was left over from the last financial year.The Treasurer, in reply to the last question Iasked him and after a rather political first para-graph, said-

The procedure adopted to ensure that anadequate provision was made for salary andwage increases in circumstances as uncertainas last year was to make a central lump sumprovision accepting that particular votescould be exceeded up to the total of that pro-vision.

He continued-While admittedly this procedure is clumsy

it does mean that adequate allowance ismade overall in the Budget for salary andwage costs and it records outlays against cor-rect votes. However, it has the disadvantageof showing the global provision as apparentlyunspent at the end of the year.

That certainly was the case. He continued-

The Treasury advises me that it is not en-tirely satisfied with the procedures adoptedin recent years for handling the budget pro-vision for award increases and is consideringpossible alternative approaches.

In the meantime, the Opposition will continue topursue the matter because it would like to get tothe bottom of it and find out on a department-to-department basis what money was spent onsalaries and how much was set aside in the 198 1-82 Budget.

I turn now to a more important part of myspeech and that deals with the Australian econ-omy and the Western Australian economy. Thereis daily evidence of-and everyone in this Housewould be aware of-a very rapid decline in theeconomic situation in Australia. The Common-wealth Budget forecast that there would be nogrowth in the non-farm product, a decline in farmproduction, and a fall in the total production ofgoods and services in this country, no growth inemployment, an increase in the recorded level ofunemployment, and a rate of inflation in thevicinity of 103/ per cent.

I can suggest only that those predictions givento us in August this year have now turned out tohave been rather optimistic predictions. In thatshort period we have seen retail sales seasonallyadjusted in money terms, and in real terms, fall;building approvals compared with those of lastyear are down 34 per cent; factory production isdown; motor vehicle sales are down; inflation isclimbing; the unemployment Figure stands at500 000 and is climbing; and retrenchments arecontinuing in the manufacturing, construction,and mining industries and other industries thatare most important to the economic welfare ofAustralia.

This country is in severe economic difficulties.In 1973, the former Premier of Western Australiasaid to the people of this State, "Give us thechance and we can beat both inflation and unem-ployment on a State-by-State basis." I suggestthat this State has done nothing whatever sincethen, and is doing nothing now, to try to beat un-employment or inflation on a State-by-Statebasis.

Mr Shalders: We have the second lowest rate ofinflation.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The third lowest rate of in-flation.

Mr Shalders: We have the lowest growth in un-employment.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Our inflation rate is oneper cent below the Australian rate. There is reallyno difference; Ministers should not kid them-selves. If the Government wants to hide behindstatistics like that, it is not coming to grips withthe problems.

Mr Carr: Perhaps the Minister thinks it is goodenough.

4324

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 42

Mr Shalders: The fact that it is one per centbelow means nothing to you?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is of little consequence.Mr Shalders: Then do not criticise us if we are

above the national average.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: If the Minister is happy

with an inflation rate of 11 .3 per cent he shouldsay so. Is he?

Mr Shalders: No.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Of course not! It is about

time this State Government and the AustralianGovernment came to grips with the situation.They are not doing so.

Mr Shalders: What about the New SouthWales Labor Governmednt?

MR 1. F. TAYLOR: On Tuesday the memberfor Mr. Hawthorn asked the Premier to identifythe main features of this Budget aimed at curbingand reducing inflation. This is the stupid answerhe got-

There Can surely no longer be any questionthat in the present economic circumstancesthe dominant factor in maintaining inflationat its current level is unreasonable and ex-cessive wage demands. The pressure for wageincreases must be moderated if Australia isto reduce unemployment and sell its productson world markets. If the Member can adviseme what action might be taken in the budgetto get the Labor Party and union leaders toface the obvious facts of economic life andhelp this country pull out of the recessionthey have helped to make, I would be glad toconsider it.

Do not tell me that is not a Government actinglike an Opposition. It is asking us for ideas-wewill give it some if it is bereft of ideas; I would bemore than happy to do so. This Premier, morethan any other Liberal Premier in Australia, orany leader of a Liberal-Country Party coalition,has supported Fraser and his economic policies.Time and again he has made it clear that he sup-ports Fraser's economic policies. If he does notsupport those policies, now is the time for him tosay so.

Mr Clarko: Are you trying to suggest the West-ern Australian Government can have a major ef-fect on the inflation rate?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Of course, the Premiersupports those economic policies-the monetaristpolicies of Fraser-

Mr Clarko: Are you suggesting the WesternAustralian Government can seriously change theinflation rate in this State?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Of course it can; look atthe increases in taxes and charges from 1 July.The Leader of the Federal Opposition hassuggested the answer. In liaison with the Com-monwealth Government, a 12-month freezeshould be imposed on taxes and charges, and theCommonwealth Government should make up theshortfall. That is one of the answers.

Several members interjected.Mr I. F. TAYLOR: Fraser's economic policies

are the greatest act of economic bastardry everimposed on Australia.

Several members interjected.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Those policies are de-stroying this nation and the Federal Governmentcannot come to grips with that fact. Mr Fraserfollows the Milton Friedman school, the sado-masochistic school of economic thought, whichsuggests that if it hurts and is painful, it must begood for you. If that is the case, it must be goodfor a few nations around the world because it ishurting many people, particularly those who mat-ter; that is, the poorer people. Fraser also hassuggested that Reagan and Thatcher, and peopleof that ilk, have the answers to our economicproblems. They are following the same economicstrategies as this Government and they are allgoing down the gurgler. They are not prepared tocome to grips with the situation and to see thatthe answer to the world's problems today is econ-omic growth. Governments must spend moneyand give a lead so that the world can get goingand jobs will be created.

Mr Shalders: Whitlam did that and we had thehighest inflation rate.

Mr I. F. TAYLOR: That may be, but we canmake sure that it is done better this time, andwhen we are in Government and Mr Hayden is inipower we will make sure the economy is goingagain. We will make sure economic growth is aNo. I priority. We will provide jobs for peoplethat way; we will not just provide schemes. Schoolleavers do not want to go into a scheme to gettraining; they want jobs, and they want lastingjobs. We will not achieve that by following thepolicies of the present Government or its friendsin Canberra.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I ask the Premier to deny

that he is the greatest supporter of Fraser's econ-omic policies.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: He refuses to deny it.The SPEAKER: Order! It is totally

inappropriate that while a member who has a

4325

4326 [ASSEMBLY]

legitimate right to be addressing the House ismaking a speech he should be subjected at thesame time to a continuous barrage of questioning.It is obvious the member has no intention of re-sponding-he cannot, he is in midsentenice. Isuggest that interjections cease.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: If you wish, Mr Speaker, Iwill slow down and listen to the inaneinterjections.

It comes back to the fact that this Governmentsupports Fraser's economic policies and it is quitehappy with the situation of almost record inflationand unemployment.

Mr Hassell: Do you acknowledge that when MrHayden proposed his freeze on increases andcharges, he also proposed that the Commonwealthshould put out such revenue as was necessary toreimburse all the States for the losses they wouldincur?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: That is right. The Ministerwas not listening.

Mr Hassell: He proposes to spend more moneywith no return.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Not spend more money; weare going to maintain services at a real level. TheStates should freeze taxes and charges becausethey are restricting the economy.

Mr Hassell: What about the Commonwealthincreasing its deficit? Does that add to inflation?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: We have to come to gripswith the fact that sooner or later we have to getthe economy on the move. If the Commonwealthhas to increase its deficit in order to do that, so beit.

If Ministers are prepared to sit there and ac-cept the sort of economic thinking that says defi-cit budgeting is unacceptable and that balancedbudgeting is the be-all and end-all of economicthinking, we will remain in this situation. Thingswill get a lot worse because the Government willnot come to grips with the fact that inflation andunemployment are the main problems. We canovercome unemployment only if we get the econ-omy moving. I am prepared to live with deficitbudgeting to make sure that school Leavers havejobs.

Mr Hassell: It did not work in CoughWhitlam's time. HeI spent more than any PrimeMinister in history and still unemployment rose.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Except for Fraser. On 22January 1975, Malcolm Fraser spoke about whatwas happening throughout the world. At that timehe addressed an ANZUS conference. Fraser andthe Premier of this State have suggested all our

problems lie with overseas factors and they cannotdo anything about it. Mr Fraser said in 1975-

When political leaders say the present situ-ation cannot be helped, it is part of a worldsituation, they are expressing the futility oftheir own leadership.

What does that say about Fraser now, because he,Mr Howard, and the Premier of this State aresaying, "Do not blame us, blame overseas fac-tors." At the same time as they are doing that,they are clapping their hands with glee becauseReagan and Thatcher are adopting the economicpolicies that are getting us into the problems wehave today.

I would like to say something about unemploy-ment. This Government sought to blame wageand salary earners for the increase in unemploy-ment in this State, just as at Federal level theFraser Government sought to blame unemploy-ment on increases sought by wage and salaryearners. The State Government has sought toblame unemployment on increases in wages andsalaries when, over many years, it has attemptedto destroy the arbitration system in this State. Imust say, with some sadness, that I witnessed partof the destruction of the arbitration system feder-ally. Along with other people from the State, Iwent to Melbourne and Sydney to put forwardthis State Government's quarterly and half-yearlyproposals to the Commonwealth Conciliation andArbitration Commission in regard to wage in-dexation. What happened at those hearings? Rep-resentatives of this Government, along with rep-resentatives of the Commonwealth Government,would stand up and say, "We support wage in-dexation, but we do not think there should be anywage increases at this time." How nonsensical.

Mr Rushton: Were you carrying the bags?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: The people who were actu-ally putting forward the submission on behalf ofthis State Government held competitions to seehow few words they could use in the submission. Ibelieve the record was 16 words.

Mr MacKinnon: Was not the Leader of the Op-position saying the other evening that we arelosing our international competitiveness?

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Of course we are losing ourinternational competitiveness.

Mr MacKinnon: What do you put that downto?

Mr I. F. TAYLOR: I am just telling the Minis-ter that. The destruction of the wage indexationsystem has encouraged people to go outside thesystem.

Mr Brian Burke: That is dead right.

4326

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 42

Mr I. F. TAYLOR: The second reason is thatthe Fraser Government imposed tax increases onwage and salary earners that were beyond the im-agination of any elector back in 1975. In fact, noless an authority than Russell Matthews had thisto say about our taxation system-

The Australian taxation system discrimi-nates in favour of speculative activity andagainst enterprise and thrift; gives preferenceto foreign taxpayers over Australian resi-dents, redistributes income from the poor tothe rich, consciously discriminates againstwage and salary earners and provides amajor stimulus to wage inflation and indus-trial conflict.

That is what the taxation system did, right upuntil this Budget. It forced wage and salaryearners to ask for increases over and above whatthey would normally expect because they knewfull well that every increase they obtained wouldbe taxed at exorbitant levels. Therefore, onceagain, the Fraser Government must accept someof the blame for the increases over the years.

Mr MacKinnon: If we are to get more moneyfrom the Commonwealth, from where is the Com-monwealth to get it?

Mr I. F. TAYLOR: If the CommonwealthGovernment wanted to try, it could recoup$10 000 million to $15 000 million which it lostthrough bottom -of-th e- harbou r schemes.

Mr MacKinnon: You are living in a dreamworld.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: It is amazing how MrFraser seems to bring forth profound positivestatements prior to elections, and I would like torefer to the statement he made just prior to the1980 election. Fraser created the myth of a re-sources boom and one of the things he said wasthat the development would add greatly to ournational product, our income, and our wealth, andthat Australians stood to benefit by being mem-bers of a wealthier society. Fraser created themyth, and the people believed the country couldafford to give them whatever they wanted. Frasercreated the cargo cult mentality which is still pur-sued by the Treasurer and which was pursued bythe former Treasurer-the mentality that thisState could afford whatever the people wanted.

Mr Clarko: Has the standard of livingimproved in WA over the last 20 years?

Mr Brian Burke: Over the last three years ithas not.

Mr I. F. TAYLOR: Of course it has improvedover the last 20 years.

Mr Clarko: Over the last five?

Mr Brian Burke: Over the last five years it hasnot.

Mr Clarko: Of course it has.Mr Brian Burke: It has not.The SPEAKER: Order! The Leader of the Op-

position and the Minister for Education will desistfrom cross-Chamber interjections.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: In concluding, I would liketo suggest that this Premier has failed to come togrips with the real problems that face this State.He is leading a Government that has no ideawhere it is going-a Government that is out ofcontrol. In fact, it is so far out of control thatwhen the Premier takes to State Cabinet sub-missions on industrial legislation, his Cabinet rollshim, and when Cabinet takes submissions to thejoint parties in the party room, the party peopleroll the Cabinet. What is going on in this Govern-ment? Who is in control?

Mr Brian Burke: Nobody-they are all out oftouch.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: Certainly one person is notin control, and that is the Premier of this State.Time and time again he has proved to this Statethat not only is he not in control of the politics ofhis party, but also he is not in control of the econ-omy. He has no idea what is required of him asthe Premier to get this economy going again.

Points of OrdWr

Mr O'CONNOR: On a point of order, MrSpeaker, the member for Kalgoorlie quoted froma document referring to a Premiers' Conference. Irequest that it be tabled.

Mr PEARCE: On a point of order-

The SPEAKER: Let me just deal with the firstpoint or order. The member for 2Kalgoorlie didquote from a document, and there is a req uire-ment that the tabling of documents quoted frommay be sought. I request that the member forKalgoorlie table the document from which hequoted.

Mr PEARCE: My point of order related to thatvery matter. I have been in the business of re-questing the tabling of documents and as I under-stand it, the responsibility always has been placedon me; in other words, the person requiring thedocument to be tabled must seek the tabling atthe time the document is being quoted from.

Mr H-erzfeld: Oh rubbish!

Mr Brian Burke: We will get copies for every-body-it will illuminate some of the darkness ofGovernment members.

4327

4328 (ASSEMBLY]

Mr PEARCE: I would like to get the situationclear. That seems to be the procedure that hasbeen followed in this House, in the same way it isfollowed in regard to the withdrawal or words.

Mr Clarko: The tabling is sought at the end ofthe speech.

Mr Brian Burke: The tabling is sought at thetime the document is quoted from, and the docu-ment is then tabled at the end of the speech.

Mr PEARCE: I am sure the member forKalgoorlie does not mind tabling the document,but 1 believe the precedent needs to be very clearfor other members. My understanding of the situ-ation is that a member must ask for the documentto be tabled at the time it is being quoted fromand then the Speaker, or his deputy, orders thedocument to be tabled at the end of the speechand if it is not ordered, the document is nottabled.

Mr Herzfeld: What are you trying to hide?

The SPEAKER: It is within the ability of anymember to seek the tabling of a document fromwhich a quotation is made during the Course Of aspeech. The Treasurer has requested that thedocument be tabled at this point, and I see noreason that it should not be tabled. I ask that themember for Kalgoorlie make the documentavailable to be placed on the Table of the Housefor the balance of this day's sitting for the infor-mation of members.

Mr 1. F. TAYLOR: I am more than happy totable the document. Could I suggest to the Prem-ier that he could make a-copy of it available forall members of his Government? I am sure, afterreading it, they will be more than surprised aboutthe incapability of their Premier at a Premiers'Conference.

The SPEAKER: The document will he tabledfor the information of members.

(The document was tabled for the informationof mewmbers.)

Debate Resumed.

MR BRIDGE (Kimberley) [3.38 p.m.]: I riseto enter the Budget debate. Over the weeks of thisdebate I have had the opportunity to listen to thecomments advanced so far. Government membersdevoted a considerable amount of time to thefact that this is a balanced Budget and that ben-efits and merits will accrue from such a result.Under normal circumstances, of course, the bring-ing down of a balanced Budget is an achievementabout which we could be very happy. However,we must consider that this balanced Budget hasbeen brought down as a result of the discontinu-

ance of services in a number of areas, and I referparticularly to essential public services.

A wide range of topics has been covered byspeakers from both sides of the House, and, in-deed, the whole State has been referred to. Ofcourse a member's own electorate is of particularconcern to him, and we have heard from membersrepresenting the gold fields, the southern parts ofthe State, and the northern parts. We have beentold how this Budget will affect particular elector-ates and members have referred to its good andnot-so-good features.

I will not canvass the Budget in terms of itsgeneral application to the State, because that isan unnecessary exercise. I would rather confinemy comments to the specific areas relating to theelectorate of Kim berley that concern me.

It is fine for the Treasurer to bring down a bal-anced Budget-this comment stems from my ex-perience in local government-as long as he isable to maintain essential services to the publicalong with the benefits of a balanced Budget.However, if those things do not happen, I questionthe value of a balanced Budget. The Treasurermay say, "Money is tight and it is not easy to Findmoney." I know that. We are all affected in thatway.

I am prepared to give credit in the areas wherethe Government has recognised the need. I sup-port Government initiatives in the Kimberley.Where such things have occurred, I am happy tocompliment the Government. As a matter of fact,I am happy to say that I have helped the Govern-ment to achieve those results. I have played myinnings as well; and I am prepared to say that.

Mr Rushton: Could you list all the items youare happy about?

Mr BRIDGE: However, in the areas where theGovernment has not been wise enough to listen tomy advice, I withdraw my services.

Mr Herzfeld: Do you admit there might havebeen times when your advice was wrong?

Mr BRIDGE: Not when it comes to theKimberley; but on a State basis, the member forMundaring might be right.

In the areas where the Government has notbeen prepared to listen to what I have said, I willgive it a bit of a tongue lashing in the next fewminutes. I hope that at the end of this time, theGovernment might change its mind and think thatmy advice is worth considering.

Mr Rushton: But we have done more goodthings than bad ones, so you ought to be fair.

4328

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982) 22

Mr BRIDGE: I made that point. Where theGovernment has done good things, I am preparedto congratulate it-

Mr Rushton: You would not like us to stopdoing the things we have done right?

Mr BRIDGE: -so long as it recognises thepart I have played.

Mr Rushton: You would not want us to stop?Mr BRIDGE: No. The Kimberley is too

valuable for that.Earlier in the year we had a problemn with the

discontinuance of the Kimberley air service to re-mote areas in the northern part of the Kimberley.That was of great concern to the residents of thearea. Members of the House will recall that onseveral occasions I raised this matter by way ofquestions on notice, questions without notice, anda grievance. Ultimately, the service was reinstatedfor the people in the northern part of theKimberley.

What we need to bear in mind is that the ser-vice should not have been stopped; and it was re-instated only because Australia Post rather thanthe Western Australian Transport Commissioncame to the party. That was wrong, as theTransport Commission had an obligation to en-sure the continuation of the service.

Mr Rushton: We should not be subsidising it.We are subsidising it now; but if the subsidy hadbeen paid at that time, everything would havegone nicely. The Commonwealth has an obli-gation for Australia Post. It is not the State's re-sponsibility.

Mr BRIDGE: For freight and passengers aswell?

Mr Rushton: I am talking about Australia Post.That is what you are criticising.

Mr BRIDGE: That is not true. I am criticisingthe wrongful decision of the Transport Com-mission not to keep operating that service.

Mr Rushton: They are paying dearly for it now.If they had put that subsidy in, it would have beena very easy operation; but they would not do it atthat time.

Mr BRIDGE: Who is "they"?Mr Rushton: Australia Post. The Transport

Commission invited it to do it. Now it has to paythe lot.

Mr BRIDGE: A service such as the Kimberleyair service is an essential part of the communi-cations for the people in the area. Surely the StateGovernment has a measure of responsibility to en-sure that a service of some kind is provided. Thatwas not the case. The Transport Commission ar-

gued against that proposition, arguing that Aus-tralia Post ought to pick up the tab. Ultimately.that was done by Australia Post, and the servicewas restored. I do not think that clears theTransport Commission of the criticism being lev-eled against it.

People can say correctly that in other parts ofthe State the Transport Commission is responsiblefor the services, and it is meeting that responsi-bility. No-one can question that.

Mr Rushton: Australia Post is required to pro-vide that service right throughout the State. Whatis more, I think you should pay credit to theTransport Commission for organising the air ser-vice the way it has. The commission did it verycreditably;, and you have got a good servicerunning there now, which is due to the good or-ganisation of the Transport Commission.

Mr BRIDGE: We are looking at two differentservices. The Minister is talking about theKimberley RPT service; I am talking about thestation service.

Mr Rushton: The station service was related di-rectly to Australia Post.

Mr BRIDGE: Not really. The Kimberley RPTwas set up on the initiative of the Transport Com-mission. The Government of Western Australiahad nothing to do with the Australia Post situ-ation.

Mr Rushton: Apart from subsidies from theCommonwealth, which have been withdrawn, weare picking it all up now.

Mr BRIDGE: The Minister has raised theRPT; and I am quite happy to talk about thatsituation. I am happy to say that the present oper-ators are providing an excellent service to theareas covered by the RPT. However, I make itclear that I have been referring to two separateservices in the House today. I have no criticismabout the Rfl.

Mr Rushton: Thank you.Mr BRIDGE: The Transport Commissionss

role in that has been commendable, and I amquite happy to say that. That is not so in the caseof the Kimberley air service.

Mr Rushton: You could even go as far as say-ing the Government's part was commendable.

Mr BRIDGE: Yes, if that suits the Govern-menit. Ile member for Kimberley did his part,too. He helped the Government.

Mr Brian Burke: Hear, hear!Mr Rushton: We will share it.Mir BRIDGE: We will share it, and all be

happy.

4329

4330 ASSEMBLY]

[ turn now to another matter of concern to theKimberley, and I would be happy if the Ministerwould debate this one with me. Recently we haveseen the discontinuance of that bus servicebetween Kununurra and Wyndhanm. To put therecord straight, I indicate that previously theservice was operated by MacRobertson MillerAirline Services, and more recently it has beenoperated by Airlines of Western Australia.

Because of economic factors and the runningcosts, AWA made a decision recently that it wasno longer in a position to maintain that service,and that it would be terminated at the beginningof October. That has happened; and at present avery unsatisfactory service operates between thetwo towns.

Mr Rushton: The person working to replaceyou has represented it to me on the basis of whatcan be done;, and We are looking at it on thatbasis.

Mr Bryce: Are you playing politics?

Mr Rushton: There is already an alternativethere which is being tried at this moment.

Mr BRIDGE: Let us consider the present pos-ition. The north-bound service of Airlines ofWestern Australia arrives in Kununurra roughlyat lunchtime--either an hour before or an hourafter. Previously, a bus always was available tomeet the north-bound service.

Mr Rushton: Paid for by AWA.Mr BRIDGE: That meant that passengers dis-

embarking from the aircraft, or passengerstravelling from Wyndham to Kununurra to catchthe aircraft to Darwin, had the benefit of a busservice. Previously no delay occurred and it wasunnecessary for passengers to stay overnight atKununurra, because a good connection wasavailable.

However, that is not the case now. According tomy information, a small, cab-type utility is usedto provide a service from Kununurra to Wyndhamthree times a week. It leaves Kunuinurra at 2.00p.m. and takes approximately one hour to onehour 20 minutes to get to Wyndham and returnsto Kununurra by about 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. There-fore, frequently the return service is too late toconnect with a south-bound flight out ofKununurra.

The people of Wyndham no longer have asouth-bound passenger service available to them,because if they use the bus service which operatesonly thee times a week, they have to stayovernight in Kununurra in order to connect with aflight south. This means people must use their

own forms of transport or meet the cost of stayingovernight in Kununurra.

The situation is even worse in relation to north-bound services, because no suitable connection isavailable. The people in Wyndhamn must eitheruse the bus service which operates three times aweek from Wyndham to Kununurra, stayovernight there, and travel north on a flight nextday, or use their own transport to get toKununurra. The situation is similar when they arereturning from Darwin, because no suitable con-nection is available.

Mr Rushton: Is it your understanding thatsome subsidy is given at the present time fromAnselt or somebody like that?

Mr BRIDGE: Yes.Mr Rushton: Is it somebody by the name of

Wright?Mr BRIDGE: Yes.Mr Rushton: Do you think somebody else

should be doing it?Mr BRIDGE: I do not suggest for a moment

someone else ought to do this and in no way do Iintend to reflect on the ability of that person tooperate the service. The point I am making is theservice is not adequate for the needs of the people.As a result, the people of Wyndham do not haveany kind of suitable connections with north orsouth-bound flights from Kununurra. The connec-tion factor is a great problem there.

Mr Rushton: I think you are right in saying thepresent service is not as good as that whichexisted previously, but apparently too few peopleuse the service.

Mr BRIDGE: That might be the ease. It is notdisputed that one of the reasons Airlines of WAdecided to withdraw the service was lack of use,but surely a better service should be provided tomeet the needs of Wyndham passengers than thatwhich exists presently.

Mr Rushton: I do not detract from your pointof view, but it is an awkward situation when a pri-vate firm walks away from a service and leaves itfor the State to pick up. It is not a simple matter.

Mr BRIDGE: That is right; but we have tostart thinking about it now.

Mr Rushton: We have been thinking about it.Mr BRIDGE: I believe the Minister needs a

little of my advice in relation to the matter.Mr Rushton: I suggest you write a letter to me

indicating your suggestions on it.Mr BRIDGE: My main concern is to restore an

adequate passenger service so that the people ofWyndham who wish to travel north or south may

4330

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982]133

do so without having to deal with the problemscaused presently by the restricted nature of theservice.

On some of the days that the bus operates fromWyndham to Kununurra a flight is scheduled todepart from Kununurra after 5.30 p.m. so a con-nection can be made. However, that occurs lessthan three times a week. Therefore, that cannotbe regarded as an adequate passenger service. TheGovernment and the Transport Commissionshould examine this matter.

The transport policy of this Government en-ables a subsidy to be paid where it is necessary tomaintain a service to the community. Where aprivate operator is experiencing problems provid-ing a service, especially in remote areas, underthis Government's transport policy, it accepts itsresponsibility to provide some sort of subsidy.

Mr Rushiton: Under its legislation theTransport Commission has a responsibility tomonitor services and prices and make recommen-dations in relation to the quality of those services.This matter is with the Commissioner ofTransport at the present time for evaluation andrecommendation.

Mr BRIDGE: Reference is made to subsidies-Mr Rushton: It is not an automatic subsidy.

For example, you would be aware of an air servicethat is operated without a subsidy which hasproved this can be done without the necessity tocall on the taxpayer to subsidise it.

Mr BRIDGE: It will be interesting to see howlong that service can continue without a subsidy. Ialways have expressed my concern about it. Forthe operator's sake, I hope that he is able to con-tinue the service, because I know he wants to do iton his own. It will be to his credit if he can main-tain that service.

Mr Rushton: From what I understand he isdoing a good job.

Mr BRIDGE: Aviation in the Kimberley is avery costly business.

Mr Rushton: It is very essential, too.Mr BRIDGE: It is very essential and costly and

I certainly would see that as a permanent situ-ation.

Although the significance of a balanced Budgetis emphasised and members opposite remind us ofhow much this benefits the State, I have outlinedproblems which exist in relation to essentialtransport services to the people of the Kimberley.They are very important matters and cloud anyconsideration one may have for the fact that theBudget is balanced. While the Government recog-nises the importance of a balanced Budget, at the

same time it must address itself to these vitalareas of public need.

I shall turn now to some of the increases incosts which have occurred in the Kimberley overthe last 12 months. Firstly, I shall direct my com-ments to health services and indicate that if oneattends a hospital in, for example. Halls Creek OrFitzroy Crossing, the normal consultation fee is$25. I understand that in the metropolitan areathe standard consultation fee is approximatelyS12.50 and the fee recommended by the Govern-ment is about $10.60.

There again we have an instance of people inthe north having to pay a considerable amount ofmoney for a basic need. I am sure that even if theservice is provided by a nursing sister the fee isstill $25. This is another example of the impo-sition of high cost burdens being passed on to resi-dents of remote areas such as the Kimberley.

In our deliberations in this Parliament, weshould give thought to the need for such things astax-free holidays to attract tourists to the north,something that was mentioned in Port Hedland onthe weekend. We would all support that prop-osition, but we must realise that no assistancewould be provided to the local permanent resi-dents of the regions.

Mr Bryce: The small businessmen,Mr BRIDGE: They are the people who are cop-

ping the can. They are subjected to all these in-creases, but, as they do not fall into the categoryof tourists, any concessions or benefits designed tohelp the travelling public do not flow on to them.They live in the north year in and year out: theyare the backbone of the area. It is nice to havepeople visiting the area, but the local residents arethe people who are there today, tomorrow, andthe day after. Our policies must be directedtowards helping these people and we must givethem more consideration in our deliberationswhen discussing a wide range of matters such assmall business, pastoral matters, and I imaginealso the mining industry, because we have a lot ofpermanent companies now in the north in thesense that they have been there for many yearsand have many permanent workers residing in thearea. Generally the Government has beenshortsighted when considering needs and servicesto take care of local people in the north. Withoutthe local residents there would be no stability inthose regions.

People often say of northern residents that thedecision has been theirs to live in the north andthat it is their choice to remain there, but that isnot the point. These people provide a veryvaluable contribution to the prosperity, security,

4331

4332 [ASS EM BLY]

strength, and growth of the region. The men onthe stations-and I will have more to say aboutthese people when we have a chance to talk aboutpastoral areas-the small businessmen whostruggle to improve their businesses, the workingmen, and the family men are all very important tothe region. I have been speaking mainly of theKimberley, but this applies to all areas outside themetropolitan area, whether they be down south,east, or up north. These people have beenneglected in most of the Government's policies.

At the northern seminar held the other day, wespoke about the significance of development andthe need for us to promote development in thenorth. That is fine, we all support that; but I askmembers to consider what is in it for the littleman in the Kimberley.

Mr MacKinnon: Is that not why my colleague,the Minister for Lands, set up such an exhaustiveinquiry into zone allowances and why we havebeen so active trying to increase zone allowances?

Mr Bryce: How long have you been working onzone allowanees-lO years?

Mr MacKinnon: Probably.Mr Bryce: You have had good Press statements

for nine years.Mr Laurance: There has been an improvement

this year-a pretty substantial improvement.Mr MacKinnon: That is what your leader is

saying we should be doing with Federal financialrelations.

Mr Bryce: But you are not achieving much suc-cess.

The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Tubby): Order!The member for Kimberley has the floor.

Mr BRIDGE: Although the Minister expressesa degree of enthusiasm about the progress made, Ihave not seen any evidence of that progress. Ifprogress has been made, that is line, but the mat-ter still needs to be addressed to a far greater ex-tent because it is so important.

The type of people to whom I referred are im-portant to the area; they are important to thestability of all rural areas, whether they be north,south, or east, helicopter country, or otherwise.

Mr Laurance: They are getting plenty of landnow.

Mr BRIDGE: It is true that over the last 12months a lot of land was made available in theKimberley by the Lands and Surveys Departmentover the last 12 months, but it was not beforetime. The response from people in the area to theavailability of land vindicates what I am saying.What concerns a lot of people in the area is the

high cost of that land. The point has been reachedwhere land prices in the north are virtually equiv-alent to land prices in the metropolitan area,which is very wrong. There are logical reasons toexplain the high price of land in the metropolitanarea and land in reasonable proximity to themetropolitan area. This is premium land becauseof the degree of development around it; thereforewe can expect the cost of such land to be high.However, in places like Kimberley there aremillions of hectares of undeveloped land, yet theprice of land there and in the metropolitan area isfairly equal. Although the Minister might arguethere are good reasons that this is so, it does notalter the fact that something is wrong.

Mr Laurance: The cost of servicing the land isvery high. The total cost of land is almost com-pletely made up with the cost of servicing it. 1don't like that any more than you do, but, as acommunity, we have decided that, from one endof the State to the other, land coming onto themarket should have all the services available. Ifyou don't do it that way, and you provide cheaperland without the services, there is a clamour forthe Government to provide the services, so it isbetter to provide them first.

Mr BRIDGE: The Government must tacklethis problem because the present situation deniesa lot of small people the opportunity to buy landin the north. About 60 blocks were sold aroundKununurra recently, but, if we look at the suc-cessful bidders, we find they were mainly largecompanies such as CRA and Ashton Joint Ven-ture.

I acknowledge that the geographical factor cre-ates inbuilt disabilities for people living in thenorth, and nothing will change this. Because ofthe distances, the cost of getting things there andthe cost of providing services always will be animposition.

Mr Laurance: It is beautiful country, though.

Mr BRIDGE: It is the best; most things thatcome from the Kimberley are the best, not justthe land!

In summary, I remind members opposite thatwhen they express words of praise for the Budgetthey should do so as long as they remember it isnecessary that essential services for the north aremaintained. That is being fair. I am not saying allservices should be provided; I am saying essentialservices should be provided. The comments I havemade today relate to the provision of essential ser-vices-nothing beyond that. People in theKimberley have the mentality to know that theyshould obtain only a fair crack of the whip-nomore than is reasonable.

4332

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 43

Mr Laurance: They don't want frills; they wantthe basics.

Mr BRIDGE: I have not claimed beyond thatpoint; the people of the Kimberley want only afair crack of the whip. They need essential ser-vices, and are entitled to them. The provision ofthose services is something to which all Govern-ments must address themselves at all times.

I am glad the Minister for Resources Develop-ment has returned to the Chamber because I wantto refer briefly to comments he was reported tohave made during the last few days. He made aspeech at the northern seminar held at PortHedland in the weekend. I am not sure that thereport of his comments was accurate; he is thebest person to answer the question. However, ifthe report is accurate, it is rather sad that theMinister made those comments.

Mr P. V. Jones: You know those words weren'tused though, don't you?

Mr Bryce: Are you denying that you said that?

Mr P. V. Jones: It is what the media will say.

Mr Bryce: Have you said that to the Press orreleased a statement?

Mr P. V. Jones: I think the member forKimberley is doing very well.

Mr Bryce: Yes!

Mr BRIDGE: I was present when the Ministerdelivered his speech, and certainly I do not re-member the words reported being uttered by theMinister.

Mr Jamieson: It might have been in the Minis-ter's handout.

Mr BRIDGE: The words may have been in theMinister's handout, but I cannot comment beyondthe point I have made. I hope my observationswere correct, because the words reported donothing at all towards settling the land rights situ-ation in Western Australia. If this situation ishandled with good sense-approached practi-cally-not a great deal exists about which weshould be concerned.

The Aboriginal people seeking land rights seeksomething to give them a basis of tenure greaterthan that which exists today, and these people canprovide evidence to indicate that proper land ten-ure does not exist for them today. Their wish tohave this proper land tenure surely is no threat toanyone. Even in this House within the last yearwe adopted measures designed to give farmers agreater degree of land protection. The legislationintroduced at that time could be described, forwant of a better term, as land rights legislation.

Mr Cowan: Are you talking about the MiningAct?

Mr BRIDGE: Yes; I am talking about amend-ments to the Mining Act. Both sides of the Housequite rightly supported strongly the measuresintroduced. The farmers and pasioralists of thisState are entitled to proper land protection. A re-quest for similar protection from Aboriginal com-munities such as Balgo, Beagle Bay andOombulgurri are not unreasonable. I think the de-sire for land rights came to the minds of Aborigi-nal people when they saw other sectors of the gen-eral community receive appropriate land tenure.

Aboriginal people merely want appropriateland tenure-rsonable protection. Naturallysome people will depart from reality and say theywant this, that, or something else. Those peoplecould be Aborigines, farmers, pastoralists, orminers. Always we have an exception to the rule,but we as members of Parliament must be sen-sible and responsible in the legislative process ofthis State. Ultimately the Parliament will deter-mine the destiny of the State and its people. Allalong 1 have said that personally I believe one ofthe most harmful things we can do as politiciansis to allow or take part in a debate which createsfears in the minds of our people, particularly ourEuropean people whose interests are not underthreat by the process of Aborigines obtaining, forthe want of a better word, land rights.

Mr Shalders: Would you agree that the re-cently released policy in regard to reserves has al-layed many fears on the part of Aboriginalpeople?

Mr Wilson: Has it been released?Mr BRIDGE: The Minister is referring to com-

ments.Mr Wilson: A report hasn't been released.

What are you talking about? You have refused torelease it. Get on top of things.

Mr Bryce: What a skunk; fancy asking aquestion like that.

Mr BRIDGE: The Department for CommunityWelfare in the course of its preparation of the re-port has given regard to the release of land to Ab-original communities in order that those peoplemight obtain a greater degree of land tenure. Solong as that course is followed, I would say,"Good".

The main point I make is that the comments re-ported, correctly or incorrectly, in The West Aus-tralian were unwise; they did absolutely nothingto keep the whole situation in its proper perspec-tive. So long as we, as members of Parliament, ac-knowledge the effect of such comments, the whole

4333

4334 [ASSEMBLY]

situation will flaw more easily. We must give agreater degree of land tenure to communities suchas those to which I have referred. The communityareas are defined clearly as reserves, and if thecommunities at those reserves are given a greaterdegree of control, I would not see anything ter-ribly wrong in that being done. Such a coursewould be proper and consistent with the principleswe in this House support, whether they relate toan amendment to the Mining Act, the Land Act,or any other Act. Such legislation relates to pro-tection, and in regard to Aborigines that protec-tion should be provided. The principle adopted inthis House is to prop up the rights of people onthe land. I for one always will abide by the prin-ciple of supporting the man on the land, whetherhe be a pastoralist or a farmer. He needs thosesafeguards because he works very hard on hisland.

I can assure people who refer to the responsibleattitude of others towards the use of land not theirown that I have seen some terrible neglect occuron the part of those using land not their own, It isgood that measures to protect the rights oflandholders are supported with total consensus bythis House.

Mr Herzfeld: Do you agree with the holding ofland in perpetuity, the way it is being held, forAboriginal people?

Mr BRIDGE: I am not saying that. We shouldgive them a greater degree of control. Those whoare seeking that greater degree of control by theircalls for recognition of that need are demronstrat-ing. this. We should not be running away fromthat situation and should see that as a bogey, aproblem, or a great fear to a sector of society.

Mr H-erzfeld: To give them that greater control,you would give them a land title; is that the idea?

Mr BRIDGE: Greater than presently exists.

Mr Herzfeld: No, the land already is in per-petuity for their use at the present time, so theonly other way you could give them any more is togive them the title to the land.

Mr BRIDGE: Yes, that would be correct. Atthe moment it is under the Minister's discretionand he has the final say. This really is the key tothe problem. A lot of land is set aside fr the useand benefit of Aborigines at all times, and when itcomes to a decision on or a determination of whatcan and cannot happen on that land, it is reallynot their decision, and that is the point; whereasthe farmer in the south-West can say, "I have asay in a determination of whatever happens."Whatever happens, at least he has a say in it, butthe Aborigines do not.

Mr H-erzfeld: The farmers do not have any sayeither in regard to mining.

Mr Cowan: Yes, they do.

Mr Wilson: Of' course they do.

Mr Cowan: You should read the Act.

Mr BRIDGE: Let us maintain a balanced, sen-sible realisation of this matter and let us not goaround accusing people of being reactionaries. Ido not know whether that word is good or bad. Ido not think there is anything wrong with suchterminology. However, I do say it does no goodwhatsoever; in fact, it creates an unnecessaryamount of concern and fear, particularly in theminds of the Europeans who perceive this as athreat to their existence, their livelihood, and in-deed in some cases to their lifestyle. Membersknow that the Aboriginal people have a genuineinterest in land rights and it has never been theirintention to threaten the existence of peoplearound them.

Mr Herzfeld: What about some of thoseimports like Steve Hawke? What is their objec-tion?

Mr BRIDGE: If we look at and re-evaluate thework people like he does at times, we see it is veryconsiderable. These fellows are tarred with abrush that tends to place them in the area of criti-cism. They have to work very hard with thosecommunities assisting them to meet the west-ernised systems.

Mr Jamieson: There is very little financial re-turn.

Mr BRIDGE: Yes, very little financial return isprovided for that kind of person. I think the criti-cism is unwarranted. That concludes my remarkson the Budget.

MR COWAN (Merredin) [4.23 p.m.J: In gen-eral, I endorse the Budget that the Treasurer hasbrought down, but some matters relate purely topolitical expediency and they are the issues I wantto take up with the Treasurer and other Govern-ment members.

The first matter is that of payroll tax. For ap-proximately two years we have advocated that theState Government should do something aboutabolishing payroll tax. We in the National Partywere very pleased to note that the Leader of' theOpposition in his speech on the Budget com-menited that payroll tax should be abolished andthat all State Governments should get togetherwith the Commonwealth in discussions to try toachieve ways of abolishing that tax. When theTreasurer delivered the Budget speech to theHouse he made a great deal of play on the level ofexemptions that were going to be made in relation

4334

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 33

to payroll tax and the value that that was going tohave on small businesses. I note that the level ofexemptions provided for in the Budget and ulti-mately provided for in the Pay-roll Tax Assess-ment Bill amount to something like $3.3 million.It is very interesting to note that in the papersthat the Treasurer tabled was a report on payrolltax revenue raised in this State. Despite theexemption that has been offered, it will increaseby more than 10 per cent, or $31 million; that is,it will go from $230 million to $261 million.

From those rough figures, it is clear to anybodywho wants to look at them that the report ofexemptions to payroll tax that have been offeredby the Government are rather token. I think it isabout time that this Government became genuinein its attempt to do something to remove the bur-den of payroll tax, particularly to those smallbusinesses which are forced to pay it.

I note that the Government also has included inits assistance to small businesses an increasedamount of funding for Small Business AdvisoryService Ltd. That is a very commendable ad-ditional increase in funds. That service can offervery good advice. In the past I have been quitecritical of some of the activities of this service. Icited one instance where the service went to thetown of Corrigin and addressed 71 smallbusinessmen. That included farmers who weresmall businessmen. Two of the main speakers atthat seminar were experts in receivership. Nobodyat that seminar was particularly impressed to dis-cover they were being informed about what wouldhappen to them when and if they went broke.They were much more interested in finding outways and means of preventing that from hap-pening.

Nevertheless, with this increase in funds toSmall Business Advisory Service, I am sure it willenable them to lift their game and will providesomething a little more concrete to those smallbusinesses which are crying out for some form ofexpertise and advice to help them in their endeav-our to remain afloat in the business world. If welook at assistance to small businesses, we findthere has been a $3.3 million payroll tax exemp-tion and $320 000 was given to Small BusinessAdvisory Service which amounts to somethinglike $3.6 million.

In one fell swoop this Government offered aguarantee in excess of $4 million to one company,the proprietor of which was an overseas person.The company has now gone bust and the Govern-ment is quite likely to be required to meet itsguarantee of $4 million. I am talking, of course,about Bunbury Foods Pty. Ltd. I use this exampleto point out the inconsistency of the Government

in that it states it is prepared to do all it can to as-sist small business, but it is prepared to guaranteeto one company more money than the totalamount of money to be offered to the smallbusiness sector by way of payroll tax exemption oran advisory service; it will offer more money toone company which is at high risk and which hasnow gone into receivership, for which taxpayerswill be expected to bear the burden of somethinglike $4 million. These are the decisions of politicalexpediency to which the Government must ad-dress itself if it is to have any credibility at allwithin the small business sector.

Mr MacKinnon: Are you aware of when theguarantee was extended to Bunbury Foods?

Mr COWAN: I am, but I could not give theMinister the exact date.

Mr MacKinnon: It was in late 1977 and anelection was held earlier in that year. If it was ex-pediency you would think we would have done itearlier.

Several members interjected.Mr COWAN: An election was held in 1980. 1

would suggest to the Minister who has justinterjected that some of the workers of BunburyFoods certainly would live within the Bunburyelectorate. Indeed, that particular processing firmwas outside the Bunbury electorate. I think theMinister is drawing a nice point when he says thatit is located outside the Bunbury electorate. In allthe Government's statements related to that firmand its establishment in Bunbury kudos weregiven to the marginal seat of Bunbury. TheGovernment can make decisions based on politicalexpediency if it wants; that is its decision and pre-rogative. I am not really worried about thetiming, but if the Government is prepared to offera guarantee in excess of $4 million to one particu-lar company, against good advice-I am notaware whether Mr MacKinnon was the Ministerat that time.

Mr MacKinnon: Have you confirmation that itwas against political advice?

Mr COWAN: Yes, I have.

Mr MacKinnon: I hope you can explain that tome.

Mr COWAN: The seed section of the PIA rec-ommended that the edible oils factory should notbe established in Bunbury because it was locatedtoo far away from areas where vegetable oil seedsare produced.

Mr MacKinnon: The treatment plant was thethird stage.

4335

4336 ASSEMBLY]

Mr COWAN: It was stated by the seed sectionof the PIA that Bunbury was not the best locationfor an edible oils factory.

Mr MacKinnon: In its opinion!Mr COWAN: Yes, in its opinion which was

subsequently proved right.Mr MacKinnon: It has not been proved right.Mr COWAN: The company has gone into re-

ceivership. I would suggest that this had some re-lationship to one of the points made which wasthat there was not adequate production of oilseeds in Western Australia.

Mr MacKinnon: You are saying that because itwas located in a decentralised area it went broke.

Mr COWAN: I am saying that the PIA madetwo statements, One was that Bunbury was toofar away from the production of edible oil seedsand the other was that the demand for the fac-tory's production perhaps was not great enough towarrant an extraction plant and I suggest theywere proved to be correct.

Mr Blaikie: That has nothing to do with thefinancial ability or potential of the project.

Mr COWAN: I do not know.Mr Blaikie: That is the relevance of the

question, not where the oil seeds are grown or thefactory is built.

Mr COWAN: I suggest it was a commentmade by the president of that particular sectionand he has proved to be correct. Members of theGovernment can keep telling me that he is wrong,but the fact is the company has gone into rceiv-ership, and the Government issued a guarantee inexcess of $4 million which it will have to meet.The Government has made great play of the factthat it has offered payroll tax exemptions to thevalue of $3.3 million to small businesses and hasincreased the size of the Small Business AdvisoryService, but the level of both those does notamount to the level this Government hasguaranteed one company.

Mr Blaikic: As far as the comments of the PIAare concerned, it is now claimed the companywould fail because of the factory's location. It hadnothing to do with that. The PIA loaded a scattergun, fired it, and is now claiming credit.

Mr COWAN: It is not claiming credit. I ampointing out to the Government that it cannotmake a decision like this and then make otherstatements as to what it does for small business.

Mr MacKinnon: What you are saying is that ifthe project was built in Merredin you would haveagreed with it.

Mr COWAN: No, I am not. I am saying theGovernment guaranteed $4 million to a businessthat should never have been established. ThisGovernment should never have needed to offer aguarantee if the project was such a goer.

Mr MacKin non: Then you are saying theGovernment should never offer Govern mentguarantees.

Mr COWAN: No, I did not. That is what theMinister for Industrial, Commercial and RegionalDevelopment said.

Mr Mac Kinnon: That is what you are implying.Mr COWAN: That is not what I am implying.

I would like the Minister for Health to repeatwhat he just said.

Mr Young: I was saying something to the Min-ister for Industrial, Commercial and Regional De-velopment.

Mr COWAN:. I have difficulty in hearing someof the interjections that are made and do not dis-cover that they have been made until I read theHansard proof. The Minister for Health is notone of those members who takes that liberty. Hieusually attracts the member's attention and giveshim the opportunity to reply.

I will continue with the points I am trying tomake. Firstly, the Government must show someconsistency, and, secondly, a lot of other smallbusinesses in country centres need nothing like $4million in order to survive hard times, but theyhave a great deal of difficulty in obtaining anyform of guarantee to the extent that is necessaryfor them to carry on their businesses.

If the Government wants to offer $4.4 millionto business enterprises it could do better thanchoose a company which has a majority foreignownership. It should look at some of the smallerbusinesses and offer them assistance. It would re-ceive a far greater return and the amount ofmoney which the Government would have to pro-vide when honouring guarantees given tocompanies in receivership would be less. This par-ticular company was established, it operated, andit failed. The Government made the decision tosupport it.

As I understand it, the Government made thedecision against good advice from one Govern-ment department and the Primary Industry As-sociation which would know about the quantity ofoil seeds that are produced in Western Australiaand whether a factory of this nature should beconstructed, The Government made the decisionagainst good advice and now it will have to paythe price. It should take note of that and do some-thing about it on future occasions.

4336

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982J133

Statements have been made about what a won-derful thing the Government has done in terms ofeasing the burden on small businesses by way ofexempting them from payroll tax. As the totalamount involved is only $3.3 million, it is reallyquite insignificant, bearing in mind that with thetotal revenue, payroll tax will increase by morethan 10 per cent despite the fact that thoseexemptions are being offered.

The Government needs to be a little more genu-ine when it says to small businesses, "We areinterested in assisting you". It must be able topresent facts and figures. Anyone who looks atthe Government's figures in relation to payroll taxexemptions that have been made available, theguarantees offered to companies in receivership,and the direction in which Small Business Advis-ory Service is channelling itself in relation tosmall businesses, would say that he has someserious doubts about the general attitude of thisGovernment. If he could not say that, he wouldcertainly say that taxpayers' funds are being ex-pended in an inefficient manner. That is some-thing of which the Government must take note.

I am pleased the Deputy Premier is in theChamber, although I have no doubt I will spendthe next 15 minutes trying to make my speechover his interjections.

Mr Brian Burke: Do not provoke him, please.Mr COWAN: The Leader of the Opposition

knows the Deputy Premier does not need provo-cation to interject.

I wish to deal with the matter of transport, andagain, it involves political expediency. On I Julythis year, people who lived outside the metropoli-tan area were required to suffer a company calledTotal West. The reason for Total West's birthwas that the Government decided to transfer thetransport of small goods traffic from one mode oftransport to another-in other words, from rail toroad.

Mr Rushton: It is strange that you did not ac-cept my invitation to come along and get a littlemore knowledge on the subject. You were one ofthe absentees today. It would have done you goodto know a little more about the system.

Mr COWAN: At the same time, the Govern-ment was going to divest itself of a cost of ap-proximately $5 million which it believed it hadbeen expending on the transport of smalls.

Mr Rushton: Be accurate; the figure is $7million.

Mr COWAN: The Government believed this tobe a non-profit area. We have no argument withthe transfer of smalls from one medium of

transport to another. Indeed, we would have noargument with Total West, provided it worked.

Mr Rushton: It is up to the company, not theGovernment.

Mr COWAN: The regrettable fact is that itdoes not work. What is more important is that itis incorrect for the Deputy Premier to say that itis up to the company to make it work becauseWestrail has a 50 per cent equity in the companyand Westrail is directly responsible to the Govern-ment. So, it is a Government responsibility.

Mr Rushton: At this stage, Westrail actually isin front of its estimate, for its part. It is only earlydays. Total West is a commercial operation whichwill succeed or otherwise, according to its ability.

Mr COWAN: I come now to the decision madeon the basis of political expediency. Having estab-lished that Total West originated from theGovernment's desire to divest itself of $7 millionin Budget deficits in the transport of smalls, aboutone month ago the grain growers in this Statewere required to pay an increase of 13.9 per centin rail freight.

Mr Rushton: In terms of a negotiated agree-ment. You want it both ways. You want theGovernment to be involved, but when it isinvolved, you are critical.

Mr Davies: The member for Merredin wasright. The Minister is about three minutes aheadof the member for Merredin, so far.

Mr COWAN: The point is that the decisionwas made to increase grain freight rates. Graingrowers are the greatest contributors to the rev-enue of Westrail.

Mr Rushton: It depends on which year it is.Mr COWAN: This

certainly will be, althoughyears they may not have.

year, grain growersI concede that in past

Mr Rushton: In other years they have not been.Mr COWAN: If the Minister can produce fig-

ures which state otherwise, I would be interestedto see them. In fact, I would say that over the last15 years, on only two or three occasions have thegrain growers not been Westrail's greatest con-tributors. However, notwithstanding that fact.about one month ago, grain growers were asked topay an extra 13.9 per cent in freight rates.

Yet only two weeks ago, this Governmentoffered to the subsidiary company of the largestmining company in Australia-in fact, the largestcompany in Australia-a freight subsidyamounting to roughly $I million.

Mr Rushton: You do not know what you aretalking about. Would you prefer to see the people

4337

4338 ASS EMBL Y)

at Kwinana and Koolyanobbing lose their jobs,and the people at Westrail lose their jobs? Wouldyou prefer Westrail to be in an even worse pos-ition than it is in now?

Mr COWAN: I suggest that the time for theGovernment to take action was when Broken HillProprietary Co. Ltd. rationalised its total ironproduction, and decommissioned the blast furnaceat Kwinana. At that time, the Government didnothing. How can Koolyanobbing operate withouta blast furnance to feed?

Mr Rushton: Koolyanobbing is producing andthe company is exporting.

Mr COWAN: It is producing, but it has noblast furnace to feed. The blast furnace used totake the major proportion of Koolyanobbing's ore,but it no longer operates.

However, because an election happens to becoming up, we see Dampier Mining Co. Ltd.-theoperators at Koolyanobbing-offered a freightsubsidy. Already, the cost of transporting orefrom Koolyanobbing to Kwinana is only mar-ginally more than half the cost of transportinggrain from, say, Southern Crass to Kwinana. Yet,on the one hand, the Government is prepared toask grain growers to pay an extra 13.9 per cent infreight rates while, on the other hand, and in thesame breath, it offers the largest company in Aus-tralia. a considerable freight subsidy. Where is theconsistency in that situation?

Mr Rushton: Firstly, you have not acknowl-edged the fact that grain growers will receive a re-bate under the agreement they made withWestrail; so, you are not being factual or truthful.Secondly, it appears you would prefer workers atKoolyanobbing and Kwinana and in the railwaysto lose their jobs by the closure of production atKoolyanobbing, with not much prospect of itsrecommencing production. This is still the bestdeal as far as Westrail is concerned, and that iswhy it was done.

Mr COWAN: I acknowledge grain growers aregiven discount, but the Minister must admit itdoes not amount to a great deal.

Mr Rushton: Only about four per cent thisyea r.

Mr COWAN: Let us take that into consider-ation. This year, grain growers are being asked topay a 10 per cent increase in freight rates; yetBHP has been offered a subsidy.

Mr Rushton: You are talking about two differ-ent situations. No wonder the public think theNational Party is irresponsible.

Mr COWAN: They do not; the Deputy Prem-ier should go up to Merredin and find out forhimself.

Mr Rushton: At Merredin, they thought youhad lost your electorate. That is what they aretelling me.

Mr COWAN: We will wait until February orMarch next year and see what happens. Membersmade similar statements in 1980 that we wouldnot exist after the election of that year, but we arestill here.

Mr R us hton: Only just.Mr Laurance: What was that again?Mr COWAN: Quantity means nothing. Look

at the number of "Yes-men" in this place. It isquality that counts.

The point is that one cannot make political de-cisions and not pay for them. Here we have theposition where the greatest contributors toWestrail's revenue have been required to pay anincrease of 13.9 per cent in their rates. Even ifthey attain the maximum discount, they will stillpay 10 per cent. However, the largest miningcompany in Australia has been offered a freightsubsidy by the Government in order to keep amining operation open. The Government hasknown since the blast furnace at Kwinana wastaken out of commission that, inevitably,Koolyanobbing would be phased down; but it isonly at this juncture that the Government hasmade that decision.

The people in the wheatbelt area believe thatdecision was taken for political ends. They do notwant Koolyanobbing to be closed; but they knowthat every year more farmers leave the Merredinelectorate than would ever be stationed atKoolyanobbing. They know also that no assist-ance has been offered to grain growers in terms offreight rates in order to alleviate their costs. Theysee that as a decision of political expediency.

The farmers regard mining and agriculture asthe two greatest contributors to decentralisationin Western Australia. They do not want mines tobe closed, any more than they want farmers toleave their farms. However, they recognise that adecision has been taken for political ends. The de-cision taken by the Government will not wash. Itmight buy votes from the people ofKoolyanobbing, but it will not buy votes from thepeople of Southern Cross, Moorine Rock,Carrabin, or Bodallin. They are the pcople whopay in excess of $20 a tonne for grain freightrates, when the miners are paying $11.50 or$ 11.80 for their freight rates. That just will notwash.

4338

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982]133

They were the two major points I wanted tomake. I have other matters which are relevant,and because this is a Budget debate, I can raisethem. The first relates to the drought in the East-ern States, and the consequences of that drought.

At the moment, a large number of livestock anda large number of secondhand machines arecoming into Western Australia. I wear two hats inthis place; and I am not ashamed to admit that Iam a farmer. In fact, I am proud to be one. Icome from an area in which the greatest expanseof skeleton weed ever found in this State was dis-covered in 1973. 1 know what effect that weed canhave on the wheat-growing industry.

It is imperative that if we are to have livestockand secondhand machinery brought into the Statefrom the Eastern States, our quarantine pro-visions should be more than adequate to ensurethat the people in districts receiving these live-stock and taking the machines onto their proper-ties do not experience the same problems that wehad. The Agriculture Protection Board receivesfunding from the skeleton weed levy to effect theeradication or control of skeleton weed; but thatamount only touches the surface. Associated withthe eradication or control of that noxious weed isan enormous contribution on a voluntary basisfrom grain growers.

No grain grower is likely to accept the chal-lenge of maintaining control over noxious weeds ifthe Government of the day or the department,which is responsible for the quarantine provisions,demonstrates that it is inefficient or lax in theadministration of its duties. It is imperative thatall the livestock coming into this State from theEastern States areas suffering from drought aresubmitted to the most rigorous quarantine pro-visions.

Similarly, it is important that all secondhandmachines coming into the State are subject to thesame quarantine provisions. I would go as far asto say that this matter is so important that theproperties of the people who purchase livestock oragist them, or buy machines from the EasternStates, should be placed in quarantine for aperiod of two years and be liable for all the costsof controlling any noxious weed that may beintroduced to the State or introduced to theirproperties by the action they have taken. Thatwould be fair and reasonable; and it is somethingto which the Government must address itself.

I know that the Minister for Primary Industryanswered a question recently about this subject,saying that quarantine provisions would bestrengthened in future. I welcome that; it is im-portant, otherwise the amount of voluntary effort

contributed by farmers in ensuring that noxiousweeds such as skeleton weed are controlled wouldbe wasted. If there is no visible action by the APBensuring that the most rigorous controls are im-posed, the people will give tup the fight, and Iwould hate that to happen.

The next matter relates to something which af-fects only the northern part or my area, and thatis the Agaton water scheme. This issue was pro-moted by the former Premier of this State andvarious groups, particularly within theDalwallinu, Dowerin, and Koorda Shires. A pro-posal has been put that a precedent be setinasmuch as the capital contribution for reticu-lation of the water be made not only by the Stateand Commonwealth Governments on a matchingbasis, but also by the primary producers of West-ern Australia who, it is said, should be asked tomake a contribution. If that were to happen, Ipoint out that I am opposed to the principle offarmers making capital contributions to the re-ticulation of water supplies.

This would create a very costly precedent; andif the precedent is to be established, it is incum-bent upon the Government to ensure that thefarmers who will be in the Agaton scheme aregiven the opportunity by referendum of indicatingwhether they are prepared to pay the price, whichwould be quite substantial. It would amount tosomething like $25 per hectare; and when oneconsiders that the average farm size in the areaconcerned is just under 2 000 hectares, one wouldrealise the farmers would be asked to contributesomething like £50 000 cash per farm. That wouldmake inroads into the cash reserves and operatingaccounts of farmers, particularly when one bearsin mind that they would still have to pay the usualwater rates and charges.

It is most important that if the Governmentmoves away from the usual procedure of havingwater reticulated to rural properties on the basisof a 50:50 contribution by the State and FederalGovernments, that matter be referred to thepeople involved by way of a referendum. I hopethe Government takes upon itself the responsi-bility of making sure a referendum is conducted.

They are some of the points that should beraised in relation to this Budget. I am concernedthat some of the "highlights" of the Budget aredecisions that have been taken for political ex-pediency, and I have indicated those decisionswhich it has been demonstrated have been madefor that reason. The Government must becognizant of the fact that people are intelligentenough to recognise why the decision was madeand that it will not cut a great deal of ice withthem.

4339

4340 [ASSEMBLY]

I support the Budget.Debate adjourned until a later stage of the sit-

ting, on motion by Mr Jamieson.

(Continued on page 4345,)

METROPOLITAN WATER AUTHORITYAMENDMENT DILL

Second Reading

MR MENSAROS (Floreat-Minister forWater Resources) 15.01 p~m.]: 1 move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.I say at the outset that I had hoped to present tothe House an amending Bill which would bringcompletely up to date all the provisions for metro-politan water services. That has not been found tobe possible because of the great complexity oflegal problems of drafting on all aspects of watersupplies, sewerage, and drainage, and the supplyof these services to the community. What hasbeen done therefore for this session of Parliamentis the completion of those portions of legislationthat, under completely different headings, coverseveral important issues, while at the same timeallowing the Metropolitan Water Authority tocontinue to provide all the complex water serviceswhich the community requires under ihe oldMetropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, andDrainage Act as amended.

This Bill brings up to date in particular the twovery important provisions of drainage and works.It consolidates these legislative matters, and pro-vides also for more equitable arrangements withregard to land, entry onto land, the rights of thelandowner or occupier, and several other issues towhich I will refer.

Quite often in debate on legislation it is notnecessary to spend much time on definitions, butthis is not the case here. I wish to discuss the term"drain" as defined in this Bill. Mr Speaker, as 1will state when explaining the companion legis-lation, you and I know what is meant by a"drain". It is simply something that is used tocarry away surplus water. That is the way weunderstand it and as it is defined in this Bill. Butthat is not the way it was defined in 1909 whenthe Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewerage, andDrainage Bill was passed. In those days, at a timewhen typhoid epidemics were so common, theword "drain" was defined as a way of carryingnot just surplus water, but also sewage and urine.In short, sometimes, but not always, a drain waswhat we now call a sewer, and it has remainedwith that definition until this legislation beforethe House now.

At present many other major aspects of drain-age are either not dealt with or else are dealt withinadequately in the Metropolitan Water Supply,Sewerage, and Drainage Act. Consequently, inthe companion amending Bill, all the part whichdeals with drainage is to be repealed, and associ-ated changes are proposed to other sections. Thisprovides the opportunity which is taken in thispresent Bill for a completely new and comprehen-sive approach to drainage.

An arterial drainage scheme is to be preparedin consultation with local councils and appropri-ate authorities. As the name implies, this arterialdrainage scheme or plan is intended to show, intime, the lines of arterial drains that threadthrough the metropolitan area. Therefore it willinclude drainage catchments, lakes, swamps,wetlands, rivers and streams, existing and pro-posed drains, as well as lands that will benefitfrom drainage and that contribute to the need fordrainage, and the existing and the proposed drain-age system.

The arterial drainage plan may be thought ofas a set of maps which show for the metropolitanarea the general way the drainage works naturallyand with man-made drains. It is not in any way astatutory scheme in the sense that a townplanning scheme is. In fact, a great deal of thesuccess of the plan will come from the fact thatthe authority can work with local authorities, po-tential and actual developers, private land-owners,and town planning, environmental, and otherbodies, in planning out what the drainage systemis and should be.

The arterial drainage plan is intended ulti-mately to show all the matters contained in thelegislation. At present, it already exists in part inthe form of overlay maps, and in the vesting ofmetropolitan main drains in the authority and ofother drains with local authorities. But for someyears it is likely to remain a dynamically evolvingplan being developed in a co-operative way by theauthorities involved.

Attention has to be given realistically to theway that drains are built and managed as well asbeing designed merely as lines on maps, and thelegislation deals with this also. In the first place,if practicable, drainage courses will be declared.

The idea of drainage courses and provision fortheir declaration is introduced for the first time soas to assist again in forward planning. A drainagecourse may be thought of as being like a road re-serve, whereby notice is given in advance of thepossible use of a swathe of land for drainage.Where practicable, existing topography andwatercourses may be used as drainage courses.

4340

(Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 44

The Bill provides that notice be given of a pro-posal to declare a drainage course, and for nego-tiations and objections. There may be problems indeclarations of drainage courses, as there usuallyare in forward planning and in reserves of land.Provision is made for negotiations with ownersand local authorities to overcome such problemsas far as is practicable.

Procedures are provided where some arterialdrains or portions of them are to be declared maindrains, in which vase it is the reponsibility of theauthority to maintain them. In order that theauthority might be able to do so, certain powersare given to the authority to control blocking of amain drain, or pollution of it and connection to it,and other similar powers detailed in the Bill.

The scheme still will allow for some drainagecontrol and rating by local authorities. The auth-ority can rate for drainage only for drainage areasserved by existing main drains or proposed ones.

In order to ensure that the rights of an individ-ual or local authority are protected, the authoritycannot declare a main drain unless it is in a drain-age course, an easement, or reserve, or with theagreement of the owner or occupier. The proposalalso must be advertised, and provision is made Forobjections.

The authority may recommend and the Minis-ter may propose and, after having regard to objec-tions, may declare a drainage area, which is onethat benefits or will benefit from, or contributesor will contribute to, the need for drainage ser-vices. Therefore a drainage area is one for whichdrainage charges may be required.

The difficulty of framing legislation aboutdrainage in a metropolitan area such as Perth isthat it must provide for the present situation aswell as plan for the future. It must take into ac-count the responsibilities and the work done bylocal authorities as well as by the authority or itspredecessor, the Metropolitan Water Supply,Sewerage, and Drainage Board. It has to take intoaccount the topography and the natural water-courses, and the role these play and have playedin drainage. It must take into account financialaspects such as hecadworks charges for major de-velopment proposals as well as the drainagecharges and rates paid by owners of small blocksof land. It must take into account the possiblecommunity benefits of drainage, which may applyin these modern days even to people who do notown land in the area, but who may drive throughthe subway at Subiaco, for instance, on their wayto or from work and expect the road not to beflooded-

These possible benefits, as well as possible re-charge of aquifers by surplus water and the pres-ervation and management of wetlands, are all fac-tors that must be considered.

The present Metropolitan Water Supply,Sewerage, and Drainage Act does not take thesefactors into account in sections relating to drain-age. Therefore the companion Bill makes pro-vision to repeal the part about drainage so thatthese new provisions can come into effect. It is be-lieved that this comprehensive new approachtaken by the legislation before the House, particu-larly as regards the idea and approach to an ar-terial drainage scheme, will overcome the diffi-culties of what has often been a most contentiousissue. Extensive discussions were held with localgovernment officers about the intention of this ap-proach and, with the correct and necessary co-op-eration, this approach will work effectively.

The Bill provides for the authority to carry outworks in three categories. Firstly, major works in-clude the construction of dams, waste-watertreatment plants and other defined works. Sec-ondly, general works include construction ofmains for water supply, of mains for sewerage,pumping stations, and other specified works.Thirdly, exempt works are more in the nature ofroutine maintenance and repair work.

The three categories will ensure appropriatepublic notices, attention to the rights of localauthorities and individual land owners and occu-piers, as well as more efficient administration andoperations in the field.

Major works require wide public advertisementand notice being served on affected localauthorities and landowners. There is provision forcomments and objections, and where practicable,alterations to meet those objections.

The approval of the Minister is necessary, andthe authority must report to him on the objectionsand whether or not they have been met.

General works require more limited notifi-cation, in this case to the local authority and anylandowner likely to be adversely affected. Again,objections and comments can be made. If theycannot be met, or if the authority desires to devi-ate from the publicised plans beyond specifiedlimits, the approval of the Minister is required.

If the Minister considers that a proposed gen-eral works may be of sufficient general interest,he may direct the authority to advertise andotherwise treat it as a major work. For exemptworks to be constructed on private land, theowner of the land must request the authority to dothe work.

4341

4342 [ASSEMBLY)

In Matters Of routine maintenance and repair,the Bill makes the entry provisions applicable, asthey are for all entry onto private land.

A new part is given to the important matter ofentry. The provisions are modelled along the linesof the existing provisions or the State EnergyCommission Act. Except for emergencies andwhere it is suspected that the requirements of theAct are being violated, prior notice must be givento the owner and occupier.

The authority is empowered to gather infor-mation about engineering matters and carry outinvestigations of a general and a specific nature.It may investigate underground water resources.

In all works empowered by this legislation, theauthority must ensure, so far as is reasonable andpracticable, that as little inconvenience or detri-ment as possible results.

If there is some damage after entry or works,there is provision for the authority to make goodthe damage. If it cannot be made good, there areprovisions for compensation.

The authority may now enter into agreementsin its own right with owners of land, so as to ob-tain or use portions of land, it also may lease landif it has 'no immediate use for it.

This Bill therefore ensures that there are waysother than through the resumption powers underthe Public Works Act for the authority to haveland vested in it or acquired.

Concern has been expressed that there may notbe available sufficient new general valuations forthe entire area served by the authority in orderthat it might calculate equitable rates. It will beappreciated that the Valuation of Land Act pro-visions are directed towards valuations for differ-ent districts or shires or council areas. For eachone of these, general valuations may be in differ-ent stages of completion at a time of the yearwhen the authority must consider all 26 suchareas or districts.

Provision is made for the circumstance wherethere are not enough complete general valuationsfor the overall purposes of the authority. TheMinister may then empower the authority to usein the next rating year the valuations which areshown in the current rating year. Provisions madeunder that circumstance include one to ensurethat there is continued limitation of annual in-creases of amounts charged and that there is con-tinued provision for payment by instalments andother measures approved by Parliament in the lastsession.

Although this amendment does not cover all thematters which I had hoped that it would, it is still

practicable to give to the authority some of themore general powers in the specification of itsbroad functions, in such a way as to ensure recog-nition of the broad responsi biIi ties and duties ofthe authority.

Such broad duties as the conserving, managing,preserving, and distributing of water for domesticand other uses come into effect. It is necessary forthe authority to take a broad approach because ofthe way in which water supplies must be managedcarefully. A similar broad approach to drainagewas explained earlier.

The authority is also empowered and in factgiven the duty of carrying out or promoting rel-evant research. It is given the duty of ensuring theconjunctive use of water services, and of waterboth above and below the ground. In some pastyears, the authority has had to rely on under-ground water supplies to serve the communityneeds, even to the extent of providing about halfthe total water from underground. Obviously it isessential for it to consider conjunctive uses.

In conclusion, I make no secret of my disap-poinitment that I am not in a position to present acomplete consolidated new Act to replace the1909 Act and the 30 or so amendment Acts whichhave been passed over the three quarters of acentury since the original Act. But members whohave studied the relevant Acts passed in the lastsession, and who study this Bill and the associatedBill, will realise just how complicated are thelegal issues.

I am proud of what has been achieved already,and I am proud of what this Bill can achieve.

This Bill has given a bold new lead to the man-agement of drainage in co-operation with localauthorities. It has updated the approaches toworks so that the interests of the community areprotected fully. It gives broad and far-rangingresponsibilities to the authority on all aspects ofwater services for the metropolitan area.

I coinmend the Bill to the House.Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Parker.

METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY, SEWER-AGE, AND DRAINAGE AMENDMENT BILL

(No. 3)

Second Reading

MR MENSAROS (Floreat-Minister forWater Resources)[5.24 p.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this Bill is to make further a mend-ments to the Metropolitan Water Supply, Sewer-age, and Drainage Act of 1909 and to repealportions of that old Act so that further progress

4342

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 34

can be made towards a complete and modern newAct.

These amendments and this Bill should be readin conjunction with the related MetropolitanWater Authority Act and amendment Bill.

One of the most important features of this Billis that it makes provision for new methods ofrating which will give additional flexibility in set-ting levels of rating and charging to take into ac-count the requirements of the community.' This isdone by means of regulations made by theGovernor, on the recommendation of the Minis-ter after the Minister has had consultation withthe authority.

Methods of making fair and reasonable chargesfor water services have been studied extensivelyand studies currently are being made here inWestern Australia. The charges obviously have tobe set at levels such that the authority has enoughincome to provide the water services that the com-munity expects and for which it is willing to pay.

For the average domestic consumer, the way inwhich the amount of his water services bill is cal-culated is relatively simple. It appears that thePerth community now generally accepts the prin-ciple of paying for both services and use of itsdomestic water supply. It is a fair and equitablearrangement, and with the introduction in the lastsession of Parliament of the flexible methods ofpayment of bills and billing of the owner ratherthan the occupier, there are further advantages.

It now generally may be appreciated that thesupply of services of water sewerage, and drainageover the Perth metropolitan area must take intoaccount very many factors in calculating equi -table charges. There are dozens of possible combi-nations of service charges and allowance andusage charges which are applicable. The chargesthat were based on valuations and that were lev-ied after the general valuation of 1980 high-lighted several existing inequities, and I formed aworking party to share the task of finding fair andreasonable ways of making charges. Studies bythe working party and the authority are continu-ing. This Bill provides flexibility to implement ac-ceptable findings.

The authority has a responsibility to advise theMinister as to the aggregate charges tailored tothe revenue requirements that would be necessaryto meet the needs of providing water services. TheMinister and the Cabinet have in the past ac-cepted the responsibility of setting the aggregateamounts of charges that are levied. This processwill continue, but this Bill provides that this beflexible by the use of regulations that theGovernor has to make and approve.

The remainder of this Bill makes necessarylegislative provisions to take into account theimprovements in legislation on water services pro-vided under the cognate legislation of the amend-ment to the Metropolitan Water Authority Act.

Therefore the Bill repeals the drainage pro-visions of the Act. These are replaced with excit-ing yet realistic provisions which I have outlinedfor the accompanying Bill. It is sufficient to sayhere that the whole matter of drainage was one ofthe most inadequate features of the existing Act,unsatisfactory both to the Metropolitan WaterAuthority and to local authorities alike. Its re-placement in the new version after repeal of partVIIA by this Bill has resulted from long dis-cussions with local authorities as well as fromanalysis of the role of the authority itself.

In as complex a piece of legislation as the prin-cipal Act which this Bill is to amend, there arewhat might be called inherited problems of legis-lation which must be very carefully reviewed tomake certain that a change in one portion doesnot make another portion inconsistent. That is themaj .or reason that the draftsman has taken longerthan I had hoped to modernise this legislation.

As an example of the problems that this oldprincipal Act caused, I can refer members to theprovisions made by this Bill for the word "drain"to be replaced with a new term "property sewer".

Now members and I know what we mean by a'drain". It is simply a way to carry off surpluswater such as after heavy rains. But in the year1909 when this principal Act was formulated, theword "drain" applied to the way sewage was car-ried, and "sewage", by definition could includefacca] matter, urine, and liquid wastes whetherdomestic or otherwise.

That definition of a "drain" continues in thepresent legislation. This Bill provides the oppor-tunity to bring it up to date, by making the dis-tinction between a property sewer as defined inthis Bill and a drain as defined anew in the com-panion legislation. With this Bill, we can now talkof a "property sewer" and understand that it is aconduit that can carry wastewater or sewage,while a drain is something that carries surpluswater.

I have spent some time in this speech on thismatter not only because it is important by itself,but also because it is a good example of just howdifficult it has been to bring this legislation up todate in all regards.

The words "drain", "drains", or "drainage"occur about 200 times in the principal Act. Theyoccur in many different sections and also with thedifferent meanings from our present modern

4343

meaning. Therefore we cannot simply amend theterm "drain" and hope that in all its 200 uses itfits in with the amendment. Instead, there mustbe a very careful analysis of the present laws andthe desired laws; and this must take time to ac-complish.

This amendment Bill takes the legislation for-ward quite a lot further. It builds on the relatedlegislative achievements of the previous session ofParliament. It provides the necessary flexibility toenable the Governor to make regulations aboutrating and charging methods and matters of detailthat will be able to take into account the findingsof ongoing studies of such matters.

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

BILLSCognate Debate

MR MENSAROS (Floreat-Minister forWater Resources) [5.31 p.m.]: I seek leave for acognate debate. It will be seen that if one Billwere not accepted and the other were passed wecould be without provision for quite a lot of facets.in this legislation, and alternatively, a number ofprovisions could be duplicated.

Leave granted.

FIRE BRIGADES AMENDMENT BILL(No. *2)

Second ReadingMR HASSELL (Cottesloc-Minister for Police

and Prisons) [5.34 p.m.]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill sets out to amend the Fire Brigades Actto establish for the first time in the Act specificprovisions for the discipline of officers, firemen,and other specified employees.

Members will recall my comments in connec-tion with the Fire Brigades Amendment Billpassed in the earlier part of the session of Parlia-ment this year. At that time I made mention ofthe fact that work had been undertaken over aperiod of time towards the development of new re-placement legislation and I also commented thatwork was far from complete and that it was de-cided that the amendments then proposed shouldproceed as a First step. However, it has becomeclear that there is an urgent need for the disci-pline code to be spelt out in the Act if the overallcontrol of discipline in the fire service is to bemaintained.

The total review of the Act is still a prioritymatter which I will take up with the incomingexecutive chairman.

Discipline procedures in the fire brigadecurrently are provided by regulations 133 to 140

of the Fire Brigades Act regulations These regu-lations on many occasions over recent years haveproved to be inadequate, and inherent weaknesseshave been demonstrated through legal challengein the Supreme Court. The advice of CrownCounsel is that the regulations are defective andthe Bill proposes that the discipline code shouldbe in the Fire Brigades Act.

The code specifies what constitutes a disciplin-ary offence by an officer, fireman, or other em-ployee and the procedures are designed so thatdisciplinary issues may be dealt with expeditiouslyand in the appropriate manner without resort totime-consuming formal legal proceedings. Disci-pline is seen as the responsibility of the chiefofficer and the uniformed officers under him, andthe code responds to this principle.

A charge may be made by an assistant chiefofficer, superintendent, district officer, or officerin charge of a fire station who has authority orcontrol over the person charged.

The code provides for a charge to be heard byan assistant chief officer except that the chiefofficer will hear all charges laid by or referred byan assistant chief officer.

An officer, member, or employee aggrieved bya decision of an assistant chief officer or the chiefofficer may appeal to an appeal tribunal con-sisting of a stipendiary magistrate as chairman,and employer and employee represntatives. Theappeal tribunal will determine any appeal by re-hearing the matter appealed and the decision ofthe appeal tribunal will be final.

The discipline code accommodates the right ofthe employee to a fair hearing while at the sametime providing a system which is consistent withthe requirements of an essential service such asthe fire brigade. There are other consequentialamendments to the Act to accommodate the disci-pline code and to the powers given to the chiefofficer thereunder. There are powers to providefor regulations in connection with the more de-tailed working machinery of this code.

The Bill provides also for the chief officer, withthe approval of the board, to make and issuestanding orders for the management and goodorder of permanent fire brigades.

The discipline code as proposed will remove theprevious uncertainties and reinforce the chiefofficer's authority as to his responsibilities in hisoverall command of the officers and men sewvingunder him.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr Parker.

4344 [ASSEMBLY]

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 34

BI LLS (3): MESSAGES

Appropriations

Messages from the Governor received and readrecommending appropriations for the purposes ofthe following Bills-

I. Alumina Refinery (Worslcy) AgreementAmendment Bill.

2. Metropolitan Water Authority Amend-ment Bill.

3. Fire Brigades Amendment Bill (No. 2).

2.3.

BILLS (3): RETURNED

Acts Amendment (Reserves) Bill.Land Amendment Bill.Land Amendment Bill (No. 2).

Bills returned from the Council withoutamendment.

QUESTIONS

Questions were taken at this stage.Sitting suspended from 6.15S to 7.31 p.m.

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATEDREVENUE FUND) BILL

Second Reading: Budget Debate

Debate resumed from an earlier stage of the sit-ting.

MR CRANE (Moore) [7.31 p.m.]: I add mysupport to that of other members who havespoken from this side of the House on the Budgetbrought down by this Treasurer. I congratulatehim on his first Budget, and especially for themanner in which he has kept up the tradition ofgood housekeeping to which we have become ac-customed. It was not easy for the Treasurer totake over from someone who was so well versed inpublic affairs and had such great experience i nthe world of commerce as Sir Charles Court. It isfitting and proper to say that I for one believethat, as people in my electorate have expressed tome, this Treasurer has filled extremely well theshoes of Sir Charles Court, and in many instanceshas done much better than some people antici-pated. I do not make that comment as a criticismof, but as a compliment to this Treasurer who hastaken upon his shoulders the full responsibilitiesof his office. He has shown he can be humane,and understanding of the many problems whichconfront him.

I noticed that this year's Budget provides fundsfor several areas of my electorate. I thank theGovernment for the funding for which I have

been asking over a number of years. As a patientman I appreciate the fact that we cannot geteverything at once.

Within the province of the Minister for Works$149 000 has been granted for the establishmentof a water supply at Bindoon. The Shire ofChittering is the only shire in Western Australiawhose home town does not have a water supply.The people of Bindoon, and the people ofChittering Shire as a whole, have expressed theiragreement with what the Government has at lastdecided to do.

I have requested that funds be provided forsome important projects needed in my electorate.While I would not want it to be felt that I have anote of criticism in my voice, I am concerned thatit has taken so long, and may take longer, for theGovernment to commence these projects. In par-ticular, I refer to the establishment of a marinaand fishing boat facility at Jurien. I noticed thatmany other places received similar facili-ties-good luck to the members who representthose areas. Similar facilities are to be providedright up north, and at Bunbury and Esperance, toname just a couple of places. However, I chal-lenge the point that the fishing industry in thoseareas is as valuable to the State, and will continueto make as important a contribution as Jurien.Jurien is the centre of a valuable rock lobster in-dustry. The harbour is exposed to rough seas;therefore it is important it has proper facilities forboats to be moored in safety, and it is recognisedthe fishermen do have problems and additionalcosts associated with moorings.

It appears that $49 000 has been spent toinvestigate the establishment of an inland marinaor harbour for this area, and another $18 000 willbe spent this year. However, I remind the Govern-ment that in all fairness it should recognise theimportance of my request and should carry outthe project I suggest immediately theinvestigations have been finalised. I expect thatproper fishing boat facilities at Jurien will com-mence to be constructed within the next 12months. I am not being unreasonable.

The fishermen at Lancelin have asked that Iinvestigate the situation in regard to jetties in thatarea. Members may recall that recently I askedthe Minister for Fisheries and Wildlife a questionon this matter. I asked for arrangements to bemade for him to inspect the area and to considerwhether another jetty should be provided. I saidthat if it were provided, it should be at the rightplace and be adequate for the requirements of thefishermen.

4345

4346 ASSEMBLY]

The letter I received from the people atLancelin maintained that a marina was necessary,but we all must be fair. I am sure the people ofLancelin will be fair and will realise Lancelin isprotected by an outer reef and Lancelin Island.For most of the year it enjoys a fairly shelteredanchorage, and is quite different from Jurien. Thenecessity for a marina at Lancelin does not existat this time. We cannot afford such luxuries as anexpensive marina;, we cannot build marinasmerely for the sake of building them. I am surethe people of Lancelin and Jurien accept thispoint, and I hope the people of Lancelin soon willhave a jetty controlled not by the fishingcompanies, but by the Government. I hope alsothat when the jetty is constru-cted fishermen willbe able to sell their catches wherever they want.

I was happy recently because the Minister forEducation journeyed through parts of my elector-ate, and officially opened the new district highschool at Gingin. The people of my electoratehave been fortunate over recent years to have es-tablished not only that high school but also a dis-trict high school at Yanchep. I remind the Minis-ter-he would know what I am talkingabout-that during the course of his visit wecalled at a little place called Wannamal. Theschool is cramped; additional facilities are re-quired urgently. I have every confidence thatsince the Minister has visited Wannamal to seethe conditions which exist, a satisfactory solutionwill be attained.

The school is a one-teacher school with an as-sistant to handle beginners. I am sure that in thenear future assistance will be provided-I have somuch confidence in the Minister.

Mr Pearce: That makes you Robinson Crusoe,doesn't it?

Mr Laura nce: His confidence is well placed.

Mr CRANE: For many years I have indicatedmy concern at the daily problems arising in re-gard to the Agaton water project. I realise muchwork has been carried out by various Governmentdepartments and authorities such as the CountryWater Supply and the Department ofAgriculture. We have been very fortunate that SirCharles Court, who is quite familiar with thescheme, has elected to help us with the proposal.Although the scheme is not out of trouble by anymeans, I hope it will go ahead so that our north-ern and eastern wheatbelt areas will have an ad-equate water supply.

Recently the Gingin Shire Council brought tomy attention a problem that is created each yearat the mouth of the Moore River. Guilderton andthe mouth of the Moore River are attractive hol-

iday areas. The boating population, however, hasincreased to such an extent that pollution iscaused towards the end of each summer, andtherefore a need exists for a boat launching fa-cility at Guilderton for boats to be launched di-rectly into the ocean.

The present situation creates difficulties, I ac-cept that at the moment we have a shortage offunds, but the Government should be aware of theproblem. I hope that in the near future the Prem-ier will be able to visit the area to determine thesituation for himself.

Some time ago a suggestion was made to me bythe Gingin Shire Council; I believe it has a deal ofmerit. As members are aware, the proceeds fromthe sale of Crown land go into the ConsolidatedRevenue Fund, from whence funds are spentwherever the Government finds it necessary tospend them. The suggestion is that some of therevenue from the sale of Crown land in a particu-lar area be earmarked for use in that area.

The suggestion has great merit, and if necess-ary, legislation should be introduced to accommo-date its implementation. For instance, procedsfrom the sale of some of the building blocks atGuilderton should be earmarked for the localauthority to spend on developing facilities such asthe boat launching facility to which I havereferred. The Gingin Shire Council and I will bepursuing this suggestion further, and I hope theGovernment will give the suggestion favour.

Mr Blaikie: That would have considerablemerit for country areas because country peopleare disadvantaged generally in comparison withtheir metropolitan counterparts when it comes toexpenditure in areas such as the one you havementioned.

Mr CRANE: The member for Vasse is correct;country people are disadvantaged as a result ofthe economies of scale between country areas andthe metropolitan area. Recently a boat launchingfacility was built at Ocean Reef, and I understandmore money will be provided for other facilities inthat area. I do not say the facility constructed isnot good, or was not required, but expenditure forsimilar facilities at places such as Guilderton arenot given as much support because the popu-lations of those areas are so low. An importantpoint to remember is that most of the people whouse amenities and beaches such as those atGuilderton are from the metropolitan area. Agreat many people living in the metropolitan areawant to get away from the city to areas such asGuilderton. Really, those city people cause thepollution which exists at Guilderton. That is notto say those people are not welcome. However,

4346

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 44

more funds should be provided for proper facili-ties to be constructed.

As a result, unfortunately, of my reading TheWestern Mail of the weekend before last, a prob-lem came to my attention. I do not know how itcould have evaded me, but it has existed for ap-proximately three years. The problem exists atGingin. I have always claimed that I have knownwho sleeps with whom in my electorate, but I didnot know this problem existed. I refer to the di-version of the Moore River. I asked the Ministerfor Works a question in this Parliament yesterdayabout this problem, and I was most concerned byhis answer. Members may be aware from readingthe article in The Western Mail that a certai ngentleman has altered the course of the MooreRiver, where it runs through the Gingin Shire,from other people's properties.

As my question asked yesterday would indicateit was a Mr Maraldi. I was led to believe that inno way were we permitted to divert the course ofa major river. Yet, from the Minister's answer tomy question we find this has happened in Gingin.In the last paragraph he said-

The Public Works Department unsuccess-fully attempted to overcome what appearedat the time a small problem of flood plainmanagement by relatively simple means, butthe Government cannot now justify the ex-penditure of large amounts of taxpayers'funds to restore a comparatively small loss ofreal estate value to a private person.

While I accept this may be so I rind it hard to ac-cept that a responsible Government departmentsuch as the Public Works Department could poss-ibly have underestimated the magnitude of some-thing which occurred a few years ago. A seriousblunder has been made by a person or personswho I am sure were responsible for this matter atthat time. I have no fear of saying that the PublicWorks Department has a responsibility in thismatter because the corse of the Moore River hasbeen diverted from the front of a person's prop-erty which has now been devaluated. In relationto the question I asked yesterday I ind it hard toaccept that the landowner should be expected tobear the expense of legal fees when the Govern-ment clearly was at fault through negligence.

As members know the electorates will changeat the coming election and as a result of this I willlose approximately 6000 electors fromWanneroo.

[Interruption from the gallery].The SPEAKER: Order! I appeal to those

people in the Public Gallery to remain silent whilethey are in the gallery. I askc also that the level of

casual conversation on the floor of the House bereduced.

Mr CRANE: As a result of the redistributionof boundaries my electorate will take in the areasof the shires of Toodyay, Coorow and Carnamahand I will lose the townsite of Wanneroc whichhas approximately 6 000 electors. My electorateat the moment is considerably over-quota asmembers would know.

It is always a disappointment to lose areaswhich one has become accustomed to representand where one has made many friends. I havemade many friends in the Wanneroc area andthey have been kind to me in many ways and thefact I was elected at a time when all the politicalpundits considered it was against impossible oddsmay suggest that some people were happy withthe manner in which I represent them.

I am happy to be going back to the Coorow andCarnamah areas. I mentioned to the members forGreenough and Mundaring who currently servethose areas, that I would go to those districts tomake myself known. It seems the areas are ingood heart and I noticed in the Budget that fundshave been allocated to build a jetty at Leeman.This indicates that the member for Greenough isjust as active as I am sure I was before he tookthat area from me. At that time I was responsiblefor the development of water and electricitysupplies at Leeman and Greenhead and for thedevelopment of the school. Unfortunately, thechange in boundaries took that area from me.

A similar situation applies in relation toToodyay, although currently a problem exists inrelation to the Goonaring and Beelaring Springs,in the Toodyay Shire, in an area which previouslywas owned by the Government when theWundowie works were in operation, but whichwas sold to Agnew Clough Ltd., and has sincebeen sold again.

Concern has been expressed in relation to theclearing of land that has taken place and to theserious salt problem the springs will have in thefuture if the catchment areas are not preserved.We are endeavouring to do something in this re-gard. Unfortunately, I believe the Governmentwas lax and, as it happened, the land was sold andis being developed. I hope we may be able to rec-tify the situation by purchasing back some of theland and allowing it to rejuvenate itself and returnto its natural state so it can be preserved for alltime. It is important that we pay attention to suchareas of land in Western Australia. Our land isour heritage and we have to remember that Godwill not make any more. All that we will everhave is what we have at the moment, so it is

4347

4348 [ASSEMBLY)

necessary that it be preserved for future gener-ations. The Treasurer is well aware of and under-stands the situation and thankfully he received adeputation from the people of Toodyay recentlywhen they explained the situation to him.

Several Federal matters which concern meshould be brought to the attention of the House.Many people do not differentiate between Stateand Federal Governments. When they see a mem-ber of Parliament in the field they immediatelyrelate to the problem which is causing them con-cern even though it may not relate to that particu-lar Government. The problem may be outside amember's province yet most of us try to help inwhatever way we can and we will make furtherstrong representation on this matter.

I was concerned with the Federal Government'sremoval of the exemption of excise on diesel fueland with the effect it will have not only on theprimary industries which include farmers andfishermen-and I have received many deputationsfrom these people--but also on State charges asexplained in the Budget by the Treasurer. TheSEC, Westrail and other Governmentinstrumentalities use diesel fuel and the exemp-tion from the excise which had been granted onthe use of fuel for off road purposes will cost thisState a great deal. I believe the Federal membersof Parliament have seriously let us down in thisregard and it is our responsibility to advise themof this and not let them get away with it.

Mr Pearce: Why do you not vote against them?That would stop them getting away with it.

Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!Mr Pearce: The Parliament is full of Liberals

who do not care a damn about the people.Mr CRANE: The Government is to tax bank

account debits which will affect the sphere of ourstamp duty. No doubt it will cause the Treasurersome concern. This matter has been brought tomy attention by my electors. It seems that Statemembers of Parliament are more accessible to thepublic than Federal members. This is under-standable because of the geography of our Stateand the difficulties that members experiencecoming from Canberra and travelling throughtheir electorates. Therefore, we cop the brunt ofwhat they should be getting.

The final matter I would like to mention con-cerns the discussions that have taken place re-cently about a new flag for Australia. I thought itwould be most appropriate to raise this matteralthough I know it will not be well received insome circles. There are times when we should re-mind ourselves of the need for national pride and

for our concern for patriotism in this country. Iremind the House that the present flag-theCommonwealth blue ensign or as it is frequentlycalled, the national flag-is not a flag which justhappened to be designed by accident. At the mo-ment competitions are being encouraged in thePress for people to design a flag which remindsthem of Australia. The Commonwealth blue en-sign was the result of a world-wide competitioncalled at the time of federation in 1901 by thethen Federal Government which felt Australia, asa new nation of federated States, needed an ap-propriate flag. Surprisingly over 32 000 peopleparticipated in that competition. Five identical en-tries which closely resemble the present Common-wealth blue ensign were received, three from Vic-toria, one from New Zealand and one from aWestern Australian, Mrs Annie Dorrington.

The reason the Union Jack is in the corner ofthe flag is that it resembles our ties with GreatBritain. When Captain Cook arrived in Australiain the Endeavour he was flying the Union Jack, aswas Matthew Flinders, who arrived in theInvestigator. If one looks carefully at the UnionJack one will find strong ties with our own Chris-tian background because it is made up of threeChristian crosses. The centre cross-

The SPEAKER: Order! There is too much aud-ible conversation.

Mr CRANE: -is the Cross of St George, thepatron saint of England. The white diagonal crosson the blue background is the Cross of StAndrew, the patron saint of Scotland.

[Interruption from the gallery].The SPEAKER: Order! I again remind those in

the gallery that they can stay there as long assilence is maintained. If it is not I will have noalternative but to ask for the gallery to be cleared.1 do not want to do that but if the proceedings ofthis Chamber are interrupted I will have noalternative but to take that action. I ask for yourco-operation.

Mr CRANE: The third cross, a red diagonalcross on a white background is the Cross of StPatrick.

Mr Pearce: You cannot blame the Irish either,this is a pathetic speech.

[Applause from the gallery.]The SPEAKER: Order! I will not be able to

tolerate that sort of intervention. I ask again forthose in the gallery not to make any noise.

Mr CRANE: Thank you, Mr Speaker; if thegallery wants me to entertain them, I promise Icould do that, too.

4348

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982J134

As I was saying, the third cross represents thepatron saint of Ireland, which is an indication ofthe Christian background of our nation. Thesouthern cross in the fly of the flag is well knownto us all, if we care to look at the sky of thesouthern hemisphere on a clear night. The largesix-pointed star represented each State of the fed-eration. The only alteration to the flag came laterwhen we added a point to the star to make it aseven-pointed star to represent also the Common-wealth Territories.

So, the flag has been designed for a reason. Ibelieve our newspapers and other media would bebetter served were they to encourage the people ofour nation to be more patriotic to their countryand their flag, rather than be disruptive and askfor change merely for the sake of it.

I realise a great deal of business is to be con-ducted tonight. While I have a considerableamount of time remaining to me, I intend to con-clude my remarks at this point so as to enablethat debate to proceed. In this, I am affordingmembers opposite a courtesy many have notafforded me. This will be the last time this year Iwill have the opportunity to speak in the Budgetdebate.

Mr Bryce: It might be the last time, forever.Mr CRANE: The Deputy Leader of the Oppo-

sition knows as well as I do that I will be back;there is no need for him to become overexcited onthat point. I simply wished to add my few wordsin support of the Budget and of the Treasurer, forthe work he has done in formulating this balancedBudget during extremely difficult times. I conveyto him the gratitude of the people, the majority ofwhom are appreciative of what he has done and istrying to do in the formulation of this Budget andof what he intends to do for the continuing pros-perity of Western Australia.

MR DAVIES (Victoria Park) [8.03 p.m.]: Doesthe Treasurer want me to adjourn the debate?

Mr O'Connor: Not at this stage.Mr DAVIES: Would that not be in accordance

with the undertaking the Treasurer gave themember for Fremantle this afternoon; namely,that we would continue with the Budget debateuntil about tea time, and then get on with the In-dustrial Arbitration Amendment Bill (No. 2)?.

Mr O'Connor: No, it is not.Mr DAVIES: That is what I have been told,

and if I am to believe anyone, I believe the mem-ber for Fremiantle. This afternoon, he went intothe Treasurer's office and the Treasurer said wewould go on with the Budget until about tea time.The Treasurer then conferred with his depu-

ty-with whom we rarely want to deal thesedays-and the Ainal decision was that that wouldbe the course to be followed.

Mr Rushton: That is totally untrue.

Mr Nanovich: You are simply grandstandingfor the gallery.

Mr DAVIES: If I have a choice of believingeither the Treasurer and his deputy or the mem-ber for Fremantle, I know which member I wouldbelieve; the member for Fremantle told me nottwo minutes ago that the Budget debate was to beadjourned. This is indicative of the completeshemozzle the Government has made of the hand-ling of the business of this House.

Opposition members: Hear, hear!Mr DAVIES: Day after day, we do not know

where we are going. We receive instructionswhich are countermanded almost as soon as theyare given. Indeed, the member for Morley, wholooks after the business of the House from theOpposition's side, had to tell the Deputy Premier,who is supposed to look after the business of theHouse on behalf of the Government, that he nolonger wanted to deal with him; that the DeputyPremier was an embarrassment; that he could notgive clear instructions. The member for Morleytold the Deputy Premier the only way he couldfind out what was going on to any reasonable de-gree was to talk directly to the Treasurer.

The member for Morley reported to the partyroom that the Deputy Premier was completely im-possible to deal with and that he could not get anysense or direction out of the Deputy Premier orthe Treasurer. Once again, if it comes down to anargument between the member for Morley andthe Deputy Premier, I know whom I would be-lieve.

In some ways, I am glad the Treasurer has re-fused to honour his undertaking of this afternoon.

Mr O'Connor: I did not give such an undertak-ing.

Mr DAVIES: The Treasurer on two occasionsthis afternoon gave such an undertaking to themember for Fremantle.

Mr Bryce: The Treasurer would not remember.Mr DAVIES: If the Treasurer believes in the

advertisements he has been placing in the news-paper, at terrific cost to this State, one wouldhave thought he would welcome the opportunityafforded by the large audience in the gallerytonight to explain the purpose of his industriallegislation, and to talk about all the things onwhich he will only go into print. One would thinkthe Treasurer would want to face the people. Onewould think every member opposite who has been

4349

4350 ASSEMBLY]

telling us about what a wonderful Bill it is, wouldbe pleading with his leader to adjourn the Budgetdebate and get on with the Industrial ArbitrationAmendment Bill (No. 2) in order that Govern-ment members might tell the gallery exactly howgood this Bill is.

However, members opposite know what the Billcontains; they are shamefaced about the wholebusiness. They do not want to defend their actionsin front of a gallery such as we have here tonight.So, the Treasurer intends to drag on the Budgetdebate as long as he possibly can in the hope thatperhaps some people in the gallery will tire and gohome and so that the Government will not have todefend that most abominable piece of legislation.

We know what is going to happen when mem-bers opposite try to defend that Bill. Last night, ina speech lasting 2 h hours, the member forFremantle showed us at every turn just where theGovernment was wrong. Every time some of thesmart alecks opposite interjected and tried to putthe member down, he would give them an answerand show where they were wrong and how verylittle they knew about the arbitration system.

The Minister in charge of the portfolio ofLabour and Industry (the Hon. G. E. Masters)has been in the country for only five minutes, andwould not know of the proud history of the labourmovement in Western Australia, or of the historyof industrial arbitraion as we have known it andcome to appreciate it. We do not want thatsystem to be decimated.

I am pleased to have the opportunity for a fewminutes to speak to the Budget. Last night, I wassurprised the Minister for Industrial, Commercialand Regional Development entered the debate tosupport the Budget. In 21 years in this House, Ihave never known a Minister to find it necessaryto support his Treasurer in such a manner. IfMinisters want to speak to the Budget, they donot enter the debate until their section comes upfor discussion during the Estimates debate. How-ever, because the Budget is such a poor effort andwill do very little for the community-in fact, itwill do a lot against the community-the Ministerfor Industrial, Commercial and Regional Devel-opment felt constrained to tell us what a goodBudget it was.

I thought the Minister may have tried to defendthe "Go for it" campaign, because if ever moneywas wasted, it has been on the television adver-tisement which tries to implore us to buy WesternAustralian-made goods. Such a campaign isnothing new; Bert H-awke started it back in the1950s, and it has continued since then. If theGovernment is to spend money promoting WA-

made goods, it should do so in a way which mightattract people to buy those goods instead of driv-ing them away. I have never seen anything as stu-pid as the Arabs, the nuns, the London "bovver"boys, and half a dozen other nationalities joiningtogether to pretend there is nothing in this worldas good as Western Australian-made goods.

I have been fortunate on two occasions to at-tend the awards presentation held by TYW Chan-nel 7 to honour the best commercials made inWestern Australia. I have been proud of some ofthe fine commercials produced in this State. Thebest thing the Government can do is to find outwho won the competition last year and employthem as its agents. I have done a very wide surveyand asked people what they thought about thetelevision advertisements and, unanimously, theyhave said the advertisements were terrible. Theyare terrible. We want Western Australian-madegoods to be sold, but the Minister is doing nothingby using those kinds of advertisements.

However, the Minister would not tell us thatlast night;, in fact, he told us very little. He saidthe campaign was taking a new turn.

Mr MacKinnon: I did not say that last night.Mr DAVIES: That is correct; last Thursday, in

answer to a question without notice, the Ministersaid that the campaign was to take a new turn;that is the best thing which could happen to it.

I have seen 21 Budgets introduced into thisHouse and, increasingly, I ind they are becomingquite dull. At one time, we knew what increasedcharges were to be imposed and what benefitswere likely to be granted, because they were allannounced at the time of the Budget. However,these days the Treasurer-adopting the coursefollowed over the past several years-comes to theHouse and says, "The Budget imposes no in-creases in taxes or charges." We know that, be-cause all such increases have been imposed longbefore the Budget gets to the House.

I just happen to have a list of increased taxesand charges, which I should like to read to theHouse. Stamp duty on mortgages has been in-creased by 14.7 per cent; stamp duty on credit fa-cilities by 20.2 per ce .nt; payroll tax by 13.8 percent; tobacco licences by 30 per cent; revenuefrom Crown grants by 128.5 per cent; royalties intotal by 30 per cent; iron ore royalties by 26.5 percent; and petroleum royalties by 28.6 per cent.They are only some of the increases.

Mr Coyne: Tell us about the situation in NewSouth Wales.

Mr P. V. Jones: I thought you advocated in-creased royalties.

4350

[Wednesday, 27 October 19S2] 35

Mr DAVIES: People know they are paying in-creased licence fees; they know of the increasedimpost on petrol; that public hospital charges andoutpatient fees have increased; that bus and railfares have increased; people know some freightcharges have risen and that electricity and gascharges have gone up by 13 per cent; they knowtheir domestic water and sewerage rates have in-creased by I I per cent and their drainage rates by9 per cent; people realise their household watercharges have gone from $68.50 to $76 and thatthe charge per kilolitre of excess water has gonefrom 28c to 31c; and in addition, country watercharges and port charges have increased. I do notneed to list them all because the public knowthose charges have been increased, and are feelingthe result of those imposts. Yet the Treasurer hasthe gall to come in here and say, "The Budget im-poses no increases in taxes and charges."

Mr O'Connor: That was true.Mr DAVIES: It is perfectly true that the

Budget does not provide for increased charges.However, the figures speak for themselves. Thoseincreases were imposed last April, May, and Juneand we have been paying them since that date.We all know about them, because the people whotrek into my office tell me how increasingly diffi-cult it is for them to live.

We have to look only at the Treasurer's owneconomic statement to find out exactly how weare being hit. I do not need to give members thefigures relating to this area, because everyoneknows them. Nevertheless, this might be the timeto mention to the House some of the increaseswhich have been imposed. Each year, the percapita cost of taxes and charges has increased,roughly in accordance with the increase in theConsumer Price Index. I suppose that is fairlyreasonable; if the Government is to impose any in-creases, we would expect them to be in line withthe CPI increases. The Government does not likethe unions going to the courts and asking for aflow-on of CPI increases. However, the Govern-ment reels quite entitled to increase its owncharges to that degree.

In 1977-78, the cost of taxes per head of popu-lation was roughly $271; in 1978-79 it had risento $292, an increase of the order of the ConsumerPrice Index. In the next year, 1979-80, it hadgone to $320 per head of population; that is, theaverage being paid by each Western Australian.That amount again was in accordance with theCPL In 1980-81, it had gone up to $360 a head,at which time it was $12 per head in front of theinflation rate for that year. In the following year.198 1-82-the year just completed-it rose to$405 a head, or $18 in excess of the inflation rate

for that year, Over the last two Years, the figurehas increased until now we are now paying, onaverage, $30 per head of population over andabove what we should be paying in accordancewith the charges established in previous years.This results directly from the Government's work-ings with the Federal Government, and the newfederalism.

I have not heard anyone this year complainingabout the new federalism. I have heard plenty ofcomplaints about Malcolm Fraser and what theLiberals in Canberra were doing. What theGovernment here did helped in no way to reducethe CPI neither did it helpithe average worker tomeet the ever increasing demands that he had toface.

As I said, in the past two years. we have beenpaying in excess of $30 per head because the im-posts being put on by the Government by way oftaxes and so forth are so much ahead of the in-flation rate.

It is interesting to note that of the $405, $175per head is made up of payroll tax. The leastamount consists of probate and succession duties,and, or course, that is a result of the action takenby this Government several years ago to abolishprobate. We would have thought that that wouldhave met with general approbation. At the time, Iwas not very happy about the move, and I thoughtwe could have raised quite considerably the mini-mum charge before probate applied. We stillwould have received some probate from thepeople who have made a killing from bottom-of-the-harbour schemes.

Mr O'Connor: I am sorry, I did not quite hear.Are you saying we ought to bring back probate?

Mr DAVIES: I am saying there is scope forprobate; I will quote a letter from C. B. Hugall inThe West Australian of 2 November last. MrHugall is an accountant in St George's Terrace;and certainly is not a follower of the AustralianLabor Party. I met him on several occasions andfound him an absolute gentleman, but I doubtthat he has ever embraced the philosophies of theALP.

Mr O'Connor: Is that Charlie Hugall?Mr DAVIES: It is C. B. Hugall. I imagine it

would be. His letter is as follows-

Nearly two years since the decision tophase out probate and estate duty the ulti-mate effect is beginning to be realised. itmust now be obvious that the effect will bethat the rich get richer and the poor maintaintheir position, with an ever-increasing gapbetween the two.

4351

4352 [ASSEMBLY]

Over the next generation we will see 5 percent of the population owning 95 per cent ofthe wealth of the country. This, in turn, willcreate an aristocracy based on wealth.

History has demonstrated that the disad-vantaged majority will not tolerate such asituation indefinitely.

There seem to be only two answers. Theyare:

I. Introduction of a capital gains tax.

2. Reintroduction of Federal estate andState probate duties, with a more generousexemption base than previously, and withtotal exemption from spouse to spouse. Giftduty would need to be re-introduced simul-taneously.

Option 2 is favoured since it ensures anexamination of one's affairs by the taxingauthorities at least once during a lifetime.

It would also reap a desirable harvest fromthe huge superannuation payouts our Federalparliamentarians voted themselves in Aprilthis year, and the public service superannu-ation scheme approved by the Whitlamngovernment in 1975.

Ican see a lot of good sense in that because wewere netting from probate duty something like$16 million a year. at its height. We are now re-ceiving less than $1 million from probate duties,because now they are applicable only to estatesthat are being cleared up.

When one -realises that five per cent of thepopulation owns 95 per cent of the wealth, oneknows there is something in what Charlie H-ugallsaid in his letter to the paper in November 198 1.

Mr MacKinnon: In other words, you agree withit?

Mr DAVIES: I certainly do. As he says, Iagree that there should be no duty spouse-to-spouse; but in huge estates, some money should bepaid to the State in probate duties.

Mr MacKinnon: And capital gains taxes?

Mr DAVIES: No, I did not say "capital gainstaxes". I agree with the statement made by MrHugall, because I do not believe that peopleshould amass fortunes of the type being amassedat present. That is a matter which will have to re-ceive consideration.

When I challenged him on various taxes, theTreasurer always said, "What are you going todo? If you take off one tax, you have got to putanother tax on." When I asked him what taxwould replace probate duty, he did not reply, and

he has not replied since. I asked him that questionon a number of occasions.

Mr O'Connor: You were referring to the pre-vious Treasurer, I take it?

Mr DAVIES: Yes.

As I said, last year we had a Consumer PriceIndex below the national average. I thought wecould be reasonably proud of that. In the Junequarter of 198 1, the change for Perth was 8.2 percent, and the national average was 8.8 per cent. In1982, the Perth change was 11.2 per cent, and thenational average was 10.4 per cent! As we pointedout yesterday evening, Western Australia has thethird lowest CPI for the September quarter, andit is likely that it will become worse.

The Treasurer did not appear to know aboutthis. Indeed, he thought we had the best CPI inthe nation. The following appeared in the news-paper this morning-

Mr Burke interjected, saying that WA hadthe third best. Mr O'Connor said he had readin the paper where WA's rate was the best.

I do not know whether the Treasurer is given toreading the newspaper, but that is what appearedin it.

I read the editions of State Report that thePremier puts out from time to time. Originallythey were issued weekly; but lately we have foundthat they have been coming out intermittently.Sometimes they are three weeks apart, and some-times a fortnight apart; but certainly they are notweekly. As I have said in the House before, theyalways provide a little bit of humour. I am sorrythat they do not appear more often, althoughtheir infrequency means quite a saving to theState.

I look at the State Report to see whether thereis any indication of an economic recovery, anyhope for the future, or any new jobs to be created.What did I find recently? "Look for the silverlining"! Good God! Next the Premier will say,"Chin up; cherrio; carry on." That is the kind of'situation we are getting into. "Starve to deathwhile you are doing it, but look for the silverlining. Things will be better!"

During the last election, we were told that theGovernment would get the money flowing intoWestern Australia at the rate of $5 million a day.We would see 180 000 jobs in a couple of years.Certainly the jobs have not materialised, and theinvestment is not here. What does the Treasurersay -about that now? He says, "Well, it is a goodthing that things have slowed down and we cantake stock of ourselves." He is the man for themoment. Whereas before it was all go, go, go,

4352

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982J]35

riding on the crest of the great wave of pros-perity-we were going to be there before everyother State, and we were going to be better off inevery other way-

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask that the level ofbackground conversation and noise be reduced. Itmust be very disconcerting for a member at-tempting to make a speech to have so much noisein the Chamber.

Mr DAVIES: As I said, recently the Treasurerhas said that we should be thankful that the pacehas slowed down, because it is giving us time toget our thoughts together. I have to admire him.He is the man for the moment! He certainly ad-justs his comments according to the circum-stances of the day.

The Treasurer's attitude has not stopped theendless trail of people to my office looking forjobs, looking for mortgage relief, looking for helpwith their problems. Time and time again I havehad to tell them that there is very little I can dofor them.

I want to speak briefly about another matter,and that is the gall of this Government which triesto enforce its will upon everybody and everything.We have spoken on other occasions about whathappened with the previous leader, when he had amock-up made of a Time magazine with hisphotograph on the cover, to give the impression,when it was distributed abroad, that he had actu-ally been honoured by having his face put onTime magazine. That was paid for by the publicof Western Australia. Indeed, a whole string ofsuch things have been happening; and they willhappen as long as the Government can do what itwants to do to make certain that its people are putin the proper place.

I want to criticise once again the money spenton advertisements by the Government to defendits industrial legislation which it is so coy aboutstanding up and defending in the House tonight.The Government spent money on State Report,from which I have just quoted. We have seen end-less advertisements from the Minister for Rec-reation (the Hon. R. G. (Bob) Pike), whosephotograph appears anywhere and everywhere.His advertising budget was overspent. Of course,we have the propaganda supremo, Mr Leggoe,who was appointed to the Premier's office tooversee the public relations section. We have re-cently seen the new spectacle of Ministers holdinggatherings in their offices in the hope that theywould be able to curry favour with a few electorsand a few people who might have some influencein the community. I can understand their doingthis, but I cannot understand their doing so at the(137)

expense of the taxpayers. However, as I say, theyalways want to have their way.

The latest thing that came to my notice was theabsolute gall of the Minister for Recreation whotried to have cancelled the appointment of Mr [anTempleman to the Australia Council. Like theBritish Council, the Australia Council is a pres-tigious organisation which is not loaded downwith supporters of the Labor Party. Indeed, I donot know of one Labor supporter who is on theAustralia Council, although it was set up initiallyby the Whitlam Government.

Mr Pearce: They are not appointed for politicalreasons, anyway.

Mr DAVIES: No. They are appointed for theirexpertise in particular fields. I was delighted thatMr Ian Templeman, the Director of theFremantle Arts Centre, was appointed as a rep-resentative from Western Australia-

Mr Pearce: An excellent choice.

Mr DAVIES: -when Mr Nicholas Hasluckretired from the position. I thought it was an ex-cellent choice indeed.

I will quote from The Canberra Times of I ISeptember as follows-

A row between a Western Australian Lib-eral minister and a Federal NationalCountry Party minister over Australia Coun-cil appointments surfaced at ParliamentHouse this week.

The Western Australian Minister for Cul-tural Affairs, Mr Pike, sent telegramsmarked "confidential"-

No doubt, that was done at Government expense.The report continues-

-to several of his party colleagues on theFederal backbeneh complaining about an ac-tion by the Minister for Home Affairs andthe Environment, Mr McVeigh.

He accused Mr McVeigh of ignoring theadvice of Western Australian Liberals.

"After a phone call from my office to theAustralia Council, I have learnt that theMinister for Home Affairs has made ap-pointments to fill the five vacancies on theAustralia Council," the telegram said.

"Despite the views expressed by me, andsupported by you, I now learn that Mr IanTempleton-

He did not have the name correct, incidentally.The article in The Canberra Times continued-

-of the Fremantle Arts Centre, has been ap-pointed as the sole Western Australian rep-

4353

4354 [ASSEMBLY]

resentative for a term from August 20, 1982,to June 30, 1985.

"This act by the Minister has ignored thewishes and advice of all of us who representWestern Australia and has caused me greatconcern as to what the future will hold forWestern Australia from this Commonwealthorganisation."

My knowledge of Mr Templeman is such that Ibelieve he will be a far better person than any wehave had before. He is a man of great distinctionand has been the Director of the Fremantle ArtsCentre for 10 years. He trained as a specialist artteacher and has been associated with theFremantle Arts Centre, the Fremantle Art Gal-lery, and the Fremantle Arts Centre Press. He ison the advisory panel of the ABC and on the corn-mittee of the Festival of Perth. He was aChurchill fellow in 1976 associated with arts. In1978 he was Citizen of the Year in this State inthe field of arts. He previously worked with Lib-eral Party Ministers, Mr Tony Staley being one.He had never met Mr Pike and yet that Ministercomplained to Canberra about a man he hadnever met and complained that his-the Minis-ter's-views had been ignored.

Dr Tim Pascoe is the new Director of the Aus-tralia Council and he worked for the presentPrime Minister for a couple of years. That is howpolitical it is getting over there. Yet here we havea man in Mr Ian Templeman-1 do not knowwhat are his politics-who has a distinguished re-cord in the arts in Western Australia and is still ayoung man, yet he has been criticised in this wayby a Minister who does not even know him. Hereplaced Nicholas Hasluck who was DeputyChairman of the Australia Council at the time.

Last Thursday week the Treasurer was at afunction with me at the Fremantle Arts Centreand he commented on what a great place hethought it was. The Treasurer was the guest ofhonour and he made a speech in which he saidhow great the centre was and what great work itwas doing. Yet a Minister in his Government hadbeen criticising its director. The Chief Secretary'saction was shameful to say the least.

All I can believe is that the Chief Secretarywanted a political appointment himself; perhapsthat is why he was upset. The advice he wouldhave given to Canberra would have included twonames. One would have been Hal Colebach, a for-mer Liberal Party candidate and a man whose re-cord in the arts field would certainly not matchthe record of Ian Templeman. The other namewould have been John Harper-Nelson, who is agood fellow and, again, I do not know this man's

politics, but I do not believe he has the qualifi-cations of Mr Ian Templeman.

Bruce Lawson had only just arrived in thisState to head the Arts Council when thingsstarted to emanate from a Minister's officequerying the sort of qualifications he had becausehe had worked for a socialist Premier in Canada.That is the sort of thing this Government's Minis-ter did, and Mr Lawson no longer is with the ArtsCouncil. I am waiting to see who is to be ap-pointed as the new director. It was said at thetime that Bruce Lawson would not last becausethe council had another person it wanted as direc-tor. If good money is to be spent in these areas weneed to have the best possible people in charge;but the Government is not prepared to see thatthis happens. It is politically biased, constantlyand continuously.

I have never heard as shameful a direction asthat given by this Government that if a person isan endorsed Labor candidate he cannot work inthe office of a member of Parliament. Althoughthe Government can give that sort of direction, itis yet a Government that still has W. W. Mitchellon its payroll for about $20 000 a year; it is still aGovernment which allowed Phillip Pendal to con-tinue working as a Minister's secretary when hewas an endorsed Liberal candidate.

The Government is running scared; it is fright-ened and has the staggers. This Budget will donothing to help it electorally because it is aBudget already forgotten.

MR JAMIESON (Welshpool) [8.34 p.m.]: Ijoin with the member for Victoria Park in criticis-ing this Government for the advertising in whichit is indulging; it is nothing more than a politicalcampaign in another form. We have heard veryclearly from members opposite on numerous oc-casions that they do not believe in the publicfunding of election campaigns, yet they are pre-pared to do the very thing which they claimshould not be done. The Government should comeclean on this sort of practice and introduce legis-lation enabling all parties to be funded duringelection campaigns as they are in New SouthWales and elsewhere in the world. We are one ofthe last areas in the democratic world not toadopt this system and it is high time we gotaround to doing something about it.

Liberal Governments believe they have moreaccess to funds at election times-which theyhave-and they are able to take advantage ofopportunities in advertising on those occasions.The Labor Party has to scrimp and scrape to getenough funds together to mount a* meaningful'campaign in the various branches of the media.

4354

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 45

To make matters worse we now find this sort ofadvertising campaign being conducted by theGovernment. If it were a Labor Government inoffice doing this sort of thing, members oppositewould be screaming to high heaven. No doubtrather than refuse advertisements from some sec-tions of the Labor movement, the Press would runeditorials criticising the Labor Party for its adver-tising campaigns and for using public funds forthis purpose. That will not happen with thisGovernment because it has good supporters in thevarious branches of the media. The Governmentwill continue to receive that support while thepeople presently in charge of the various mediaremain.

I want briefly to deal with several matters ofthe parish pump sort although they are importantto many people in Western Australia to some de-gree. The first matter is the determination madelast week that the Commonwealth would proceedwith option four of the development of Perth Air-port. This option entails one serious problem.Members will recall that earlier in the year thismatter was the subject of a speech by me during agrievance debate. I indicated then that if optionfour were not adopted, we would finish up withthe worst system that we could possibly have beenstuck with in the metropolitan area because thenoise ratio would increase as the aircraft using theairport became bigger.

To give credit to the Government, it did goalong with option four although it was not overenthused with the idea of having the secondrunway built too soon. With the support of thevarious groups and the local authorities, a numberof meetings were held which in the end carried afair amount of weight with the Commonwealth,particularly with its Public Works Committee, inmaking the recommendation it did in favour ofoption four. It went right away from option onefor which it had opted six months earlier. It is re-markable to think that the Commonwealth hadmade its decision, but was influenced to alter it.

Having looked at the development plan, theonly problem I see is that it still envisages an ex-tension of the east-west runway. Should this hap-pen, it will be the worst possible action environ-mentally that could occur.

Mr Bryce; Hear, hear!Mr JAMIESON; At present the bigger aircraft

do not put down on that strip. I refer to thejumbos, the DCI0s, and the other heavier air-craft. It is true that sometimes when an east windis blowing, the 727s use the strip, but it is notsuitable for the larger aircraft. If the runway isextended as proposed, these larger aircraft will

use it on occasions in the future. This will create aworse noise problem over the South Perth,Rivervale, and Victoria Park areas than ever be-fore, It is undesirable that this should occur.

It is true that the environmental committee ofthe House of Representatives still has not submit-ted its report on what it believes should be done.The Public Works Committee left things a bit inthe air by indicating that the time of developmentof the runway could be influenced by the decisionof the environmental committee. That committeeis to hold several hearings in Western Australiaand I hope the Minister for Transport follows upwhat is being done and, on behalf of the Govern-ment, points out that we do not want this environ-mentally bad situation to occur by the extensionof this runway. If we do not lodge an objection tothat work now, there is no saying that it will notbe the f irst work done. A further delay on the par-allel strip will be in accord with that because theCommonwealth will say the east-west strip can beused as well as the present north-south strip.

If we can arrange to have the same co-ordi-nation with the action groups and the localauthorities, backed by the Government, in pres-enting a submission to the environmental com-mittee when it holds its meetings here later in theyear, we could influence the early development ofthe other strip in the Newburn territory, which isreally no-man's land. If members do not believeme they should drive through the area and seejust how desolate it is, even though it is just a fewkilometres from the centre of the city of Perth.

Mr Rushton. Would you send me a copy ofyour corrected speech'later?

Mr JAM IESON: I will do that.It is undesirable that such valuable land so

close to the city should be left in its present con-dition and not used after it has been secured bythe Commonwealth Government for the purposeof extending the airport.

Mr Bryce: Hear, hear!Mr JAMIESON: I have spoken before of the

Beechboro-Gosnclls Highway and the desirabilityto have work on it concluded as soon as possible.At the unveiling ceremony of the proposedinternational airport terminal, the Minister forTransport indicated that the Government and theMain Roads Department would co-ordinate thecompletion of that highway. I put the suggestionto the Government that this could be a projectconsidered in the bicentennial road programme.Perhaps it would need to be considered ahead ofthat programme; some sort of priority should beaccorded it because it will be a bit expensive toconstruct the last link. Only about three kilo-

4355

4356 [ASSEMBLY)

metres are left before it is completely joined.Knowing the area as I do, I believe it will be themost expensive three kilometres of the highway. Itwill need an interchange on Great Eastern High-way and a bridge over the river between Redcliffeand Bayswater before it goes on its way toBechboro on the other side of the river.

Mr Rushton: I am giving it consideration.Mr JAMIESON: Something must be wrong; I

had better think about this again! It seems someconsideration is being given to this work.

Let me now mention briefly Bentley Hospital.The other day I asked some questions about thehospital because I could not find any reference toit in the loan funds or the estimates which wouldindicate it would receive extensions this year.

The proposal alarms me because while I wantwhat is proposed, I do not feel that the Ministerhas given the matter enough consideration. Hehas pointed out that Mental Health Services pro-pose to commence a psychogeriatric treatmentcare and assessment facility on the site thisfinancial year. I asked about the physiotherapysection which is now housed in temporary build-ings and he said an alternative plan is being devel-oped for the replacement of the facility whichneeds to be relocated to allow for the constructionof the facility I have mentioned.

I am concerned because under the proposal, thepsychogeriatric section would be on the other sideof Hamilton Street where the physiotherapy sec-tion is at present. I do not see the need to breakup a hospital system in this way. It may be be-cause one section comes under the mental healthsystem and the other under the Public Health De-partment.

It seems to be quite ridiculous because of thebackup services which must be provided, such asX-rays for geriatric patients. They would need tobe taken to the X-ray section of the hospitalwhich means they would have to go by ambulanceor be taken across the street in a wheelchair. Dur-ing inclement weather that would become agreater problem still and all these factors havebeen overlooked in the planning.

In the Minister's reply to my question, he didnot make it clear what was proposed. For in-stance, the X-ray and lab sections work as a sep-arate entity at Bentley Hospital and are connec-ted by a covered walkway to the main hospital. Asthere is an abundance of land on site, it would bea sensible proposition to combine the services.

Last week the Government decided not to pro-ceed with the police traffic section at the corner ofHamilton Street and Albany Highway because ofopposition by the local authority and residents.

That land abuts onto the hospital site, so it isavailable now if none is required. Why cannot thisland be used? I make my complaint now becauseit is no use my complaining once a building ap-pears on the other side of Hamilton Street.

There is an urgent need for new physiotherapyfacilities to be provided because the staff havesuffered temporary conditions for many yearsnow. It is high time a proper building was pro-vided.

I hope the Government will give considerationto the protection of the coastline of Western Aus-tralia. One has to be glad of one aspect which wasbrought to light as a result of the Falklands war.We lost the aircraft carrier that looked like beingan encumbrance rather than an advantage toWestern Australia. It may have left us in a pos-ition where we can expect more patrol boats of afaster calibre for the Kimberley and Pilbara re-gions, where they are needed.

I have mentioned this matter before, but wishto point it out again because many platforms arebeing constructed for offshore projects and thepeople working there should be protected fromany marauders. We already have noted the inci-dents where a ship was attacked by pirate groupsnot far off the Western Australian coast. Some-thing must be done now so that, if there is anysign of danger, those people will be protected. Thepeople working on these projects are Australiannationals and ought to be protected.

Mr Blaikie: What about the Premier's proposalfor PI 50s?

Mr JAMIESON: I think that is a sound pro-posal. I am not a shipping architect, but I am surethey would be ideal. We need something to warnoff any undesirable people. We could come to thesituation otherwise where as the member forVasse might say, it would be better to be red thandead.

Mr Blaikie: No, I am afraid that is your saying.I could not go as far as that.

Mr JAMIESON: We need a mobile force tokeep out undesirables, but we will not keep out amighty power if it wished to attack us. However.if we start talking about aircraft carriers, etc., andgo overboard, we will not get very far at all.

Mr Parker: The Premier's proposal is by nomeans new. A proposal was put to the FederalGovernment by various people, including me, aslong as 12 to 15 months ago.

Mr JAMIESON: This idea has been floated forsome time and it needs to be taken up. We needfour to six ships to operate between Darwin andGeraldton. We do not have any worry from New

4356

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 45

Guinea, so we do not need a naval strength thereand, of course, we have no threat from the pen-guins in the south. On the other side, the NewZealanders are placid people, except perhaps theirPrime Minister. We may need to keep one boatjust in case he wants to burst in and we need tokeep him out. We should be looking to militaryprotection for the State.

I will not give a travel talk, because that has oc-curred here often when a member has returnedfrom overseas, but I wish to say that, in associ-ation with five other members of Parliament, Ispent the month of June in China.

They have a saying there that a man is not aman until he has been to the wall. Of course thatmight be a little different here with some of ourfinancial people, but members will get the generaldrift of what they mean in China. One has to ex-perience the system to have an appreciation of it.The country has a population of 1 000 millionwho are clothed, fed, and housed. When we con-sider China by comparison, we realise that we, asa country, have no administrative problems.

To coin a similar expression, I could say that arepresentative is not a representative until he haslooked at the system in China and considered itsproblems. Our problems pale into insignificancewhen we consider China's. Whether or not it hasa socialist system, we must admit that China hasachieved something great, without force. China isthe largest nation in the world population-wiseand has made a great achievement in anyone'slanguage.

I am sure I am echoing the opinion of thosewho travelled with me when I say that it would bea worthwhile experience [or any representative inParliament to see the most populous nation in theworld which is able to administer in the way thatit does. It clothes, feeds, and houses all its peopleand they still come up smiling.

The Premier of this State has trouble with his1.4 million people and they are nothing like fullyemployed. I will leave those comments for mem-bers to consider because we do not have any prob-lems in comparison with the conditions that existin other parts of the world.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr O'Connor(Treasurer).

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION AMENDMENTBILL (No. 2)

Second ReadingDebate resumed from.26 October.

MR COURT (Nedlands) [8.59 p.m.]: I ap-preciate the length to which Opposition members

have gone tonight to have me initiate debate.When supporting the legislation, I ask why it hasbecome necessary for amendments to beintroduced to the Industrial Arbitration Act-

Mr Brian Burke: Because you cannot win anejection without them.

Mr MacKinnon: You are assuming we will win.Thank you.

Mr COURT: Our arbitration system hasevolved over the years and continually has beentuned to the pressures of the time. The past twodecades have been of tremendous econoniic prog-ress for Western Australia, and our economy, aswe are all aware, has become very much a part ofthe international trade circuit. Until this year, wewere fortunate to have a healthy rate of growth,and business generally has been quite profitable.

Unfortunately, a mentality has built up amongmany of us that the prosperity we have experi-enced is a right, and the normal way of things.We have started living on expectations and not onperformance. As the member for Kalgoorlie saidtoday, a cargo cult has developed.

The industrial relations scene in recent timeshas been dominated by the growing strength ofsome powerful unions, with their officials nego-tiating every possible dollar and improved con-ditions out of an employer who generally has beenprofitable. For some years the iron ore industriesin the north have been quite profitable and havefound it easier continually to give in to some ofthe demands for increased wages and improvedconditions. Some of the unions involved have seencertain weaknesses in the companies' bargainingposition and have grabbed the opportunity to en-force closed shop control on many of the oper-at ions of these large companies.

Mr Parker: Are you aware the so-called closedshop operation in the iron ore industry is partly atthe behest of the employers?

Mr Sodeman: That does not make it right.

Mr COURT: Elsewhere, large unions such asMr Halfpenny's metal trades union, the TWU,and the BLF have been negotiating for increaseddollars, shorter hours, and wages and conditionswhich finally have become unrealistic even inbuoyant times. Now that the economy is sufferinga downturn, these policies are seriously affectingemployment. It is a matter of history now that theinflexibility of some sections of the union move-ment and our present arbitration system has re-sulted in an unacceptably high level of unemploy-ment.

Mr Parker: Are you seriously suggesting that?

4357

4358 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr COURT: That is particularly so with thereversal in the economy.

Mr Tonkin: Take the blame yourself! It is thesystem, is it?

Mr COURT: One does not mind enthusiasticnegotiations, providing-

Mr Brian Burke: The employers win.

The -SPEAKER: Order! Last evening thisHouse was treated to one of the best speeches Ihave heard delivered by a member of the Oppo-sition in support of the Opposition's point of view.The speech was heard almost in silence and it is apity the people in the gallery who are interested inthis subject were not here to hear the member forFremantle- make his speech. I thought it was avery wellI-researched, well-presented speech, andit was well received. The member for Nedlandshas indicated by his demeanour that he intends tomake his remarks to the Chair without fieldingthe interjections. I ask members of the Oppositionto give him the same courtesies which were ex-tended last night to the member for Fremantlewhen he presented his case.

Clearly, with members of the gallery asintensely interested in the subject before us asthey obviously are, interruption will be incited byinterjections from the Opposition benches. Themembers of the gallery have been exemplary intheir attitude until now, and they have had to sitthrough some speeches which clearly were of nointerest to them. I do not want to be placed in aposition where I have to clear the gallery after th-epublic have listened for so long and waited for thedebate. That will happen if we have a situationwhere interjections fly thick and fast and the gal-lery reacts. I do not want to do that; I ask for theco-operation of the House.

Mr COURT: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

One does not mind enthusiastic negotiations,providing the agreements reached are realisticand related to performance. An unfortunate sideaspect of union strength has emerged which someof the amendments in this Bill address. That isthe stringent enforcement by some unions ofclosed shops, which even though they are illegalunder existing legislation, are enforced and oftenaccompanied by intimidation and standover tac-tics. Large employers have considerable resourcesat their disposal when they are negotiating, andunions have similar tools available to them.Further down the scale, small businesses,subcontractors, and the like, have little withwhich to fight against unreasonable demands.

The 1979 Industrial Arbitration Bill which waspassed by this House, initiated provisions toprotect the individual against excessive use of

union power. That legislation and the amend-ments before us tonight support article 20 (2) ofthe United Nations Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights which states that no-one may becompelled to belong to an association. Convention87 of the International Labour Organisation alsoupholds this principle of freedom of association aspart of the protection of the right to organise.Article 2 of Convention 87 states-

Workers and employers without distinctionwhatsoever shall have the right to establishand subject only to the rules of the organis-ation concerned to join organisations of theirown choosing without previous authorisation.

This Government, in line with the stated policywith which it went to the polls at the last election,has found it necessary to reaffirm the principlesof protecting the individual's rights, along withother initiatives which have been written intothese amendments to attune the arbitrationsystem to the needs of our time-to the changingenvironment in which we find ourselves operating.These principles are that the individual has achoice of whether or not to join a union, that theemployer has the right to exert lawful manage-ment authority; unions have the right, if consentis given by the employees, to lawfully negotiateand uphold industrial rights: and that the publichave the right to expect that arbitration decisionswill not seriously be to the detriment of the econ-omy. All this is clearly stated in the Liberal pol-icy, and I quote from our policy document whichsays under the heading of "Freedom"-

We are proclaiming legislation providing un-qualified freedom for union members:

" By ending compulsory unionism." By introducing voluntary union-

ism-with a free choice either way.* By ensuring a free and private vote

through secret ballots on proposalsto strike.

" By recognising the right to strikeonly when a genuine secret ballotmajority is obtained.

It should be clearly understood that we willfirmly uphold these freedoms:

* We will act without hesitationagainst employers or unions whobreach the freedom laws we haveintroduced.

* We will maintain a close watch toensure fair play for workers who de-mand the right of freedom ofchoice-whether it be to join aunion, or stay out of a union.

4358

(Wednesday, 27 October 1982) 45

The Labor Party, which is supposed to be pushinga new, refreshing, modern image in its policy.wants to retain the existing Industrial ArbitrationAct It is saying, 0Do not touch it;, it works. Per-haps it is not perfect, but leave it as it is". [I can-not hide from the fact that, currently, the arbi-tration system is contributing to unemploymentand to some unsavoury practices which havetaken place in the work place. Last night themember for Fremantle said-

The Bill is designed to dismantle the basis ofour industrial arbitration system in WesternAustralia, to dismantle the foundations ofthat system, and to move towards a system inwhich the rights of workers to organise aresubstantially undermined and, any followingcollective bargaining which takes place as aresult tales place with much strengthenedemployer organisations and much weakenedunions.

I say that is incorrect, and that the member forFremantle has brought in a red herring. Thislegislation is designed to strengthen the arbi-tration process.

Several members interjected.

Mr Tonkin: It is not.

Mr COURT: We are not debating tonightwhether we are scrapping an arbitration systemand introducing a collective bargaining system.As has been done over the past 78 years, we areintroducing amendments to enable the Act betterto handle conciliation and arbitration within ourexisting industrial environment. How do theseamendments strengthen employer organisationsand weaken unions?

Several members interjected.Mr COURT: A strong employer is a profitable

employer, and that is the type of employer wewant. A strong union is a responsible union-aunion which is capable of representing the rightsof its members.

Mr 1. F. Taylor: One that does what you tell it.

Mr COURT: That is the type of strong unionwhich will thrive in Australia. Talk of collectivebargaining confuses the subject we are debatingtonight. The member for Fremantle and Laborspeakers in another place point out there aremany forms of collective bargaining. This word-

Mr Brian Burke: It is two words.Mr COURT: All right, it is two words. Most of

the collective bargaining systems would not workin Australia. We have built up a tradition of arbi-tration, and we accept the benefits of that form ofcomparative wage justice.

Mr Parker: I wish you would tell the Minister.

Mr Brian Burke: The Premier is on record asfavouring collective bargaining.

Mr COURT: I have been involved in contractbargaining in the auto industry in the UnitedStates on two separate occasions.

Mr Parker: On whose side?Mr COURT: I will give the House two guesses.Mr Brian Burke: We need only one.

Mr COURT:. This experience, as humorous asit may sound to the Opposition, gave me an in-sight into the way their system operates. An arbi-tration system has evolved in Australia, and theamendments before us tonight are a part of thisevolutionary process. We want a fair system, onewhich protects all parties including the com-munity as a whole.

When talking about the arbitration system themember for Fremantle said that when it was firstworked out, it was designed around the principlethat might is not right. He said, on the otherhand, that the basis of collective bargaining isthat might is right. IHe said it created a situationwhere anybody who had the power to obtainsomething would use that power.

Is that not what has happened in the 1980swith our existing arbitration system? Have notsome people used their excessive powers to obtainthings?

Mr Parker:. What powers would you describe asexcessive? At what point do they change frombeing acceptable to being excessive?

Mr COURT: I am talking about a situationwhen muscle is used and small employers andsubcontractors are faced with intimidation.

What the community wants is amendments tothe arbitration system which will control this situ-ation. We are all well aware of some of the inci-dents which have been taking place, and whetherthe unions are Federal or State, the practices arestill the same, and they are occurring in our State.

Let us look at the activities of the Builders'Labourers Federation, and I will list some ofthem. There are threats of strike action affectingbuilding sites, normally when non-membership ofone or a few of the employees is involved.

Mr Parker: Are you saying that the threat ofstrike action is excessive use of muscle?

Mr COURT: These threats include the threatof further strikes made by the employees for em-ployers to pay wages for the time the workershave spent on strike; the threat of subcontractorsfor non-union membership, both on constructionsites and in other places;, the threat of black banson constructions sites by the Transport Workers'

4359

4360 [ASSEMBLY]

Union; and the coercing of companies to payunion dues for individuals. The one which hasdrawn particular attention lately is the stoppingof concrete pours on construction sites to softenup employers for union demands.

I could go on with the record of the TWU.Cases have occurred throughout the State wherenon-union members have been forced off sites,and employers have been forced, through threatsof strike action, to reinstate shop stewards.

Under the heading, "Violence to person andproperty and intimidatory conduct", the Winnekereport has this to say-

There have been many instances put beforethis enquiry of threatening and violent con-duct engaged in by officials and members ofthe Builders Labourers Federation in pursuitof demands made upon employers. These in-stances appear to demonstrate the existenceof a philosophy in the federation that resortto mob violence as a justifiable weapon in theprocess of softening up an employer.

It is those sorts of tactics which none of us want.We do not want to see them becoming widespreadin this State.

The ALP has demonstrated the hypocrisy of itspolicies. In recent times in this House, its mem-bers have said, on the one hand, that they want tosupport small business and they would go out oftheir way to assist them to grow and to remainprofitable, but, on the other hand, that they sup-port unions which have heavy industrial muscles,and which often enforce unrealistic conditionsupon these very same small businesses.

The Leader of the Opposition, at one of his re-cent luncheons-luncheons which he seems toenjoy lately-had this to say, and I quote fromThe West Australian-

"One of the areas from which Labor Partieshave traditionally retreated has been indus-trial relations because if you think about it, itis not an area that we can easily win in. Re-gardless of what union is involved, whether itis a temperance union or the Baptist union orsome other union that is involved in somesort of disruption, inevitably the Labor Partywears the political blame because of the his-torical nexus between the party and the tradeunion movement", he anecdotally disclaims."Now, there's a very tenuous nexus. It's notone that I can deny but it is certainly moretenuous than most people seem to think.Many of the unions that traditionally reflectdisadvantage on the Labor Party are not andnever have been affiliated with the LaborParty", he specifically denies.

The leader of the ALP is saying that. He is sayingthat his party is not under the influence of theunion movement. At business meetings, he istrying to stand his distance from his traditionalsupport group. I will be interested, when theLeader of the Opposition gets to speak, to hear hisviews on the amendments before us. I would liketo know whether he supports the individual's rightto go about his work.

Does the Leader of the Opposition support theright of small businesses to be profitable pro-ducers without being threatened with standovertactics? Does he support the audit conditions inthe Bill which are% still far short of those underwhich any company, small or large, has to op-erate? Does he support stronger protection foremployers and employees against secondary boy-cotts that deny their freedom of movement andthe right of essential supply? Does he support theretention of prerogatives of management, anddoes he support the provision for the considerationof the community's capacity to withstand theeconomic effects in bringing down those awards?

The Leader of the House may not be able tosay what he wants to in this House, but I wouldlike to quote the remarks of Mr Clyde Cameronin a book he has published recently. He said-

Our creed amounted to this. We mustn't op-pose anything, no matter how extreme, thatis put to us by a union official or we will bebranded as anti-union and then our presel-ectors will know we are also anti-Labor.

We all know what happens when a Labor Govern-ment comes to power. Labor members promisethat, under a Labor Government, conciliation willbe much more effective than under a conservativeGovernment. This is the most hollow promise ofall times.

Mr H-erzfeld: Look at what is happening inNSW.

Mr Pearce: There are about half the strikesunder Labor Governments than occur under Lib-eral Governments.

Mr COURT: What is happening in Mr Wran'sState is a classical example of the situation towhich I am referring. Of course, Mr Wran is theman who would fix everything. He has given hisemployees and Government instrumentalities vir-tually what they asked for-higher wages, shorterworking hours. It was great until the Governmentstarted to run out of funds.

What has happened when the employees havebeen granted these things? Private employershave not been able to match the conditions, andGovernment employees have come back andasked for even more.

4360

(Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 46

Can anyone imagine the Labor Party in thisState standing up to the heavies in the TLC? Noway-Labor Party members will do what they areinstructed to do.

Mr Bryce: We have heard all this before, youknow.

Mr COURT: To come back to the individual'srights-

Mr Pearce: Mr Wran can win an election onfair boundaries.

Mr Bateman: How would you know what aLabor Government would do? Are you a memberof the Labor Party?

Mr Davies: Cut it out! Draw the line some-where!

The SPEAKER: Order! I would just drawmembers' attention to the statement I madeearlier. I asked that interjections be kept to theabsolute minimum. If interjections do occur, theywill just invite people in the gallery to respond,and that can mean only that I would have to clearthe gallery-something I do not want to do. Themember for Nedlands.

Mr COURT: To come back to the rights of theindividual, and the member for Gosnells is veryvocal on this matter in this House-

.Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! The member for Can-

ning appears to want to take issue with the state-ment I made. That is his right, but I would saythat the debate has gone along particularly well. Ido not think the member for Canning was in theChamber when I drew attention to the fact thatthe member for Fremantle, in a very long and avery good speech last night, was heard in almosttotal silence. The only interjections, I think themember would probably admit, were interjectionswhich enabled him to make points he wanted tomake.

Mr Brian Burke: Except for the ones from themember for Bunbury!

The SPEAKER: By and large, the debate wentvery well. I would suggest that the same oppor-tunity be afforded to the member for Nedlands tomake his remarks to the Chamber.

Mr COURT: I come back to the subject of therights of the individual, a subject about which themember for Gosnells has so much to say in de-bate. As 1 mentioned before, in a previous speechwe heard that the member for Gosnells is appalledthat the little people and minority groups arepushed around. Why does he not speak out forthose people being intimidated by unreasonableand militant unions?

Mr Pearce: Tell us about them.Mr COURT: Why does not the member for

Gosnells speak out in support of subcontractorsand small businesses which must face up to thistreatment? He can ignore the BLF exercise whichwe read about in the Press. That sort of thing justdoes not exist as far as he is concerned. The pro-tection rackets, where people are forced to joinone or more unions just to get on a site, does notexist.

Mr Hodge: The Liberal Party ought to moral-ise!

Mr COURT: We continually must seek ways toimprove our arbitration system.

Mr Bryce: A bunch of crooks!Mr COURT: We must keep in mind basic prin-

ciples when we are examining our arbitrationsystem. These principles are the right of people togo freely about their lawful business; -

Mr Bryce: To the bottom of the harbour! Allthe way. Do you want some goggles?

Mr COURT: -the right of people to work; thefreedom of political thought; and the right ofcompanies, contractors, and subcontractors to op-erate without coercion.

Mr Parker: Do you take the same view of free-dom of rights with respect to section 548 and theemergency foodstuffs legislation?

Mr COURT: The ALP must think it is a beautsystem under which we are operating judging byits opposition to the amendments and its desirenot to go ahead with changes to the existing Act,hut the community as a whole is having secondthoughts.

Mr Bryce:. About the Liberal Party.Mr COURT: Some sections of employers and

employees are cosy, but what about the interestsof the community as a whole? Some of thesmaller people are Struggling to operate in ourexisting economic climate.

Mr Bryce: If they paid their taxes -

Mr COURT: Governments, whether- Liberal,Labor, or whatever, have a responsibility toprotect the community as a whole. The Govern-ment must consider the flow-on consequences,particularly at times like the present when we areoperating in a tough economy. The Governmentmust consider employment consequences; forexample, the effects that flowed through the econ-omy after the last metal trades award resulted inthousands of breadwinners nio longer having jobs.

Mr Parker: There is no substantiation for thatwhatsoever. I challenge you to prove one iota ofthat.

4361

4362 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr COURT: While the negative flow-on ef-fects are still going through the economy, we seethat particular union negotiating heavily forfurther increases in real wages, saying that thosewho still have jobs should be paid more. This is agreat attitude, and it will make the industry evenless competitive; it will put more people out ofwork, and it will widen the gap between the em-ployed and the unemployed in our society.

As I have said previously, the State ALP inconjunction with the TLC, and the Federal ALPin conjunction with the ACTU, seem to blunderalong a downhill path when it comes to industrialrelations.

In this House, we hear very little about indus-trial relations from the Opposition. I believe Op-position members are showing a complete lack ofunderstanding of the plight of employers and em-ployees and of the community as a whole, particu-larly in our current times. I suggest that membersopposite may have become too comfortable-theymay have become too fat on their salaries.

Mr Wilson: Listen to it!

Mr COURT: They may not know what it islike-

Several members interjected.

Mr Bateman: Have a gander at your mob!

Mr Bryce: Silk sheets and silver spoons!

Mr Bateman: What a hypocritical thing to say.

Mr COURT: I think members opposite havelost contact with the community. Perhaps the car-pets in this building, the silver tea services, andthe Government pay cheques every week have putthem too far removed from what is happening inthe real world.

Mr Bateman: You are a funny man! You are agoose, to be quite honest!

Mr Bryce: Is it Peppermint Grove, Dalkeith, orNedlands you hail from?

Several members interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will cometo order! The member for Nedlands.

Several members interjected.

Mr COURT: The Opposition has forgottenthat the union movement commenced withpeople-

Several members interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask that interjectionscease.

Mr COURT: -organising themselves volun-tarily to win better wages and conditions.

Mr Tonkin: Against the opposition of your pre-decessor. Your predecessor used tricks againstthem.

Mr COURT: That is a right with which we allagree. However, the spirit of the original unionmovement is being lost. We can see what happensin the Teachers' Union when membership is vol-untary. A true spirit comes back into the unionwhich cannot be achieved through compulsorymembership.

The legislation before the House will reinforcethe powers of the Industrial Commission andmake it more effective. Responsible unions havenothing to fear. If they offer good services to theirmembers, just like any business, they will attracta strong and enthusiastic following. This is thesort of union movement we must encourage, notone of compulsion which inevitably ends up in dis-satisfaction.

As the Minister in another place stated, "Weare aiming to be a catalyst for a healthy trend oflong-term benefit to the atmosphere of industrialrelations in the work place. Co-operation is muchhealthier than coercion."

This is the message union officials rightlypreach to management in their arguments for ap-propriate worker participation.

I support the legislation.Mr Bryce: You are a silver-tailed delinquent.

MR BRIAN BURKE (Balcatta-Leader ofthe Opposition) [9.32 p.m.]: I suppose it is appro-priate that the Minister handling the legislationshould be attired in a dinner suit-

Mr Young: I thought you would like it.Mr BRIAN BURKE: -and the only member

so far to have defended the Government's legis-lation is the newest member and the only one tohave inherited his seat.

I intend to address myself shortly to some ofthe matters raised by the member for Nedlandsand to attempt to cover them in the order inwhich he presented them to the Chamber. Firstly,however, let me make one or two points about thelegislation which support our opposition to itspassage.

There is absolutely no doubt that this legis-lation is not much about industrial relations, but alot about the Government's ideas of how it mightwin the next election.

Mr Tonkin: Hear, hear!Mr BRIAN BURKE: It reflects entirely and

precisely the Government's notion that confron-tation puts votes in the ballot box for the LiberalParty. I warn this Government-a Government

4362

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 46

that has the staggrs-that the experience of theHeath Government in the United Kingdom wasthat, in the final analysis, confrontation led thevoting population to decide that, regardless of towhom the blame might properly be assigned, theincumbent Government was the one to suffer theconsequences.

After a long period during which the miners inthe coal industry were on strike, the HeathGovernment was evicted from office, not accord-ing to the polls because the population believedthat the Government was responsible for thestrike, but simply because that Government wasincapable of dealing with the problems that gaverise to the dispute and to the problems and incon-venience suffered by the population.

Five months from an election, this Governmentdoes not have a feather with which to fly. Afternine years in office, unemployment is sky-rocketing, inflation is out of control, and the econ-omy is sicker than it has ever been. Interest ratesare crippling small business which the member forNedlands pretends so piously to support, and inevery area of Government activity this Govern-ment has been round sadly lacking.

It is a tribute to the insensitivity of the presentGovernment that, in that situation, rather thanaddress the problems that impinge so heavilyupon people, it instead chooses to promote to thefront rank of its policies legislation of this sort.

It is appropriate to recall the complete lack ofconsultation in relation to this legislation. It wasintroduced in another place without any consul-tation whatsoever with the parties it will affect.The Minister is on public record as having saidthat the introduction of legislation without consul-tation is the normal way in which legislativechange is enacted.

Mr O'Connor: Did the TLC refuse to go tothose conferences?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Trades and LaborCouncil at some stage refused to attend the tamecat advisory committee that was used by thisGovernment to dishonestly justify changes withwhich the TLC did not agree; but the Premiercannot deny the fact that whether or not that ad-visory committee had a representative of the TLCon it, this legislation was introduced without con-sultation, leaving the unions aside, and with nodiscussions with employers, who did not refuse toattend any meetings. The employers simply werenot informed and that is a splinter off the mirrorthat reflects this Government's attitude towardsindustrial relations. Not only that, but also in hispublic defence of failing to consult, the Ministersaid that it was the normal procedure-the nor-

mal way of doing things-and that was a dis-honest representation of the procedures of thisParliament, because it is simply untrue.

Legislation is invariably framed to reflect theneeds and the considerations of parties who willbe affected by the change in law. If we were tointroduce legislation in this place without anyconsultation, we would spend hour after houramending legislation as deficiencies became obvi-ouis.

Firstly, let me say this legislation will causemassive unemployment. At a time when this Stateis the third worst of all mainland States in termsof unemployment, this Bill will add at least threeper cent to the ranks of unemployed in WesternAustralia.

Mr O'Connor: This State is also the best interms of employment, is it not?

Mr 1. F. Taylor: Definitely not!Mr O'Connor: I just asked a question.Several members interjected.Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Opposition stead-

fastly has tried to demonstrate to this Premierthat his consistent claim about the creation of em-ployment without taking into account the loss ofjobs is an inaccurate and dishonest method of rep-resenting the situation.

Mr O'Connor: You are saying what I said iscorrect.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: In any case, if the Prem-ier is proud of the fact that 7.4 per cent of thework force is unemployed, let him say so.

Mr O'Connor: I am not.Mr BRIAN BURKE; If the Premier is proud

of the fact that one in every five young peopleaged between 15 and 19 years cannot find work,let him boast about it.

Mr Hassell: Your policies would produce plentymore.

Several members interjected.[Interruption from the gallery.]The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I ask the

House to come to order and I repeat the com-ments which have been made earlier by theSpeaker; that is, we welcome the people who arein the gallery this evening to the Parliament totake part-not to take part-

[Applause from the gallery.]Mr Parker: They would be a damn sight better

than 29 of the people who are here.Mr Harman: Do you want another encore?The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Under nor-

mal circumstances, of course, the gallery would

4363

4364 ASSEMBLY]

have been cleared, but might I suggest to thepeople in the gallery that this presents a great op-portunity for them to bear the debate which istaking place. I ask members of the House to exer-cise due restraint in order that the debate mayproceed, otherwise I shall be obliged to ask thatthe gallery be cleared.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I was saying that thislegislation will cause massive unemployment.

Mr Hassell: It will not cause one person to beunemployed.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Minis-ter will keep order!

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Minister is knownfar and wide for his sympathy with the unem-ployed and I have no doubt that he is privy tospecial knowledge not shared with employers orunion people who maintain-I believe it istrue-that this legislation will cause massive un-employment.

Little doubt exists that this legislation will bethe vehicle by which the Government will provokeindustrial disruption on a scale not previously seenin this State. If that is not going to cause financialembarrassment to employers in this State, I donot know what, in the mind of the Minister forPolice and Prisons, it will cause. By its penalties,the legislation will impose burdens on business inthis State. Indeed, it will cause many businessesto go bankrupt and I refer particularly to thesmall businesses about which the member forNedlands spoke so often.

Mr H-assell: Don't you believe in penalties in in-dustrial law?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I shall deal with penal-ties in industrial law and I shall explain to theMinister why I do not believe in them.

Mr Hassell; You believe in them when they arcapplied to employers who break awards, don'tyou?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: tt is not my view thatpenalties have any possible place in industriallegislation and I shall explain my position to theMinister a little later. However, he should under-stand clearly that this legislation will provoke arapid increase in unemployment both through thedisruption that it will inevitably bring and themagnitude of the penalties it will impose on theactors in the industrial relationships.

Members should consider also in respect ofthose penalties that we are seeing inserted into in-dustrial law minimum penalties of $400 in onecase applying to one category and $1 000 inanother. Members should understand too that it isclearly the case that penalties of this sort never

have worked previously and that, on this occasion,the Government has not advanced any reason tosuggest they will work now.

As far as the Opposition is concerned, in re-spect of the unemployment that will be provokedby this legislation, the Bill marks a new low in thebitterness with which the Government attacks thisparticular area of its responsi bi lities.

The member for Nedlands had much to sayabout how this Bill strengthened the arbitrationsystem. I do not know which Bill the member forNedlands has been studying, if indeed he has beenstudying a Bill, but I shall indicate what this Billdoes in respect of the arbitration system.

Firstly, in a specific clause, it exempts from theindustrial arbitration system's consideration po-tential areas of dispute that include housingrentals and matters, payroll deductions by unions,and what is called "management. prerogativie'. Ifthat is not taking away some of the powers of theIndustrial Commission, I do not know what it isdoing.

If that is not lessening the ambit of the arbi-tration system, what is it doing? If that is not suf-ficient, the member for Nedlands, the Ministerintroducing the Bill, and the Minister in anotherplace-in fact all the proponents of theB ill[-consistent ly have failed to explain what theymean by "management prerogative". Presumablythe term "management prerogative" means some-thing. If that will exempt from the arbitrationsystem further consideration of potential causes ofdisputes, how will that course strengthen the arbi-tration system? It will not.

If the Government was dinkum about strength-ening the arbitration system, it would consider al-lowing that system to address itself to every po-tential cause of disputes. But of course it will not.

Mr Hassell: Are you saying that includes allmanagement issues?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Mr Deputy Speaker,there is no doubt that the proper role of the arbi-tration system is to deal with any issues that giverise to a dispute.

Mr Tonkin: Hear, hear!Mr BRIAN BURKE: That is what the arbi-

tration system is about. That system cannot bestrengthened by exempting from considerationitems that have led and will lead to disputes. Themember for Nedlands is living in a fantasy worldif he thinks that that exemption will strengthenthe system.

In addition we see in this legislation a provisionto permit stand-downs without reference to thecommission. Is that strengthening the arbitration

4364

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 36

systemn or the Industrial Commission? That pro-vision will take from the commission anyreference with respect to stand-downs. Of courseit will not strengthen the system. Once again themember for Nedlands and the Minister whointroduced this Bill failed to address-at least,honestly-the truth of this Bill.

In addition we have the situation of the At-torney General having an unfettered right tointervene to correct decisions of the commission.Is that unfettered right likely to strengthen the ar-bitration system or the Industrial Commission?Of course it will not. In fact, it is the clear view ofthe Opposition that politics should play no role inthe arbitration system or the Industrial Com-mission of this State.

Several members interjected.The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The House

will come to order!

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The sooner politics is re-moved from industrial relations, the sooner wewill get down to a sane and rational system thatprevents the exacerbation of disputes by Govern-ments chasing votes.

[Interruption from the gallery.]Mr BRIAN BURKE: It is clear that the

central challenge to the strength of the system liesin the way this Bill creates in the minds of partici-pants in industrial relationships a disregard forthe Industrial Commission and the arbitrationsystem. The Government cannot attack thesystem thoroughly and comprehensively, as it doeswith this Bill, and expect people to respect the op-erations, procedures, and decisions of that system.The distractions embodied in this legislation willdiminish overall respect for the Industrial Com-mission and the arbitration system.

It is interesting to note that this legislation pro-tends to illegality. It was interesting to hear theMinister for Health trading words with the mem-ber for Fremantle. I realise this matter is notwithin his responsibility, but if ever I saw a Minis-ter out of his depth, it was the Minister forHealth-the member for Fremantle ran ringsaround him. The Minister tried to explain hisview that Federal laws are subordinate to StateLaws. I cannot say that 1 have heard even third-year high school students protend to that illogicalconcept. I heard this Minister say patronisingly tothe member for Fremanitle that Federal laws aresubordinate to State laws.

Mr Young: I didn't say that at all.Mr BRIAN BURKE: All of what I say when I

repeat the Minister for Health is quite true. Thequestion of consistency was explained concisely by

the member for Fremantle. What the Ministerfails to understand, as does his ministerial col-league in another place, is that once a Federal lawenters a field, regardless of its addressing itself tospecifics within that field, State laws in that fieldare subordinate to the Federal law. That appliesto preference to unionists.

Mr Young: We know that.

(Interruption from the gallery.]

Mr Parker: You know that now because I ex-plained it to you last night.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Once the Federal law en-ters a Field, regardless of whether it addressesspecific occurrences within that field, consistencydemands that the Federal law takes precedenceover the State law. What this Government isdoing is propelling this State into a position fromwhich it portends to illegality. All the ranting andraving that we hear about the Builders' LabourersFederation and the Transport Workers' Union areso much hot air because this legislation will notdo anything at all about those unions. If thisGovernment thinks that armed with this piece oflegislation it will bring to heel the Builders'Labourers Federation, it has another thinkcoming.

[Applause from the gal lery.]

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The galleryalready has been advised by the Speaker on anumber of occasions this evening that conditionsapply to entry to the gallery while the Parliamentis debating. That has been explained clearly, andhas been understood; certainly the public alreadyhave been advised. It is my intention not to keepreminding the gallery because there are other ac-tions the Chair can and will take. It is not mypurpose to take that sort of action, so I appeal tomembers of the gallery to acknowledge the re-quirements they are obliged to meet. I call on theLeader of the Opposition.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: As I was saying, thislegislation will not permit this Government to doanything about unions such as the Builders'Labourers Federation and the Transport Workers'Union, about which it complains so often, becausethose unions have Federal awards.

The next point I want to make is that the legis-lation will do one thing. It is centralised legis-lation that will force into the Federal jurisdictionall those unions which want to evade the effectiveprovisions of this legislation. While the Premierparades his position to Canberra, and as MalcolmFraser assumes the status of an untouchable-

[Laughter from the gallery.]

4365

4366 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr BRIAN BURKE: -the truth is that thisPremier and this Government are forcing into thearms of the Federal Government and its Federalarbitration system all the unions that will seekFederal coverage to avoid the provisions of thislegislation. I do not expect the Premier to under-stand that nuance, and I do not think he reallyknows what is in the Bill. What has happened tothe Liberal Party in this State is this: The uglyside of the Liberal Party has taken control. Thevenerated member of another place, the Hon.Graham MacKinnon, was heard to say thatpeople in this State will need to accept somethingdifferent from that which existed in the past whenthe people now in charge of the Liberal Party getinto action. We have seen the harshness and thelack of compassion that that side of the LiberalParty reflects consistently in the attitudes thisPremier has been forced to take in regard toretrospective tax legislation, and this legislation.The Premier and the Minister for Resources De-velopment were seen clearly to accept that atti-tude when commenting on land rights for individ-uals. The people of this State will come to realise,if they have not already realised, that in thedriver's seat of the Liberal Party are no longer thepeople like the Chaneys and the McLeans whoparade around as small l"I" Liberals, but theChrichton-Brownes, the Warners, and the ChillaPorters.

Mr Wilson: And the Hassells and the Clarkos.Mr BRIAN BURKE: As a general explanation

to members on the other side of the Chamber ofwhy they will not be in Government after nextMarch. I inform them that the public of this Statewill not accept the un-Australian nature of the at-titudes of the people now in the driver's seat, andthe un-Australian characteristics reflected in thisBill. The public will not accept a Premier whodoes not have the strength to provide leadership inthe face of aggressive and harsh attitudes.

Mr Laurance: You won't be able to jump overthe shadow of Mr Bartholomacus, let alone getinto Government.

Mr Bryce: You are one of the uglies.Mr Pearce: You are one of the plastic uglies.Mr BRIAN BURKE: I will touch briefly on

the alternative to the management of industrialrelations that this Government trots in. Firstly, itis the replacement of confrontation with harmony;and, secondly, it is genuine concessions to thatchange by way of tripartite consultation betweenemployer, union, and Government representativesin preliminary discussions. Those discussions willrelate to changes in the law prior to changes beingintroduced. The alternative is to retrain in order

to adjust the stock of skills within the community,and to adopt the judicious use of education tomake sure that readjustment is facilitated. Butthis State Government and its Federal counter-part continue to lead the economy through crises.

I refer also to this Government's attention tooccupational health and safety. If the public con-sider any one aspect, they will understand wherethe priorities of this Government lie. The fine fora first offence under the Shops and Factories Actis $100, but the fine for an inspector under thatAct who divulges information is $200. That reallyencapsulates the sorts of attitudes this Govern-ment displays.

In the time left to me, I will address one or twoof the points raised by the member for Nedlands.They are not in a sensible order, but I took themdown as they were delivered. I hope the Housewill bear with me.

Firstly, the member for Nedlands said that weare in the process of fine tuning our industriallegislation so that it fits in with the times. Look,not even the employers' federation supports theBill, so apparently employers are not aware of thetimes in which the member for Nedlands appearsto loll.

Mr O'Connor: What about the view of 75 percent of the public?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: That is a typical com-ment of the Premier. He has a Gallup poll whichtalks about compulsory unionism. The poll wastaken in June, but is not reflected in any way inthis legislation. He consistently sits there mutter-ing, "What about the 75 per cent of the public?"

The next point the member for Nedlands raisedrelated to prosperity and living on expectations ofperformance.

Mr Parker: Who better?Mr BRIAN BURKE: As the member for

Fremantle asks, "Who better?". The truth is that,as explained by the member for Kalgoorlie, thecargo cult mentality was installed in the minds ofthe Australian public-if that is where it is-bythe Fraser Government, which promised so much,delivered so little, and taught people to be selfish,and to have no regard for anyone else. If it is truethat the nation of which we are so proud is livingon expectations, the blame for that selfishnessrests in the central thread of the philosophy towhich this Government adheres. We heard themember for Nedlands say that industrial relationswere dominated by powerful unions which forceextra dollars out of employers. He said also thatthe iron ore industry found it easier to give in, butthat now we are in difficult times.

4366

[Wednesday. 27 October 1982]136

Look, I know the iron ore industry is in difficulttimes because this Government has let theJapanese assume a stranglehold around the throatof that industry. The member for Yilgarn-Dundasvery definitely has explained to this Governmenttime and time again that while our share of theJapanese market is falling, the Brazilian share isrising and this Government refuses to believe thatin assisting the industry that situation will not bereversed.

In addition to that, I do not apologise forunions seeking increases for their members. Whocontrols the price rises enforced by employers andbusiness? Who exercises any control over the waythose increases impinge on family budgets? Thatis the sort of reasoning that is displayed by peoplelike the member for Nedlands. What they aresaying is, "Let us make sure one side of the re-lationship has its hands tied, but let the other be alaw unto itself knowing sound business principlesin profitability will make it law responsible". Thatis not true. The member for Nedlands said thatthe closed shop was illegal under this presentlegislation. If this is the case, why are welegislating tonight? How does one use the presentlaw to prove the illegality about which the mem-ber for Nedlands talks? He also said that theUnited Nations Declaration of Human Rightsand the ILO Convention gave substance to whatthis Bill does. Certainly they give substance towhat the member for Nedlands says this Bill does,but it does not achieve that result. However, themember for Nedlands is upset, as are his col-leagues, because the United Nations Declarationof Human Rights is appropriate and arguablewhen we talk about this legislation. What aboutelectoral democracy?

The unions say something about one-vote-one-value and the Government disregards that everytime it is raised. If the Government wants to denycredibility of that on other occasions, it did notseek its- strength tonight. We heard about individ-ual choice and was it not the right of people tohave individual choice. Is it not the right of em-ployers to have the right to employ unionists ifthey want to? If individual choice involves spong-ing off workmates and enjoying the benefits towhich one has not contributed-

Mr Bryce: It would go down well in Nedlands.Mr BRIAN BURKE: -and if individual

choice is the sort of choice about which the mem-ber for Nedlands speaks so often, he is notreflecting accurately on the meaning of the words.

If one tried to walk into the Weld Club withoutbeing a member one would be thrown out on one'sear because members of that club pay for the fa-

cilities they enjoy and do not admit non-membersinto the club. If I wanted to go to the Weld Clubtonight for a drink, I would not get past the firstdoorman to whom I addressed myself because Iam not a member.

Mr Rushton: You are not forced to join either.Mr BRIAN BURKE: We have plumbed the

depths of the Deputy Premier and he will nowstart.

The SPEAKER: Order! The House will cometo Order!

Mr BRIAN BURKE: One of the quaintestthings said by the member for Nedlands waswhen he equated strength with profitability-

Several members interjected.Mr BRIAN BURKE: We all heard him, even

the sour-faced Minister (or Police and Prisonsmust have heard the member for Nedlands saythat strong business is profitable business. Thegreat train robbers were profitable, but there isnot much morality to their strength; and thestatement simply is not true.

Mr Hassell: Like the ship painters and dockers'union-there is not much morality there, either.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The House should reflecton the need for Malcolm Fraser to establish theCostigan report to catch ship painters anddockers' union members who were affiliated withthe Labor Party and all he turned up with weremembers of the finance committee of the LiberalParty.

(Applause from the gallery.]

The SPEAKER: Order! I would ask those inthe gallery to restrain themselves from acting inthat way. If it occurs again I will have no alterna-tive but to ask you to vacate the gallery.

Mr Hassell: It sounds as though members ofthe ship painters and dockers' union are in thegallery.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Throughout his speech,the member for Nedlands kept going back to theBLE and TWU and I have already said it is truethose unions will not be touched by this legis-lation. An interesting point is that the member forNedlands accused me of attempting to distancemyself from the union movement and he asked anumber of questions. Before I answer thosequestions, let me tell the member for Nedlandsand everyone else what my position is.

Mr Laurance: We know your position. NeilBartholomaeus pulls the strings and you jump.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The first point is that Ido not agree with every action taken by every

4367

4368 [ASS EM BLYJ

union in this State or nationally. I have said thatpreviously.

Mr Hassell: It is just that you never tell thepublic when you disagree.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I am telling the Housewhat my position is and if the Minister for Policeand Prisons cannot cope with it-I see tbe Prem-ier has returned-he could replace the Premieroutside, It is true I do not agree with every actiontaken by every union in this State or country.That is the first paint.

The second point is that at times when strikesare called I think that particular weapon isinappropriate and at times when unions fail tostrike, if I were in charge of those unions, I wouldthink a strike was appropriate.

Mr Hassell: You never tell the public when youdisagree with the unions.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The next point I want tomake is this: The Opposition in the past year hasnot attempted to run away or retreat from indus-trial relations. It has been a policy of Labor politi-cal parties in the past to believe industrial re-lations is one area in which they cannot win andfor that reason the tendency is for them not toventure into that field. The performance of theOpposition in this place has been the opposite tothat trend and we have put it to the public that weare better at industrial relations than is the pres-ent Government.

Do members know what galls the Government?It is that business in this State is starting to be-lieve us and say the big dangers to this com-munity are not posed by ideological people whowant to turn the world upside down. The dangersare posed by incompetent dullards who do notknow the facts of the policies and do not thinkthrough the way policies will operate. That is whybusiness is starting to look seriously at the LaborParty and is starting to compare a young and wellqualified front bench with an aged and dull lot ofMinisters who really are not doing much of a job.

Whether or not the Government likes it-andthe Minister for Lands in his Rotary-type fashioncan snigger-it is true. I do not care what theGovernment says, the longer it persists in its ig-norance, the less time it will have to adjust whenit finally wakes up.

Let me answer specifically the questions posedby the member for Nedlands. Firstly, he askedwhether I supported individual rights. Of course Ido.

Mr Hassell: Except the right of membership ofunions.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: In the seven minutes leftto me, let me try to get through to this Ministerthat the logical extreme of nonsense is that I canwalk into any club for which there is membership,and demand entry if it provides facilties. The logi-cal extreme of the Minister's argument is thatemployers should have the right to choose to em-ploy unionists if that is what they want, but theyare denied that choice under this legislat ion.

Mr Hassell: What if they want non-unionists?Why do you not answer that?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Why do I not answer theMinister's nonsense? Why does not the Ministerfor Police and Prisons make a speech from his feetand not from his seat?

The SPEAKER: Order! I ask that interjectionscease.

Mr BRIAN BURKE- The next question was-Several members interjected.Mr BRIAN BURKE: We are confronted by

these indentikit Liberals like the Minister for In-dustrial, Commercial and Regional Development.

The next question the member for Nedlandsasked was whether I thought small business hasthe right to be profitable. That is a little curly. ofcourse, I support the right of small business to beprofitable. That is why we want to reformGovernment taxes and charges which are drivingthem into liquidation. Very briefly, we wouldrestructure the whole charging system to stop themassive subsidies being paid by small business tobig business.

The member for Nedlands asked whether I sup-ported the audit provisions of this Bill. Of coursethe Opposition supports audit provisions. Most ofthe unions certainly do because many of themalready apply them. He also asked about thecapacity to pay. In a general sense that has beentaken into consideration.

Mr Rushton: Why do you have to make thesame speech as the member for Ned Ia ds?

Mr BRIAN BURKE: It is beyond the compre-hension of the Minister for Transport. This is adebating forum and that usually means that wehave the opportunity to answer arguments and inthat way not go off on a tangent as the Minister isso fond of doing.

Let me answer the following points raised bythe member for Nedlands. He said in conclusionthat we had a situation where the unions are stilltrying to achieve better employment conditionsand wages for their members. It was theirirresponsibility, he implied. But consider the pos-ition of workforce organ isations. in this country inthe face of the duplicity of conservative Govern-

4368

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982]136

menis.This is demonstrated easily by reference towage indexation. Who can forget the FraserGovernment's saying, "We will support wage in-dexation if the unions will agree to wage in-dexation. We will be half way towards a solutionto our problems." The unions, despite objectionfrom many sections, did support the propositionand look at what happened.

The Fraser Government said, "We agree withindexation, but it must be partial indexation."Partial indexation became the order of the day,and how did the Fraser Government respond? Itsaid, "We support partial indexation, but it mustbe plateau indexation." Plateau indexation wasintroduced and then what happened? The Fraserand Court Governments-now the Fraser andO'Connor Governments--came back with, "Wesupport indexation, bus there should not be anyraise today." That is true; that is the Govern-ment's sterling performance in honesty andstraightforwardness. Whether this Governmentrealises it or not, it is assuming the stance of thewalking dead, and I will tell members why: Wehave a Premier whose idea of leadership is politi-cal triteness. He cannot display the sort of direc-tion and instruction which is so necessary.

Mr Hassell: Can't you do any better than this?That is pathetic.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: Is it not funny that wehave a Minister for Police and Prisons-

Mr Mensaros: All you can do is smear people.That is all you are capable of doing in this place.

Mr Hassell: That is absolutely pathetic.Mr BRIAN BURKE:-who in this Parliament

piously comes to the defence of the Premier-Mr Hassell: You are only grandstanding for the

gallery.Several members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order! It is entirely

inappropriate to have a member trying to addressthe House being shouted down by other members.I ask for that sort of interjection to cease.

Mr BRIAN BURKE: I repeat: Inside theHouse, the Minister for Police and Prisons piouslydefends the Premier when everybody knows thatoutside the House, that same Minister bags thePremier wherever he goes.

Mr Bryce: Slabs him in the back.Mr BRIAN BURKE: That is known through-

out the community.Mr Young: You have sunk pretty low, but this

is about as far as you can go.MrT BRIAN BURKE: Do not members op-

posite squirm When we serve it back to them?

They are very good at dishing it out, but when itis thrown back at them, they go to water.

Mr Young: You are only a bag of wind.Mr BRIAN BURKE: The Opposition opposes

this legislation and gives notice that the day afterit wins Government, whether it is in March nextyear or in March, three years hence, this law willcease to operate.

MR TRETHOWAN (East Melville) [10.18p.m.]: I have listened with great interest to thetwo speeches from the Opposition. I agree withthe description the Speaker gave of the speech ofthe member for Fremantle; I believe it was obvi-ously thoroughly researched, if somewhat parti-san. Essentially, it covered the development of thearbitration system in this country, The interestingthing I found was that the member for Fremantlerarely touched on the detail of aspects of thelegislation,

The SPEAKER: Order! There is far too muchbackground noise. I can barely hear the member,and I am sure the Hansard reporter, whose obli-gation it is to report the speech, also is experienc-ing difficulty. So, if not in the interest of the dig-nity of the House, at least in the interest of theHansard reporter, I ask members to reduce thelevel of noise.

Mr TRETHOWAN: I believe it was under-standable the member for Freman tie did nottouch on the detail of aspects of the Bill; obvi-ously, as the lead speaker for the Oppo-sition-and, as he indicated in his speech-he willbe speaking on the detail of many of the clausesof the Bill.

However, I found it passing strange the Leaderof the Opposition had so little to say about thesubstance of the Bill.

Mr Pearce: Why do you have speakers of solittle substance?

Mr Young interjected.Mr Pearce: Why don't you have a go?Mr Young: Because I am closing the debate,

you idiot. That shows how much you know aboutthe procedures in this place.

The SPEAKER: Order! The member forGosnells will cease interjecting. Cross-Chamberconversations are totally out of order.

Mr TRETHOWAN: The speech of the Leaderof the Opposition was very short on the facts re-lating to the Bill, but long on abuse and verbosity.However, I can understand that; I can understandwhy members of the Opposition are refusing tocome to grips with the real substance of this pieceof legislation. They know that any opposition tothe provisions of this legislation would be

4369

4370 [ASSEMBLY]

thoroughly out of step with the attitudes of thecommunity at large. Members opposite know thatthe attitudes of the Opposition and, particularly,of the trade union movement to the Sill are out ofstep with the attitude of the community.

This Bill is about the rights of the individualand the rights of the community.

Mr Bryce: It is about trying to get even themember for East Melville re-elected.

Mr TRETHOWAN: The fact is that if the Op-position is so strong in its political argumentabout this Bill and in its belief that the Govern-ment is using the Bill as a means to gain popu-larity, it simply reinforces my argument thatmembers opposite know that opposition to the Billwould be out of step with community beliefs.

Mr Bryce: It used to be; that is the difference.Mr TRETHOWAN: I will demonstrate -objec-

tively that this is a fact. It is interesting to see thedilemma which confronts the Opposition in that ifits members support this legislation they will re-ceive the approbation of people in business, of in-dividuals in the work force, and of the communityat large. However, they will incur the wrath oftheir political masters, the trade union movement.

I do not believe the kind of description offeredby the Leader of the Opposition of his relation-ship with the trade union movement is correct.Rather, I believe the substance of his statement isin relation to his attitude towards industrial re-lations; namely, that he would replace confron-tation with harmony. "Harmony" means that hewould give in to every demand placed on hisGovernment and on the community by the tradeunion movement. He would not have the sub-stance to stand and argue the economic effectssuch decisions would have on the whole com-munity. That is precisely what we see happeningwith States under Labor Governments, particu-larly in New South Wales.

Mr T. H. Jones: Have you ever been a unionmember?

Mr TRETHOWAN: I have not been a memberof a union.

Mr T. H. Jones: You are not very competent totalk on this subject, in that case.

Mr TRETHOWAN: I am glad I have not beena member of a union, and I am grateful to themember for Collie for highlighting that point be-cause I intend to indicate statistically how unionleaders are completely out of step with the atti-tudes of the work force and the rest of the com-munity.

As I said, this Bill is a law designed to safe-guard the rights of the individual in the work

place, be he a unionist or a non-unionist. The Billwill safeguard the individual subcontractor, thesmall man, and the person in business who do nothave the resources of a large company behindthem. It will ensure the community is treatedfairly in any decision of the State Industrial Com-mission relating to awards, and the like.

I do not believe it is inappropriate for the Min-ister to refer in his speech to article No. 22 of theUnited Nations Universal Declaration of HumanRights guaranteeing the freedoms we seek toprotect.

Mr Bryce: Do you believe in the principle ofone-vote-one-value?

Mr TRETHOWAN: I intend to go on to provethat the community does not believe it to beinappropriate, either.

It is interesting that the historical developmentof the union movement was on the basis of safe-guarding the small individual in the work place.As the Minister indicated, at that time an imbal-ance of power existed in that the employers heldmost of the cards and the employees, very few.The formation of unions produced a counter-vailing set of powers which created more equity inthe wage determination system.

Mr Bryce: Is that right?Mr TRETHOWAN: That is right. However, it

is quite clear that over the last 50 or 60 years, thependulum has swung too far; that is clear not onlyto people like me, but also to the rest of the com-munity.

Mr Jamieson: You are talking like a bourgeoisnut.

Mr TRETHOWAN: As soon as a person runsout of facts in a debate, generally he starts toabuse people, because that is the only way he canappear to be fighting for his argument, withouthaving any basis for his argument.

There is a strong and pervading feeling in thecommunity that in general, some unions-I do notcategorise the whole union movement asirresponsible-still operate on behalf of theirmembers on the same basis as they did when theunion movement first began 50 or 60 years ago.

Mr Bryce: Which ones?Mr Trethowan: I am not prepared to name

names.Mr Bryce: You do not know; do you?Mr TRETHO WAN: It is quite clear this view

is accepted by the rest of the community.Mr Jamieson: Now you are using innuendo.

You are a fine one to talk about people running

4370

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982]137

out of arguments; you have never had an argu-ment.

Mr TRETHOWAN: One of the ways thisabuse of power is most clearly seen is through theexercise of the closed shop arrangement. I wouldlike members of the Opposition to indicatewhether they favour that principle. I believe itwould typify very accurately their true feelings onthe matter and would indicate what actions theywould take if in Government.

The fact is that responsible unions have nothingto fear from this legislation. Only those whichseek to use their power in an excessive manner,contrary to the interests of the community, willfind themselves affected.

Mr Bryce: That is exactly what Jaruzelski saidin Poland.

Mr TRETHOWAN: It is very interesting thatthe Deputy Leader of the Opposition mentions thesituation in Poland. This Bill seeks to guaranteethe rights and freedoms of individual workers ofthis State; it does not seek to implement theintimidation of a closed shop system similar to theGovernment-oriented trade union in Poland,which now is the official trade union movement ofthat country. That obviously is the kind of unionmovement the Deputy Leader of the Oppositionwould seek to introduce in this State, through aclosed shop arrangement, were we ever to havethe misfortune in this State to have him as of theGovernment.

Mr Bryce: You are trying to achieve exactlywhat they have just achieved in Poland; namely,the destruction of the trade union movement.

Mr TRETHOWAN: The interesting thing isthat the Labor Party does not want the facts. TheLeader of the Opposition and the member forFremantle were scathing about public opinionpolls; but I would like to quote the passage thatthe member for Fremantle referred to from aspeech by the Minister for Labour and Industryfrom another place when he was at the industrialrelations conference held recently in Mandurah.In relation to the question of public acceptability,the Minister said-

But in the privacy of interviews for publicopinion polls, they say what they mean.

And on June 30, this year, 73 per cent said"No" to being compelled to join a union.

This was a 7 per cent increase on a similarpoll four years earlier.

The feeling is 7 per cent stronger amongwomen than among men and strongest of allreaching 80 per cent among the younger agegroups.

This is decisive evidence that the principleof individual rights matters a great deal toindividuals.

Mr T. H. Jones: What would happen if you didnot pay your Liberal Party fees? Would you beallowed to stay in the party? Would they supportthat?

Mr TRETHO WAN: I can understand thatOpposition would not be prepared to acceptstatistical evidence of the rightness ofGoverment's position.

thethethe

Mr T. H. Jones interjected.The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr Crane): Order!

The member for Collie! I have been very tolerant,particularly with the member for Collie. I haveaccepted an occasional interjection; but continualinterjections will cease or I will take the appropri-ate action.

Mr TRETHOWAN: As I stated earlier, thefact is that union executives are totally out of stepwith the attitudes of the rest of the community re-lated to the work force. I can indicate that clearlyby quoting from one of the bench marks of stat-istical study into the whole range of industrial re-lations and employment factors in this country.This is a survey which is accepted widely as themost complete survey of its kind conducted in thiscountry. The survey was commissioned by SentryHoldings Limited and it was carried out byMcNair Anderson Associates Pty. Ltd., in associ-ation with Professor Roger Layton, the Professorof Marketing at the University of New SouthWales. The title of the survey is "Managers andWorkers at the Crossroads". In the section deal-ing with the role of unions, questions were askedof groups representing the total work force, unionleaders, public administrators, personnel man-agers, and general managers.

To the question, "All employees should bemade to join a union-agree Or disagree?", thetotal work force agreed with the proposition onthe basis of 25 per cent.

Mr Jamieson: What was the poll number?Mr TRETHOWAN: Only 20 per cent of the

public administrators agreed that all employeesshould be made to join a union; IS per cent ofpersonnel managers agreed; and no general man-agers agreed; but 80 per cent of union leadersagreed that all employees should be made to joina union.

Mr Davies: What an amazing figure!Mr TRETHOWAN: Of the groups surveyed,

including the total work force of which 25 percent agreed. 80 per cent of union leaders agreed-

4371

4372 [ASSEMBLY)

Mr Bryce: Do you realise you have been speak-ing for 15 minutes and, in accordance with theway you started, you have not touched on the Bill.

Mr TRETHOWAN: I am touching veryclosely on the Bill. The Deputy Leader of the Op-position does not want to listen to the facts I amtpresenting. They bear a direct relationship to thesubstance and basis of the Bill.

Mr Jamieson: How big was that poll? Can yut'tell us that?

Mr TRETH-OWAN: Yes, I can.

Mr Jamieson: And where was it taken?Mr TRETI-OWAN:, It was taken throughout

the whole of Australia, A total of 801 full-timemembers of the Australian work force wereinvolved, and representatives totalling 204 mem-bers of the following leadership groups were in-cluded: managers, personnel managers, "1nionleaders, and Government officials. Statistically,the survey is extremely sound. It was handled byprobably the top statistical research organisationin Australia and one of the most senior academicsin the field in Australia. I do not believe anyonecould imply the survey was irrelevant.

To highlight how out of step union officials arein relation to the work force and the rest of thecommunity, I indicate that on the statement that"union leaders often seem to be looking for some-thing to justify their existence", the work forceagreed 78 per cent with the proposition: publicadministrators, 62 per cent; personnel m,.nagers,81 per cent; and general managers agreed 80 percent with the proposition. Not surprisingly, theunion leaders themselves agreed only 12 per centwith the proposition-again, totally out of stepwith the rest of the community.

On the further statement that "the pressure forwage increases by unions is now not really sup-ported by the rank and file", of the total workforce 63 per cent agreed; 57 per cent of personnelmanagers agreed; and 72 per cent of general man-agers; but of the union leaders who had answeredto the extent of 12 per cent on the previousquestion, when it came to the question as towhether they had to justify their existence, only20 per cent agreed with the second proposition.

Mr Bryce: What percentage of them knockedback the rise?

Mr TRETH-OWAN: Again, they are totallyout of step with the rest of the work force and therest of the community.

Their being out of step and out of touch withtheir own members and with the needs of thecommunity has resulted, as the previous questionswould have indicated, in wage rises continuing to

flow, even when members of the unions do notagree that they are appropriate. This has had dev-astating consequences on the economy of thiscountry. It has had a serious effect on our abilityto export competitively.

The only way in which excessive wage de-mands, without accompanying productivity in-creases, can be overcome in order to maintain thecompetitiveness of our manufacturing industries isto devalue the Australian dollar. The devaluationof the Australian dollar prevents what we need toincrease our community wealth-an inflow ofcapital in order to Finance the development of thiscountry; and that, the Leader of the Oppositionhas so trenchantly agreed, is the basic needs ofour community.

Apart from reducing our competitiveness oninternational markets, these wage demands haveresulted in many people in Australia losing theirjobs. In fact, it was a former Labor Minister whoquoted publicly the saying that one man's wagerise is another man's job. In no way has thatchanged, as has been agreed by the work force atlarge. They can see the folly of their pursuing ex-cessive wage demands.

Mr Davies: The parliamentarians' wage risesmean extra members, as far as this State goes.

Mr TRETHOWAN: The only way we willachieve a higher standard of living in this country.is through increases in productivity. Productivityis the basic key to wage determinations, If theinterests of the community were taken into ac-c ount-the effects of wage decisions on thenational and State economis-not only would wehave a rise in the standard of living within thecommunity, but also we would see that this con-tinued to be shared equitably between theinterested parties.

Mr Bryce: Productivity is primarily a functionof management.

Mr TRETHOWAN: The fact is that it takestwo to tango in order to create productivity. Ittakes a greater effort on the part of managementto ensure that there is greater co-operation in thework place leading to higher productivity; but atthe same time the other side must be prepared tocome to the party. The union movement, and par-ticularly the union executives, must be preparedto go along.

On that question, I would like to quote from aslightly later survey for Sentry Holdings Limited,again conducted by McN air Anderson AssociatesPty, Ltd., this time in conjunction with LouisHarris Associates Inc. The survey is titled"Perspectives on Productivity: Australia".

4372

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 37

Mr Bryce: I am still waiting for you to comeback to the Bill. Where does the Bill deal withproductivity?

Mr TRETH-OWAN: The Bill refers to pro-ductivity in relation to clause 26. What I amtalking about now is covered in the effect of 26.

The survey covered basically the same groupsas before. To the question, "Do you think thattrade unions today are more helpful or less helpfulthan they were 10 years ago in helping businessesto grow and become more efficient?", those whoanswered "more helpful" were only 16 per cent ofthe work force. Those who answered "less help-ful" were 62 per cent of the work force. I Dotethat 57 per cent of public administrators said thattrade unions were less helpful than they were 10years ago in helping businesses to grow and be-come efficient; 61 per cent of service sectorcompany executives said the same; and 60 percent of industrial company executives said thatthey were less helpful; but 62 per cent of unionleaders said they were more helpful. How out ofstep can they be with the rest of the community?

To the question, "What groups within the econ-omy were mainly responsible for the fact that thiscountry's productivity is not better than it is?", inrelation to trade unions 73 per cent of the workforce indicated that they were one of the groupsresponsible for this country's productivity notbeing better than it is; 82 per cent of public ad-ministrators agreed with that; 94 per cent of ser-vice sector company executives agreed with it; and94 per cent of industrial company executivesagreed with it; but only 22 per cent of unionleaders agreed-again, dramatically out of step.When dealing with the same question relating tothe private sector, only 36 per cent of the workforce said that they thought that was the case;only 38 per cent of public administrators thoughtthat that was the case; only 41 per cent of servicesector company executives said that that was thecase; and only 34 per cent of industrial companyexecutives thought that was the ease; but 88 percent of union leaders thought it was thecase-dramatically out of step with the workforce and with the community.

That is the nature of the opposition to this Bill.I do not wonder that members of the Labor Partyare chary about the way they oppose the Bill, be-cause they know that, fundamentally, the legis-lation is supported by the community, by thepeople in the work place, and by the individualswho have been subjected the threat of oppressiveaction.

It is supported by members of the communitywho feel they are disadvantaged by extortionatewage claims and strikes used to back them up.

Mr Jamieson: Supported by stupid questions byMeN air and Anderson.

Mr TRETHO WAN: Anyone who knows any-thing about industrial relations would know thatthese two surveys are considered to be thebenchmarks covering the whole community atti-tude in this area.

The basis upon which the Government hasintroduced this legislation is that it is needed andwanted by the community. The Government is nothere to represent sectional interests; it is not hereto represent political opportunists who are out ofstep with the community and the work force. TheBill is here to represent the rights of individuals,the rights of small businessmen, the rights ofsubcontractors, and the rights of the communityin the industrial area. I have very great pleasurein supporting this legislation.

MR MeIVER (Avon) [10.46 p.m.]: As a lifemember of a union it would be very remiss of meif I did not comment on this Bill. I am saddenedby the ignorance of Government members in bothHouses, who have illustrated their lack of knowl-edge of industrial relations and the trade unionmovement.

The introduction of this Bill parallels the actiontaken in 1963 by the Liberal Government underSir David Brand when it amended the arbitrationsystem to remove the Commissioner of IndustrialRelations, Mr Justice Neville, and replace himwith industrial commissioners. What we haveheard in the other place and in this place thisevening is more or less a repetition of that action.At that time the Liberal Government strongly at-tacked the trade union movement in the same wayas members of the present Government are at-tacking the trade union movement. This is alldone purely and simply for political purposes. Weall know of the great respect unionists had for thejudicious decisions and judicious balance ofJustice Neville.

I am also saddened by the implications madeagainst the Industrial Commission by Liberalmembers. What they do not seem to re-alise-particularly the younger members-is thatwhen a union submits a wage claim, it has notbeen handed to it on a plate. Wage claims aredrawn up only after months of preparation.Unions have first to prepare a case and substan-tiate it. Employers, with their far greater re-sources and help within the legal profession, chal-lenge those submissions in the Industrial Court.Should the industrial commissioner hearing the

4373

4374 [ASSEMBLY]

case decide in favour of the unions, in the Govern-ment's eyes he is always wrong. The Governmentbelieves unionists should not receive increases intheir pay. The Government does not realise theweakness of an employer's case and his inabilityto justify a refusal of the union's case. Theyounger members opposite do not understand this.

It is unfortunate that in our society today theyounger members of Parliament have never beenin a position where they have had to call on theassistance of respected unions, because theirparents have seen to it they were educated atschools such as those attended by the member forEast Melville. It seems to be the "in" thing thesedays to be a union hater and to hound the unions.

However, this action has backfired on theGovernment. In sheer ignorance, the Governmenthas introduced this legislation despite the factthat, for the first time in the history of this State,employers and unions have come together andasked that a Bill be withdrawn. The Confeder-ation of WA Industry represents employers; em-ployers in this State pay into the confederation sothat it can handle their cases, just as unionists paytheir dues to their unions to have them look aftertheir interests.

Mr Sibson: The confederation is runningscared; it is objecting for different reasons.

Mr McI VER: Irrespective of whether this legis-lation is passed-naturally it will be passed, evenif we speak on it for three months, because theGovernment has the numbers-the Governmenthas failed to realise as it always does that it willnot be able to implement its policies. Theintroduction of this Bill will strengthen the tradeunion movement rather than weaken it.

Do members opposite honestly believe that menworking underground in the coalmining industry,men who have to work as a team, will allow ayoung novice to join them if he is not a member ofa union? Do members Opposite really think thesemen would go underground with a non-unionist?Do members opposite think a train driver wouldrun his train when his fireman was not a memberof the union? The train would not leave thestation!

Here we come to the crux of the legislation;here we come to what the Government wants toachieve. It wants to provoke the uni.ons; it wantsto create industrial unrest. It wants to go to thepeople of Western Australia and tell them it willresolve the industrial unrest by controlling theunions. It wants to do this because it has no otherissue on which to go to the people. This iscertainly true after the last two months with thedebacle of the Costigan report and the actions by

the Federal Government which have continuallyembarrassed Liberal Party supporters. This is awasted exercise; it is a waste of the Parliament'stime.

The Transport Workers' Union came under at-tack by the member for Nedlands when he criti-cised the union for its past action. However, I no-tice recognition never is given to the TWU for theindustrial stoppages it prevents; no mention ismade of that. As for subcontractors, those peoplewho do not join the TWU and would cart any-thing anywhere at any rate-

Mr Herzfeld: As they are entitled to.

Mr MOIVER: These people have no regard forthe transport industry. The industry would not bein the state it is at present but for thesubcontractors the member for Mundaring thinksare so marvellous.

Mr Herzfeld: Rubbish!Mr McI VER: Do not rubbish me. The member

is just a little boy when it comes to industrial re-lations.

Mr Sibson: Subcontractors are the backbone ofthis country.

Mr Mel VER: The rates set by the TWU andenjoyed by hundreds of its members have beengained only through arbitration and, as I said,after months of preparation have gone into draw-ing up wage claims in an effort to obtain rewardsfor union members. It is because of people like themember for Mundaring, who supports thesubcontractors who are ratting on the industry,that the transport industry is in its present direstraits.

I have people coming to my office who havetaken a load to Melbourne and back and foundthey were hardly paid enough for the petroll theyused.

Mr Bateman: If they blow a tyre they have lostthe lot.

Mr McI VER: They are used by the truckingcompanies who give them scraps off the plate tocart north of the 26th parallel. Yet the memberfor Mundaring has the temerity to say that this isgreat and is what we should have. He has a lot tolearn.

It is a pity that the Minister who introduced theBill is not in this Chamber. Unfortunately he haslived in this country for only a short time, but hishatred of the union movement and its supportersis well known.

Mr Bryce: He is unbalanced.Mr McIVER: How he ever got to be a Minister

I do not know. The Liberal Party is surrounded

4374

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982]4:7

by incompetent Ministers, particularly in the fieldof industrial relations. He certainly won nofriends by introducing this Bill, irrespective ofwhat the polls might say. Although the Premiersaid 75 per cent of the people are in favour of thelegislation, I could conduct a poll tomorrow andfind just as many people who oppose the legis-lation.

Unions must have finance and must employstaff. They are a big industry and they obtaintheir funds through membership. If I could findsome loophole to enable me to get out of payingmy house rates and my water rates I would use it.Many unionists like to get out of paying theirunion fees.

Mr Parker: A very good point.

Mr McIVER: But how many of these peoplewho do not want to pay their union fees refuseany rise obtained for them by the union sub-mission to the Industrial Commission?

Mr Bateman: Not one.Mr McI VER: Even though they have said they

do not believe in the principle of compulsoryunionism, they are the first in the queue.

If we consider the history of the State over thelast few years we know we have heard the term"militant unions".

Mr Blaikie: Hear, hear!Mr McOVER: It is just a general term.

Mr Sibson: It is not unions it is the individuals.Mr McIVER: Not so long ago, the Police Force

in Western Australia, for the first time in its his-tory, threatened to go on strike. The fire brigadesthreatened to strike because of the intimidationand action taken by this Government, and theCivil Service Association for the first time in 60years went on strike to try to obtain some redress.This Government insists on hounding the tradeunion movement and on bringing legislation be-fore this House to inflame the situation.

The unions will not fall for that. They are notfools. Do Government members think they will goon strike when this Bill is passed-if and when itis passed? Of course they will not. The Gove -rn-ment must consider these aspects if it wishes toretain the Treasury benches. It is very debatablethat it will.

Shop assistants, as well as those in the tradeunion movement will be greatly affected by thislegislation. If we consider the firms of Coles andWoolworths, we note that their employees arefederally directed to join a union. If any memnberwere to enter the firm of Coles or Woolworthstomorrow, the first thing he would have to do issign an application for union membership.

How will the Government's Bill cover that?How will it alter that fact? That is compulsoryunionism-federally directed.

When we read the speech of the Minister forLabour and Industry in the other place, we notehis ignorance on this matter.

Mr Herzfeld: There will be complementaryFederal legislation shortly.

Mr McI VER: I do not think there will be. TheFederal Government is just hanging on at theedge of the cliff. It does nd want to fall off theedge.

Mr I. F. Taylor: They are on the run like you.

Mlvr McI VER: The larger unions, the TWU andthe AWU were mentioned. Does the Governmentthink this legislation will have any effect onthem? Does not the Government think in all sin-cerity that it is far better to have a closed shopsituation where negotiation can be handled by themanagement and union? The management, theunion and the employees should get together andnegotiate rather than reach the stage of confron-tation and weeks of strike.

Let us consider what has happened in the northof this State with the consortiums such as CliffsRobe River Iron Associates, Mt. Newman MiningCo. Pty. Ltd., Hamersley Iron Pty. Ltd., andGoldsworthy Mining Ltd. A proposition on super-annuation was put to Cliffs Robe River Iron As-sociates, by the union members. It was agreedupon because the company could see there wasmerit in the proposal. That proposition was fol-lowed by I-amersley Iron Pty. Ltd., butGoldsworthy Mining Ltd., said it would like sometime to examine it. Unfortunately it did not reachthe area of top management. A couple of littleupstarts at a lower level decided they would makeit their decision and we had one of the longeststrikes in the history of the iron ore industry.

Mr O'Connor: It lost us years and jobs.Mr McIVER: It did not lose people their jobs.Mr O'Connor: Yes it did.Mr McIVER: Does not the Premier agree that

if discussion had been at company level the dis-pute could have been resolved in a couple of days?

What will happen to the young people who willbe lulled into a false sense of security? I wish togive the example of a motor firm in my electoratewhich has gone into receivership. The spare partsmanager is due for long service leave and his off-sider is due for holiday pay and wages totalling inthe vicinity of $1 100. These men are not in theunion. Where can they go? Will someone pleaseinterject and say, "The Department of Labourand Industry"?

4375

4376 [ASSEMBLY]

Mr Sibson: Where would they go if they werein a union?

Mr MOIVER: The member for Bunbury wouldknow that it is a statutory duty that wages are thefirst thing that must be paid. The point I am mak-ing is: Where do these young people go to obtainredress?

The licensee of a hotel in my electorate oweshis staff of 14 wages and holiday pay. Whatredress do these people have? Where will all thesepeople go? I am sure they would not go to themember for Bunbury. Where will these people gowhen this legislation becomes law and is on theStatute books? This legislation will affect not onlyunions, but also many people who believe in theGovernment's philosophy and who have supportedit up to now. They most certainly will not supportthis Government once the Bill becomes law.

We hear often from Government membersabout these "terrible strikes and terrible unions".

Do you know, Mr Speaker, that when airlinepilots, bank officers, teachers, and air traffic con-trollers go on strike, not a word is said. Evidentlyit must be okay because the unions which rep-resent those people are not affiliated with theAustralian Labor Party.

Mr Sibson: The Teachers' Union is.

Mr Jamieson: Like hell it is. It is not affiliatedwith the Australian Labor Party, you galah.

Mr McIVER: Why does not the member forWelshpool get the member for Bunbury a sleepingpill? It is terrible when one hears suchinterjections from a legislator who has been inthis House for a number of years. It is sickeningto hear the ignorance that comes from the otherside and members' lack of knowledge not only ofthe trade union movement but also of those peoplethey supposedly represent.

When those people I have mentioned go onstrike it is all right because many of them supportthe Liberal Party. It is all right for air controllersto go on strike and hold up the movement ofinterstate, intrastate, and overseas traffic. It doesnot worry the Government because they are Lib-eral supporters. However, if one were to mentionthe TWU or the AWU which are affiliated withthe Labor Party it is a different question.

When I was an engine driver with the railwaysI became involved with the trade union move-ment- Some very fine men belonged to that move-ment and some of them have had their servicesrecognised with various awards- These men arewell respected in the community. They certainlydid not come from Russia or Peking and theycertainly were not communists.

Mr Sibson: The good old days.

Mr McIVER: I will not go into the technicaldetail because I do not want to confuse membersbut when one worked on a train in the countryareas and it arrived at a cattle pit the fire had tobe cleaned. In those days someone got underneaththe engine and tried to clean the fire with hotashes falling onto him and I can assure membersthat was no joke. The department did not want tochange that situation, but it was only through thecontinual representations by the union to the de-partment that ash slides were installed on the en-gines so that a lever could be moved to make theashes fall from the fire bars. This was a muchquicker process. My colleague, the member forCollie, would know what occurred.

Another matter was that the employees had tocontend with very old barracks for accommo-dation. Many other issues could be highlightedbut I do not intend to do that.

Money is not the only consideration. Workingconditions is another and a further one is worksafety, which this Government seems to disregard.

Mr Sibson: That is not right.

Mr McIVER: I read in the Press that a striketook place recently in the member for Collie'sarea because a man was killed in a drain due topoor working conditions. The coroner apparentlytook the company to task. We seem to be gettingaway from safe working conditions and this hasnothing to do with monetary returns. Had it notbeen for the work of the unions over the years wewould have no safety precautions at all. Youngpeople like the members for Nedlands and EastMelville make the sorts of speeches they makewithout any knowledge of the background or his-tory of the trade union movement and what it hasdone in regard to the progress and advancementof this State. I suggest they look at the history ofthe movement, particularly the coalmining indus-try in the member for Collie's electorate. Weheard the member for Collie speak of the horse inthe coalmines. "Red" cost the State millions ofdollars through the company's stupidity. Similarsituations have occurred elsewhere and in particu-lar I mention the iron ore industry in the north.

The trade union movement has a permanentrole in our State and the legislation that memberson the other side of the House bring forward inrelation to compulsory unionism-they even gotaway with dismissing Justice Neville--will makeno difference whatsoever because it will serve onlyto unify the workers and we will see a situationoccur similar to that which occurred in Canberralast night. Those men came from ordinary homes,

4376

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 37

just as we do, and when men are hungry and theirworking security is taken from them-

Several members interjected.Mr McIVER: Surely members must have a pi c-

ture of what will happen if unemployment in thiscountry is allowed to continue at its current rate.

The points I have made tonight have been madesincerely and I trust the Government will takesome notice of them. I trust also that the youngmembers of the Government will take notice, andwill try to brush up on their history in case thisState is unfortunate enough to have this Govern-ment back after the next election and it brings infurther legislation to impede the trade unionmovement as it has always tried to do in the past.

I have made it quite clear in my few remarksthat I most certainly oppose the legislation beforethe House.

MR PEARCE (Gosnells) [11.19 P.m.]: I amnot-

Mr Sibson: An old union man.Several members interjected.Mr PEARCE: -the most senior member on

this side of the House to speak tonight. The Prem-ier has been notable not only for his silencetonight, but also for his absence.

Mr Young: He walked out a second ago.Several members interjected.Mr PEARCE: Let us have him back in his seat

again.Mr Young: So he has to listen to you; he would

have to be a masochist.Several members interjected.Mr Blaikie: The Premier is not at the Table of

the House and you try to make something of it.Mr Young: Telling lies to Mansard does not

work.Mr Clarko: Get a couple of bottoms from

champagne bottles and use them for glasses.Mr PEARCE: In fact, the point is that as I rose

to speak the Premier disappeared behind theSpeaker's Chair; and as I began to speak, he sud-denly reappeared on this side of the Chamber.This may betoken some shift of allegiance on thepart of the Premier-

Government members interjected.Mr PEARCE: I particularly wish to address

myself to the Fact that here we have a piece oflegislation which the Government claims is one ofthe most significant pieces of legislation that ithas introduced during the course of this year. It isno secret that it is one piece of legislation uponwhich the Government is happy to hang its hat

with regard to the election next March; yet thePremier has not spoken on this important piece oflegislation. I wonder why that is? Why is thePremier being kept in cotton wool on this particu-lar matter?

Mr Blaikie: Just on that particular point, youwere bitterly complaining because the Minister incharge of the Bill had not spoken, until the Minis-ter advised you why he was not going to speak.

Mr PEARCE: I was addressing my remarks atthat stage to the Premier.

Mr Young: You were talking to me. Come on!It is bad enough for you blokes to tell completeuntruths-

Mr Brian Burke: Come on! Give him a go.What are you so touchy about?

Mr PEARCE: When the second of the Govern-ment's spokesmen on this matter rose to his feet, Isaid to the Premier, "Why aren't you speaking onthis matter? Why aren't you getting to your feetto defend this piece of legislation?"

Mr O'Connor: There is plenty of time for me tospeak.

Mr PEARCE: The Minister for Health calledout across the Chamber, having held up a piece ofpaper on which there was an illegible scrawl-Isuppose that befits the Minister for Health-tosay "I wrote down what the Leader of the Oppo-sition said; and he said hardly anything", whichcould hardly be called a truthful statement.

Mr Young: About the Bill, I said.Mr PEARCE: I said to him, "Then you bad

better get up and take the Premier's place", orwords to that effect.

Mr Young: You said, "Why don't you stand upand speak?" That is what you said. If you do notbelieve me, check Mansard.

Mr PEARCE: And take the Premier's place.

Mr Young: Check Mansard-and don't alter it.Mr PEARCE: That goes to show the extent to

which the Minister for Health knows what goeson in this place; because members do not receiveHansards of their interjections, for heaven's sake!

Mr Young: Don't you?Mr PEARCE: All I receive-Mr Young: I get quite a few with your long-

winded interjections.

Mr PEARCE: If I receive a Hansard withthese interjections, I guarantee to take it to theMinister for Health so we can correct it together.

Mr Young: As long as it takes in what wassaid.

4377

4378 ASSEMBLY)

Mr PEARCE: Just in passing, with regard tothe doctoring of Hansards, I take the credit forbeing the member in this place who drew to theattention of the House the fact that a Hansardhad been changed. I notice in the printed versionof Hansard that the words which had been re-moved by the member for Mi. Marshall weresomehow reinstated.

I resent the proposition by the Minister that Iwould seek to doctor a Hansard record. I neverhave, and I never would. However, that is besidethe point; and I wonder why members of theGovernment are so keen to drag me away fromthis point.

Mr Young: You are walking across the paint.You have got yourself in the corner.

Mr PEARCE: Why has not the Premier spokenon this matter and taken a key role?

Mr Young: Would you like me to answer that?Let me tell you that we discussed this situation.Your leader has said that this is one of the mosthorrendous pieces-this is almost parrot fashion,because he says this all the time-of legislation,or words to that effect, that he has seen. I thinkthat being the position, he really believes that youought to be putting up speakers and saying why.Apart from the member for Fremantle, who madea 21/-hour very scholarly speech, no-one has men-tioned this Bill yet. The Leader of the Oppositionhit two points only of this Bill; and there are atleast 20 important points. Up to date, no-one hashit the importance of this Bill. It is upto you, ifyour record is so bad, to put up speakers to tell uswhere-

Mr Parker: I spoke on it, and so will the mem-ber for Gosnells, if you would stop interjecting onhim.

Mr Young: I bet he will!

Mr PEARCE: We have taken the view that thisgis a very significant piece of legislation; but that isnot our view alone. That is the view announced bythe Government as well. It has characterised thisBill as one of the most important pieces of legis-lation that it has introduced. Look at what wehave done. We have put up our spokesmen-ourlead speaker spoke for 21/ hours-and he was fol-lowed immediately by the Leader of the Oppo-sition. Now we have had two of our Shadow Min-isters to follow them.

Mr Young: Tell us what points in the Bill youare going to speak about.

Mr PEARCE: The Minister will get to bear allof them.

Mr Young: Will you tell us what points youhave got written down that you will speak about?

Mr PEARCE: Members will know that I veryrarely speak from notes, and I have no intentionof changing the habit of a lifetime.

Why is it that the Government has put up itstwo most j unior back-benchers-

Mr Laurance: What are you talking about?You put u p a me mber as j unior as t hem.

Mr PEARCE: The member for Fremantle is ashadow Minister-and a very competent one atthat. We are putting up the best we can. If thepeople on the Government side believe that theycan catch us with two of their juniorbackbenchers, I hope that the public perceptionand the Press perception prove that that is aninaccurate idea of what is going on. I suggest, infact, that quite the reverse is true. Despite thefact that the Government has great hopes for thislegislation in terms of its electoral appeal and theelectoral advantage it hopes to gain from it, thepublic's opinion hangs on the Premier'sinterjection-one of the few times he has been-

Mr O'Connor: I have been here nearly allnight.

Mr PEARCE: -involved in the debate. I wasnot suggesting he was not sitting there.

Mr O'Connor: I was more orderly than you.That is what it proves.

Mr PEARCE: "Less participatory" is the wayin which I would explain it. I would have thoughtsome participation by the Premier would havebeen expected. I am not asking him to interjectfrom his seat; I am asking him to stand and giveus a speech.

Mr O'Connor: There is ample time yet. Thereis another week or two to go.

Mr PEARCE: Is the Premier intending tospeak in this debate at some later stage?

Mr O'Connor: That depends on whether it isnecessary.

Mr Shalders: Do you realise that your shadowspokesman has been in this House no longer thanthe junior Government members?

Mr PEARCE: I said that the member for EastMelville was a junior Government back-bencher,as is the member for Nedlands. Simply, the pointis that their merits are unrecognised by the lead-ership of the party. The Premier has the ability toappoint his own Cabinet, and if he believed thatthe member for East Melville -and the member forNedlands were worthy of being in the Cabinet, hewould put them there. He has not done so; so if Irefer to those gentlemen as junior back-benchers,the " Back- bencher" half of their label is not anappellation I gave to them, but is a status whichhas been accorded them by the Liberal Party's

4378

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 37

own leader. The fact that they are junior merelyreflects the fact that they are only recently in theHouse.

Mr Blaikie: You have not spoken on the Billyet.

Mr PEARCE: Because I have been answeringinterjections.

Mr Sibson: As one of the top debaters in thiscountry-

Mr PEARCE: I am flattered, at last.Mr Hodge: He says something sensible only

once in a while.Mr PEARCE: With regard to the member for

Fremantle, who has been in this House for lessthan three years, it is fair to say that in terms ofour party he is one of the senior members.

It is no accident that the member for Fremantleoccupies significant and substantial shadow Min-istries on our side, because he is a person of verygreat ability. He will be a Minister in this Statesoon and he will go on to very great things inWestern Australia. That is why he is our shadowMinister in this very important area. The speechof the member for Fremantle last night was oneof the finest I have heard in the 51/ years I havebeen in the House. It was thorough, well re-searched, germane to the point, dealt with the Billin great detail, and showed a grasp of the situ-ation which has been totally lacking so far on theGovernment side. By that I do not refer only tomembers of this House, but also to members inanother place.

Last night I made a comment to some of mycolleagues that the reason the member forFremantle got by with so few interjections lastnight, in relation to a Bill which caused so manyproblems in the other place, was that Ministersand Liberal back-benchers. had to know some-thing about it before they could interject. I satback and watched three or four of the parrots tryto be disruptive and they were put down so effec-tively and with such rational argument that it in-dicated they did not know anything about the Bill.After two or three members opposite were madeto look stupid and retired hurt, nobody interjectedfor approximately an hour and a half until themember for Bunhury came into the Chamber andbehaved in his normal manner.

Mr Young: You have made it through to 12minutes and you have not mentioned the Bill. Seeif you can try for 20 minutes.

Mr PEARCE: Why has not the Premier spokenon the Bill? It may be the Premier intends tospeak at some later stage of the debate and thatwould point to something which is becoming em-

barrassingly obvious to members opposite; that is,the tactic tonight has been to protect the Premierin cotton wool, to throw up a couple of kids tokeep the debate going, and then leave it to theOpposition so that the Premier can go awaytonight, obtain the Hansard transcript of what theLeader of the Opposition, the member forFremantle, and other speakers on this side havesaid, get the departmental briefing, and returnwith a speech he can read some time next week.That speech would not be prepared by himself,but by somebody else. I issue a challenge directlyto the Government that, if it wishes to say what Iam suggesting is not true-that is, that the Prem-ier does not require very extensive help and assist-ance before he can even take part in this debate-

Mr O'Connor: I do not require it.

Mr PEARCE: -let us proceed with the debateto the end of the second reading stage tonight ortomorrow morning.

Mr O'Connor: I will run this House, not you.Mr Young: You have been going for 14 min-

utes and if you would like to make one commentabout the Bill, we would be very interested.

Mr PEARCE: I have 31 minutes to go and Iam quite capable of dealing with the Bill in theway I see Fit; but the Minister is making the error,which his parliamentary and Cabinet colleagueshave made, of thinking that the reason for theintroduction of the Bill is to put into effect its pro-visions. This is the point I was making five min-utes ago before the interjections carried me offonto some little sidetracks.

The point is the only bit of participation by thePremier during the whole debate on this legis-lation so far, occurred when the Leader of the Op-position asked, "Why is the Bill being introducedat this time?" The Premier then said, "We have apoll which shows 75 per cent of the people in thisState may be inclined to support it." The Govern-ment does not have 75 per cent support in thecommunity on this issue, nor does it have 75 percent support on any other issue. It is simplyhoping to get an issue on which it seems there is agood deal of consensus in the community and onwhich the Government can aim for popularity.

Therefore, it does not matter that Governmentmembers have not read the legislation, becausethey will be able to go out into the communityand say, "Look what we are doing to the dreadful,nasty unionists. Re-elect us!" They will totallydisregard all the problems of unemployment, in-flation, and rising interest rates and say to people,"An enemy is within our midst. There is a hiddenFifth Column. There are Reds under the bed.Look at the fellows down at the TLC and the

4379

4380 [ASSEMBLY]

Teachers' Union. Only we can save the State fromthis insidious horde."

Mr Parker: Do you think just because the Min-ister for Health is dressed like a croupier heshould be making an illegal wager in this House?

Mr PEARCE: I would have thought gamblingwould be a sore point with members opposite.

Mr Young: He thanks you for that interjection.because now he has something else to talk about.Why are they doing this to you? Why haven't yougot anyone to talk about the Bill?

Mr PEARCE: The Minister can hardly say wehave not had speakers on the Bill. The memberfor Fremantle dealt witb the Bill in intimate de-tail. The Minister asked why we did not havesomebody on this side who can deal with the Bill.The member for Fremantle has dealt with the Billin detail.

Several members interjected.Mr PEARCE: When it comes to many of the

philosophical principles that are involved in thislegislation, the Leader of the Opposition dealtwith them very competently. When it comes todealing wj~th a personal viewpoint from past ex-perience as a union member, the member forAvon-our shadow Minister for Transport-hasdealt with that. Because we are operating as ateam tonight, my role in the debate is to deal withthe political reasons that the Government isseeking to introduce this legislation at this time.

Mr Young: What is the name of the Bill?Mr PEARCE: That is precisely what I am

doing. I am getting sick of the inane interjectionsof the Minister for Health. They are becomingvery foolish. Let me stop and give him one lastchance. Why has not the Premier spoken?

Mr O'Connor: I told you I will speak in duecourse if I feel you have put up something worthreplying to. I will speak when I want to, not whenyou want me to.

Mr Young: Give him a go! He has made 18minutes.

Mr Herzfeld: Is this what you call a "nightwatchman"?

Mr PEARCE: I have hardly ever played cricketin my life.

Mr Hassell: By his own standards, he is a bit ofa contrast to the member for Fremantle.

Mr PEARCE: I am quite happy to stay here allnight.

Mr Young: But you will have to think of some-thing to say eventually.

Mr Clarko: Are you certain he is not workingfrom notes?

Mr Young: Before your reputation is com-pletely in tatters, why don't you sit down and letsome other mug get up and have a go?

Mr PEARCE: I say seriously to members op-posite that, if they hope for political advantageout of this Bill, they will be sadly mistaken.Tonight we have had a clear demonstration ofthat.

Mr Blaikie: We sure have!Mr PEARCE: The theory was that this place

should be closed up as quickly as possible, but it isnot proving to be very successful, because it is nosecret that a few months ago the Premier was tell-ing people that we would be out of here by theend of October.

Mr O'Connor: I have never said that.Mr PEARCE: The Premier told journalists

that.Mr O'Connor: I did not. To which journalists

did I say that?Mr PEARCE: I do not intend to divulge that

information.Government members interjected.Mr Sibson: It is just as well your leader is not

here; he would be disgusted with you.Mr PEARCE: The journalists to whom the

Premier said that know he said it. They are sittingin the Press Gallery or in the Press room behind.

Mr Hassell: Are they?Several members interjected.

The SPEAKER: Order! I think things have runon quite long enough. I ask that interjectionscease and the member address his remarks to theChair.

Mr PEARCE: If the Government is hoping forpolitical advantage out of this matter, it is sadlymistaken. That has been demonstrated clearlytonight, because when it comes to going out to thepeople to argue the principles involved in thelegislation and the attempts the Government ismaking not only to step on unions, but also to stepon employers-I shall come to the employers' pos-ition on this in a moment-our shadow Ministerand, in particular, the Leader of the Oppositioncan run rings around anybody that the Govern-wrent can produce. If this were to become the keyelection issue, as the Government is hoping, I cansee the situation arising where the Premier willfind himself on television debating these matterswith the Leader of the Opposition.

On the performance of the Leader of the Oppo-sition this evening and the Premier's inability evento get himself into the debate before he has been

4380

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 38

back to his department and received his briefingnotes--

Point of Order

Mr O'CONNOR: Could I bring up the point oftedious repetition by this member? He has goneover the same points right through, and it is diffi-cult to know what Bill he is talking to.

The SPEAKER: The member for Gosnellsought to make progress with his speech.

Debate Resumed

Mr PEARCE: I am prepared to do that, but Ipoint out that as I started to make my point aboutthe Premier's non-participation I was subjected toa cacophony of interjections. As is my wont, Ianswered each one of them, but this took time.Then, to remind members of the point I hadbegun to make, it was necessary to repeat thepoint. If we can have a cessation of theinterjections I will progress far more rapidly.

As the Premier obviously must take himselfback to the department for briefing notes beforehe can take on the excellent speech this eveningby the Leader of the Opposition, that shouldstrike home to the back-benchers on the Govern-ment side, because the Premier will not have thatopportunity if he appears on television shows suchas "Nationwide" in debate with the Leader of theOpposition. He will not be able to ask for thecameras to be stopped for 24 hours so that he canring up the member for Nedlands or the memberfor East Melville to get a response to the Leaderof the Opposition.

Mr Sibson: Who wants to appear on"Nationwide"?

Mr PEARCE: The Premier will not be able toavoid this issue when the poiis show the Govern-ment is languishing with 46 per cent. He will nothave the capacity to ring up the member for EastMelville to get him to do his job for him. He willnot be able to hide because the people will belooking for him and there will be six weeks or lessto voting time.

One of the reasons members opposite reacted sobadly when the Leader of the Opposition wasspeaking this evening was the uneasiness theyhave about the desperate gamble riding on thislegislation, legislation which has been shownclearly not to be the plus they thought it wouldbe. Members opposite lack the people to bring tosuccessful fruition the desperate chance they aretaking with this legislation. We have on this sidein our Legislative Assembly spokesman for indus-trial relations masters and in the Leader of theOpposition, the people who can deal most effec-

tively with this issue. So the embarrassed laugh-ter, the idiotic and inane comments made duringthe Leader of the Opposition's speech in an at-tempt to drown out and shout down, were signs ofdespair when thinking about the performance oftheir own members in this area. It was a cleardemonstration to them of how the whole businesshas come unstuck.

This Bill represents a desperate political ploy toassist a Government which has the staggers, aGovernment on the skids, a Government on theway out, a Government in desperate electoraltrouble.

But who will pay the price for this desperatethrow of the dice? This comes right back to thereason that employer groups are opposed to thisBill. Obviously the employers will foot the bill forwhat occurs as a result of the passing of this legis-lation. If the Government is pinning its hopes forits re-election on causing industrial disruption infactories and on building sites before the electionis held in order to gain some cheap political ad-vantage, the employer groups know they are theones who will pay the price for the industrial dis-ruption that will occur.

The irony of this whole matter is that theGovernment has aimed this Bill at the unions, butthe people who will pay the price will be the em-ployers. They realise this only too well. They re-alise they will sign the cheques for the industrialdisruption that will occur, caused by this Govern-ment in its hopes of being re-elected. Many em-ployer groups in the community do not want topay the price to get this Government off the hook.It is not a secret that in the past employer organ-isations have been prepared to sign quite substan-tial cheques one way or another to save a LiberalGovernment.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, what ishappening now is that business is beginning tolisten to what members of the Australian LaborParty are saying. They are starting to do their cal-culations and coming to realise that a LaborGovernment in this State may not be so bad evenin their own terms, which are not particularlycommunity oriented in many ways. They are notprepared to pay the price to get this Governmentoff the hook. That is why the employer groups areso concerned about this legislation. They do notwant it; they do not want the disruption; they donot want to pay the price. The price they will paywill be spread through the community. This wasone of the points made so ably by the Leader ofthe Opposition. Employers will be paying theprice, but they will not be able to pay the workers.This Bill clearly will result in unemployment to an

4381

4382 [ASSEMBLY]

even greater degree in this State, so to that extentthe community will pay the price.

What we have on the Government side is alittle under 30 people who are prepared to sell theemployer groups and the community down thedrain. They are prepared to cop 10 per cent un-employment in this State merely to hang on totheir big white cars, their ministerial salaries, andtheir hopes of promotion which always rest in thesaddle bags of Government back-benchers. But itis the people in the community who will have topay the price.

I do not believe this Government is worth it tothe community; I do not believe the communitybelieves the Government is worth it. The em-ployer groups do not believe the Government isworth it. The tragic irony of this will be that theGovernment's move will come unstuck. Not onlywill the community pay the price and the em-ployers pay the price, but also they will not begetting the goods because in the end they will Fin-ish up with a Labor Government anyway.

Mr Coyne: God help them!

Mr PEARCE: I think they will be remarkablywell off compared with what they have now. Lookaround-where is the substance on the Govern-ment front benches; where is the substance on theGovernment back benches? During one of thekeynote debates in this session all we have hadfrom the other side are two junior Governmentmembers presenting the Government's case afterthe Minister for Health had read word for wordthe speech given to him by the Minister inanother place when introducing the Bill. That isthe substance we have had from the Government.It is not good enough; it is not a good enoughpresentation to this House; it is not a good enoughpresentation to the people of this State.

Unfortunately, the Bill will be a disaster for in-dustrial relations. It will not lead to greater har-mony in the work place; it will not lead to greaterharmony in the community. If one thing is re-quired in industrial relations, it is harmony. Oneonly has to look at the Government's pathetic andjack-booted efforts to deal with the Teachers'Union to realise how little respect it has for theprinciples which underlie industrial relations andhow ineffective its efforts have been in trying tointroduce jack-boots into the industrial process.

Mr Coyne: What about the Teachers' Union?

Mr PEARCE: It is more anti-Government nowthan it ever was.

Mr Coyne: How many members does it havenow?

Mr PEARCE: I do not deny there are unfortu-nate splits amongst the membership of theTeachers' Union.

Mr Coyne: Who brought it about?Mr PEARCE: Members opposite did, and that

is exactly the point I am making. In order to dealwith the Teachers' Union because it was mildlycritical of the Government, the Government hastaken a union which must have been one of themost conservative and moderate in this State andturned it into one or the most radical unions. Itstill speaks for teachers.

Mr Sibson: It does not;, it speaks for about aquarter of them. It took the best school in West-ern Australia out on strike.

Mr PEARCE: It was all because of theGovernment's effort to involve itself in industrialrelations for political purposes, and this made forall those unfortunate things that occurred. Andwho paid the price? It was the kids in our schools.It is exactly the same principle that underlies thiswhole business.

The community will be made to pay for theGovernment's latest attempt to intervene in indus-trial relations for political purposes. We need onlylook back at what the Government has done in in-dustrial relations in our education system to re-alise how unfortunate this is. Everyone pays theprice because the Government believes it can gainpoints from industrial disharmony. What sort of acynical attitude is that, when a Government isprepared to hold the community to ransom inorder to lift its own rating in the polls? The lowerthe Government sinks in the polls the lower itsinks in every other way in terms of things it isprepared to do in its feeble attempts to hang on tooffice.

This Bill is a disaster in two ways: It is a disas-ter for the community and it is a disaster for in-dustrial relations. Unemployment will be higherand the economic downturn spiral will go evenlower. The savage irony from which I will gainsome personal satisfaction is that the legislationwill be a disaster for the Government. Not onlyare unions-the workers of our community-speaking out against this legislation but also em-ployer groups are speaking out against it despitethe efforts of the Government's big money men tolean on those employer groups; but they have notbeen successful.

How can the Government go to the public andsay, "We are treading on unions", when em-ployers are being disruptive and saying that theGovernment should stay out of the industrialarena? Consideration must be given to not onlythe fact that employers are strongly against the

4382

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982])38

Government's introduction of this legislation, butalso the fact that this legislation was politicallydesigned. The Government will not obtain com-munity support because every group involved withthis legislation is opposed to the Government's ac-tions.

In the end the public will accept the argumentput to it by the Leader of the Opposition. He putthat argument superbly well tonight. Nobody inthis House believes that the Premier will be ableto speak in the same forum as the Leader of theOpposition. If he is to take on the Leader of theOpposition at all he will have to scurry off to hisoffice to prepare notes. The media will not givehim that opportunity at election time.

We have the strong arguments, and we have thepeople to put our arguments well and strongly,and we have on our side the groups involved. Weare not fearful of this legislation, or of opposing itwholeheartedly, especially with the knowledgethat we have the strength and force in our handsto adopt that course.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Mr I. F.Taylor.

JUSTICES AMENDMENT BILL (No. 2)

Receipt and First ReadingBill received from the Council; and, on motion

by Mr Rushton (Deputy Premier), read a firsttime.

House adjourned at 11.53 p.m.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ADVISORY COMMITTEES

Membership

1708. Mr BRYCE, to the Minister representingthe Chief Secretary, Minister for CulturalAffairs, and Recreation:

In respect of the following bodies-(a) Youth, Sport and Recreation Ad-

visory Committee; Sub-committeesfor:

YouthRecreationSport (WA Institute of SportAdvisory Board);

(b) Vacation Care Advisory Com-mittee;

(c) Community Sporting and Rec-reation Facilities Fund Committee;

(d) Betting Control Board;

(e) Racecourse Development Trust;(f) WA Greyhound Racing Associ-

ation;(g) Perth Observatory Scientific Advis-

ory Committee;(h) Charitable Collections Advisory

Committee;(i) State Advisory Committee on Pub-

lications;U) Finance Brokers Supervisory Board;(k) Insurance Brokers Supervisory

Board;(I) Land Valuers Licensing Board;

(in) Real Estate and Business AgentsSupervisory Board;

(n) Settlement Agents SupervisoryBoard;

(o) Western Australian Art Gallery;(p) Western Australian Arts Council;(q) Western Australian Heritage Com-

mittee;(r) Perth Theatre Trust;(s) Perth Cultural Centre Planning

Committee;(t) Regional Cultural Facilities Fund

Committee;(u) National Trust-

(i) who are the people who com-prise the membership of suchbodies;

(ii) what is the occupational back-ground of each member;

(iii) what is the term of appoint-ment to each body and whenwas each member appointed;

(iv) on how many occasions did thebodies meet during the lastfinancial year; and

(v) what is the amount and basisof payment of financial allow-ances to members of eachbody?

Mr HASSELL replied:

(a) to (u) The answer is hereby tabled.

The reply was tabled (see pa per No. 526).

COMMUNITY WELFARE

Emergency Relief

1795. Mr WILSON, to the Minister for Com-munity Welfare:

(1) Can he confirm that the CommonwealthGovernment has allocated $40 000 toWestern Australia for emergency relief?

4383

4384 [ASSEMBLY]

(2) Can he confirm also that he will bemaking recommendations to the Minis-ter for Social Security regarding the al-location of these funds to distributingagencies?

(3) (a) Will applications for grants fromthis allocation to agencies involvedin administering emergency reliefbe advertised; and

(b) if not, why not?(4) If not, what opportunity will be given to

interested agencies to apply for grantsfrom this allocation?

Mr SHALDERS replied:(1) Tbe Commonwealth Government has al-

located $43 000 to Western Australiafor agencies active in the provision ofemergency financial assistance.

(2) and (3) Yes.(4) Answered by (3) above.

EDUCATION: PRIMARY SCHOOLComa

1813. Mr GRAYDEN, to the Minister for Edu-cation:(I) In respect of the Budget allowance of

$90 000 for the provision of a library re-source centre at Como primary school,was the consultation evening held at theschool on Tuesday, 19 October, satisfac-tory to the Education Department?

(2) Is it still intended to provide a 160square metres library building and alsocarry out some minor changes to the ad-ministrative area of the school?

(3) When will the project proceed to ten-der?

(4) When is it anticipated the work will becommenced?

Mr CLARKO replied:(1) A consultation was held at the school on

the morning of Tuesday, 19 October.The result of the consultation was satis-ractory to the Education Department.

(2) Yes.(3) and (4) The work should be ready for

tender early in the new year; and con-struction should commence shortly af-terwards.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOLComo

1814. Mr GRAYDEN, to the Minister for Edu-cation:(1) Apropos of his answer to question 1714

on Tuesday, 19 October 1982, has he yet

received a report on how the bicycle con-gestion at the Como Senior High Schoolcan be resolved;, and if so, what is thesubstance of that report?

(2) If no report has yet been received, whenis one expected?

Mr CLARKO replied:(1) and (2) The proposed solution, deter-

mined by Education Department officersin consultation with the principal, is forthe provision of a new cycle access path-way from the existing cycle enclosure toan alternative exit away from the pointof congestion. Supervision and use of theproposed alternative cycle access will bemonitored by the principal and staff.An additional cause of congestion re-lates to the buses. The possibility of ad-ditional bus bays in Henley Street isbeing investigated also by the PublicWorks Department.

CHIROPODISTS ACTAmendment

1815. Mr HODGE, to the Minister for Health:

Further to question 1754 of 1982, ifagreement was reached between thePuolic Health Department and the Aus-tralian Podiatry Association in August1981 on amendments to theChiropodists Act, can he explain why,during the 14 months that have elapsed,the Bill could not have been drafted andpresented to Parliament?

Mr YOUNG replied:The ordering of priorities within theGovernment's legislative programme isnot determined by the Public HealthDepartment or the Australian PodiatryAssociation.

H-OSPITALISFree Ser-vice

18 16. Mr HODGE, to the Minister for Health:

(1) What percentage of Government hospi-tal bed days, in the period I September1981 to 30 June 2982, were accountedfor by Commonwealth eligible benefici-aries such as age pensioners, health cardholders, etc.?

4384

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 38

(2) How much was the Commonwealthhealth grant to Western Australia forthe 198 1-82 year; and what percentageof the hospital gross and net operatingpayments did it represent?

(3) Can he provide details of the total costor an estimation of the cost of providinga free hospital service during the period1 September 1981 to 30 June 1982 foreligible pensioners and health care cardholders?

(4) (a) Has there been a decline in the useof casualty and outpatient servicesin Western Australian Governmenthospitals since the introduction ofthe new health arrangements inSeptember 1981;

(b) if "Yes" to (a), would he pleaseprovide aetails?

(5) Has the overall bed occupancy rate inGovernment hospitals declined sinceI September 198 1, and if so, please pro-vide details?

Mr YOUNG replied:(1) 46.3 per cent.

(2) (a) The identified health grant paid toWestern Australia for the 1981-82year was $155 million;

(b) represents 45 per cent of gross pay-ments of hospitals;

(c) represents 55.8 per cent of net op-erating payments of hospitals.

(3) An estimate using average daily bedcosts is $127 million.

(4) (a) Yes;(b) September 1980-June 1981-

(5) (a)(b)

2 074 957 occasions of serviceSeptember 1981-June 1982-1 805 514 occasions of service.Yes;September 1980-June 198 1-average bed occupancy-4 234September 1981-june 1982-average bed occupancy-4 075.

TRAFFIC: MOTOR VEHICLES

Overlength1817. Mr BATEMAN, to the Minister for

Transport:

(1) Why does an overlength vehicle licensedin South Australia and permitted totravel in all other States face pros-ecution in Western Australia for beingoverlength?

(138)

(2) What rights has an owner driver in suchcircumstances, or is he not permitted totravel in Western Australia at all?

Mr RUSHTON replied:

(1) An overlength vehicle licensed in SouthAustralia is allowed to operate in West-ern Australia for the cartage of an indi-visible load provided that an overlengthpermit has been applied for and ob-tamned. This concession does not apply tothe transport of divisible loads whichcan be transported on regulation lengthvehicles. This policy applies in all otherStates and is not confined to WesternAustralia.

Existing South Australian regulationsprovide for the licensing of longer ve-hicles than all other States. This situ-ation is currently under review by theSouth Australian authorities with theaim of changing their regulation lengthlimits for vehicles to conform with thoseapplying in all other States.

(2) Owner drivers are permitted to travel inWestern Australia subject to obtainingrelevant permits for overlength vehicle,load, or vehicle combination. These per-mits are issued in accordance with long-standing procedures and policies.

HEALTH

Pyrton Training Centre1818. Mr BATEMAN, to the Minister for

Health:

(1) As there appear to be rumours beingspread as to what is going to happen tothe inmates at Pyrton Training Centre,will he put the parents' minds at ease bystating what exactly is planned or pro-posed to happen to the inmates?

(2) What is planned or proposed to happento the training centre?

Mr YOUNG replied:

(1) Pyrton Training Centre is a residentialfacility designed to accommodate 160persons, and provides for residents' ap-propriate training in a wide range ofskills. There has been no change in thisfacility's purpose or function; nor areany changes planned.

4385

4386 [ASSEMBLY]

It has always been the case that resi-dents are appropriately transferredwhen, as a result of training, they reacha level of competency which permitstheir transfer to other training facilitiesof the Division for the IntellectuallyHandicapped.In recent years, as a result of transfersfrom Swanbourne Hospital, there hasbeen an increase in transfers fromPyrton to other Division for theIntellectually Handicapped facilities.Devonleigh Hostel accommodates 32children who were former residents atPyrton. In the current financial year, 16children-residents of Blackwood dor-mitory, Pyrton-will transfer to appro-priate facilities, suitable for their ageand training needs.

(2) There are no plans for proposed changesto the purpose and function of PyrtonTraining Centre, nor the services it pro-vides.

APPRENTICES

Suspensions

1819. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister rep-resenting the Minister for Labour and Indus-try:

(1) How many applications have been made

(2)(3)

to cancel or suspend the indentures ofapprentices in each of the last 12months?How many applications were granted?In how many cases was the applicant aGovernment employer, including statu-tory authorities?

Mr YOUNG replied:

(1) to (3) As the answer requiries detailedstatistical information, the member willbe advised by letter.

1820. This question was postponed.

STOCK: SHEEP

Shearing

1821. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forPolice and Prisons:

(1) Is he aware that there was a shearingclass held at the Mt. Barker HighSchool last month which involved anAboriginal instructor, six young Abor-igines, and a similar number of unem-ployed white people?

(2) Is he aware that at the end of the twoweek class the youths became efficientshearers?

(3) Will be consider the shearing andcrutching of sheep on the Pardalupprison farm for the training of youngAborigines with an Aboriginalinstructor?

Mr HASSELL replied:

(I)

(2)(3)

A shearing class held at Mt. BarkerHigh School during the August schoolholidays was arranged by the Common-wealth Employment Service, Albany.Approximately 600 sheep were shorn orcrutched by 12 participants.No.Prisoners at Pardalup Prison Farm re-ceive instruction regularly in shearingand crutching from a qualified staffmember. In addition, an annual shearingschool is held for prisoners in co-oper-ation with the Department ofAgriculture. Although no distinction ismade between white and Aboriginalprisoners, at the last school, six out ofeight prisoner learners were of Aborigi-nal descent.

ARGENTINE ANTS

Herdsman Lake

1822. Dr DADOUR, to the MinisterAgriculture:

for

(I) In treating Herdsman Lake for Argen-tine ants, will he please state-(a) the precise areas being treated;(b) the chemicals being used;(c) the strength of the chemicals;(d) the dates during 1981-82 on which

treatments have been carried outfor each precise area?

(2) Who is responsible for assessing thelevel of infestation of Argentine ants?

(3) Who compiles the treatment pro-gramme?

(4) Who is responsible for monitoring thetreatment programme?

(5) Will he table the treatment programme?

Mr OLD replied:(1) (a) Herdsman Lake is a containment

area of 350 hectares treated annu-ally by a narrow perimeter spray;

(b) heptachlor with backup of diazinon,optunal, and chiorpyrifos in selectedsituations;

(c) 0.5 per cent dry ground application;

4386

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982J138

(d) 16 hectares perimeter sprayedOctober 22-29 1981;12 hectares perimeter sprayedOctober 19-27 1982.

(2) Officer in charge, Argentine ant controlunit.

(3) and (4) Chief Entomologist, Departmentor Agriculture.

(5) Yes. Annual reports tabled in Legislat-ive Assembly.

ARGENTINE ANTS

Herdsman Lake1823. Dr DADOUR, to the Minister for

Agriculture:

(1) Is he aware of statements contained inhis letter to residents in the vicinity ofHerdsman Lake which indicate thatsprays being used to treat Argentineants leave toxic residues?

(2) Why did his letter not include a list ofchemicals used?

(3) Is heptachior being used at HerdsmanLake?

(4) If "Yes" to (3), is he aware thatheptachlor is reported to be highly toxicto aquatic life, to persist for prolongedperiods in the environment, to bio-con-centrate in organisms at various trophiclevels, and to exhibit carcinogenic activ-ity in mice?

(5) Will he investigate other toxic optionsfor controlling Argentine ants?

(6) Is research being undertaken in WesternAustralia on biological control of Argen-tine ants?

Mr OLD replied:

(1) Yes.(2) There are a number of options available

depending on the situation.(3) Yes. Along with other registered insecti-

cides.(4) Yes. Every attempt is made to avoid

chemical contamination of water.Local evidence shows that a chemical isbroken down within three months.Yes.Yes. The USA Academy of Science hasreported that the cancer could not becross-linked to humans.

(5) Yes. My department is continuallyseeking alternative control methods forArgentine ants and other insect pests.

(6) No. Research is being undertaken by theUSDA. My department is in contactwith workers in this field who visitedWestern Australia in 1979 to inspectlocal conditions.

1824. This question was postponed.

TOURISM

Wittenoom1825. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister for

Health:

(1) Is the department Satisfied that the area7 kilometres east of Wittenoom pro-posed for tourist development, is free ofasbestos fibre?

(2) Has any monitoring for airborne asbes-tos fibre been conducted in that area?

(3) If "Yes" to (2), what are the results?

Mr YOUNG replied:

(1) Yes, to the extent that any area in thePilbara is free of non-introduced asbes-tos fibre.

(2) No.(3) Not applicable.

TOURISM

Wittenoom

1826. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forTourism:

(I) With reference to the area 7 kilometreseast of Wittenoorn proposed for touristdevelopment, is the State Governmentgoing to provide any of the basic infra-structure, i.e., roads, power and waterservice?

(2) If the Government does not intend pro-viding any of those services, who is goingto provide them?

(3) What involvement does the StateGovernment intend to have in the newarea?

Mr MacKINNON replied:

(1) to (3) Proposals for detailed study of anew centre are being examined by theGovernment at this time. It is proposedto commence this detailed study shortly.The study will provide advice on all mat-ters including infrastructure, i.e. roads,power, and water services.

4387

4388 [ASSEMBLY]

WITTENOOMPublic Buildings

1827. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forWorks:

(1) How much maintenance has been car-ried out on-(a) State Housing Commission;(b) Government Employees' Housing

Authority;(c) Public Works Department; and(d) Police Departmentbuildings in Wittenoomn since November1979?

(2) Are the buildings being maintained to astandard acceptable elsewhere in West-ern Australia?

Mr MENSAROS replied:(1) (a) to (d) As the State Housing Com-

mission and the Government Employees'Housing Authority are not part of myportfolio, I am not in a position to pro-vide any information concerning thesetwo organisations.The Public Works Department engineer-ing division has a small depot inWittenoom. Because of its function,minimal maintenance is required.Maintenance on the police station hasbeen confined to matters of an essentialnature. The building is due for major re-pairs and renovations this financial year,but work has been held over pendingclarification of the future of the town.

(2) This question does not apply to the Pub-lic Works Department. As stated, thepolice station is receiving essential main-tenance and, bearing in mind that majorrepairs and renovations are due thisyear, the standard of maintenance isconsidered acceptable.

WIliTENOOM

Asbestos Tailings: Removal

1828. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forWorks:

How much money has been expended bythe following departments in removingand covering asbestos tailings inWiutenoom to a standard similar to thatcarried out by the Shire of West Pilbaraand local residents:(a) State Housing Commission;(b) Government Employees' Housing

Authority;

(c) Education Department; and(d) Police Department?

Mr MENSAROS replied:

(a) to (d) As the State Housing Commissionand Government Employees' HousingAuthority are not part of my portfolio, Iam not in a position to provide any in-formation regarding these two organis-ations.With regard to the Education Depart-ment and Police Department buildings,departmental records are not maintainedin a manner which would enable expen-diture on removal and covering of asbes-tos tailings to be separately identified.

CONSERVATION AND THEENVIRONMENT

Woodman Point

1829. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forUrban Development and Town Planning:

(1) What instrumentality compiledWoodman Point concept plan?

the

(2) On what date was the plan completed?(3) Has the plan been publicly released?(4) If "No" to (4), why not?

Mrs CRAIG replied:

(1) The Jervoise Bay/Woodman Point co-ordinating steering committee.

(2) The report of the committee was submit-ted to me on 26 June 198 1.

(3) Basic details of the plan were announcedin May 1982, and [ table a copy of theplan.

(4) Not applicable.

The plan was tabled (sepaper No. 524).

EDUCATIONLanguage Development Centre

1830. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Minister forEducation:

(1) Does the Government intend to establisha language development centre north ofthe river?

(2) If so, when and where?

Mr CLARKO replied:

(1) Yes.

(2) (a) Beginning of first term, 1983;

4388

[Wednesday. 27 October 19821 48

(b) negotiations have not yet been fi-nalised regarding the location assuch, as appropriate accommo-dation and transport and the geo-graphic location or the possiblestudents have to be considered.

RAILWAYS"Prospector" Service

1831. Mr GORDON HILL, to the Minister forTransport:

(1) In the estimate given by Westrail toallow the Prospector to stop at Midlandterminal, what is the break-up of labourand material?

(2) Is this costing based on the work beingcarried out by Westrail or by privatecontractors?

Mr RUSHTON replied:

(I)

LabourOther

Trackwork

105 000219 000

324 000

Signallingalterations

16000157 000

173 000

(2) By Westrail.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ANDINSTRUMENTALITIES: GOVERNMENT

STORES

Motor Vehicle Deliveries

1832. Mr GRILL, to the Treasurer:

(1) Is it a fact that the Government Storesdepartment is taking weeks and some-times months to effect settlement onnew cars taken delivery of by variousother Government departments?

(2) If "Yes", is he aware of the financialstrain this is placing on certain cardealers, some of whom have had to bor-row money to finance these sales?

(3) What are the usual terms given to theGovernment on the purchase of motorvehicles?

(4) Will he look into the matter with a viewto directing the department to effectsettlement on the vehicles on delivery?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(I) There have been some problems with the

payment of accounts by the GovernmentStores department due to a change inthe method of processing the accounts,

The terms of payment under the motorvehicle contract is 30 days from the dateof acknowledgement of the receipt of thevehicle. In the majority of cases thiscondition has been met by the depart-ment.The Government has a policy of pur-chasing vehicles required in countryareas through local dealers and, in someinstances, departments in remote lo-cations have been slow to acknowledgereceipt of veh icles.

(2) 1 am aware that delays in the paymentof accounts can cause financial problemsfor suppliers; and we are constantlyseeking to ensure prompt payment of ac-counts.

(3) Answered by (I) above.(4) The Controller of Stores is aware of the

need to expedite the settlement of theseaccounts and is taking steps to ensurethat the terms of the motor vehicle con-tracts are met.

POULTRY: CHICKENSLicensing System

1833. Mr EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

(1) Has he received representations fromchicken meat growers in Western Aus-tralia seeking to have the industryrestructured to introduce a system oflicensing or a system of seven-year con-tracts with transfer rights betweengrowers?

(2) If "Yes", what attitude did he express tothese growers?

Mr OLD replied:

(1) 1 received a delegation of chicken meatgrowers in June 1982 to discuss industryproblems. At that meeting-

a system of licensing was not soughtby growers;a four-year contract system wassupported.

Transfer rights between growers existalready.

(2) The discussion was for information pur-poses only.

POULTRY: CHICKENSShedding

1834. Mr EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:(1) Does his department make regulations

under the Chicken Meat Industry Act

4389

4390 [ASSEMBLY]

with regard to shedding used in thechicken raising industry?

(2) If "Yes", do these regulations embracethe construction of additional sheddingin the industry?

Mr OLD replied:(1) The regulations which exist regarding

shedding were made following rec-ommendations by the chicken meat in-dustry committee.

(2) Yes.

POULTRY: BROILER CHICKENS

Price

1835. Mr EVANS, to the MinisterAgriculture:

for

(1) What is the price which broiler growerscurrently receive for raising each birdunder contract to processors?

(2) (a) What price per bird was set in themost recent survey conducted bythe Department of Agriculture; and

(b) when was this survey carried out?(3) (a) Has there been a price per bird to

growers indicated by an arbitratorthis year; and

(b) if so-

(i) who was the arbitrator;(ii) what price did he indicate;(iii) on what date did he bring

down his findings?

Mr OLD replied:(1) The standard price is currently 32.4c per

bird.

(2) (a) Based on the most recent survey thecalculated standard price was29.55c per bird; this price was notaccepted by the chicken meat in-dustry committee;

(b) May and June 1981; report datedJune 1981.

(3) (a) Yes;(b) (i) W. H. Crawford;

(ii) 28.87c per bird for pools com-pleted after 30 June 198 1;29.13c per bird for pools com-menced after 30 June 198 1;29.57c per bird for pools com-menced after 30 Sept 198 1;30.31Ic per bird for pools com-menced after 31 Dec 198 1;

30.34c per bird for pools com-menced after 31 Jan 1982;

(iii) 28 April 1982.

POULTRY: CHICKENS

Cent-acts

1836. Mr EVANS, to the MinisterAgriculture:

for

(1) Have any chicken meat growers beengiven notice of intention that their grow-ing contracts with a processor will beterminated?

(2) If "Yes"-

(a) how many growers have receivedsuch notice;

(b) what is the reason for their beinggiven such notice;

(c) under what conditions and terms isit expected such notice will be with-drawn;

(d) if this notice is not withdrawn, doesthe Government propose to takeany action; and

(e) if so, what action?

Mr OLD replied:(1) Yes.

(2) (a) Five;(b) surplus shedding capacity in the in-

dustry;(c) notice has been withdrawn already

following discussion betweengrowers and processors;

(d) and (e) do not apply.

POULTRY: CHICKENS

Consumption

1837. Mr EVANS. to the MinisterAgriculture:

for

(1) What number of chickens were con-sumed in Western Xustralia in each ofthe past three years?

(2) What number of chickens were importedinto Western Australia for table pur-poses in each of the past three years?

Mr OLD replied:(1) The number of chickens slaughtered for

consumption in Western Australiawas-

1979-801980-81198 1-82

(2) This data is not recorded.

189820001956200018 561 000

4390

fWednesday. 27 October 1982]139

LOCUSTS

Spraying

1838. Mr EVANS, to the Minister forAgriculture:

In cases where the spraying of locustsunder the Agriculture Protection Boardhas been unsuccessful, will the propertyowners be required to meet all or any ofthe costs; and if so, what casts?

Mr OLD replied:Unsuccessful spraying in theJerramungup area was caused by arange of different factors. Liability forpayment will depend on the reasons forpoor results. Each case is being con-sidered by the farmer and the operatorconcerned, with technical advice fromthe Agriculture Protection Board.

EDUCATION: DEPARTMENT

Building: Land

1839. Mr PEARCE, to the Minister for Edu-cation:

(1) Who owns the land on which the Edu-cation Department building is located?

(2) What was the cost of the building?(3) Who owns the building?(4) Does the Education Department occupy

the building on a lease or mortgage re-payment arrangement?

(5) What are the details of this financial ar-rangement?

Mr CLARKO replied:

(1) The Crown.(2) Approximately $21 .2 million.(3) Superannuation Board of WA.(4) A lease expiring on 30 June 2005.(5) Payment of rental including interest, re-

payment of capital and all annual costs,with review of rental each three years.

PUBLIC SERVICE: PUBLIC SERVANTS

Retirement: Age SS

1840. Mr PEARCE, to the Premier:

Is it the intention of the Governmentduring the present session of State Par-liament to make the necessary alter-ations to legislation now in force to en-able employees of the Government to re-tire voluntarily at the age of 55 yearswithout pro rata affecting their superan-nuation entitlement?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:The Government has stated that it ac-cepts in principle the proposal for anearly retirement option from age 55 forGovernment employees provided it is atno additional cost to the taxpayer. Re-tirement at age 55 without reduction ofpension entitlement would be a costlymove that could not be justif'ied in viewof the already steeply increasing cost ofpension payments.The Government has proposals before itfor an early retirement option with actu-arially calculated adjustments to pensionentitlements. The proposals will be madeavailable for examination and commentto Government employee organ isationsthrough the joint Government -employeeorganisations superannuation com-mittee, as requested by the committee,before any decision is made in the mat-ter.Because of the need for full consul-tations with employee organisations, it isunlikely that legislation can beintroduced in the current session.

EDUCATION: TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Thornie

1941. Mr PEARCE, to the Minister for Edu-cation:

(1) Is it intended to acquire more land to ex-tend the site of the Thorn lie TechnicalCollege?

(2) If so, will be give details of the proposedacquisition?

Mr CLARKO replied:(1) The possibility is being investigated.(2) Not yet available.

POLICE: FIREARMS

Legislation

1842. Mr DAVIES, to the Minister for Policeand Prisons:

What action has the Government takento act on the suggested amendments tofirearms legislation made by Mr OliverDixon in his report on the matter madepublic in February this year?

Mr HASSELL replied:

As indicated in answer to question 978in this House, the Dixon Report is stillbeing studied to determine what legislat-ive changes, if any, should be made. It

4391

4392 [ASSEMBLY]

should be recognised that the rec-ommended amendments suggested byMr Dixon are numerous, and differ con-siderably Cram the existing legislation.No action to amend the legislation isproposed until all facets and ramifi-cations of the report have been perusedthoroughly, to ensure that any changesare manageable administratively. Thenecessary work has not been completed.Unfortunately it will therefore not bepossible to introduce legislative amend-ments this session.

BOATS

PA Consulting Services Pty. Ltd.: Recommen-da tions

1843. Mr DAVIES, to the Minister for Works:

What action has been taken by theGovernment to implement the rec-ommendations made by PA ConsultingServices Pty. Ltd. on boating in thisState, and released in February of thisyear?

Mr MENSAROS replied:The report has been further studied byan inter-departmental recreational boat-ing facilities committee and a positionpaper prepared for discussion purposes.When all departmental comments havebeen received, a meeting will be con-vened to discuss priorities and impliedfunding requirements.

CENSORSHIP

Uniform Classification

l844. Mr DAVIES, to the Minister representingthe Chief Secretary:

(1) Is it still intended to seek a national uni-form censorship classification for publi-cations, as announced towards the endof last year?

(2) If so, what progress has been made?

Mr HASSELL replied:(I) and (2) Discussions have been held be-

tween the States and the Common-wealth and the matter is under consider-ation.

LAND AMENDMENT BILL (No. 3)

Consultations

1845. Mr EVANS, to the Minister for Lands:

(1) With reference to the land Bill whichwill enable easement rights to be

granted over Crown land, did he consultwith the following authorities-

(a)(b)

WA Wildlife Authority;Department of FisheriesWildlife:

and

(c) Forests Department;(d) Department of Conservation and

Environment:(e) National Parks Authority;

(f') Environmental Protection Auth-ority;

(g) Local government authorities whichcontrol reserves; and

(h) Tree Society or any other groups?

(2) (a) At what level of department orauthority were such discussionsheld;

(b) on what date were each of these dis-cussions held;

(c) did any raise objections, and if sowhich, and what was the nature ofsuch objections?

(3) If these groups were not consulted, whynot?

(4) (a) Did he inform these groups that inthe case of consent not forthcoming,resumption or further negotiationcould take place with the partiesconcerned;

(b) if "Yes", what was the responsefrom such groups?

Mr LAUIRANCE replied:

(1) to (3) An objective of the legislation isto enable a significant improvement onthe present position where, when accessthrough reserves vested in some of theauthorities listed is required, the onlycourse is to obtain an excision from thereserve in question or to amend the re-serve purpose and jointly vest it. Thecreation of an easement is a far more ac-ceptable proposition: and the availabilityof this option is known to be considereda firm advantage.Since, as in the case of excisions, consul-tation with, and the approval of, thevestee is necessary before an easementmay be granted, the legislation will notcompromise such authorities.

(4) Answered by (1) to (3).

4392

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 49

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICESTATE FINANCE: PAYROLL TAX

Abolition

674. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Premier:

(1) Is he aware that at a meeting inAdelaide last Friday. the Federal andState Labor leaders established a work-ing party to find ways of eliminatingpayroll tax because of its effect as adisincentive to employment?

(2) Will he initiate similar moves in the Lib-eral Party with the aim of creating moreemployment opportunities for the half amillion Australians who cannot Aindwork?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:(1) and (2) I am aware that this proposal in

relation to payroll tax has been tried be-fore without success under LaborGovernments in the Eastern States. Theindications have been clear that it hasnot created any more work in the Statesconcerned. I have not studied closely thearrangements in relation to the SouthAustralian operation. We always arelooking at ways in which to reduce pay-roll tax. We have been in touch in thepast with the Federal Government in aneffort to see whether it would replacepayroll tax with another tax.We have a very Airm indication from theFederal Government it would not dothat. It was not prepared to replace it inany way with a further Federal tax. Thiswas raised in a letter from the previousPremier to the Prime Minister at thattime. We will continue at all times tolook at ways in which we can improvethe situation.

HOSPITAL

Wickham District675. Mr SODEMAN, to the Minister for

Health:

(1) Is it proposed to reduce staff levels atthe Wickham District Hospital?

(2) If so, in what categories?(3) Is it proposed to replace trained nursing

sisterswith nursing aides?(4) If the answer to (3) is "Yes", will ad-

equate trained nursing staff be availableto service the needs of outpatients andnormal theatre requirements?

Mr YOUNG replied:I thank the member for adequate noticeof this question, the answer to which isas follows-

()The staff establishment was ad-justed as at 30 June 1982, to reflectpatient activity. The hospital'scurrent excess staffing will bereduced by normal attrition. Ifthere is a sustained increase in workload, the staff establishment can bereviewed.

(2) Nursing Administration DomesticServices Maintenance

establishment adjustments withinthese categories result in a netreduction of the equivalent of onestaff member.

(3) It is proposed to achieve a betterbalance between the two categoriesby normal attrition. The resultantnumbers will involve a reduction inthe hours of trained nursesavailable and an increase in thehours of nursing aides available.

(4) Yes.

POLICE

Function: Osborne Park

676. Mr PARKER, to the Minister for Policeand Prisons;

(1) Did police attend a function at thepremises of Economic Distributors inOsborne Park on the evening of Friday,22 October.

(2) If "Yes"(a) at what time did they attend;(b) what caused them to attend;(c) how many police attended and how

many police vehicles were used;(d) how many people were at the

function;(e) how long were the police in attend-

ance;(f) what action did the police take as a

result of their attendance at thisfunction.

Mr HASSELL replied:I thank the member for some notice ofthis question, the answer to which is asfollows--(I) Yes.(2) (a) 10.00 p-m.;

(b) information received;(c) seven officers, five vehicles;

4393

4394 ASSEMBLY]

(d) approximately 300;(e) approximately 45 minutes;(0 liquor was seized under search

warrant, and a person incharge is to be prosecuted forunlawfully dealing in liquor.Some gaming material alsowas found on the premises, butthe owner of the equipmentcould not be located at thetime. Inquiries are continuing.

POLICE

Function: Osborne Park

677. Mr PARKER, to the Minister for Policeand Prisons:

(1) Further to.rny previous question, will theMinister please confirm that gamblingequipment was confiscated by police atthe function previously referred to.

(2) Where did the police take this equip-ment after confiscating it?

(3) Where did police take the funds thatalso were confiscated when they visitedthe function and can the Minister con-firm that the function was organised toraise money for the Liberal Party or oneof its candidates?

Mr HASSELL replied:(1) to (3) The member for Fremantle knows

he has given me no notice of thisquestion. I do not have any of the detailsto which he refers, because as he wouldknow, I an not apprised of the daily op-erations of the police.

Mr Parker: You would have been briefed asa result of the first question.

Mr HASSELL: I do not know any of the de-tails in the member's second question. Ihave not been briefed.

Mr Parker: You do not want to be, either.

Mr HASSELL: I have not been briefed onany of those details. I was briefed withinformation to answer the question ofwhich the member gave notice. If heputs the second question on the noticepaper, it will be answered.

WATER RESOURCES: METROPOLITANWATER AUTHORITY

Vehicle Fleet

678. Mr HERZFELD, to the Minister [orWater Resources:

Has there been, or is there anticipated tobe, any reduction in the size of the

Metropolitan Water Authority's motorvehicle fleet?

Mr MENSAROS replied:Within the terms of an economic driveand to implement improvements in ef-ficiency, the Metropolitan Water Auth-ority commissioned private consultantsto examine the cost-benefit pertaining tothe motor vehicle fleet. As a result of thereport of those consultants, it has beendecided to reduce the number of motorvehicles by 67 units, which will result ina saving in capital outlay of nearly$500 000, and a saving of about $90 000in ongoing expenses.

Mr Parker: That will leave the authority withabout 900 vehicles, will it not!?

Mr MENSAROS: Yes. Notwithstandingthat decision, I have instructed the auth-ority to examine ways of implementingfurther reductions without, of course,reducing services to the consumers. Thatconsideration is of paramount import-ance, and I believe the interjection of themember for Fremantle was made withthat in mind. I add chat recently themanagement of the fleet was made moreefficient by replacing the old manual re-cording system with a computerisedsystem.

FUEL AND ENERGY: GAS

North- West Shelf- Equity Sale

679. Mr GRILL, to the Minister for ResourcesDevelopment:

I refer to his statement in this Houseyesterday that the proposed involvementof two Japanese companies in theNorth-West Shelf LNG processing plantwould clear the way for finalisation ofLNG sales contracts to Japan. I ask-

In view of the warning givenyesterday by the Managing Direc-tor of Woodside Offshore Pet-roleum Pty Ltd. (Mr CharlesAllen) that the possibility of directJapanese equity did not guaranteethat companies would sign con-tracts to buy the gas, what basis didthe Minister have for his statementto this House yesterday?

Mr P. V. JONES replied:Obviously the member for Yilgarn-Dundas did not listen to my replyyesterday, because I did not say two

4394

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 39

companies were involved. In fact, thestatement did not say that; the state-ment said that discussions had been heldwith two companies. I also said it wasnot a Ainal agreement.

Mr Grill: You play with semantics. Whatabout answering the question?

Mr P. V. JONES: I made it quite clear thestatement did not say that. I also madeit clear in answer to the Leader of theOpposition that it was not a Ainal agree-ment.

Mr Grill: Are you going to give me ananswer, or not?

Mr P. V. JONES: What Mr Allen said wasperfectly correct in that it has notcleared the way in the manner which themember for Yilgarn-Dundas suggested Isaid in my answer yesterday. Indeed, Iwent to great pains to say it was not aFinal agreement. The discussions were.held with a view to finalising the form ofthe one-sixth Japanese equity in theproject which now has been offered.When that agreement is finalised, it willclear the way to bring to finality the re-maining points which must be discussed.As I have told the member on severaloccasions, one matter which still is to befinalised relates to the Japanese-involvement in the shipping part of theexercise; the proposal clarifies that as-peel. So, this goes a tong way towardsclearing the way. However, I was quitespecific yesterday that, in itself, the an-nouncement did not represent the finalform of the agreement with thecompany.

WATER RESOURCES: IRRIGATION

Ord River Scheme: Statutory Body

680. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Premier:

(1) Does the Government have any plans forthe establishment of a statutorybody-another one-such as a com-mission or an authority to oversee devel-opment of the Ord region?

(2) Have any discussions on such a proposalbeen held in the Ord region?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) and (2) Not to my knowledge.

MINISTER OF THE CROWN: MINISTERFOR RECREATION

Newspaper Advertisement: Photograph

681. Mr DAVIES, to the Premier:

(1) Has he seen an advertisement insertedby a photograph frame manufacturer inThe West Australian of Monday, 25October in which advertisement appearsthe now well-known photograph of theHon. R. G. (Bob) Pike?

(2) Is this novel use of a Minister's photo-graph the latest initiative on the part ofthe Government in generating incomefor the State?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) Yes.(2) No. However, it is such a good photo-

graph I am surprised many more peoplehave not used it.

TABLED PAPERS

Confidential

682. Mr BLAIKIE, to the Premier:

(1) Were the papers referred to in a recentspeech by the member for Kalgoorlie,and tabled at the request of the Premier,

()of a confidential nature?()If so, what action does the Premier pro-

pose to take?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) Yes, the documents were supposed to beof a conrfidential nature. However, mem-bers of the Australian Labor Party fre-quently leak such documents, which is agreat pity.

(2) The only thing I can do is to express dis-appointment at the next Premniers' Con-ference that some people have breachedthe confidentiality of that meeting.

WATER RESOURCES: IRRIGATION

Ord River Scheme: Sta tu tory Body

683. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Premier:

I am not sure whether I heard thePremier aright in his answer to my lastquestion and I now ask anotherquestion about the Government's lackof plans to establish an authority tooversee the development of the Ord re-gion. It is as follows-

4395

4396 [ASSEMBLY]

(1) Is the Premier aware that such anauthority was promised by theGovernment at the last election!

(2) What steps have been taken eitherto implement or to abandon thatpolicy?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) and (2) 1 thought I answered the last

question quite clearly. My answer to thisquestion is, "Yes, I knew it was in thepolicy."

GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Industry

684. Mr HERZFELD, to the Minister for In-dustrial, Commercial and Regional Develop-ment:

(1) Has his attention been drawn to anarticle in The West Australian of 20October reporting an Australian LaborParty initiative to appoint an indepen-dent assessment group to review andinvestigate applications for Governmentsubsidies to industry?

(2) Does he see any merit in the idea?(3) Will he give consideration to estab-

lishing such a body himself?Mr MacKINNON replied:

Before answering, I have just one cor-rection to make to part (1) of the mem-ber's question: The report appeared inThe West Australian of Monday, 25October.

Mr Davies: He could not read your writing.Mr Brian Burke: That is the first time I have

heard a question corrected by the personanswering it.

Mr MacKINNON: The Leader of the Oppo-sition will not chortle when he hears myanswer, which is as follows-(1) The article referred to by the mem-

ber for Mundaring commences withthe following statement-

A WA Labor governmentwould appoint an independentassessment group to investigateand evaluate all applicationsfor government assistance toindustry.The Leader of the Opposition,Mr Burke, said that the assess-menit group would include pri-vate-sector specialists in cor-

porate financing in industryand commerce.

I also draw the member's attentionto my answer to question on notice1408 of Tuesday, 21 September thisyear, asked of me by the DeputyLeader of the Opposition. Thequestion sought information in re-spect of the membership of thefinance review committee. TheLeader of the Opposition obviouslydoes not know what is happening inhis own party or, for that matter, inthis State, so for his information Irepeat that the finance review com-mittee is made up of people such asMr Tom Perrott, who is a manag-ing director, and a very well-re-spected and leading finance man inWestern Australia; Mr Watson,who is a bank manager, and is simi-larly well respected; Mr Smith, anaccountant; and, three Governmentofficials. So, the committee com-prises specialists in accounting, in-dustry, and commerce.

Mr Parker: Which one is the specialist incorporate finance?

Mr MacKINNON: My answer continues-(2) and (3) Yes, I agree with the idea;

indeed, it is the same as the pro-posal initiated by this Governmenton 13 April 1981.

Mr Parker: Which one is the specialist incorporate finance?

The SPEAKER: Order!Mr Parker: Which one is the specialist in

corporate finance?The SPEAKER: Order! I specifically indi-

cated to the member for Fremantle thathe should desist from interjecting. How-ever, he chose to continue. If that sort ofdisregard for the authority of the Chaircontinues, I shall be forced to take ap-propriate action.

Mr MacKINNON: It is just anotherexample of the inability of the Oppo-sition to read plain English and tounderstand the policies this Governmenthas under way. In addition, it highlightsthe complete disarray of members op-posite when their leader and deputyleader do not know what is happening ina very important area of Governmentpolicy.

4396

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982] 39

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOLS

Bentley and Tuart Hill: Travel Arrangements

685. Mr BERTRAM, to the Minister for Edu-cation:

Last evening, when answering a questionfrom the former Minister for Education,he referred to what appears to be thenew concept of a "nominated school". Iask-(I) Would the Minister indicate what

he means by the expression"nmnae school"?

(2) Who identified the nominatedschools, to whom, where, andwhen?

Mr CLARKO replied:

(1) and (2) 1 am quite surprised the memberfor Mt. Hawthorn would think I hadthat sort of information at my fingertips.Even he should realise that although myinitials are "J.C.", I do not have thosecapacities. If the member wants ananswer, let him put his question on no-tice.

SMALL BUSINESSES

Dividends

686. Mr TON KIN, to the Premier:

I refer to his party's promise prior to thelast State election that his Governmentwould seek discussions with the FederalGovernment on the abolition of the re-quirement for private companies to payout dividends equal to half their annualnet earnings; the removal of the require.-ment of small businesses to pay pro-visional tax; and, the reform of tax al-lowances for depreciation of assets. Iask-

(1) When have these matters beenraised with the Federal Govern-ment, and what was the nature ofthe suggestions?

(2) Will the Premier table documentsand correspondence in connectionwith each such response?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

(1) and (2) If the member were reallyserious about his question, he wouldhave placed it on notice; certainly, he

could not have anticipated I could haveprovided him with specific dates ofmeetings with the Federal Government.If he is serious about his question, I askhim to place it on notice.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Investment Rafe

687. Mr HODGE, to the Premier:

I assure the Premier I am serious in re-quiring an answer to my question with-out notice. In the 1980 Liberal Partypolicy speech it was claimed that West-ern Australia would have a projecteddaily investment rate of $5 million forthe period between February 1980, andthe mid- 19890s. I now ask-

What is the current daily level ofproject investment in Western Aus-tralia?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:

Did the mnemb er want the investmentrate as at yesterday, or today? Thequestion without notice is so inane it isalmost unbelievable.

Mr Bryce: Your predecessor would haveknown the answer.

Mr O'CONNOR: No-one would know theanswer, on a daily basis.

Mr Brian Burke: You gave the answer lastnight; you said it was $2 million a day.

Mr O'CONNOR: I said it was $2 million aday in respect ot the North-West Shelfgas project; the Leader of the Oppo-sition did not listen to that answer,either.

Mr Brian Burke: If you know it in respect ofthe North-West Shelfr gas project, surelyyou know it in respect of the State as awhole.

Mr O'CONNOR: If the Leader of the Oppo-sition-whom I suspect asked the mem-ber'for Melville to ask this question-isunaware of the reply I gave last night,let me refresh his memory: Approxi-mately $2 million a day is invested inthe North-West Shelf gas project. How-ever, I do not know the total investmentin the State as of today. If the memberfor Melville cares to place his question

4397

4398 [ASSEMBLY]

on notice, I will provide him with ananswer.

PORTS

Deepening

688. Mr SODEMAN, to the Deputy Premier:

In order to continue the exercise of,"They say this" and, "We said that", Iask-(1) Is be aware of the substance of a

statement made this morning by theOpposition spokesman on mining?

(2) What action has been taken by theState Government in respect offeasibility studies into thedeepening of Port Hedland andother ports in Western Australia?

Mr RUSHTON replied:(1) and (2) I should like to answer, "Yes"

or "No", but I believe the question isworthy of a little more than that.

Several members interjected.Mr 1. F. Taylor: You are the laughing stock

of the Parliament!Mr RUSHTON: I listened to the news at

7.45 a.m. today-Mr Bryce: I didn't think you would be out of

bed by then!Mr RUSHTON: -and I was amazed to

hear a statement of projected Oppositioninitiative by the Labor Party's spokes-man on mining issues. He made a pro-jection as to what the Labor Partywould do if it were elected. Most of thestatement related to the portfolio of mycolleague, the Minister for ResourcesDevelopment, but the last paragraphmentioned a matter which has beendealt with already by the Governmentor Government instrumentalities. Itreads as follows-

Finally a Labor Government wouldundertake feasibility studies intodeepening Port Hedland and otherports, completing proposals forfurther infrastructure and port fa-cilities, and making the best use ofexisting infrastructure.

I should like the Leader of theOpposition and other members oppositeto be aware that the State Governmenthas supported the Port Hedlland PortAuthority in its programme ofcontinuous monitoring of the need forimprovements to the port.

In 1981 the port authority, with Govern-ment endorsement, engaged a firm ofconsultants at a cost of some $77 000 toprovide a blueprint for the further devel-opment of the port. The consultant's re-port is expected to be available shortly.The port authority recently has beenconsidering the deepening of existingchannels with a view to enabling existingvessels to load more cargo and thusimprove freight earnings and also to en-able larger vessels to use the port afterdeepening.The authority has considered dredgingoptions in conjunction with its consult-ants. Obviously the port authority is andwill continue to do everything possible tofacilitate the movement of iron orethrough the port in larger quantities.The major companies are both rep-resented on the port authority and areable to contribute significantly to theplanning of any further development ofthe port that may be required.The situation in respect of the develop-ment of other ports for the export of ironore is under continuous scrutiny by theGovernment, and where necessary feasi-bility studies have been or are in theprocess of being undertaken.In this respect only recently I have indi-cated my approval for the GeraldtonPort Authority to employ a consultant tolook into the feasibility of further de-veloping, including deepening, theGeraldton harbour and its approaches.

Mr Brian Burke: What are you doing atAlbany?

Mr RUSHTON: The Port of Albany hasbeen deepened already.

Mr Bryce: The Labor Government did that.Mr RUSHTON: No, it did not.Mr Bryce: We were responsible for that.Mr RUSHTON: In conclusion, I indicate

this proposed Labor Party initiative is infact about two years old.

COMMUNITY WELFARE

Reserves

689. Mr WILSON, to the Minister for Com-munity Welfare:

I refer to an interjection the Ministermade in the speech by the member forKimberley today. The Minister queriedwhether the member agreed with rec-

4398

[Wednesday, 27 October 19821 49

omnmendations in a report on reservesunder the control of the Department forCommunity Welfare. I ask-(I) Does the Minister confirm that he

previously refused to release thatreport publicly?

(2) If so, does the Minister'sinterjection on the member's speechearlier today indicate he haschangedhis mind and now intendsto release that report?

Mr SHALDERS replied:(J) and (2) It is obvious the member CaM-

pletety misunderstood the interjection Imade when the member for Kimberleywas speaking. I suggest that, at a laterdate, he check that interjection. He willthen realise just how foolish his questionis.

Mr Wilson: Are you going to alter it?

FUEL AND ENERGY: GASNorth- West Sheif: Equity Sale

690. Mr GRILL, to the Premier:

(1) What is the GCovernm..nt's attitudetowards the proposed sale of WoodsideOffshore Petroleum Pty. Ltd.'s portionor part of its interest in the processingand sale side of the LNG project in theNorth-West Shelf?

(2) In view of the fact that the Governmenthas been long aware of Woodside'sfinance problems, what steps has theGovernment taken to prevent a dimin-ution of Australian equity in the proj-ect?

(3) How can the Government defend itslamentable record of promoting WesternAustralian equity in its own resource de-velopment?

Mr O'CON NOR replied:(1) to (3) The Government has kept in close

contact with Woodside Offshore Pet-roleum Pty. Ltd. to help it all the waythrough, realising the large number oflocal investors who are shareholders inthat company. In order that I might givethe member full details of the matter, Irequest he place the question on notice.

NATURAL DISASTER: DROUGHTDeclared Areas

691. Mr EVANS, to the Minister for PrimaryIndustry:

My question refers to an article in themedia which indicated that a meeting of

the drought consultative committeewould be held on 26 October. As aconsequence of that article, I ask him-

1)Were any shire areas drought de-clared and, if so, which ones?

(2) Were any applications for droughtrelief received; and, if so, howmany?

(3) How many of those applications arebeing considered actively?

Mr OLD replied:(1) to (3) This matter was referred to in

The West Australian this morning andin the Daily News this afternoon. Noapplications were received for declar-ation of shires as such, but applicationswere received for declaration of' parts ofshires. Declarations were made in re-spect of farms in the Northampton,Morawa, and Dalwallinu area as onegroup. Applications for a few farms inthe Mullewa and Perenjori areas weredeferred, and further declarations weremade in the Gnowangerup-Jerramungupand Ravensthorpe area. A total of 75farms were drought declared and thetotal number of applications was 95.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

Steel Production

692. Mr BRYCE, to the Minister for Industrial,Commercial and Regional Development:

I draw the Minister's attention to theGovernment's undertakings in the flidof industrial development at the time ofthe last election and ask him-(1) Does he recall or has he con-

veniently forgotten the Govern-ment's 1980 election undertaking tointensify pressure for steel pro-duction in Western Australia on ascale which would double Aus-tralia's output?

(2) Why was such an undertaking givenwhen, even in 1980, the recessionhad begun to be apparent through-out the world steel industry?

(3) Is it still the Government's aim tohave steel production on such ascale in Western Australia?

(4) If so, what are the Minister and hisdepartment doing about it?

Mr MacK INNON replied:(1) to (4) As the member would be aware, it

is the Government's intention to try to

4399

4400 ASSEMBLY]

encourage the development of a steel in-dustry in this State-

Mr Bryce: On that scale?Mr MacKINNON: -and that is what we

have been trying to do in associationwith the Italians.

Mr Bryce: On that scale?The SPEAKER: Order! It is not appropriate

for the Minister to be asked a questionand then be subjected to interjectionswhile he is attempting to answer it.

Mr MacKINNON: However, the direct re-sponsibility for the development of thesteel industry as a resource-related in-dustry falls within the portfolio of theMinister for Resources Development,and I suggest the Deputy Leader of theOpposition should address his questionto that Minister who I am sure will en-deavour to answer it.

WATER RESOURCES: IRRIGATION

Ord River Scheme: Statutory Body

693. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Premier:

I understand from the Premier's pre-vious answers that the Government hasabandoned its promise to establish anauthority in the Ord Valley. I ask-(1) Was the abandonment of that

promise a phenomenon of tonight'squestion time or has he announcedpreviously the fact that that prom-ise will not be fulfilled?

(2) Can the Premier outline why theGovernment thinks it is not now ap-propriate to proceed with thatpromise?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:(1) and (2) Again a misleading

interpretation by the Leader of the Op-position. I have not said that the promisewas abandoned; and he knows that verywell.

Mr Brian Burke: Let me just ask you-

Mr O'CONNOR: I will answer this.From time to time the Leader of the Op-position comes in with misleading state-ments in the House. It is most unfortu-nate that he sinks to this level.

Mr Brian Burke: You said the Governmenthad no plans to do so.

Mr O'CONNOR: I did not.

Mr Brian Burke: You said, "Not to myknowledge."

Mr O'CONNOR: Correct-"not to myknowledge". If the Leader of the Oppo-sition reads the question, he will findthat I did not say the Government hadabandoned it inasmuch as it-

Mr Brian Burke: I did not ask you whetherthe Government had abandoned it.

Mr O'CONNOR: The Leader of the Oppo-sition just said I said so. He does notknow what he said three minutes ago.

Opposition members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!Mr Parker: Are you seriously suggesting, if

there were plans for a statutory auth-ority, you would not know about them?

Mr O'CONNOR: Although no final agree-ment has been made, discussions havebeen held between the Minister forLands and the Ord River farmers inconnection with this issue. To my know-ledge, no finalisation has been reached.There has been no abandonment of thepolicy decision by the Government, norany suggestion of it.

WATER RESOURCES: IRRIGATION

Ord River Scheme: Statutory Body

694. Mr BRIAN BURKE, to the Premier:

The Premier now tells us that, to hisknowledge, discussions have been heldbetween the Minister for Lands and theOrd River farmers. In answer to my firstquestion on this subject tonight he saidthat, to his knowledge, no discussionshad been held-

Government members interjected.Mr BRIAN BURKE: No discussions had

been held-Government members interjected.The SPEAKER: Order!

Mr BRIAN BURKE: The second part of thequestion asked clearly whether dis-cussions had been held with the OrdRiver farmers; and the answer was,"Not to my knowledge." Now we havethe Premier saying that, to his know-ledge, the Minister for Lands has haddiscussions. What is the truth of thematter?

Mr O'CONNOR replied:Both of the answers were correct.

4400

[Wednesday, 27 October 1982J140

Mr Parker: Completely contradictory.Mr O'CONNOR: In answer to the first

question by the Leader of the Oppo-sition, I said, "Not to my knowledge";and that was correct. I then checkedwith the Ministers; and I was given bythe Minister for Lands the advice whichI have now given to the Leader of theOpposition.That lets him know that, again, he iswrong.

HOSPITAL: ROYAL PERTHMt. La wloyAnnexc

695. Mr HODGE, to the Minister for Health:

(1) Can he confirm that the Mt. LawleyAnnexe of Royal Perth Hospital is toclose definitely on I November?

(2) Can he give an assurance on behalf ofthe Government that none of the 89 em-ployees of the annexe will lose his job asa result of its closure?

Mr YOUNG replied:(1) and (2) 1 have already advised this

House that the Government had made itvery clear, as part of its Budget strategy,to the teaching hospitals and the non-teaching hospitals, that any reductionsof staff numbers that had to take placewere not to take place by dismissal. Thatis the Government's policy, and that iswhat has been said to the teaching hos-pitals.I reaffirm that I do not know the exactdate of the closure of the Mt. LawleyAnnexe of Royal Perth Hospital, but Iunderstand it is imminent.

Mr Hodge: Will you give an assurance thatno-one will lose his job?

Mr YOUNG: To make it absolutely clear tothe member for Melville, I indicate it isthe Government's policy, in directions tothe teaching hospitals as part of theState Government's Budget strategy,that the hospitals are not to reduce staffby methods of sacking. The member forMelville now is asking me whether I cangive a guarantee that nobody will lose

his job. I have told him what is theGovernment's strategy- Royal PerthHospital is obliged to follow that strat-egy by agreement between us and RoyalPerth Hospital, and if somebody is dis-missed from the Mt. Lawley Annexe forsome purpose not associated with theBudget strategy, the member will be onhis feet claiming that I have misled him.

Mr Brian Burke: He would be right, too.

HEALTH: NURSING HOMEPenn-Rose: Inquiry

696. Mr BERTRAM, to the Minister forHealth:

My question refers to the suppression byhim of the Penn-Rose papers. Will hegive us a reply on this matter before theresumption of the debate on the Penn-Rose motion; and, if not, why not?

Mr YOUNG replied:What does the member for Mt. Haw-thorn mean when he asks when I willgive my reply on this matter? I alreadyhave replied to it three times.

Mr Bertram: You know what I mean--on 21September.

Mr YOUNG: Perhaps the member wouldjust tell me what he means.

Mr Bertram: On 21 September, a questionwas asked.

Mr YOUNG: Can the member tell me whatit was?

Mr Bertram: It was to do with the delivery ofthe papers, documents, transcript-allevidence before you in this inquiry.

Mr YOUNG: I have answered that questionthree times. I have advised the memberfor Mt. Hawthorn that I asked the At-torney General to advise if there is anyreason that I should not make thosedocuments available. There is a prettyclear reason that a Minister who con-ducted such an inquiry would ask thatquestion. I have not had a response fromthe Attorney General yet.

4401