3338 COU NCIL I

?Cernafutw QTnunrilThursday, I November 1984

THE PRESIDENT (Hon. Clive Griffiths) tookthe Chair at 2.30 p.m.. and read prayers.

ELECTORAL: REFORM

Petit ions

On motions by Hon. Carry Kelly, the followingpetition bearing the signatures of 215 persons wasreceived, read, and ordered to lie upon the Tableof the House-

The Honourable the President and Memrbers of the Legislative Council of the Parlia-ment of Western Australia in Parliamentassembled.

WE, the undersigned citizens of WesternAustralia request the following electoralreforms:

1. The right of each elector to cast avote equal in value to each othervote cast in elections of Members ofState Parliament.

2. That Legislative Councillors beelected to represent regions using asystem of proportional represen-tation such as is used in Senate elec-tions.

3. The retirement of half of the Mem-bers of the Legislative Council fromeach region at every election. (ie:simultaneous elections).

And that the above reforms be de-cided by the people voting at a refer-endum.

Your Petitioners therefore humblypray that you will give this matterearnest consideration and. your Pet-itioners, as in duty bound, will everypray.

(See paper No. 25S1.)A similar petition was presented by

Hallahan (204 persons).

(See paper No. 248.)

Hon. K.

CREDIT BILLReport

Report of Committee adopted.

BILLS (2): THIRD READING1. Credit (Administration) Bill.

Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon.Peter Dowding (Minister for ConsumerAffairs), and transmitted to the As-sembly.

2. Equal Opportunity Bill.Bill read a third time, on motion by Hon.

i. M. Berinson (Attorney General), andpassed.

SMALL BUSINESS GUARANTEE BILLSecond Reading

HON. J. M. BERINSON (North CentralMet ropolitan-Atorney General) [2.35 p.mn.J: Imove-

That the Bill be now read a second time.

The purpose or this Bill is to provide authority forthe execution of guarantees for the repayment ofloans made to owners of small businesses. Theproposed scheme resembles one established bylegislation in New South Wales.

The main feature of the Bill is as follows-Clause 3 defines "small business" as a

business enterprise that firstly-is carried on for the purposes of manu-

facturing or processing goods or for anyother prescribed purpose;

For the purposes of determining the eligibility ofthe applicant's activities regulations to theproposed Act will detail specific industry classifi-cations in accordance with the Australian Stan-dard Industrial Classification-ASIC- publishedby the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Specific reference to the ASIC industry classifi-cations in the regulations eliminates the need todefine eligible activities by way of a wordy defi-nition which may be open to interpretation andlegal argument.

Industries embraced under the scheme includemanufacturing, processing, mining and mineralexploration, construction, transport and storage,the wholesale and retail trade, and a wide range ofservice industries. Almost all trading businesseswill be eligible with the exception of agriculture,fishing, forestry investment businesses, financialinstitutions, hospitals, and a number of personalservices.

Specifically excluded also will be a businesswhich would qualify for loan or grant assistanceunder section 14(3)(m) of the Western AustralianTourism Commission Act, 1983.

3338

[Thursday, I November 1984] 33

The second part of the "small business" deli-nition in clause 3 is a business enterprise that, inthe opinion of the Minister for Industrial Develop-inent-

(i) is a small business enterprise;(i i) is not a subsidiary of, or does not form

part of a larger enterprise; and(iii) is managed personally by at least one of

the persons entitled to a share of theprofits of the enterprise.

This definition is reasonably similar to the defi-nition of "small business" included in the SmallBusiness Development Corporation Act, 1983, andI believe provides some flexibility to the Ministeradministering the scheme.

Clause 4 (1) states the Minister may execute aguarantee in favour of a lender for a loan made tothe owner of a small business, provided he is satis-fied that-

(a) the sole ground for the prior rejection ofthe loan proposal by the lender was theinsufficiency of the security proposed bythe borrower and in all other respects thelender accepted the loan proposal as aviable proposition; and

(b) the loan moneys are required for capitalexpenditure or working capital for theestablishment of a small business or theexpansion or diversification of anexisting small business.

Guarantees will not be available-

for the purchase or takeover of an existingbusiness.to refinance existing debts;

to overcome a short-term liquidity problem;or

if the applicant has adequate business or per-sonal assets to enable the loan to be obtainedunder the lender's usual guidelines.

Other criteria of a general nature not included inthe Bill, but which will be considered whenassessing applications for assistance includewhether-

The proposal will mean a net increase inemployment opportunities;,

the applicant is viable and capable ofservicing existing borrowings and the newborrowings requested;

the business owner has a reasonable level ofequity in the business having regard to thecircumstances.

Although clause 4(l) refers to the execution of aguarantee in favour of a bank or another person orbody of persons, whether corporate orunmecorporate, emphasis will be given to

implementing the scheme through the tradingbanks, and guarantees will normally be availableonly through this source. However, considerationmay be given to providing guarantees to otherfinancial institutions in special circumstances.

Clause 4(2) restricts the amount of guaranteeassistance for each applicant to an amountprescribed in the regulations. It is proposed tolimit the guarantee assistance to $100 000 withterms up to 10 years. Guarantee assistance willnormally be restricted to term loans or overdraftaccommodation and up to 100 percent of the loanmay be guaranteed. The interest rate charged andthe terms of lending must be acceptable to theMinister.

Clause 4(3) limits the total amount of guaran-tee assistance which may be provided under thescheme, excluding guarantees no longer in force,to such amount as the Treasurer may from time totime declare by notice published in the Govern-ment Gazette.

Clause 5(2)(a) gives the Minister authority todirect the lender to take such securities as requiredfrom the applicant for repayment of the loan.

Clause 4(2)(h) provides that the guarantee shallnot be enforceable against the Minister until thelender has taken appropriate -recovery actionunder all other securities held by the lender inrespect of the guaranteed debt, therefore, theState would only be called upon to meet a short-fall-if any-on the guaranteed loan, in the eventof the failure of the business, and after all othersecurities held by the lender are realised.

The operation of the scheme is as follows-Applicants present a detailed proposal for aloan to a bank or financial institution;if the proposal is not approved, solely on thegrounds of insufficient security, the applicantmay then complete and submit to the bank orfinancial institution a form of application fora small business guarantee. The form of ap-plication will be available from the banks, orfrom the Small Business Development Cor-poration;,the bank or lending institution assesses theapplication in respect of the eligibility cri-teria, and if satisfied completes an appropri-ate application form for guarantee assistance.This form, together with a copy of the appli-cation received from the applicant, isforwarded to the Small Business Develop-ment Corporation;

Department of Industrial Development evalu-ation officers attached to the Small BusinessDevelopment Corporation will examine appli-cations received from the banks or lendinginstitutions to See whether they comply with

3339

3340 [COUNCIL]

Government policy and report andrecommend to the Minister those applicationswhich warrant approval;

guarantees issued under the scheme are to beexecuted by the Minister, and are only col-lateral security to the lender's primary secur-ity taken over the assets of the applicant.

Compared to guarantee or residual indemnity as-sistance available under the Industry (Advances)Act, the scheme is not restricted to the narrowrange of industries as defined in that Act, andprovides assistance to nearly all types of smallbusinesses.

The scheme is targeted to assist smallbusinesses at the time of greatest need either tostart up a new business or to expand operations ofan existing business.

Other advantages of the scheme include-

Removing uncertainties as to which industriesmay qualify for assistance;

maintaining the existing client/bank relation-ship as all approaches for assistance must bemade through the applicant's bank which willadminister the lending in the normal manner;

facilitating access to finance on reasonableterms by small business;

reducing administration procedures by theState and the time involved in giving a firmdecision on applications received.

The scheme is not simply to assist small businessesin the metropolitan area and is to operate on aState-wide basis, including areas which may beconsidered as remote.

All branches of the major banks throughout theState will be provided with full details of thescheme, and owners of small businesses, even inremote areas, may apply for assistance under thescheme through their local bank.

The Government sees this Bill as another Firmstep on the path to providing worthwhile supportto small business. As such it is expected the Billwill lead to positive results in expanding the smallbusiness sector and the creation of more employ-ment opportunities.

I therefore commend this Bill to the House.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hion. V. J.Ferry.

DISTRICT1 COURT OF WESTERNAUSTRALIA AMENDMENT HILL

Report

Report of Committee adopted.

DENTAL PROSTHETISTS BILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 31 October.

HON. CARRY KELLY (South Metropolitan)[2.46 p.m.]: My contribution to this debate will befairly brief. Much of the debate by those opposedto the Bill has been absurd. Members have fol-lowed the irrational approach which has beengenerated by the Australian Dental Association. Ihave a pile of letters from dentists who have madesome outrageous comments regarding theproposition that dental technicians should be ableto deal directly with the public. I cannot believethat the objections which the dentists have can betaken seriously, or that those opposed to the Bill inthis House can be taken seriously.

The PRESIDENT: Order! The member is try-ing to make a speech. Audible conversation isunparliamentary and unacceptable.

Hon. GARRY KELLY: I objected last nightwhen Hon. Phillip Pendal was making an outrage-ous claim that allowing dental technicians to dealdirectly With the public is equivalent to a carmechanic performing brain surgery. If that is thesort of thing which has characterised the debatethis far, I do not think this House should behoodwinked into going along with it.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: That was my point; not thedental lobby's.

Hon. GARRY KELLY: I realize that, but it isin keeping with their approach.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: I got a little extravagantthere.

I-on. GARRY KELLY: I am glad we agree onsomething.

Hon. P, G. Pendal: It is about neurosurgeons.

Several members interjected.

The PRESIDENT: Order!

Hon. GARRY KELLY: I could understand it ifWestern Australia was the first jurisdiction in acomparable country to adopt this legislation. Icould then understand some of the entrenched op-position to it. But let us face it, this legislation hasbeen around in Tasmania since the 1950s, and itapplies in New Zealand. I understand it appliesalso in Great Britain. In those places people arestill living. There has not been a noticeable out-break of oral cancer. In fact, the point I tried tomake to Mr Pendal last evening is that if his storyabout oral cancer were true, surely there wouldhave to be an increase in cancers in those juris-dictions which allow dental technicians to dealdirectly with the public.

3340

[Thursday, I November 1984] 34

As I understand it, the incidence of oral cancerhas in fact declined over recent decades. On astatistical basis, to say that allowing dental tech-nicians to deal directly with the public will lead toan increase in oral cancer is fatuous. There is noevidence to support it.

Dental technicians have been allowed to dealwith the public in New South Wales forapproximately 12 years. Surely over that time, ifthe fears which are held by the dental professionhere have any substance, there would have beensome indication in New South Wales of an in-crease in mouth disorders and, in particular, inoral cancer.

The other point which has aroused a great dealof objection and opposition is the so-called grand-father clause. This Bill is simply making legalwhat people are in fact doing. It is making legalthe practice by which people who want denturesgo direct to dental technicians in ever-increasi ngnumbers. In any transition it is ludicrous to expectthat dental technicians who have been tradaing di-rectly with the public for many years should all ofa sudden have to go back to a tertiary institutionand obtain a paper qualification. Paper qualifi-cations are important and they are an indicationthat a professional person has been trained in acertain discipline; but in this case the applicationof the grandfather clause is rather limited anyway.However, to expect someone who has been dealingwith the public and producing dentures for manyyears to obtain a paper qualification for somethingfor which he is well and truly qualified by experi-ence is ridiculous.

I direct the attention of the House to the criteriawhich will apply to the grandfather clause. First ofall, the grandfather clause will apply for only 12months, so that once the legislation is proclaimedthere will be 12 months within which dental tech-nicians who wish to enter into the practice of deal-ing directly with the public may register and belicensed. The grandfather clause is for only 12months; it is not for forever and a day.

In his speech Hon. Peter Wells asked what cri-teria would be used to determine that techniciansshould be registered. The criteria will be as fol-lows: The prosthetists must have been continuallyengaged dealing directly with the public for notless than five years and the criteria will includesigned declarations by the prosthetist or the tech-nician-it is a statutory declaration, so it is madeon oath-that he has practised in that way forover five years; properly kept records of accounts,taxation returns, and signed declarations from cli-ents over a five-year period must also be produced.Therefore, a technician will be allowed to register

if he has satisfied that combination of criteria. Ithink that is reasonable.

Hon. P. H. Wells: As far as the work of aprofessional person is concerned, who will examineit to see whether the work that has been done overthe last five years was done correctly?

Hon. CARRY KELLY: A tribunal, board, orcommittee, will be set up. It will have input fromthe Commissioner of Health. It will not licensepeople willy nilly, so there will be safeguards andlicensing will not be automatic.

In conclusion, I will not traverse the technicalaspects as to why technicians should be covered.However, we should ask ourselves what will be thesituation if this Bill is not passed.

Hon. P. H. Wells: The same as it is now.

Hon. CARRY KELLY: Precisely! The situ-ation will be the same as it is at present. Peoplewill be going illegally to technicians to get theirdentures and the technicians will not be registered.There will be no overseeing or regulatory body tomonitor the technician's performance, so thepresent situation will obtain. In other words, therewill be little or no control over the actions ofdental technicians dealing directly with the public.

A little commonsense, should be applied here.Several jurisdictions have been named in thiscountry and overseas where technicians are al-lowed to practise in this way and nothing un-toward has happened. Therefore, all reasonableexpectations are that nothing untoward will hap-pen here.

Commonsense must be applied. When this Billis passed the sun will still rise in the morning andset in the evening. People will be able to obtaintheir dentures at a reasonable price. There will notbe a rapid increase in pathology of the mouth,whether it is cancer or any other disease. Onceagain I do not think that the opposition which thedentists have mounted can be taken seriously.

I ask the House to look at the practicalities ofwhat it is doing if it rejects the Bill. Nothing willchange, except that there will he no legislativecontrol over what is happening, so by passing theBill the Commissioner of Health will have a say asto who will and who will not be able to deal di-rectly with the public.

For those commonsenise reasons, I ask theHouse to pass the Bill which has been presentedby the Government.

HON. JOHN WILLIAMS (Metropolitan) [2.56p.m.]: I am baffled by the last remark of Hon.Garry Kelly. I have never heard it said on this sidein this Chamber or outside that the Oppositionintends to reject the Bill.

3341

3342 COUNCIL]

Hon. Garry Kelly: I did not say that either.Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Yes, the member

did; he said it twice. That is not my purpose instanding on my feet this afternoon to speak 10 theBill.

Hon. Garry Kelly: If I said that, I hope I amwrong.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: I have not been herea great length of time, but I have been here longenough to be able to pass the remark I am aboutto make: Apart from the Dog Act and theDividing Fences Act I have never heard so muchheat generated by quite a small and innocuousBill.

Hon. Garry Kelly: Hear, Hear!Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: We are i n agree-

ment again. Hon. Garry Kelly agrees with MrPendal; Mr Pendal agrees with him; and now weare agreed.

Much heat has been generated because of a lotof misconceptions, and the misconceptions comefrom one side desiring this legislation, because afew of them have made promises to get this in, andthe other side is thinking, "Let us think what thesnags are".

I was thrilled when Mr McKenzie told us he hashad his present set of choppers for 20 years andthey were made by a dental technician. I assurehim that the bits and pieces I have in my mouthhave been changed seven times in 20 years. Theywere all made by dental technicians, but designedby dentists. This is where the great point at issuelies in the debate.

I would not for one moment suggest that thedental technician is not a very skilled person; norwould I suggest that he cannot make a full den-ture. By a full denture, I mean a full denture.However, not for one moment would I suggest thatthat technician could make a partial denture with-out the design co-operation of a dentist.

Hon. Phillip Pendal mentioned yesterday thathe had spoken to and received a letter from Pro-fessor Lewis. I have spoken to Professor Lewis andI learnt much from him, much that I did not knowpreviously about partial dentures and their fitting.

It is pathologically true that the mouth canchange shape within a day or even within less thana day. I have proof in my eternal bank debit thatmy mouth changes shape from time to time andadjustments are necessary. The design of partialdentures is an engineering feat. If I could use asimple analogy, it would be this: We see somebeautiful brickwork around the State in variousbuildings. We have what I consider to be a verybeautiful Narrows Bridge which you, Sir, use

daily. The people who poured the concrete andsank the casings to construct that bridge wereevery bit as responsible for it as those whodesigned it.

Hon. Peter Dowding: In which portion of themouth does this bridge figure?

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Bridgework. Mypoint is that the designer and the skilled craftsmancombine their skills to give one the end result.

One or two things have to be said. All membersof the Opposition whom I have heard speaking sofar may have clouded the issue a little, but if welook at their speeches very carefully we see theycame to the point where this contentious clauseabout grandfathers comes in. I wondered where itwas generating from, and then I realised that ifthe man were perfectly competent as a dentaltechnician, he would have the most awful jobproving that over the last five years he had beenworking legally. How will he prove that? He willnot ask Mr McKenzie to go back to him becauseMr McKenzie has not been back to him for 20years. Will he have to approach each patient andsay, "Would you make a statement that I havedone this and that for you in that time?". The manis in a cleft stick, poor chap. He has beenoperating illegally. Will we go down to the Tax-ation Department and say, "Can we have a look atthe various returns to establish the fact that so-and-so was in business five years ago?" It is atechnical legal point which requires some thinkingabout.

Hon. Lyla Elliott: How did they establish it inother cases, such as with the Chiropractors Act?

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: They had alreadybeen registered.

Hon. Lyla Elliott: Well, before they wereregistered?

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: There was a registerof chiropractors containing names of chiropractorswho, in the majority of cases, had attended theAmerican colleges which were not recognised inAustralia at the time.

Hon. Lyla Elliott: Mr Martinovich had not beento any American colleges.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Mr Martinovich hada reputation, I suggest, over 20 years, and wasrecognised as a practising chiropractor. Headvertised that fact.

Hon. Lyla Elliott: Wasn't he in the sameposition as the dental technicians today?

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: No, dental tech-nicians today do not advertise, but the oldMartinovichs used to advertise their skills. There

3342

[Thursday, I November 1984] 34

is a slight difference there. It has been hard to findreliable precedents.

The Tasmanian precedent of 27 years ago isavailable. The legislation has worked excellentlyin that State. I was in Tasmania recently andmade inquiries there and found that it has workedve~ry well but, from Ihe word gn in Tasmania-thisis a fact that members are not bringing out-therewas no grandfather clause in the legislation. Theyhad to be qualified and 1 know why. A little morerecently than 27 years ago, I discovered that theSouth Australian Parliament had the equivalent todentai prosahetists' legislation. The SouthAustralian Parliament made this determination on21 September 1983.

Hon. P. H. Wells: Comparatively recently?Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: It was compara-

tively recently, yes. I do not care whether theGovernment was Liberal, Labor, orCallithumpian! I am rather concerned about whatthe SA Government did about it when it discussedthe Bill. I am not for one minutesuggest in g-please do not misinterpret this-thatwe should do the same thing; however, SA re-ferred the matter to a Select Committee for in-quiry and report. The report was brought out andI will not go through it. For members' reference itis the report of the Select Committee on the Den-tists' Act Amendment Bill 1983.

I would recommend that members think abouttwo or three paragraphs. Paragraph 3 says-

The Dental Board should be responsible forthe registration of clinical dental techniciansacting on the recommendations of the Advis-ory Committee.

That is the same thing as we are doing. it con-tinues as fol lows-

and a separate register should be estab-lished for clinical dental technicians.

There is nothing wrong with that. It goes on-and applicants for registration should be

required to have completed a number ofcourses.

It then goes on to state that the courses shall be asfollows-

(a) This course should be operated by theDepartment of Technical and FurtherEducation at the School of ParadentalStudies at Gilles Plains.

(b) The intake to the course in 1984 shouldbe 10 students with a further 10 studentscommencing training in t985.

(c) Subsequently, the South AustralianHealth Commission's proposed Dental

Policy Committee should study the ef-fectiveness of the programme.

(d) The course should be open to all dentaltechnicians who wish to apply, but appli-cants would need to satisfy such othermature age entry requirements as theeducational instillation may specify.

(e) The course should be between 120 and150 hours duration of supervised clinicalexperience augmented by seminars atwhich candidates would be required tomake presentations.

(f) The course should be funded on the"user pays" principle. The estimated cost

of conducting each course is $1 2000 to$ 15 000, or Sl 200 to SI1 500 per student.

(g) A certificate of proficiency should bepresented by the Department of Techni-cal and Further Education upon success-ful completion of the course.

I cannot see any fear for any dental technician inWestern Australia because the Opposition end theGovernment have joined forces in saying that thedental technicians are perfectly competent people.They are good people, and they know what theyare doing. I do not disagree with that point oneiota. What has a dental technician got to fear intaking a preferred examination as soon as hewants to, as soon as it has been laid down orestablished? They are important matters for den-tal technicians. They say they have not got aworry in the world about this legislation, that theycould do the job standing on their heads, or wordsto that effect-I do not mean physically, butmetaphorically. We have nothing to fear by in-cluding that provision to protect the public.

The final worrying point I have is that I am onlya consumer of dentistry. I think Hon. FredMcKenzie said last evening that dentists usedstandover tactics and frightened people. 1 cannotremember the exact words he used. I inform MrMcKenzie that dentists have always frightenedme, yet no profession since the 1900s has workedharder at reducing pain than has the dental pro-fession. It was unheard of years ago for a personeven to have a filling. The tooth was given a quickyank out and that was the end of the problem.They were popularly known as "rang farriers".They used to drill teeth with a pedal operated, notelectric, drill, and it would crunch through one'steeth and burn one's gums. and that made oneapprehensive about dentists.

Hon. P. H. Wells: Are you trying to turn peopleoff dentists?

Hon. P. 0. Pendal: I can feel it now!

3343

3344 [COUNCIL]

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Dentists haveimproved no end. Once the ultimate torture was tohave a dentist send a drill through the front ofone's teeth in order to get one to talk about some-thing. It is now 1984, and if people have anyapprehensions about dentists, as it were, I canassuire them that they will drill one's teeth gentlyand one will not hear anything. My dentist evenclamps earphones over patients' ears and thepatient listens to a piano concerto or another tape.This is rather good because it is the sound of thedrill that worries the patient. A patient knows thedrill is creating a hole somewhere or excavating abit of enamel in the mouth.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: They won't do that for MrMcKenzie when he goes to the dentist!

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: Mr McKenzie is afortunate man. He has a robust constitution. Hehas an oral cavity which does not very oftenchange shape internally.

Hon. P. H-. Wells: A nice smile!

Hon. P. G. Pendal: H-e is not denying it either.

Hon. G. E. Masters: More than that, he plays tothe gallery.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: All of us would rb--member that good series 'Steptoe and Son" and inwhich one of the Steptoes bought a cart full ofreject dentures and tried to sell them.

What does worry me about this whole matter isthat we are not experts in this field. We do nothave the expertise to discuss the highly pro-fessional technicalities. I am worried that theCouncil of Health Professions of WesternAustralia sounded a warning on 24 September andexpressed its grave concern about this Bill. Allthat the council based its concern upon was that itwanted adequate training or proof of competence.I cannot see that we are poles apart in this House.Everyone has agreed that the technicians do agood job and that they are part of a dental team.Nothing in this Bill forbids them carrying on asthey have been doing in making dentures andpartial dentures, and repairing dentures. Theyprovide a very good service, particularly at week-ends.

H-on. Fred McKenzie: They have not officiallybeen allowed to deal directly with the public, theyhave been doing it underhand.

Hon. JOHN WILLIAMS: That is correct. It isalleged they have been doing it underhand. WhenI spoke to the technicians, they admitted thatsome of their members had carried out this sort ofpractice. I accept their word and Mr McKenzie'sword. I doubt very much that any technicianworth his sail would object to being examined to

find out whether he satisfies a certain standard.My conversations with representatives of their as-sociation have led me to believe they would wel-come such an examination. I think that is the onlypoint at issue with this grandfather clause.

Hon. Fred McKenzie: They will get that.

I-on. JOHN WILLIAMS: It takes too long. Inanother Statute I have here from Tasmania, itsays such people should stand aside from thatpractice until they pass the examination. To standaside did not mean, as Mr Kelly incorrectly said,that they would be left destitute. There is stillwork available for them to do. There is no point inploughing over this ground, but I have a letterhere from a dental technician who objects moststrongly to the fact that the technicians want thisavenue of work. That is one technician, and heobjects because he was niot consulted by his col-leagues.

So it is not all black and white;, we have somevery grey areas in this and I shall be interested tosee how the Committee deals with this problem,having received a fair warning from health pro-fessionals, and I am not talking about the dentists.I am referring to the Council of Health Pro-fessions of Western Australia. If we disregard thatbody's advice, we, as a House, should take over thewhole of the Health Commission because there isno problem we cannot solve-we are saying pro-fessional advice is not worth the paper it is writtenon.

I support the Bill. I do not intend to go into along diatribe about it because it is essentially aCommittee Bill.

HON. 1. G. PRATT (Lower West) [3.15 p.mn.]:I rise to support this Bill. As Hon. John Williamssaid, for a small Bill it has created a lot of contro-versy. That is understandable because the dentistsbelieve themselves to have been wronged in thematter. Unfortunately, their campaign has takenon a level of almost religious fervour and has per-haps overstepped the mark on numerous oc-casions.

Earlier this year I met the representatives ofboth the dental profession and the technicians.Different gentlemen introduced me to each group.The person who introduced me to the dentists wasa man of some standing in the history of healthadministration in this State, and the other was arepresentative of the WA Chamber of Commerceand Industry who handles business affairs for thetechnicians. Both groups were introduced to me asfree enterprise people, the epitome of what theLiberal Party is about. They then proceeded to tellme what terrible people those on the other sidewere.

3344

[Thursday, I November 1984]134

Basically both are small business people work-ing through their own enterprise and efforts. Thisprobably gives people on my side of politics aproblem to grapple with in relation to which sideto take, if sides are to be taken. I do not believesides should be taken, but a tremendous amount ofpressure has been put on people on all sides ofpolitics by certain members of the dental pro-fession to turn this straightforward Bill relating tothe ability to provide a health service into a politi-cal argument.

It has been put to me by certain dentists that alldental technicians are rabid socialists. It has beensaid also that all dentists are card-carrying Lib-erals. Those are propositions I cannot accept forone good reason-my dentist, whom I respect, i s aLabor Party voter and makes no secret of tellingme that every time I go to his surgery. I stick withhim, but he certainly cannot be held to be a strongsupporter of the Liberal Party.

Hon. J. M. Berinson: At what point of the treat-ment does he convey that to you?

Hon. 1. G. PRATT: Right through. He intendsto keep my custom, so he does not dig too deeplywith the drill. In fact, at odd times he swingstowards my side of politics. The introduction ofMedibank was one such occasion. I have not seenhim since Medicare was introduced, so possibly hemay be deserting his corner, hut knowing him hewill go back again.

Hon. Fred McKenzie: We are about even be-cause my dentist votes Liberal!

Hon. 1. . PRATT: I do not believe it is a veryproper way to pursue a campaign to reduce it to apolitical issue. I do not believe it is a politicalissue, it is a matter of facts. I join with thoseGovernment members in objecting to some of thetechniques which have been used in this campaign.One morning I received on my desk here in Parlia-ment House three letters. They must have beenposted together because they came through themail together and they were sitting on top of eachother. Each was in the same brand of envelope. Ihad a look at the paper, and as some of my col-leagues will be aware, I know a little about paper.They were all written on the same type of paperand typed on the same typewriter with the sametypeface daisy wheel. They each bore a differ-ent address in a different part of the metropolitanarea and each was signed by a different person.The words varied slightly. For people to think thatwe would be so stupid as to accept as genuine,letters on the same paper, in the same envelopes,and written on the same typewriter, but with dif-ferenit addresses and names, is to take our intelli-

gence a little cheaply. I object to that very much,as I do to some of the newsletters I have seen.

It has been suggested to me that I should makesome personal assessment of how many peoplepass through the dental surgeries in my electoratebetween now and the next election, It is anothersuggestion to which I take exception.

For some time now I have let it be known that Iintended to support the Bill, though initially I tookan open position on it. When I was approached byboth groups, I said that my position was neutraland I needed to be convinced by whatever groupneeded my support.

Certain requests that I have made about thechanges to the legislation have not been answeredby the dentists, but in fact, every request I made tothe technicians to whom I have spoken have beenanswered clearly, concisely, and without anypressure. I compliment them on the way they haveconducted themselves.

The main turning point which made me decideto support the Bill and to support the techniciansin what they are seeking was the fact that I askedrepresentatives from the dental profession to pro-vide me with examples of problems that have beencreated in New South Wales, Victoria, and alsoTasmania, where dental technicians have dealtwith the public. I asked that question of more thanone representative from the dental profession andI did not receive any answers. In other words, theywere not able to provide me with details of prob-lems that have been created. I posed this questionearly in the piece when the dentists did not wantthis legislation passed at any price. If terriblethings are to happen as a result of this legislation,surely they would have happened in the otherStates where this legislation has been passed.

In fact, one gentleman to whom I spoke saidthat he could not tell me anything that the tech-nicians had done wrong, because if he did thetechnicians would tell me some of the things thatthe dentists had done wrong. They were not thewords of a man who had a strong case to putforward.

Chiropractors have been mentioned as a paral-lel. The previous speaker mentioned that chiro-practors were in a different situation to dentaltechnicians because they were allowed to advertiseand they did advertise. My recollection is differentfrom that of the previous speaker. I understandthat they were not allowed to advertise, and that itwas illegal for them to do so. I remember thepolice setting traps for people like ChrisMartinovich.

In my young hockey days I had a friend whowas a State hockey player and he suffered an

3345

3346 [COUNCIL]

injury. The doctor told him that that was the endof him as far as sport was concerned. He went toChris Martinovich, received treatment, and thefollowing year be was back in the State hockeyside again. The treatment had to be done underthe lap because Chris Martinovich was not permit-ted to give treatment and receive payment for it.My friend was considered to be a write-off as faras his doctor was concerned, but he was able torepresent Western Australia in hockey again fol-lowing treatment from a chiropractor.

At the time we recognised chiropractors wewere given exactly the same forecast of doom fromthe doctors that we are now being given from thedentists about dental technicians. We were toldthat people would be walking around crippledfrom having their backs manipulated and thatthere would be a boom in sales of walking sticks.The reality is that it did not happen. There wouldbe very few members in [his House who have nothad either a friend or a member of their familyreceive treatment from a chiropractor. This yearwas the first time I attended a chiropractor. Somefive years ago I injured my back when liftingsomething from the back of my truck. The doctortold me that I was over 40 and that I would haveto expect these sorts of things to happen. He toldme not to lift heavy things or push cars. I was onmy back for a fortnight and he said there wasnothing he could do for me.

For many years I have been suffering frommigraines. Recently I was driving through PhilLockyer's electorate with another person and inthe course of conversation migraines were dis-cussed. The person with me mentioned a certainchiropractor and suggested that I visit him. A fewweeks later I suffered a migraine and I visited thechiropractor who was recommended to me. Imentioned the fact that I had suffered a backinjury five years ago and an X-ray of my back wastaken. The chiropractor told me he could fix theproblem, but that it would not be fixed perma-nently. He manipulated my back and since then Ihave had no trouble and I have hardly sufferedfrom a migraine since I had that treatment. Whenthe chiropractors' legislation was being debated inthis Parliament, members of the medical pro-fession were telling members that if the legislationwas passed it would bring disaster to many people.

We are often told that we must accept theopinions of experts. I accept them as opinions, butnot as gospel, and time will prove some opinions tobe wrong.

By saying this I am not reflecting on the integ-rity of these people. I have my rights as an individ-ual to make a judgment and that judgment is thatI do not accept all opinions.

It has been mentioned that cancer of the mouthis one of the big problems. An example which hasbeen raised in the last few days, but which had notpreviously been brought to my attention, althoughobviously to the attention of other members, con-cerned a person who was suffering from an ulcerof the mouth. He visited a dental technician andreceived a modified denture and some monthslater he visited a dentist who diagnosed his prob-lem as cancer of the mouth. It appears that thewords, "some months later" could be significant.There is nothing to prove that if the person hadvisited a dentist initially that the dentist would nothave treated the ulcer in the same way as it wastreated by the technician or in the same way Ihave had ulcers treated in the past.

The ability of a professional person to recognisea cancer is something that concerns me. Over re-cent months I have visited the doctor in the prac-tice I attend a number of times. I have sat oppositehim and approximately 1.5 metres away from himon each occasion. During this time I had a lumpgrowing on my nose. It continued to grow and Ibecame very worried about it. I told the doctorabout my concern and he said, "Yes, it looks like acancer". I told him that that was what I wasconcerned about and asked him what should bedone. He said that he thought he would burn itout. However, after thinking for a wvhile, he said,'No, I will not burn it out, I will send you to aspecialist."

I am not reflecting on the ability of my doctor,but he had sat opposite me on several occasionsand he did not notice anything wrong with mynose. The specialist to whom I was sent lookedclosely at my nose and said that he would cut outthe lump. He made the arrangements for me toattend a certain hospital. On examination at thehospital the specialist noticed that I had anotherlump on my nose and he suggested that he shouldcut it out while he was on the job. I said, "Okay."

I went back to see him on the next Mondayafter the two little growvths had been sent to thepathologist. He said, "Yes, that w'as a cancer,too." Here we had a general practitioner-a fairlywell-qualified medical guy-wvho firstly, had beenlooking directly into my face and not noticingsomething which, on closer examination, heperceived to be a cancer. Then we had a specialistlooking specifically at it but not noticing anotherone some quarter-of-an-inch away from it. There-fore, I have very serious doubts that dentists willnotice specifically everything wrong inside amouth that dental technicians will not observe be-cause they are human.

In the campaign by some members of the dentalprofession, they have even convinced themselves

3346

[Thursday, I November 19841 34

that they are perfect. They say the only way wecan protect the public is by supporting them, andrejecting the dental technicians. I do not acceptthat. My experience over the last couple of monthswith a doctor and then a specialist is that pro-fessional, highly-trained people do not always no-tice what is directly in front of them. Very fewdentists in Western Australia are actuallyequipped to make dentures. They send off to thetechnicians to have them made. The people whopay $400 as against $300 for dentures and say it isbecause they want the top quality work and arepaying for the experience and the professionalknowledge of the dentists are fooling themselves,because the reality of life is that the same peopledo the work,

Very often, the dentures are not touched by thedentists until they are actually fitted in the mouthand the person goes away with them. Beyond that,the actual design work is carried out by the tech-nicians. I believe that some of our dentists wouldlike us to believe that they sit down with a drawingboard and T-square and do a detailed drawing ofevery set of dentures obtained. However, it is notdone that way. The dentists make nmoulds whichthey send off to the technicians, with some notes.They do not do detailed working drawings. I donot think one receives more value by having adentist put wax in one's mouth and take a mouldrather than the technician doing it.

If the Bill is passed, I will still continue to go tomy dentist and have my teeth made by him, be-cause I am in the habit of doing that, and I have agood relationship with the dentist. I will not raceoff to a dental technician. However, I will not goto a dentist because I believe I receive superi ortreatment. I know some dental technicians, and Iwould be quite happy for them to make my den-tures.

Another matter which I have not heard raised isthat at present many dentures are being importedfrom Asia. We have no control over the standardof manufacture or the standard of people makingthem, It is the case that, with some of those den-tures, a dentist must alter the mouth to make themouth fit the denture. There is no guarantee of thequalifications of the people making those dentures.The fact that dentists have to alter mouths tomake the dentures fit does not appear to be a verygood argument for the case that the dentists haveput to us.

The question of qualifications has been raised.' Iam probably bringing down thunder onl my headby saying this, but I do not believe our children arereceiving a much better education since we haveincreased the standard of qualifications forteachers. The consumers at the end of the edu-

cation system try to fit currently-educated peopleinto their work force, and they find that it is verydifficult to employ people who can spell ad-equately or write neatly on forms. I think mem-bers would agree, from the point of view of theconsumer, that we have not gained very muchfrom having four or ive-year trained teachers.Perhaps we might be training teachers to fitpeople for their leisure time and things like that;but I doubt whether we are improving the stan-dard of the system by improving qualifications.

Many people in this debate have admitted thatthey are taking the arguments to the extreme. Iwill take one of my arguments to the extreme. Wehave heard several members saying that it wouldbe absurd if we allowed untrained people to haveaccess to other people's bodies. We read a lot inthe newspapers about in vitro fertilisation. Are wereaching the stage at which one will require medi-cal training to procreate? Everyone will have touse in vitro fer'tilisation if one has regard for therisks involved in the natural form of procreation!

I agree it is taking it to absurd lengths to saythat,' but it is also absurd to say that dental tech-nicians should not have access to the humanmouth. The absurdity of my illustration matchesexactly some of the other arguments put forward,and my argument has as much validity as do thosearguments.

I intend to support one of the amendments ofwhich H-eo. Peter Wells has given notice. I intendto support his move to increase the number ofpeople on the board, and also to specify theirqualifications for the board. I am prepared to goalong wi th the Government's proposal for partialdentures, and for the technicians to be given per-mission by way of an endorsement after satisfyingthe board that they are capable of doing so. At alater stage, this legislation will probably bebrought back for amendment to require qualifi-cations for people producing partial dentures, aseducation in the field of dental prostheses in-creases.

In the meantime, I am prepared to go alongalmost entirely with the Bill, with the one amend-ment that I intend to support. If anything of aminor nature happens during the Committeestage, I might make a minor change to my stand.With that reservation, I support the Bill.

HON. GRAHAM EDWARDS (North Metro-politan) [3.38 p.m.]: I intend to support the Bill,and I support it very strongly as a matter of prin-ciple. That principle is founded on experience.

I have had false teeth since the age of I13, and Ihave been through the hands of many dentists andmany technicians. Without taking anything away

3347

3348 [COUNCIL]

from the dentists, I can assure the House that thegreatest service I have received has always beenfrom the technicians.

I had all my teeth taken out when I was 13, andI received very good service from a dentist. How-ever, once my mouth and gums had been allowedto settle down for six months or so, the dentistpassed me into the care of a quite elderly dentaltechnician. The service I received from that blokewas tremendous, particularly in view of the factthat my mouth was continually changing its shapeat that young age. That man did not have hightertiary qualifications but he had much knowl-edge, achieved over a number of years.

I touch on the point made by Hon. [an Pratt,that the more highly qualified persons do notnecessarily provide, in this case, a better prosthesisthan those without high tertiary achievements.Much of the skill in making prostheses is in thehands, not necessarily in the brain.

I wore artificial legs for quite some time and thebest service I received there came from a limbmaker who actually learnt his trade as a matter ofnecessity in Changi prison. He was a man by thename of Sid Gorringe, and he may well have beena friend of Hon. G. C. MacKinnon. This man, asfar as I am aware, had no tertiary qualification.He lost his leg during World War 11 and wastaken prisoner at Singapore. He was forced tomake his own prosthesis in that place. Havingmade that, he found there were a number of otherpeople who came to him and sought a similarservice. That is where he learnt the trade.

I have spoken to a number of dentists and den-tal technicians. I guess a lot of nonsense is beingsaid which does not bear any relevance to thefactual situation. For instance, one dental tech-nician who has been operating for quite some timeinformed me that he has a very good liaison withdentists. There have been times when he haspicked up a patient's impression and noted prob-lems in the mouth that the dentist had not pickedup when he was taking the impressi ons orexamining the patient's mouth. The technicianshave a good liaison with the dentists and referthese things back to them.

I wish to refer to a letter which was sent out to anumber of people in my electorate. Their nameswere taken from the electoral roll and the letterwas sent out to those people with some interest inhealth services. I wish to quote from parts of theletter as follows-

The Government has introduced a Bill re-lating to dental technicians which concernsme as it allows for the registration of some

dental technicians, regardless of educationqualifications.

If passed, a particular clause in the Billwould enable a person, who had beenoperating illegally, by dealing directly withthe public regarding dentures for a five yearperiod, to apply for registration as a dentalprosthetist.

In a period when increasingly higher edu-cational qualifications are being demanded inmost health areas, the Dental Bill provisionseems strange.

I will skip a couple of paragraphs here. It con-tin ues-

I am fearful that the move couldundermine the public's confidence in ourhealth services as people generally assumethat the authorities will allow only qualifiedpersonnel to operate.

Further on it states-

In view of the importance of the issue, l amconsidering a number of amendments to theBill, with the aim of ensuring that, as atpresent, only qualified people are authorizedto practice.

I am a little bit "dirty" on that letter because itcould give some members of the public the im-pression that absolutely no qualifications will berequired to allow the public to deal directly withthe dental technicians. That is not true. We under-stand, and people who have spoken on the Hillunderstand, that it does us no justice when misap-prehensions like this are given to the public. I amsorry that letter did come from a colleague in theLegislative Council. I am pleased to say a numberof people to whom that letter was sent did contactme to say they did not believe the Government wasgoing to be silly enough to do that, as indeed it isnot.

I-In. P. G. Pendal: I wish we had that confi-dence.

I-In. Peter Dowding: Who wrote that silly let-ter?

Hon. GRAHAM EDWARDS: My colleague,Mr Wells.

I-In. P. G. Pendal: It is an excellent letter.

Hon. GRAHAM EDWARDS: It depends onhow one balances things, and I do like to balancethings when I put them to the public for theirconsideration.

I reiterate my support for this Bill. I do thatwith good reason. As a young child of 13 I canassure the House it did cause me quite some painand embarrassment to have false teeth fitted. I

3348

[Thursday, I November 1984]134

have a lot of praise for that particular dentist andmost importantly, the dental technician withwhom I directly dealt because of his common-sense approach at the time.

I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.

Sitting suspended from 3.45 to 4.00 p.m.[Questions taken.]

lHON. PETER DOWDING (North-Ministerfor Planning) [4.03 p.m.]: This is an interestingdebate, because unlike the Hon. GrahamEdwards, I have had no experience with dentalprosthectists. My experience with dentists has beenas limited as I have been able to make it over thelast 41 years. I make the point however that thedebate has a very familiar ring about it.

I think one of the most penetrating commentsmade in the whole debate came by way of interjec-tion from Hon. Mark Nevill when Mr Pendal wasposturing very strongly on the basis that the ex-perts told us that the dental prosthetists, the tech-nicians, were not able to cope with the tasks thatthis Bill might permit them to cope with, andindeed there were many dangers for the public ifwe were to pass such legislation, and how did weknow this? Because the experts told us, and theexperts should be relied upon.

Hon. Mark Nevill interjected and pointed outthat that was not the stance taken by some mem-bers during the debate about the Hill to permit orto refuse to permit advertising of smoking.

The Hon. Phillip Pendal must have done cart-wheels during that debate to avoid the compellingmedical evidence about the evils of that practiceand the very real risks that followed from smokingand from advertising smoking. Yet, here he istrotting out a serious learned dissertation aboutthe evils of letting dental technicians participate inthe practices that this Bill would permit them toparticipate in.

What was very interesting about the speechmade by Hon. [an Pratt was the fact that heacknowledged that at times, the holding of a quali-fication. particularly a tertiary qualification, doesnot necessarily give the holder the completeknowledge and understanding of the issues con-cerned. The evidence which members oppositestrongly refused to address in relation to the expla-nation of the dental technicians' rights andentitlements, was the evidence that in some Statesof Australia this has been the practice for manyyears. There is simply no evidence that it has ledto problems on the part of the public.

Of course in every profession there are peoplewho do not succeed. Every profession I know hasat some time or other had members who faced

negligence actions, and of all the negligence ac-tions instituted there are a number which are suc-cessful. It is not enough-with all due respect toMr Pendal-to produce evidence of one, two, orfive occasions on which there has been a particulartype of problem and say "Is not that evidence tosuggest that dental technicians cannot performthese tasks?" Dental technicians, like all pro-fessionals, and all people involved in performingduties, sometimes do not perform them properly.

What was distressing for me, as a person whohas not a great deal of experience in this area, wasto hear Opposition members, who opposed the ex-tension of powers, come up with so little to supportthneir argument. Of course the dentists would op-pose the extension of powers of the technicians.

I can recall, closer to home, the positive hysteriaamong the legal profession in 1 974 when we had adebate about the setting up of the AustralianLegal Aid office. I can recall legal practitioners,who were wont to maintain a calm, cool, and con-servative exterior, behaving like rabid protestersover what they saw was the end of the legal pro-fession and the end of the right of the public tochoose, and so on, and so forth.

We saw the same sort of behaviour from thelegal profession with the legislation to extend thesettlement agents powers. Some of that legislationI have problems accepting, because I did not be-lieve at the time, and do not necessarily believenow, that the proper safeguards were built in.

Hon. Tom Knight: You did not support mewhen I got up and spoke against it.

Hon. PETER DOWDING: Well, Mr Knight, Idid in my heart.

The other example is of course the debate aboutMedibank when we had the medical professionclaiming all sorts of dire consequences for thepublic and themselves. In reality, the dental pro-Fession is a profession which serves the public, andwhich will continue to serve the public, but like allprofessions that have a monopoly, it is very sensi-tive to any incursion into that monopoly.

Where there is good reason for maintainingstrict professional standards, any incursion intothat monopoly should be very carefully con-sidered. In this instance, we have, firstly, the factthat dental technicians are active in the area inthis State, secondly, we have the evidence thatthey are active with legislative approval in otherStates, and, thirdly, no-one in this debate hasproduced evidence to suggest that there wereproblems by reasons of the technicians' involve-men t.

The other comment Hon. Ian Pratt made-it isa rare occasion that I rise to support his

3349

3350 [COUNCIL]

remarks-was about the longbow and he gave theexample of our procreative activities no longerbeing a matter of joy, but being a matter con-trolled by some highly qualified doctor. In fact,the higher one goes in medicine, the more qualifi-cations one has, the more one goes into the hospi-tal system with the money and the technology, themore one finds arguments For any sort of processbeing dealt with only by those with high qualifi-cations. We can Find arguments, for instance, inithe hospital system in Western Australia forbroken arms being dealt with only by people withorthopaedic qualifications. If a person lives inMarble Bar and breaks his or her arm, the nursingsister would attend to it. There is no evidence thatnursing sisters are unable to identify a very seriousfracture. Hence, when someone is in Port Hedlandhospital the available medical practitioner whosees that person treats that person.' Yet, one wouldfind oneself at the top of the tree at Royal PerthHospital.

Are we any better off in terms of our health byreason of all of that? I do not believe that theevidence exists to support that proposition.

Legal aid was threatened, allegedly, by the legalprofession. Yet, now its members would march inthe streets if it were taken away from them.

Hon. P. G. Pendal: They are qualified lawyers.What about law clerks?

Hon. PETER DOWDING: I am getting to lawclerks: do not steal my thunder. Paralegal peoplesuch as law clerks, solicitors' clerks, and the like,have been long accepted in the legal profession. Infact, in the UK, it is quite a regular event forparalegal workers without qualifications, but withsimple long experience, to operate in lawv offices.

The fact is that people like Hon. Phil Pendalsimply swap the ship, depending on their argu-ment. It is clear that many dentists are verystrongly against this legislation and Hon. PhilPendal argues very eloquently against any exten-sion of it.

Members have not presented me with evidenceof the evils that will result from the activities ofdental technicians being recognisedl. The reality isthat people should have a choice. If there is negli-gence on the part of a technician or on the part ofa trained dentist, consequences flow. How many ofus have children who are now being urged to haveorthodontal treatment at enormous cost. When Iwas a child I had never heard the word".orthodontal". No child received orthodontaltreatment. I suspect it is a fill-in position for den-tists as a result of the improvement in children'steeth and dentists have had to have another prac-tice at high cost, a practice which will no doubt be

beneficial in the sense that children will all haveperfectly formed bites, their jaws will bewonderfully angled, or their teeth will look goodon television.

However, we can all get along with those imper-fections. The evidence in other States suggest thatwe can get along with those imperfections.

Hon. Bill Stretch took a position, which in myview, is unsupported by any evidence. He said thatif we introduce dental technicians into this field,or give them the power to operate as they areoperating and as is proposed in the Bill that theywill operate, it will somehow spell the death knellfor country towns. That is an extension of theargument that the dentists use to maintain what isa protected and privilegcd position. There is noevidence that that occturred in the States in whichtechnicians operate. There is simply no evidence tosupport it, Hon. Bill Stretch produced no evidenceto support it. He simply put it up as a proposition.He said it was a logical extension, if we take whatis happening in country towns and carefully dis-sect it.

The Government has no desire to take any stepswhich will result in the death of country towns. Ithink our record in supporting rural and remoteareas is very good. It is unfortunate that we shouldreduce the debate to those sorts of accusations. Inmy view, we need to look at the real issue andconsider what the service would be like to a com-munity which needs dental prosthectists. That iswhat is lacking in most of the comments made byHon. Bill Stretch. He raised issues relating to risksof cancers not being diagnosed and so forth. Ibring him back to the issue. If that had occurredin other States, why is he unable to present us withevidence.

The Government believes that this piece oflegislation is important. It is sorry that it has beenreduced to a bit of political one-upmanship bythose members of the Opposition who have obvi-ously, taken fright. Not all of them have done that.I admire the ones who have not. Some members ofthe Opposition have obviously taken fright at alobby as wealthy and powerful as dentists. Theyhave supported unsubstantiated arguments whichhave raised spectres of fear for which there is noevidence.

The Government commends the Bill to theHouse in form in which it has been presented.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

3350

[Thursday, I November I1984J 35

ACTS AMENDMENT (LOCAL GOVERNMENTELECTORAL PROVISIONS) BILL

Receipt and First ReadingBill received from the Assembly; and,' on motion

by Hon. J. M. Berinson (Attorney General), reada first time.

Second ReadingHON. J. M. BERINSON (North Central

Metropolitan-Attorney General) [4.22 p.m.]: Imove-

That the Bill be now read a second time.This Bill seeks to amend both the Local Govern-ment Act and the Local Government AmendmentAct (No. 2) 1984.

Members will recall that part 11 of the latterAct, which was enacted earlier this year, includesprovisions which introduce the adult franchiseconcept into municipal elections commenci .ngfrom the annual elections to be held in May 1985.

At the time that legislation was before Parlia-ment, the Minister for Local Government gave anundertaking that the Government would introducefurther amendments in this session to provide forthe automatic enrolment of owners of rateableproperty on the municipal electoral roll. This Billprincipally fulfils that undertaking.

The electoral rolls will be prepared generally inaccordance with the existing provisions with theresidents' roll being derived from the State elec-toral roll, and the owners and occupiers' roll beingderived from the records of the local authority.

The existing provisions provide for owners andoccupiers to apply for enrolment. With the auto-matic enrolment of owners, this procedure will notapply, and will result in many names beingduplicated on the residents' roll and the ownersand occupiers' roll.

To ensure that a person's name appears onceonly on each relevant ward roll, it will be manda-tory for the residents' roll and the owners andoccupiers' roll to be consolidated as from theannual elections to be held in May 1986.

The Bill provides an option to the clerk to con-duct the 1985 annual elections and any other elec-tions held during the ensuing Q2 months usingboth rolls, or alternatively consolidating them intoone roll prior to polling day. This option wasfound necessary because it became evident thatsome councils would be unable to achieve the con-solidation of rolls by 1985.

Where the clerk uses the two rolls for the pur-poses of an election, the Bill sets out an adminis-trative procedure to be followed which requiresthe use of the residents' roll as the principal roll,

and the owners and occupiers' roll as a secondaryroll. This procudure is designed to assist electoralofficers during the course of polling.

Because of the procedures required, the resi-dents' roll and the owners and occupiers' roll willstill be used for the purposes of the election; thatis, for preliminaries before the election day, suchas postal, absent, and early voting, prior to thoserolls being superseded by a consolidated roll. Anymarks made on the first-mentioned two rolls toindicate a vote has been cast must be transferredto that consolidated roll prior to polling day. Thiswill also help in the conduct of the election andremove concern that the new roll system will fa-cilitate multiple voting.

The compilation of the owners and occupiers'roll under the proposed provisions will also providefor this roll to be used for the purposes of a loanpoll.

The amendments passed earlier this year al-lowed for regulations to be made to permit thepreparation of a suitable roll for the purposes ofconducting a loan poll. However, as the clerk willnow be required to prepare a full roll of owners forelection purposes, the Bill proposes that that rollbe used for the purposes of conducting a loan poll.In effect, the Bill returns the situation to thatwhich previously existed.

In addition, the Bill corrects two anomaliesbrought to the Minister for Local Government'sattention in respect of the electoral provisions ofthe Local Government Act.

First, the nomination form prescribed underregulations requires the signature of a candidate,or his agent, to be witnessed, and it is believed thatthis is an appropriate requirement. However, theAct presently does not require such witnessing andthe Bill seeks to rectify that situation,

Secondly, the right of an elector to cast an ab-sent vote-that is one which may be cast at theoffice of any council other than that for which theelection is being held-is restricted to an annualelection. As has been rightly pointed out, it is ananomalous situation where an elector can cast avote for an annual election for a particular coun-cil, but cannot do so in respect of an extraordinaryelection being conducted in the same municipalityon the same day. The Bill proposes the removal ofthat anomaly.

Members' attention is drawn to the fact thatpart I I of the Local Government Amendment Act(No. 2) is due to come into operation on I5November 1984 and it is therefore necessary toamend that Act to provide for automatic enrol-ment for owners and bring such amendments intooperation prior to that date.

3351

3352 [COUNCIL]

In fact, the Bill proposes that the relevantamendments will come into operation from thedate of assent, and I bring this point to the atten-tion of members to highlight the urgency of thelegislation and to ensure that the automatic enrol-ment of owners is suitably accommodated.

I commend the Bill to the House.

Debate adjdurned, on motion by I-on. G.Masters (Leader of the Opposition).

lB

REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTSAMENDMENT BILL

ReturnedBill returned from the Assembly without

amendment.

APPROPRIATION (CONSOLIDATEDREVENUE FUND) BILL

Consideration of Ta bled Paper

Debate resumed from 24 October.I-ON. V. J. FERRY (South-West) [4.27 p.m.]:

I take this opportunity to mention a few items ofconcern to people I represent in the south-west.One matter has given me some concern for a goodtime. I have mentioned it in the House on a pre-vious occasion, but it deserves following up.

Only recently I asked a question regardingGovernment funding for driver education in sec-ondary schools. The answer was that the Govern-ment was providing no funds this financial yearfor that particular scheme. In other words, theGovernment gives its blessing to that schemewhere students attending senior high schools maybe accorded the privilege of motor vehicle drivingtuition subject to the generosity of schoolteachersat the respective schools, the P & C associations ,service clubs, and the like, but the Governmentitself cannot see its way clear to fund that sort ofprogramme. That is very disappointing.

There are difficulties, of course, inimplementing such a scheme, but it is deserving ofconcern. The Government, at the present time,'does give schools wishing to conduct driver edu-cation programmes approval, with the followingprovisos. One is that all police traffic and nationalsafety council requirements on licences and per-mits are complied with. That is reasonable. Thesecond is that the scheme is financed from schoolfunds, and no financial assistance is available fromthe Education Department.

It is hard to understand why the Governmenthas not followed this through more vigorously totry to arrive at a more acceptable solution, wherestudents may be given the opportunity to becomeefficient and responsible drivers. The Government

is quite callous in not assisting young people inthat way.

I must compliment the Government on its driveand energy in promoting road safety andendeavouring to cut down the casualties on ourroads and highways. Having said that, it seemsstrange that the Government does not take thesame sort of enthusiastic step to encourage youngpeopk. to use those roads in a responsible way.That indicates a deplorable inconsistency in theGovernment's thinking.

Over the years many thousands of high schoolstudents have benefited from driver educationunder this scheme. I mentioned the training thathas been possi 'ble through the generosity, goodwill,and backing of the schools. I must mention alsothe participation of teachers at those schools andthe motor firms which have either donated motorvehicles or made them available on very generousterms. The P & C associations, service clubs, pri-vate citizens, and the like who have assisted in thisarea must also be mentioned.

Yet despite all this goodwill and participation,the Government has washed its hands of thescheme. I guess the Government will say that it isstill considering it and that is fair enough; but it isnot pursuing the scheme with the vigour that itshould.

The Minister for Education (Mr Pearce) is onrecord in answer to a question I asked in thisHouse some time ago as saying that the schemewas really elitist and would benefit only privilegedstudents. That is a rather shallow sort of responseand the Minister cannot be given much credit forit. There is no need to have that sort of attitude inrespect of this scheme. Scope is available to pro-vide services throughout all the schools in WesternAustralia with a little Government assistance.

Those schools which have the benefit and back-ing of the local community are very highlycommended for their responsible attitudes to suchan undertaking. It would need only a compara-tively small sum of money from Governmentfunding to make this scheme available to moreschools and certainly more students throughoutWestern Australia.

The scheme has operated for a number of years,and to the best of my knowledge, some I8 000students have benefited from the training since theinception of this scheme in 1967. That is a greatnumber of people who have had the benefit ofbeing trained correctly and who have beenencouraged to act responsibly on the roads.

Unfortunately, the casualty statistics for roadusers are pathetically loaded in favour of those inthe younger age group. This scheme can only be

3352

[Thursday, I November 19843 35

commended and I again put forward the sugges-tion that the Government establish pilot projectsin a number of schools.

In the first instance, I suggest a minimum of 10schools. The Government should provide $8 000for each school, and that would cost $80 000 forthe first year of the pilot scheme. If one wanted toextend the scheme to 20 schools, it would cost$160 000 for the first year. That is a small price topay for a pilot scheme which has tremendousmerit and which will help our young people andthe community generally, because we will reducethe number of casualties on the road and, by thatmeans, we would certainly save $80 000 or$160 000. That saving would be achieved veryquickly by the reduction of the carnage on ourroads.

In general terms the tuition provided by thecourse comprises 12 hours of theory; 12 hours'observing in a vehicle; and six hours behind thewheel in a driving supervision situation. Of coursethe programme varies from school to school ac-cording to the school's resources.

1 understand that the Narrogin Senior HighSchool has been participating in such a schemeand each student involved pays a fee of SI 15 for thecourse, irrespective of the time it takes to learn todrive. So whereas there are guidelines in respect ofthe number of hours, they are flexible as far as theNarrogin school's scheme is concerned. I com-mend the people involved for that, but it has onlybeen possible because the P & C Association hasgot down to miscellaneous fund raising, a localfirm has lent a car, and the school is responsiblefor maintenance, petrol, and licensing. A fairlycomprehensive programme is provided, so thoseinvolved should be commended.

The Merredin school has a scheme along some-what similar lines where each student pays a fee of$20 for a set period of approximately eight to t0weeks. The driver-instructor is voluntary and thestaff who take the course become instructors.

The local community in the Merredin area isvery upset that the Government will not contributeto this scheme and I can understand that.

The Busselton High School has had a continu-ing scheme for a number of years, but here againit has been able to survive purely on the goodwilland generosity of the local community. I commendthat community on maintaining that scheme.

Similarly, the Bunbury Senior High School hasa student driver scheme which operates as a resultof the availability of a second-hand car providedby one of the local rotary clubs. It is highly com-mendable for one of the service clubs to beinvolved in that way. Of course, the funding comes

from the school resources as well as from the localcommunity.

It is worthwhile for the Government to pursuethis matter. It may be true that initially only alimited number of students will benefit. However,in how many facets of our society do we see theimplementation of a new scheme or the expansionof a good idea by means of a pilot programme,before such a scheme is applied on a wider basis.The Government is being very neglectful in notpursuing this project.

Another matter which continues to concern mein regard to the south-west region based onBunbury is the provision of more adequate head-quarters for the State Emergency Service. We allknow that at times of natural disaster, the StateEmergency Service performs a wonderful andnecessary function within the community ofpeople throughout the State. However, theBunbury headquarters in the south-west regionhave been neglected for some time and I have beenpressing the Government to fill that void.

There is a framework of headquarters whichserves the south-west and upper great southernregion in a combined way, and more recently theGovernment has instituted a complete review ofthe State Emergency Service. I commend it forthat, but that review has been going on for a longtime. I am not quite sure of the exact timespan ofthat review, but my information is that it is almostcomplete.

I certainly hope that review is almost completeand that as a result of it a positive move will bemade to service the people of the south-west withheadquarters based at Bunbury or nearby.

It is not good enough for this situation to con-tinue. There are other emergency groups in othercentres and they perform in their local areas.However, the position to which I refer is a regionaloveriewv concept which should take place in re-gions throughout the State so that the work of theState Emergency Service can be co-ordinatedproperly in times of civil emergency.

I notice provision in the Budget to upgrade theradio communications for the Busselton voluntarygroup and I commend the Government for that,but that is being done in only one minor area. Weneed a greater thrust to help the total area.

I turn now to the Bunbury police area. Thestaffing of that area has remained static for anumber of years, although the population has beenincreasing in the region. The number of perma-nen t residents is increasing at a rate ofapproximately 1 000 a year and then we must takeinto account tourists, weekenders, holidaymakers,day trippers, and the like.

3353

3354 COUNCIL]

The Bunbury police area is Einding it a littledifficult to service the total community as it wouldlike to do. I merely add that in my view the policeofficers and the organisation in the Bunbury areaare doing a sterling job for the community and Icommend them for their very effective work. Theyhave a good record in that regard, but they needhelp quickly. There has been a spate of vandalismand other crime in the area in recent months andthe police have been very quick to act and clean upmany of those misdemeanours.

I come back to the point that the Governmenthas been neglectful. I keep reminding membersthat prior to the last State election, the LaborParty promised to put in three new police stations,one based at Dardanup, one at Boyanup, and thethird at Cape[. All of these currently fall withinthe Bunbury police area. If it is good enough forthe Labor Party to promise to put in three policestations prior to the election, it is good enough forit to increase the staffing at the Bunbury policestation to compensate for its inability to meet itselection promises. Surely that is a reasonableproposition. I would expect the Government tosupport its Police Department in Bunbury andgive it as much help as possible.

I also wish to refer to the Geographe Bay areaof the south-west coast. That area of coastline isdevoid of safe anchorage for small craft. For anumber of years now plans and many i .nvesti-gations have been made to establish a safe anchor-age particularly for fishing craft and for the safetyof the men who man those craft. A number ofschemes have been suggested, one of which wasthat there should be a specific facility for fishingboats. Another suggestion was that there shouldbe a specific facility for pleasure craft. My view isthat in the immediate future we should have acombined facility in Geographe Bay between CapeNaturaliste and Dunsborough to meet the need.The Government has been procrastinating on thisissue. In this area of the Budget provisions, nomention whatsoever has been made of providingfunds to create this facility.

Some few years ago, members of this House andthe other place joined in a study of the south toastfishery, and arising from those discussions, theurgency of this small boat harbour facility down atthe lower south-west coast became evident.Bunbury, of course, has facilities, but it is a longway from Cape Naturaliste if one is in trouble.Certainly servicing the fishing industry is noteconomical if one has to go from Bunbury down tothe very south-west tip of the State and backagain. It is just not on when one is competing onthe commercial market.

An undertaking has been given by the Oppo-sition that a boat harbour facility will be placed atGeographe Bay in the first term of its office uponreturn to Government. That is a firm commitmentand I commend the Opposition for it.

Another issue in the lower south-west is theneed to renew the hospital at Margaret River. Thehospital is 60 years old and it has served the dis-trict admirably during that time. It has beenblessed with some very dedicated and competentstaff; good doctors have attended to the patients inthat area. They still do. Of course, it has reachedthe stage in life when it certainly needs to bereplaced, not only as far as the structure itself isconcerned, but also in regard to the facilities inthat hospital, which I suggest, need to beupgraded. Therefore an undertaking has againbeen given by the Opposition that during its firstyear in office, upon returning to the Treasurybenches, a new hospital will be constructed atMargaret River to replace the old one.

Under the Budget papers and Estimates, theGovernment has made provision to extend the hos-pital at Augusta and I commend the Governmentfor that initiative. That facility is needed atAugusta. It has a very good hospital, small thoughit may be, and it is well-serviced by doctors. Thereis a justifiable need for an expanded facility inthat hospital and it is to be provided.

However, the Margaret River Hospital, Isuggest, has a greater need and I am surprisedthat the Government did not find it appropriate toprovide funds for at least a start on the MargaretRiver hospital in this year's Budget because theGovernment knows the priorities. The medical de-partment I am sure, could show the Governmentthe necessary statistics of this hospital to indicatethat improvements are necessary. That will bedone when the Opposition gets back into Govern-ment.

Hon. Peter Dowding: If.

Hon. Lyla Elliott: It will be a long time coming.

Hon. G. E. Masters: Don't be so sure. I don'tlike to see you over-confident.

Hon. V. i. FERRY: It is interesting that the"Bunbury 2000" concept is doing quite a lot ofthings in the Bunhury region, but particularly inBunbury itself, and the people outside the immedi-ate area of Bunbury are looking very critically atthe Government's performance.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Egged on unfairly by you.

Hon. G. E. Masters: What a disgraceful thingto say. Why would Mr Ferry do a thing like that?

Hon. V. J. FERRY: I support the concept of"Bunbury 2000" because I represent that area,

3354

[Thursday, I November 1984] 35

and I am very grateful for what the Governmentcan do down there, but quite frankly, it is notdelivering the goods.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Would you like to tell thatto the South West Development Authority?

Hon. V. J. FERRY: It disappoints me that theGovernment is not able at all to deliver the goodsat the moment. I mentioned the Margaret Riverhospital and the boating facility as examples.

Hon. Kay Hallahan: How long have you neededthem?

Hon. Graham Edwards: Eighteen months!Hon. V. J. FERRY: Mr Deputy President,

(Hon. D. J. Wordsworth) it is marvellous, is itnot? I will not worry about those interjections.The point is that the people in the south-westperceive the 'Bunbury 2000" concept as beingbased solely in Bunbary, and the Government isgetting the cane from many other districts, andindeed regions around Western Australia includ-ing Albany, Geraldion, perhaps the Goldfields,and other places. These people believe the Govern-ment is pouring too much money into Bunburyand their area is being neglected.

I do not mind how much money the Govern-ment is pouring into Bunbury or the province Irepresent. I think it is great. I therefore supportany improvements in that regard. The fact is thatthe Government is more concerned with Bunburyproper and its immediate perimeter than it is withplaces, further afield, and it will pay the price forthat.

I therefore ask the Government to spread itsprovision of amenities more widely to givebalanced development. The south-west does sup-port the City of Bunbury. Without the region it-self, Bunbury city would be nowhere near its cur-rent size or have such importance. The region hasbacked it up, as has the industry and the popu-lation throughout that territory.

The Government needs to widen its eyes a littlebit and to move its sights up to wider horizons anddo a better job.

I support the Budget.HON. 1. C. MEDCALF (Metropolitan) [4.48

p.m.]: I wish to take the time of the House for afew minutes to refer to recent comments whichhave been made by some members of the LawSociety, two Perth barristers, to wit, that the lawwhich prevents defence lawyers from questioningwomen as to their previous sexual experience inrape trials is too restrictive.

The West Australian of 27 October carried anarticle indicating that, at a seminar held in Perthby the Law Society, two lawyers referred to the

fact that the 1976 amendment to the Evidence Acthad placed hardship on the accused person in sex-ual assault or rape trials. The comment was madethat Parliament in 1976, when the law wasamended, had been influenced by a vocal minorityof frustrated women. Indeed, a comment wasmade in the Press that not only were the womenfrustrated; but they also had had some question-able sexual experiences themselves. I must say atthe outset that the law which was amended in1976 was amended for very good reason.

It has been implied in those comments that con-victions have been recorded against accused menbecause they were unable to cross-examine womenabout their previous sexual experience. That maybe true; it may be that some convictions wererecorded in those circumstances. That does notnecessarily mean that the accused were innocent. Iam not referring to any particular case, so I amnot suggesting that any particular people wereguilty or innocent. The fact that they were unableto use this particular evidence and a convictionwas recorded does not necessarily mean the ac-cused were innocent.

It was also said at the seminar that defencecounsel regarded a general attack on a woman'moral virtue as being counter-productive. I con-cede that in many cases that may have been so.However, this still went on, and if anyone whodoubts that it did and that it was flagrantly abusedin many cases, I refer to a report in TheAustralian of I October 1976, about the timethese amendments went through this Parliament.The report is headed "Jiudge slams law in rapecase" and it states-

A JUDGE yesterday criticised the presentsystem of rape trials after hearing a case inwhich the defendants declined to be cross-examined and the victim was subjected tomore than 1 600 questions.

Mr Justice Lee said in the NSW SupremeCourt in Sydney that the victim's sex lifecould be raked over, her reputation madepublic property and her claims attacked not-withstanding the truth of her allegations.

Yet, at the same time, the accused mencould exercise the privilege of refusing cross-exam ination.

The judge made the comments whensentencing three men to prison terms for whathe described as a criminal and cowardly at-tack on a 19-year-old girl.

He said that during a nine-day trial the girlhad been asked nearly I 650 questions andthe men, through their counsel, claimed shewas a liar in asserting she had been attacked.

1355

3356 [COUNCIL]

The article goes on to say the men declined to givesworn evidence themselves. It was also reported inThe West Australian on the same date, that thatsituation has been rectified in this State, but Imention it purely to indicate that the opportunitywas taken in many a rape trial to question awoman mercilessly as to her previous sexual ex-perience with a view to destroying the credibilityof her evidence.

The law prior to 1976 certainly needed somerectification. It permitted a woman claiming tohave been raped to be cross-examined during thetrial, firstly as to her general reputation or moralcharacter, to show she was a prostitute or that herbehaviour was similar to that of a prostitute, alsoas to acts of sexual intercourse between her andthe accused on other occasions, and finally as tosexual intercourse between her and other men.Although she was allowed to call evidence to con-tradict the allegations of her general moralcharacter or that she was a prostitute and had hadprevious sexual intercourse with the accused, shewas debarred from calling evidence to rebut theclaim that she had had sexual intercourse withother men. It was in that last category of beingaccused of having sexual intercourse with othermen that she could not contradict the evidence andit was usually most devastating as far as she wasconcerned. It was most unnecessary as far as thetrial was concerned and most resented by thewomen victims in rape trials.

These questions were allowed on the assumptionthat if she had had prior sexual intercourse withother men it tended to show she would be untruth-ful or unreliable. In other words, it would destroyher credit at the trial. In the United Kingdom areport was produced under the chairmanship ofJustice Heilbron in which it was said that thisassumption that a woman, having had previoussexual intercourse with other men, meant she wasan untruthful or unreliable witness was an anach-ronism, and such cross-examination was no longerneeded in order to protect an innocent man. Itmerely had the effect of distressing the complain-ant and confusing the jury.

In 1976 the State Government decided it wasnecessary to make some changes. The changesreduced the harassment and embarrassment whichwas occasioned to women in these cases-thewomen who were the victims of rape offences. Thechanges also related to other sexual offences be-sides rape, offences such as indecent assault andattempting, conspiring as to procuring indecent oroffences. Both at the committal stage and at trial,a woman's previous sexual experience with personsother than the accused could no longer form part

of the evidence or be subject to cross-examination,unless a judge or magistrate gave leave.

The suggestion that the Government acted be-cause of a vocal minority of frustrated women islaughable. It is true that representations weremade not only in Western Australia, but all overthe English speaking world by women's groupsasking that something should be done about thissituation. The action taken not only here, but inother States, and in the United Kingdom, wastaken out of a real concern for the victims ofbrutal crimes, and that was the sole and basicreason for that action. This was an Australia-widemovement and it also occurred in the UnitedKingdom and that is referred to in the report Imentioned.

The reason for taking action was a realisationthat women ought to be treated more fairly in thefuture-that is, after 1976-than they had been inthe past. It was realised they should be given moreconsideration in those cases, and that the existinglaw was a legacy of past times. Tasmania,Victoria, and South Australia had reports fromtheir law reform bodies at about the same time wewere moving, and we had the benefit of thosereports. Several other States have since legislated;we were about equal first with South Australia inlegislating to amend the Evidence Act and theCriminal Code. The amendments were based onLaw Reform Commission reports of the time.

Law reform bodies all over Australiarecommended that changes should be made to thelaw in order to lessen the likelihood of the com-plainant's being subject to unnecessary harass-ment during the proceedings. This type of evi-dence was considered unnecessary by law reformbodies and judges, who believed it was notrequired for the proper defence of the accused.This was weighed up carefully at the time anddiscussions were held with lawyers in this State.No real objection was raised and it was felt thatthe restrictions were desirable and necessary.

In fact, exceptions were allowed in the legis-lation. It does not mean that under no circum-stances can evidence be given concerning thewoman's previous sexual activities; for example,evidence of her relationship with the accused andprevious sexual acts with him can still be given.There are other circumstances in which evidencecan be adduced, for example, evidence of similarfacts in similar situations, such as where a womanhas intercourse with various members of a bikiegang and one is accused of rape. She may say shedid not consent to the one act of intercourse,although she consented to the others. 4t is clearand proper and permissible then that the evidenceof her acts of intercourse with the other members

3356

[Thursday, I November 1984] 35

of the gang can be given as part of the trial of theone accused.

There are circumstances in which, because ofconsideration of the need to ensure that a person i sindeed guilty before he is judged guilty, this evi-dence may be permitted.

The action takeni at the time was not as a resultof the statements made by various women'sgroups. There was a real consideration for theneed to take some action in the interests of womenwho were being put upon. There is no reason how-ever, that the Law Society if so minded should notlook at this question again. If any parts of this newlaw are in any respect confusing, it would be use-ful for the society to have a look at them but as faras the general principle is concerned, it would be aretrograde step to go back to the old law which Ihave outlined, and one which I believe our com-munity would not tolerate.

HON. GRAHAM EDWARDS (North Metro-politan) [5.00 p.m.]: In speaking to this motion Iwould like to commence by congratulating theTreasurer, Brian Burke, on the presentation of hissecond Budget. I further congratulate him for themanner in which he compiled this Budget. TheTreasurer has shown this State that this Govern-ment does not make autocratic decisions which areisolated and divorced from political responsibility,but that it is a Government that is reflecting afinancial plan based upon and drawn up with com-munity involvement. I refer to the Confederationof Western Australian Industry, the WesternAustralian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,the Primary Industry Association, the Trades andLabor Council of WA, and other organi sationswhich assisted in compiling the Budget in terms oftheir input. It is a credit to the Treasurer that hesought the views of these organisations and trustedthem in giving those views.

I was interested to hear Hon. Phil Lockyer say,when speaking to this motion, that he and GraemeCampbell, the Federal MP for Kalgoorlie, hadtaken a bipartisan approach in connection with anissue they were dealing with in their overlappingState and Federal electorates. It might interest MrLockyer and you, Mr President, to know that thatbipartisan approach is not restricted to thecountry. I sought a similar non-political approachto a vexatious problem of safety; that is, the issueof guarded school crosswalks.

A number of my constituents were quite con-cerned that funding for guarded school crossingswas being rejected because of the lack of fundsand because of the cutbacks by the Government inthis area. That is not true. If my memory servesme correctly, I recall Hon. Phil Pendal quoting in

a local newspaper that that sort of thing washappening. However, when the facts were pointedout to him, he issued a subsequent Press releasepointing out the error that he had made. It iscommendable that politicians are prepared to dothat sort of thing.

Hon. Peter Dowding: Especially Liberal poli-ticians!

Hon. P. G. Pendal: Thank you Mr Edwards, Iappreciate that.

Hon. GRAHAM EDWARDS: I contacted 55primary schools and a number of high schools inmy area to seek their input to a meeting to whichthe Minister was invited. In endeavouring to ob-tain a bipartisan approach I invited not only myown political colleagues to that meeting, but alsomembers of the Opposition. Indeed, a buddingpolitician, a City of Stirling councillor who isseeking election to the Federal Parliament, wasencouraged to attend the meeting and he made aconsiderable input to it.

The current situation in regard to guardedschool crossings is one that the Government hasrelied upon for a number of years-something inthe vicinity of 21 years. However, the situationwas revamped in 1980, and the Government nowrelies upon advice from independent committees.There are two committees involved and one is theschool road safety advisory committee which wasset up in December 1980. Members of that com-mittee comprise representatives of the PoliceForce, the Education Department, WACSSO, theTown Planning Department, and in some in-stances, Westrail.

The second committee is known as the schoolcrossing road safety committee. It is an actioncommittee and is represented by the Police Force,the Main Roads Department, WACSSO, relevantGovernment departments, and again Westrail,where necessary. This committee considers the ap-proval or rejection of applications, but it does notconsider funding in its deliberations. Everyjudgment it makes is made on the ground of merit.

Despite the existence of those committees, thereis still great concern expressed in the communityover this issue, and it is something which hasinterested me for many years. I was very pleasedto call the meeting to which I have referred. TheMinister advised the meeting that the Governmentis prepared to review the whole system, and that ithas appointed an officer from the Police Force ona full-time basis to head that review. InspectorBob Warner will be assisted by members of theState school advisory committee, along with rep-resentatives from the Main Roads Department,the Police Force, the Education Department, and

3357

3358 COUNCIL]

Westrail, where applicable. I believe that Inspec-tor Warner has a great interest in this matter andis looking at a number of innovations which havetaken place in the Eastern States over recentyears.

Some matters which have been looked at in-clude the utilisation of parents and schoolchildrenon a voluntary basis to man crossings that arejudged to be less dangerous than those which aremanned by paid attendants. I wail with some im-patience the outcome and recommendations ofthat review committee. It is an unenviable taskthat the Minister has set for that committee.

I turn my attention now to something which isvery close to my heart and that is the situationwhich confronts disabled persons in the com-munity. It is very encouraging that in recent timesthere has been a greater recognition of the prob-lems experienced by disabled persons and agreater consideration or some of those problems.

I would like to refer to a couple or examples ofthis recognition and consideration. Myer (WA)Stores in Karrinyup and Fremantle will be open-ing on Tuesday 4 December between 6.30 p.m.and 8.30 p.m. specifically to allow disabled per-sons to visit the stores and shop in an environmentwhere they do not have to compete (or parking andwith people. The staff of both these stores will beworking on a voluntary basis and I think it iscommendable that people are prepared to offertheir services on this occasion. Gestures like thisassist disabled people to become part of theChristmas scene and, more importantly, to be-come part of it on an independent and individualbasis. I congratulate and commend Myer and itsstafr on the steps they have taken.

While I am talking about shopping centres, oneof the sore points in relation to disabled persons isthe selfish able-bodied people-the most ignorantpeople of dubious parentage-who persist inparking in disabled parking bays which are clearlymarked and set aside for disabled persons. Dis-abled people use these parking bays for a numberof reasons. Many disabled people, and particularlythose with ambulatory problems, find it extremelydifficult to carry parcels for long distances. That isjust one reason that disabled parking bays areinstalled, providing access to shopping.

I am quite pleased that the Minister for LocalGovernment (Mr Jeff Carr) is undertaking asearch of the Local Government Act, and he isprepared to recommend ways to overcome thisproblem. The people who seem to become mostupset about the practice of pinching these parkingbays are not the disabled persons, but the able-bodied persons. If we want to tackle the problem

and solve it, it must be done with a degree of co-operation on all sides.

Hon. Tom Knight: They could shift the carsaway with a tow truck, because they are illegallyparked on private property; but the stores reel theywill lose customers if they carry that out againsttheir other customers.

Hon. GRAHAM EDWARDS: I do not sub-scribe to the thought that one should be able totow vehicles away because they are illegallyparked. At times, people are disabled temporarily.I would think that a pregnant woman in the laterstages of pregnancy could be regarded as disabled.I would hate to see someone like that finding thather car had been towed away.

An infringement notice is issued, and if the per-son has good reason for parking in the disabledparking bay, but does not have a sticker on thecar, the case can be argued with the local council.1 am not aware of any local authority which hasenforced a penalty or proceeded with a pros-ecution when the person has had good reason forparking in a disabled bay.

I will give a couple more examples in the com-munity of the provision of facilities for disabledpersons- One that springs to mind is the actiontaken by the West Australian Football Leagueprior to the grand final. The football viewing areaused by most disabled persons is very accessible. Ithas a lift and toilets for the disabled. It was ratherunfortunate, though, that in planning this area theleague did not make available any tiered seatingfor disabled persons. The situation arose in whichdisabled persons were sitting in wheelchairs be-hind, and on the same level, as people sitting infront of them, who may well have been taller.Other people, and particularly children, wereoften hidden behind concrete pylons. From time totime they could catch a glimpse of the footballthrough the viewing space made available to them.

This was pointed out to the league and, as I say,I was very pleased when it took action by pullingout the existing seating and making space avail-able for more wheelchairs. That enabled manymore people, and particularly the children wholove football as much as anybody else, to view thegrand final fully. I would think that the facilitiesnow provided by the league are second to none inAustralia. I hope it will not be very long before thepeople at the Western Australian Cricket Associ-ation take heed of the example set by the leagueand follow suit.

One other matter relates to the Orchard Hotel.Members would be aware that, in a time whenunemployment is prime and people have to Com-pete For jobs, it becomes much harder for disabled

3358

[Thursday, I November 19841 35

persons to compete on an equal footing. I ampleased that the Orchard Hotel in Perth, whichwill be completed shortly, has a quota system foremploying disabled persons. A percentage of thestaff is to be made up of disabled people. Thatdoes not mean that, just because one is disabled,one gets a job with that company. However, itmeans that the company provides a greater oppor-tunity for competent disabled persons to find aplace in the company's employment. This isanother creditable example of how some people inthe community like making things easier for dis-abled persons.

I congratulate the Cabinet for its recent de-cision to set up a task force to consider equalopportunity legislation for disabled persons. I ampleased that I will be the convener of the taskforce, the terms of reference of which are as fol-lows-

1. To consult associations and informalgroups of disabled people about equalopportunity legislation on the grounds ofphysical or mental impairment orpsychiatric disorder.

2. To examine comparable legislation fromoverseas and interstate.

3. To establish principles of equality infields such as:(a) Access to buildings.(b) The provision of facilities in work

places.(c) Flexibility of working hours and

organisational practices.(d) Parity in employee benefits.(e) Other matters deemed relevant to

the Working Party.4. To make recommendations to the

Government about the above matters.Some disabled people in the community were dis-appointed that they were not catered for in theEqual Opportunity Bill which recently passedthrough this Parliament. Initially I argued that itshould cater for them; but the problem is a mass-ive one, and it requires a great deal of deliberationand consultation with the people who can best putthat sort of legislation into effect. I have neverbelieved that one solves a problem by legislatingagainst it. Legislation seeking equal opportunitymust have the support of the majority of people,otherwise one is really wasting time.

It is my hope that the legislation to be proposedby the task force will have the support of themajority of the community, and particularly ofemployers. As I have said in this House before,any prospective employer could not go past a dis-

abled person, because generally disabled peopleare much better workers, much more competent,and much keener than the average person. I ampleased that the Government has seen fit to takeup this challenge, and I look forward to dealingwith it.

Another committee with which I have beeninvolved is the one established by the Minister forSport and Recreation (Mr Keith Wilson). Thecommittee was formed to consider professionalboxing in this State. Members might be interestedto know that between about 1976 and 1982, pro-fessional boxing experienced a period of inactivity.A resurgence occurred in the 1980s, and the num-ber of promotions increased rapidly throughout1983 and into 1984. It is unfortunate that, notonly in this State and in this country, but alsoacross the world, more than one faction seems tobe involved in boxing, and faction fights develop.Mr President, as you were involved in the noblesport, you would be aware of that. The environ-ment in which boxing was conducted in this Statecontained a myriad of rumours, innuendos, andfactions, with one faction having a go at anotherfaction.

It was in that context that the referees andjudges amateur association made representationsto Mr Arthur Tonkin (the member for Morley-Swan), who made statements in Parliament andwrote to the Minister for Sport and Recreation in1983 requesting that boxing in this State beinvestigated. The Minister agreed, and the com-mittee was set up.

As chairman of that committee, I was ratherdisappointed to rind that at times a number ofundesirable things happened in boxing in thisState. The committee found it was highly probablethat at times appropriately qualified doctors werenot in attendance at bouts; that necessary medicaland other safety equipment was not available; thatunfit boxers were entering the ring; thatmismatches were occurring; that boxers were al-lowed to fight after consuming quantities of al-cohol; that the standard of fitness of referees andjudges was questionable; that boxers wereencouraged to "take a dive"; sham bouts wereoccurring; and boxers were not being paid theamount of money promised.

The list continues-Boxers were paid in drugs, women and in

kind rather than in dollars.Boxers after being knocked unconscious

were fighting and sparring almostimmediately.

Medical cards and medical histories ofboxers were non existent.

3359

3360 [COUNCIL]

Boxers were not turning up to fight.Boxers were demanding additional pay-

ments immediately before they would enterthe ring,

Publicity and advertising was misleadingespecially with regard to main event boxers.

Heavy gambling involving promoters,trainers and boxers, occurred.

Drugs were involved.Crowd behaviour was unruly with several

ugly scenes occurring, and soon.It was because of the findings of this committeethat re- investigation into that legislation to pro-vide control of professional boxing in WA wasundertaken. It is for that reason that I am nowraising this matter because this will come to theattention of members and it is something I hopethey will look at.

A Western Australian boxing commission willbe established to carry out the functions as deter-mined by the professional boxing legislation, en-force the rules, regulations, and role descriptionsas determined by the Minister, and makerecommendations to the Minister on matterspertaining to professional boxing.

Membership of the Western Australian boxingcommission should comprise the following per-sons-a medical practitioner nominated by theAustralian Medical Association; a member of theWA Police Force senior to the rank of inspector,nominated by the Commissioner of Police, prefer-ably with a knowledge of boxing; a director of theDepartment for Youth, Sport and Recreation orhis nominee; a representative of the boxing frater-nity; and, if necessary, such persons as the Minis-ter thinks fit.

The functions of that commission would be toadvise the Minister on matters relating to pro-fessional boxing, and enforcing the legislation,rules, regulations, and role description as detailedby the Minister, formulating and maintaining therules and regulations under which all professionalboxing bouts, exhibitions or tournaments must bestaged, and shall include, most importantly, theissuing of licences and permits; the allocation ofjudges and referees; the monitoring andadministration of all bouts, exhibitions; and tour-naments; establishing proper penalties for miscon-duct, rule violation, and so on. The boxing com-mission would also be responsible for the establish-ment of all medical requirements and medicalexaminations as they are deemed necessary.

Further recommendations suggest that the box-ing commission would formulate and maintain oneset of rules for professional boxing in WA and to

that aim a person from Bunbury by the name ofBill Ivory who has had much experience in box-ing-members may know him; he is probably oneof the most respected persons in this field inWA-was approached by us to draw up a set ofrules under which all professional bouts should beheld. It was further suggested that before anyprofessional bout could be staged, the promoterswould need to seek a permit from the boxing com-mission. It is further suggested that all personsrequiring specialist expertise, who are involved instaging professional boxing bouts, exhibitions, ortournaments and who hold the appropriate qualifi-cations as established by the boxing committee,will be eligible for any licence. Such persons wouldinclude the referees, judges, trainers, monitors,time-keepers, matchmakers, and others.

Another issue which falls within the terms ofthe report and which I want to briefly discuss isthe matter raised by Mr Lockyer in this Housesome time ago when he expressed concern that theboxing commission may prevent the staging ofboxing bouts on licensed premises. I assured MrLockyer at that stage that the task force had nopreconceived ideas, but would look at the matterclosely. The recommendation is that no venueshould be automatically excluded from stagingprofessional boxing bouts, exhibitions, or tourna-ments. That is notwithstanding the fact that thecommission generally felt that hotels did not pro-vide the most conducive environment in which tostage professional boxing due mainly to the behav-iour of the crowd before, during, and after theboxing tournament. Alcohol also is an integralpart of the boxing environment, and few alterna-tive venues were available in which to stage pro-fessional boxing. Some hotels pay for professionalboxing to be staged on their premises, while pro-moters must outlay fairly large sums of money tohire alternative venues.

Crowd control is a key issue in relation to venue.It was seen that while the hotels did not providethe best environment, it was not considered thatthey should be automatically excluded. The issueof control over boxing is an important one wherethose bouts are staged in a hotel or in some otherarea. The majority of people involved in pro-fessional boxing in this State are good, honest,hard-working people, who are dedicated to theirprofessions. It is very important that we accept therecommendations of the report so that boxing isnot only honest in fact, but is seen to be an honestgame for those people who really do have anhonest, open, hard-working, and dedicated ap-proach to the sport.

I seek leave to table this report.

3360

[Thursday, I November 1984]136

Leave granted.The report was tabled (see paper No. 253).

Debate ResumedHon. GRAHAM EDWARDS: I thank the

House for its indulgence and draw the attention ofmembers to the issues I have raised. I would behappy to discuss these matters at any stage, ifmembers have any problems, once they have readthe report.

I support the Bill and in doing so comnmend thePremier and his team for the magnificent moneymanagement and Budget they have been able tocome up with in the last 12 months.

HON. C. J. BELL (Lower West) [5.31 p.m.]:Before I commence my comments on the Budget, Iwould like to commend Graham Edwards for thteissue he has raised about the disabled. I believethere is a growing awareness in our communityabout the problems disabled people face in movingabout our community in an acceptable manner. Ican assure the member that as far as I am con-cerned he will receive all the support I can give toensure, as far as possible, that these people are notdisadvantaged unduly.

I must say that 1, like Mr Knight, become veryangry when I see able-bodied people parking theircars in an area reserved for disabled persons. Ithink that shows gross ignorance, butunfortunately there is very little we can do tocontrol that sort of behaviour. I assure the mem-ber he has my support and I am sure the supportof the members on this side of the House as well.

Hon. Graham Edwards: I appreciate your com-ments.

Hon. C. J. BELL: I would like to refer to someareas which concern me and which are containedwithin the Budget. I would like to refer to the areaof Mandurah and the problems which face thatregion.

There is no doubt that Mandurah has somesubstantial problems to overcome. It is undoubt-edly a major recreational area for the People ofWestern Australia, but it has some real problemswhich have to be faced up to. I applaud theGovernment for setting aside money for the en-vironmental study of the Dawesville-cut proposal.However, it will take at least two years before anywater comes into the estuary and there are someaspects of that area which need immediate atten-tion.

The mouth of the Mandurah estuary has alwayshad problems with silting up. The sum of$200 000 has been provided in the Budget for theMandurah entrance channel. There will ultimatelyhave to be an entrance to the Mandurah estuary,

regardless of whether the Dawesville cut proceeds.Several factors need to be borne in mind with thatentrance channel, because it will need to be of acertain depth and a safe navigable channel.

One of Mandurah's hopes is that when the 1987defence of the America's Cup is held, a challengewill be based from Mandurah. That will meanthat it is essential that a channel be provided intothat estuary to enable it to take a 12-metre yacht.That can only be done on the basis of providing apermanent entrance, of the required depth, re-gardless of what other problems need to be faced.

A hydrological survey of the area a couple ofyears ago clearly indicated that there are tworestricting factors in the exchange of water be-tween the Mandurah estuary and the ocean. Oneis a bar and the other is the Sticks Channel. Thereis a necessity for a permanent entrance of areasonable depth in that area. It is my belief thatthere is a need for a permanent opening of the barand a programme for the dredging of the channelsin the estuary to ensure that the water exchange ismaximised, to the benefit of the estuary. It will notsolve the problem, but it would be a significantstep forward. I think it will be done eventually,regardless of whether the Dawesville cut is made.

The use of coastal superphosphate for thefarmland surrounding that area has beenrecommended. A survey which was conducted re-cently indicated that only 60 per cent of thefarmers in the area used some of the coastalsuperphosphate and suggested that most of thefertiliser used is of the new variety.

Farmers are a conservative group and musthave a very good reason to change their farmingpractices. Farmers have always battled to have adollar to spend and have always invested theirmoney back into their farms. They rarely live rich.They do not change their farming practices unlessthey are sure that the new practice is the right andproper one and will not have a detrimental effecton their farms.

I think the Government should have ensuredthat the new superphosphate was no dearer pertonne. I have heard the statement that the farmerswill not use as much superphosphate, therefore itwill cost less per hectare to fertilise.

That does not wash among many of the farmers.

With a better exchange at the entrance of theestuary and the Dawesville cut, we would see abeneficial effect on the surrounding area. I thinkthere is grave concern amongst some of the peoplein the area that the Dawesville cut will specifi-

(106)

3361

3362 [COUNCIL]

cally alter the environment and change the marinepopulation which currently lives in the Peel andHarvey Inlets. I do not know whether that is true,but undoubtedly the $900 000 budgeted for by theGovernment will help come up with some answers,and some decisions will be made for the com-munity.

I will now talk about several other aspects of theMandurah area. I am pleased to see that theGlencoe Primary School had been allocated$ 180 000 for further buildings in the school. I wasspeaking to the headmaster the other day, andwhile he was very happy for that money to bespent at his school, there are several other head-masters in the area who are not so happy.

In the southern areas of Mandurah there needsto be planning now to site an additional primaryschool in the new developing areas because thepopulation is growing rapidly. Very large numbersof young families with young children are movinginto the area and if we do not plan now we will becaught with the problem of an over-populatedschool, and will end up destroying the very goodenvironment that currently exists at the Glencoeschool.

Whilst on the subject of education I would liketo move on to two other schools in my electorate.Unfortunately the report is not nearly as good.The Waroona Primary School has been an area ofconcern and need for a long time. I believe thatmy predecessor, the lHon. Neil McNeill,' when hewas in this place, sought and had reached agree-ment for that school to be re-established on a newsite. It still has not happened, and the parties arearguing about the value of a block of land. It is atown block and I understand the site is being soldfor $25 000. It has been claimed that that is toomuch. The land adjoins the community rec-reational areas. It is quite farcical to be arguingabout a few dollars. I think a cost of $25 000 forfive or six acres in a town area adjoining rec-reational areas-a fact which will minimise thecost to the Public Works Department by providingrecreational facilities necessary for a modernschool-seems quite reasonable. When next year'sBudget is to be drawn up I ask that some attentionbe given to this matter because it has been a long-running saga. I almost despair of it and wonderhow long the Waroona people will wait. I thinkHon. Lyla Elliott probably attended that school,and it has not altered much since that time.

The Pinjarra Senior High School is anotherproblem area. Its current enrolment is 530students. It was approved for renovations and ad-ditions some three or four years ago. No moneyhas been spent in the last two Budgets, of which Iam aware, and I believe the year before no money

was spent. There are a number of temporarybuildings which are in a poor state of repair. Thatis unsatisfactory. They are hot in the summer andcold in winter, and basically in poor condition.

The administration buildings at Pinjarra SeniorHigh School are, on my information, dilapidatedand very unsuitable. The whole school needsrebuilding. The current buildings have problemswith traffic noise, and unless that problem isresolved, that will undoubtedly reflect on theability of the staff to perform their task properly.The deputy headmistress has indicated to theShire of Murray that the facility itself and theequipment provided for business studies is so badthat she could not in any way recommend thestudents she turns out to enter into competitionwith those from other schools who are so muchbetter equipped. Urgent attention is required forthat building because if we keep on as we are,handicapping these students at that school, thenwe are condemning them to a disadvantage in themarketplace when they face up to the day whenthey need lo go out into the work force and earn aliving.

The Boddington school has its particular prob-lems and is due for major renovations or newbuildings in a couple of years. The problem is thevery limited area of land around it. TheBoddington community is a very interesting one inthat it is traditionally a farming area which hashad an influx of mining people. Those people havetraditionally lived in an urban type communityand they are not prepared to accept the oldcountry school concept. They expect the standardof facilities for education to be up to those in themetropolitan area or in a major regional centre.There have been a lot of new houses built in thetown and Boddington is becoming a very attract-ive place to visit. Any members who are proceed-ing south down Albany Highway may like to devi-ate into Boddington and have a look. It is, as Isaid, a very attractive spot, and motorists are ableto come out through the Williams end after apleasant jaunt through the site at the northern endof the conveyor belt which feeds Worsicy in thenear vicinity, a refinery which is a very majorfacility.

There are proposed goldmines in the area, andmost people are not aware of that. Also, majordrilling is being carried out for that purpose.

I was very pleased to see in the Budget a sum ofmoney for improvement to the Boddington watersupply. It is a town which has outgrown the ori-ginal concept. Suddenly this small rural com-munity has burgeoned out and it has a muchgreater need than formerly for money to beallocated to it to ensure that the town has an

3362

[Thursday, I November 19841 36

adequate water supply. I do not intend to talk anymore about that aspect. I now intend to go on to acouple of other issues.

Perhaps I can start by voicing one of my criti-cisms of the Budget. In the paper entitled"Supplement to Loan Estimates Speech"presented by the Premier there is a section headed"Quarry Joint Venture", It states-

During 1983-84, Westrail and Quarry In-dustries Ltd agreed to establish a jointlyowned company-Western Quarries PlyLtd-for the purpose or quarrying stone inthe Avon Valley and transporting the productby rail to a distribution depot at Kewdale. Anamount of $3.4 million has been provided forthis project this year.

I can see no reason whatsoever for public money tobe expended on a project such as this. It is anabsolute waste and I will repeat that statementagain and again. To put another quarry in themetropolitan area is an absolute waste of the tax-payers' money. We currently have three majorcompanies operating. We have an oversupply ofcapacity, and it seems to me that someone musthave decided it was a good idea. There appears tobe no logical reason for it. The figure I have hadquoted to me is of a $3.4 million cash expenditure.A further sum of money will be spent in the work-shops converting the old Koolyanobbing wagons tohandle this product. Thai is fine. I guess the work-shops need to be kept working, but it should havebeen costed into the system.

Hon. Fred McKenzie: What else would youhave done with it?

Hon. C. J. BELL: I suppose they could carryMr Gayfer's record grain crop.

Hon. Fred McKenzie: They tell me that is im-practical.

Hon. C. J. BELL: It seems to me that when wecan spend $3.4 million in cash, plus a verysubstantial amount of money that is included indepartmental expenditure on the workshops to getback to the figures we have had of $2.7 millionover five years. it appears to be an extremely poorjob. I continue to quote from the same documentto make the point-

As well as providing an opportunity for aprofitable return on the capital invested sig-nificant traffic will be directed to rail, withadditional financial returns. The transporttask will be performed by a standard guageunit train operation. Initially, twenty bottomdischarge wagons...

Western Quarries Pty Ltd will be the solesupplier of concrete aggregate in the metro-

politan area to Adelaide Quarry IndustriesLtd...

That worries me. The interpretation I place on it isthat the supply of that product will not be openfor competition.

In the metropolitan area today we have asubstantial number of quarries. I have a letterhere which I will table, if required, which is inresponse to my approaches to some of the otherquarry operators in the area to determine the situ-ation. It is addressed to me and reads-

Further to your telephone requests, wehave read the ERMP for the ToodyayQuarry, August 1984, together with thePremier's comments contained in the Sup-plement to Loans Estimates Speech concern-ing a quarry joint venture.

We were initially hesitant in making anypublic comment on a proposal from a com-petitor, but as there are several significanterrors in the ERMP we feel obliged to re-spond.

The principal error in the ERMP is in thevital section 2.1 "Reserves and Demand". Itis stated that the justification for a newquarry is that

"Although most of the existingquarries appear to have large reserves ofsuitable rock, the operators still need toensure that long-term reserves are ac-cessible and capable of being extractedeconomically. The recent negotiations bythe Readymix Group to secure ad-ditional reserves at Goisnells (B. J.O'Brien and Associates 1982) arc oneexample of this concern."

Our recent negotiations were not to secure"additional reserves at Gosnells" but ratherto ensure a more coherent arrangement oflong-term planning or land use at Gosniells asour ERMP (May 1982) made clear. We havereserves which will suffice for over 100 yearsalthough naturally, in the ERMP, weconcentrated on the initial 20 years dividedinto 5-year planning intervals.

I have contacted our colleagues responsiblefor major quarries in the metropolitan areaand find that they consider they have reservesin hand sufficient for the following yearsbased on their average off-take for the lastten years:

Herne Hill-over 100 years

Maddington-40-50 years

Byford-over I50 years

3363

3364 [COUNCIL]

Plus:Readymix Gosnells-more than 100yearsReadymix Hullsbrook-over 100years

Therefore it is quite clear that with thesereserves and with the potential use of ourBullsbrook quarry (which is licensed but notyet used) the claims repeatedly made in Sec-tion 2.1 of the Toodyay Quarry ERMP arequite in error.

Page 9 of the ERMP states that "Theexistence of this (i.e. Toodyay) operationcould reduce the pressure to develop newquarries in the sensitive Darling Scarp area".You will see from the discussion above thatthere is in fact no such pressure to developnew quarries other than those already li-censed and we fear that this appeal to theemotions is quite misplaced.

Furthermore, the Toodyay Quarry ERMPhas correctly pointed out that the aggregatedemand in the Perth region has stagnated inrecent years (page 6) requiring a throughputof about 2 million tonne per annum. We,therefore, fail to see how in such a relativelystagnant market a case can be made to openup yet another quarry other than thosealready licensed, particularly one in thescenic confines of the Avon valley. Table 2.1of the ERMP compares the number ofquarries in Perth with those in other citiesand in some curious way concludes that Perthrequires more quarries. This is as meaninglessa comparison as it would be if we pointed outto you that there are about 30 licensedquarries operating in the rest of WesternAustralia versus 3 just for the central popu-lation of Perth.

With regard to the Premier's budgetspeech, we as a company are perturbed tolearn that the Westrail-Quarry Industriesjoint venture-Western Quarries Pty.Ltd-will "provide Westrails track ballastrequirements in the metropolitan and sur-rounding country areas" without the currentoperators and supipliers of this demand forover 25 years having the opportunity to com-petitively tender for this public-funded re-quirement. We are keen to learn the defi-nition of "surrounding country areas" as we,as a company, have invested heavily in thebusiness of contract crushing in order to con-tinue providing rail ballast throughout thecountry areas of Western Australia, as wehave done for over 20 years.

I trust this answers your queries. Shouldyou require any further information do nothesitate to contact me direct.

Yours faithfully,

Signed

G. J. Greig

General Manager

That clearly illustrates a real concern for the ex-penditure of public moneys.

There is a market for two million tonnes ofaggregate in the metropolitan area per annum,suggesting that this new quarry will have athroughput of 200 000 tonnes to 400 000 tonnesper annum. That is a significant segment of themetropolitan market. It means some of the pro-duction is not forthcoming; it will mean a lay-offof staff, because one does not keep that sort ofstaff if one is not getting production, oralternatively there must be an additional market.

The essential principle ought to be that noGovernment should be involved in privateenterprise where there is sufficient competition. Ibelieve that situation applies in the supply of roadmetals and road ballast in the metropolitan area.

I will now touch, in the few remaining minutes,on one other aspect which I would like to draw tothe attention of the House, and that is agriculturaleducation. It has been of considerable concern tome over a long period of time that agriculturaleducation in Western Australia is going back-wards-and I really mean going backwards. It isquite a disaster.

There is a very real need to ensure that thepeople who enter the agricultural industry aretrained at the appropriate levels. We do not havethe facilities in Western Australia to do that job.It is really a disaster area. If the same applied tothe trade skills-Mr McKenzie is well-aware ofthe position in Midland Workshop and otherareas-there would be a huge difficulty. Butagriculture is such a diverse area that it is not co-ordinated. Nobody seems to be able to get hold ofit and understand it.

Take the Muresk Agricultural College. Manypeople think it provides all our needs.Unfortunately that is not true. I remember Hon.Mark Nevill making some comments with regardto some significant alterations at WAIT. It is atragedy, but the current administrative structureis such that Muresk is a division of the engineeringfaculty at WAIT. That is the significance at-tached to agriculture in this State. It has no separ-ate standing, no autonomy as such. In fact Iunderstand the attention it receives is so minimal

3364

[Thursday, 1 November I1984j 36

that it puts tremendous pressure on the college,even to the point where it is not fulfilling a need.

I understand the proposal is that the entry stan-dards are raised to a 270 aggregate of the leavingmarks. This effectively eliminates 70 per cent ofthe applicants.

The other aspect is: What is Murcsk doing?Some 30 per cent of Muresk students are doing anequine course-horses. It seems to me that is notreally what we are on about. The situation as faras agriculture in Western Australia is concerned isthat we have agricultural education at highschools. The schools do an excellent job within alimited capacity, providing introductory coursesfor agricultural education. But that is not thepoint which really needs to be addressed. Thereare three levels in agricultural education whichmust be addressed.

Firstly, there is a need to ensure that we havetrained technicians in the industry-that is to sayoperators in the field to learn to handle the ma-chines, understand what they are doing, and knowwhat the industry is about. They have a skilled jobto perform nowadays. They have headers worth$160 000 or $180 000 to operate.

They need to understand machinery. They needto understand what they are doing when they gointo a paddock of grain or deal with any otheragricultural commodity. We also need the practi-cal management level of farming. Managers andowners need to have different skills which enablethem to understand, in the modern business world,how to cope with a business structure which mayhave an annual income in excess of $1 million.

The practical farm management level is an es-sential part of agriculture and needs to beaddressed. No institution in this State caters forthat need and it is essential that that problem isaddressed.

On the third level of agricultural education wehave Muresk college which trains people to thelevel of professional agricultural adviser, whetherfor banks, Government departments, or to giveprofessional agricultural advice in other areas.Muresk college does that to a limited degree.

I draw the attention of the House to theVictorian situation and I quote from the VictorianCollege of Agriculture and Horticulture direc-tory of courses for 1984. If we could Find anythinglike this in Western Australia I would be verypleased. The directory of courses reads as fol-lows-

ADVANCED EDUCATION

Diploma of Applied Science (Agriculture)Diploma of Applied Science(Horticulture)-Amenity

Diploma of Applied Science(Horticulture)-Food Prod'nAss. Diploma in Farming ManagementAss. Diploma in Horse Management

TECHNICAL & FURTHER EDUCATION

Diploma of Dairy Technology (follows Cert.of Dairy Mfr.)Middle Level Certificates

Certificate of Dairy TechnologyCertificate in FarmingCertificate or Business Studies (Ag.ric. Sec-retary)Certificate of Horticultural Studies

Middle Level Further Certificates:

Further Certificate in Farming* Dairy Farm Management*. Beef Management

-* Sheep Management-Pastoral Management-Cropping & Grazing Management-* Farm Financial Management-Pig Management

further Certificate in Recreational TurfManagementFurther Certificate in Landscape Technology

Special Purpose Courses:

Farm Machinery Operation & MaintenanceSafe Use & Handling of Explosives inAgricultureArtificial Insemination of Sheep & CattleBeekeeping

Special Purpose Short Courses:

A wide range of highly specialized courses.

That is the sort of curriculum which we require foragricultural education in this State. I would like tosee our Government take up the challenge andmeet the need in that Field. If it does so, it will beproviding a service for an industry which is desper-ately in need of assistance. The agricultural indus-try has a high income producing capacity in thisState and its educational requirements should bemet.

I have a couple of other hobby horses on which Ishall undoubtedly get an opportunity to speak at alater date. However, I wanted to make thosepoints that, while the Budget has addressed some

3365

3366 [COUNCIL]~

of the problems which I perceive, there are manyothers which need to be examined. I urge theGovernment to take these matters into consider-ation in the forthcoming year to ensure that theseissues are addressed for the long-term benefit ofour State.

1 support the Bill.

Debate adjourned, on motion by Hon. NeilOliver.

House adjourned a: 16.05 p.m.

[Thursday, 1 November 1984] 36

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

ZOOLOGICAL GARDENSGreat Cats Appeal

367. Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH, to theAttorney General representing the Treasurer:(1) When was the appeal to build the new

accommodation for the Great Cats at theZoological Gardens launched?

(2) Did the Government of the day committhe Treasury to support the project?

(3) If so, on what grounds?(4) What public response by way of do-

nations, goods or services have beenforthcoming in each half year since theappeal opened?

(5) Who is the current chairman since thedeath of Sir Arthur Griffith?

(6) Who is on the committee?(7) What are the current activities to raise

funds?(8) When is the project expected to be

completed?(9) What is the Government's policy as to

supporting this and other capital worksat the zoo?

Hon. J. M. BERINSON replied:

(1)(2)

20 August 1982.The Government agreed to match pri-vate contributions on a S-for-S basis upto a total State contribution of $250 000.As a resutt of a shortfall in the publicsubscription the State's contribution wasincreased to $280 000.

(3) Government support was given in view ofthe significance of the project and thevalue of the zoo to the community.

(4) It is not possible to determine the timingof the receipt of donated goods and ser-vices other than to say they were allreceived in 1983-84. Should the memberspecifically require details of cash re-ceipts on a six monthly basis the infor-mation could be provided at a later date.The following public contributions havebeen received-

(5)(6)

Year ended 30-6-83 S93 800Year ended 30-6-84 $146 900

Mr W. L. Grayden, M.L.A.

Messrs D. W. Bibby, W. Boland, W. L.Grayden, W. N. Morrison, C. R. New, i.A. Roberts, Sir Kenneth J. Townsing,Messrs R. H. C. Turner, D. Whitely.

(7) It is expected that the $10 000 stillrequired for the project will be raised byway of public donations.

(8) The complex has been completed andwill be opened by the Minister for Landsand Surveys on 17 November I1984.

(9) An undertaking to provide $t millionover the financial years 1982-83-1984-85 was met this year by the provision of$300 000 for capital works. The needs offuture capital works will be subject tonormal budgetary processes.

369. Postponed.

LAND

NatiionalI Parks: YalIgoo

370. Hon. C. J. BELL, to the Attorney Generalrepresenting the Minister for theEnvironment:

(1) Are there current proposals to re-ar-range the northern end boundaries of theYalgorup National Park south ofMandurah?

(2) If so-

(a) what are the names of the landowners involved; and

(b) what area is involved from eachland owner?

Hon. 3. M. BERINSON replied:(1) Yes. Through Mandurah Town Planning

Scheme No. I I which was gazetted 5October 1984, and which has beennegotiated over a number of years be-tween the National Parks Authority,Town Planning Board, Department ofConservation and Environment, theShire of Mandurab, and privately com-missioned consultants, part of the north-eastern boundary of Yalgorup NationalPark is proposed to be rationalised by anexchange of land between the Authorityand private landholders.

This exchange is being co-ordinated bythe Lands and Surveys Department, andwill depend on Parliamentary approval.

(2) (a) and (b) The National Parks Auth-ority does not possess this infor-mation as it has dealt only with theTown Planning Board, otherGovernment departments and therepresentatives of all owners withinscheme No. I1I.

3367

3368 [COUNCIL]

It is understood that the Lands De-partment is surveying the area orthe proposed exchange.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: LEGISLATIVEREVIEW AND ADVISORY COMM ITTEE

Reports371. Hon. P. H. WELLS, to the Attorney

General representing the Minister for LocalGovernment:

(1) Has the Minister seen a copy of the fol-lowing Legislative Review and AdvisoryCommittee reports-

(a) report No. 5 Town of EastFremantle; and

(b) report No. 6 Shire of Wanneroo?

(2) What action has he taken in relation toeach of the above reports?

(3) What action is he going to take in re-lation to each of the reports?

Hon. J. M. BERINSON replied:

(1) to (3) 1 am advised that the Minister forLocal Government has not yet had thesematters drawn to his attention, nor to theattention of his department.

Steps have been put in hand today toobtain sight of the reports and the ques-tions posed will then be addressed.

372 to 375. Postponed.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE

PUDLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Architectural Division

150. Hon. G. E. MASTERS, to the Minister forEmployment and Training:

Is the Minister involved in the reorganis-ation of the architectural division of thePublic Works Department?

Hon. PETER DOWDING replied:

No.

PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

Architectural Division

151. Hon. G. E. MASTERS, to the Minister forEmployment and Training:

In the event of some of the architecturaldivision work force of the Public WorksDepartment losing their jobs, which isquite possible, will the Minister then be-come involved?

Hon. PETER DOWDING replied:The decision which has been taken byGovernment is that there should be asection involved in the restructuring ofthe architectural division of the PublicWorks Department, a section which willcentre on redeployment and retraining.To the extent that the activities of thatsection can be assisted by mydepartment, it certainly will be.

3368