Land Tax [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1759

1Jltgislatiut Cltnuutil. Tuesday, October 26, 1971.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett) took the chair at 4.54 p.m., and read the prayer.

HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR.

BIRTHDAY GREETINGS. The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W.

Garrett).-As most honorable mem­bers are aware, yesterday was the birthday of His Excellency the Gov­ernor. On behalf of members and officers of this Chamber, I wrote His Excellency a letter to which he was pleased to reply this morning. His Excellency WI"ote-

My dear Mr. President,

Government House, Melbourne 3004.

26th October, 1971.

Thank you, the members and the officers of the Legislative Council for your good wishes which you sent me by letter and gave me in person yesterday.

I have given your message to my wife and we are touched by your kind thought.

Yours sincerely, ROHAN DELACOMBE.

ABORIGINAL LANDS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

This Bill was received from the Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works), was read a first time.

WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister f'Or State Development), was read a first time.

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF' AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN

DISTRICT INCORPORATION BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly. The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W.

Garrett).-I have examined this Bill, and I am of the opinion that it is a private Bill.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-In an­other place, this Bill was ruled to be a private Bill but was treated as a public Bill. I propose that the' same procedure shall be adopted in this House. Therefore, I move-

That this Bill be dealt with as a public Bill.

The motion was agreed to. On the ·motion of the Hon.

MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Pub­lic Works), the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

LAND TAX BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture), was read a first time.

JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT. MONASH UNIVERSITY: COUNCIL

VACANCIES. The President announced that a

message had been received from the Legislative Assembly acquainting the Legislative Council that the Legis­lative Assembly have agreed to meet the Legislative Council for the pur­pose of sitting and voting together to choose three members of the Parlia­men t of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University, and, as re­quested by the Legislative Council to name the place and time of such meeting, name the Legislative As­sembly Chamber at a quarter-past Six o'clock on Tuesday, 26th October, 1971, as the place and time of such meeting.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. ANNUAL REPORTS.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) asked the Minister of Agriculture-

(a) How many departmental repo!rts, -indicating the departments concerned, are outstanding for the years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71, respectively?

(b) What action has been taken to obtain reports in the cases of those out­standing for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70?

1760 Questions [COUNCIL.] on Notice.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-Prepara­tion of the information requested by Mr. Tripovich will entail a great deal of investigation. The investigations are under way and I shall advise the honorable member of the result as early as possible.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province).-By leave, I register my strongest objection that these reports are not yet available when they should be. It is a censure of the Government that I should have to make this statement.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture).-By leave, I understand that many of these reports have been finalized by the departments but it is necessary for them to be submitted to the Auditor­General and then be printed.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-But I am asking about reports for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70, and many reports for those two years are out­standing.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-I have given the honorable member the answer as I know it as a result of inquiries which I caused to be made prior to the question being asked. I have explained why the reports are not available.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-By leave, I do not want to castigate the Leader of the House, but I am highly critical of the fact that the information is not available and that the only way in which honorable members can have access to it is to go to the department and seek it out. This is not right.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. NORTHERN SUBURBS: TEACHER

VACANCIES. The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta

Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) How many vacancies for teachers (and for what subjects) exist at each of

the high schools in the Doutta Galla Pro­vince and when is it likely that all will be filled?

(b) Why are schools in northern suburbs at a disadvantage compared with schools in the southern suburbs?

(c) Why are teachers loath to include northern suburbs in their list of priorities?

(d) What action is proposed to ensure that the needs of pupils in the northern suburbs are properly considered and catered for?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works).-The answers are detailed, and I seek leave of the House to have them incorporated in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave was granted, and the answers were as folbws:-

(a)

Broadmeadows High School Nil Brunswick High School .. ·7 Geography/History Buckley Park High School.. Nil Essendon High School . . Nil Fawkner High School .. 1 General studies.l Commerce

. 5 Science/Maths Fitzroy High School .. Nil Glenroy High School . . 1 Art Hadfield High School . . . 6 Commerce. 1 Art/

Needlework Lalor High School . . . 7 Maths Oak Park High School . . 1 General studies/Art Princes Hill High School .. ·5 General studies, . 5 Boys

physical education Strathmore High School . . . 6 English. . 2 Boys physical

education University High School .. Nil Upfield High School . . 1 Music. 1 Girls physical

education Brunswick Girls High School Nil

It is not possible to forecast when it is likely that all will be filled.

(b) and (c) Teachers who live 'in the eastern or southern suburbs face difficulties in travel to the schools in the northern and western suburbs. They therefore place these schools low on the list of priorities for promotion and may omit them altogether when seeking transfer. It should be noted that not all schools in the northern suburbs are equally disadvantaged lin this regard. Actually some schools in the northern suburbs are more liberally staffed than some schools in other areas.

(d) The needs of pupils are already pro­perly considered and catered for equally with those of all other pupils. Suitably qualified teachers who are willing to go to these schools are appointed whenever available.

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1761

PRIMARY TEACHERS' COLLEGES.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

What sums have been, or will be, allocated for the construction of new build­ings at each of the Education Department's primary teachers' colleges during the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, respectively, specifying which amounts have been provided by the State and Commonwealth Governments, respectively?

The Hon. (Minister of answer is-

MURRAY BYRNE Public Works) .-The

In January, 1970, after an intensive survey of present and future school populations and the present and future places needed

College

Secondary Teachers College-Science education ..

Melbourne Teachers College­Library and resource centre Art centre .. ., Humanities building .. Student union ..

Technical Teachers College­Complete building

Coburg Teachers College­Extensions. stage 2 Extensions. final

Monash Teachers College­Physical education centre Extensions. stage 2 Extensions. Final Hall of residence ..

Burwood Teachers College­Extensions. stage 2 Extensions. final Library and union ..

Frankston Teachers College­Extensions. stage 2 Extensions. final Hall of residence ..

La Trobe Teachers College-Stage 1 .. .. ., Stage 2 .. .. ..

Home Economics Teachers College-Extensions . . . .

Ballarat Teachers College­Hall of residence Extensions. stage 2 ..

Bendigo Teachers College­Extensions. stage 2 Hall of residence ..

Geelong Teachers College­Hall of residence Extensions. stage 2 ..

Glendonald Teachers College­Extensions. stage 2 ..

Toorak Teachers College­Extensions. final

General Expenditure-All teachers' colleges

Totals ..

Triennium 1967-70

Common· wealth 2'10

1'70

0'21

0'04

4·05

$m.

State

0'60

0·55

t'15

in teachers' colleges to prepare the teachers for these predicted school populations, a comprehensive building programme was prepared and announced by the Minister of Education. The programme and the actual or proposed expenditure to June 30th, 1973, is outlined below. Figures are rounded. The crosses indicate when a building is planned for which finance has not yet been allotted.

As the programme referred to is in tabular form, I seekJ leave of the House for its incorporation in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave was granted, and the pro­gramme was as follows:-

Triennium 1970-73

$m.

Common­wealth 0'50

0'15

0'90

1'90

1'50 1'00

1'50

t '00

10'80

State

0·10

0·90

0·10

0·20

0·65

x

1'00

0·55

3·50

Triennium 1973-76

$m.

Common­wealth

x

1'50 x

0·50 x

x

orx

'50 2·00

1·00 x

·50 2·00

t ·00

10·00

State

Triennium 1976-79

$m.

x x

or x

x x

or x

or x x

or x x

x

The figures of S4·05m. and SI0·8Om. equal the total amount made or to be made available in the two triennia 1968-70 and 1970-73. namely SI4·85m. which will be spent: At this stage. half of SI4·85m. has been spent.

The completion of the total programme will require the continuation of the States Grants (Teachers Colleges) Acts into the 1973-76 and 1976-79 triennia, and the continuation of the appropriation of State Loan Funds bOth at least at the curren level.

1'762 Questions [COUNCIL.] on Notice.

STAFFING OF HIGH SCHOOLS.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) Will the Education Department take steps to enable the secondary classifiers to staff high schools on anticipated rather than confirmed enrolments?

(b) Why are confirmed enrolments used for future staffing plans?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answers are-

(a) The Education Department has not the necessary authority in this matter. The Committee of Classifiers is governed by the regulations made by the Teachers Tribunal.

(b) Confirmed enrolments are not used for fUlture staffing plans, only for determin­ing the numbers of teachers in the respective classes.

SWAN HILL HIGH SCHOOL.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (North­Western Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

In view of the need for improved per­manent accommodation at the Swan HilI High School-(i) what are the Education Department's plans for new and permanent buildings other than portable class-rooms; and (ii) when will such a building pro­gramme be undertaken?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

(i) and (li) The Education Department has had discussions with Swan Hill High School on the nature of extensions. As proposed prior to the closure of the local Catholic secondary school, the block would have contained sufficient class-rooms to enable substandard rooms to be not used for class work and to accommodate the school in permanent quarters. This block's size will now be reviewed to consider the effect of the additional enrolment. Such a block would be placed so that room is avail­able for future siting of a Commonwealth grants library.

In addition, further negotiation is being undertaken to establish the best procedures to provide better conditions for staff and administration in the school. It is hoped that these projects can be undertaken in the 1972-73 financial year.

HIGH SCHOOLS: SENIOR TEACHING POSITIONS.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) How many senior teacher positions in high schools are unfilled for 1972?

(b) At which schools are these positions unfilled?

(c) What does the Education Department plan to do about this problem?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-As the answers are detailed, I seek leave of the House to have them incorporated in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave was granted, and the answers were as follows:-

(a) 51.

(b) Alexandra High School Avondale Heights High School Bairnsdale High School Ballarat Girls High School Banyule High School-Birchip High School Brunswick High School Brunswick Girls High School Buckley Park High School Canterbury Girls High School Dandenong Girls High School Dimboola High School Doveton High School Flemington Girls High School­Footscray Girls High School­Glenroy High School Hawkesdale High School Highett High School Hopetoun High School Koo-Wee-Rup High School Lakeside High School Laverton High School­Maribyrnong High School-­Moe High School-Mortlake High School Morwell High School Murrayville High School Newborough High School Ouyen High School-Ringwood High School St. Albans High School Sea Lake High School Shepparton High School Sunshine High School

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1763

Sunshine West High School Swan Hill High School Wedderburn High School Williamstown High School Williamstown Girls High School Yallourn High School Yarram High School Fitzroy Girls Secondary School

• 2 positions unfilled •• 4 positions unfilled.

(c) Suitably qualified teachers will be paid higher duties allowances to perform the duties of senior teachers. The unfilled positions will be readvertised in 1972.

STOCKING AND STAFFING OF LIBRARIES.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) What are the current stocking and staffing 'arroangements at Commonwealth­financed libraries built and now functioning at metropolitan secondary schools?

(b) Are the staff appointed additional to those allocated to teaching duties at the schools; if so, what will be their classifica­tions and respectives rates of pay?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answers are-

(a) Stocking is mostly on the same lines as in previous years i.e., book stocks are built up from an allocation from the school's grant and from money made available to the school from funds raised locally. A proportion of the total Commonwealth grant is expended each year to provide some books to schOOl libraries. In addi­tion each library built under Commonwealth grant receives an allocation of $500 for the purchase of audio-visual materials and equipment.

Staffing is provided as liberally as the resources available permit.

(b) The staff appointed is regarded as a part of the total allocation to the school; their classification and their rates of pay are not determined by their duties but according to their qualifications and ex­perience.

FITZROY HIGH SCHOOL.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

As it is planned to place a large block on site at Fitzroy High School to permit removal of temporary accommodation, when is it anticipated that this will be completed?

The· Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

In meeting the accommodation require­ments at this school, two building projects are involved.

The first relates to ra third story to be added to the school. Plans are at an ad­vanced stage and it is anticipated construc­tion will commence in 1972. The second building project relates to 'a multi-story block which would add considerably to the accommodation. Consideration of this project is still proceeding and it is not known at this stage precisely when con­struction will commence.

EDUCATION. HOSTELS FOR SECONDARY AND

TERTIARY STUDENTS.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (North­Western Province) asked the Min­ister of Public Works-

In view of the need for accommodation of pupils at many technical schools and col­leges of advanced education, how many secondary and tertiary schools and colleges in Victoria provide hostels or accommoda­tion for students stating, in each case, the school or college and the number of stu­dents that can be ·accommodated?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

Mildura High 17 girls School

Swan Hill High 23 girls School

Wangaratta 34 boys Technical School

Subsidized by depart­ment and run by the advisory council

Subsidized by depart­ment and run by a committee of the ad­visory council and Country Women's Association

Subsidized by depart­ment and run by the Church of England diocese

There are no halls of residence for colleges of advanced education at present.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. MELBOURNE PROVINCE: CHILD­

MINDING CENTRES.

The Hoil. G. J.O'CONNELL (Mel­bourne Province) asked the Minister for State Development-'

How many registered child-minding centres are in the Melbourne Province giv­ing, in respect of each centre-(i) the loca­tion; and (ii) the names of those conducting the centre?

1764 Questions. [COUNCIL.] on Notice.

For the Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Mini­ster for State Development), the Hon. A. J. Hunt (Minister for Local Gov­ernment).-As the answer lists names and addresses, I seek leave of the House to have it incorporated in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave was granted, and the answer was as follows:-

Seventeen.

Location

90 Punt Road. Windsor 319 Church Street. Richmond ..

12 Vesper Street. Richmond

12 Beach Avenue. Elwood .. Presbyte!ian Hall. Chapel Street.

St. Kllda 18 Broadway. Elwood .. 85 Ormond Road. Elwood .. COS~~rilii~~nal Hall. Mitford Street.

33A Scott Street. Elwood

12 Canterbury Road. Albert Park 14 Acland Street. St. Kilda ..

42 Meredith Street. Elwood 242 Punt Road. Prahran 2 Chaucer Street. St. Kilda

Comer Perry and Balmoral streets. Prahran

10 Canterbury Road. Albert Park 115 Ormond Esplanade. Elwood ..

Proprietor

Mr. A. Revell Daughters of Divine

Zeal Mr. and Mrs. I.

Edwards Mrs. R. Carr Miss Y. Gaeta

Mrs. B. Mitchell Mrs. I. Hirshfield Mrs. T. Lever

St. Kilda-Elwood Presbyterian Church

Mrs. F. Bode Mr. and Mrs. B.

Silverman Mrs. I. Kreutl Alfred Hospital Mr. and Mrs. P.

Nixon Mrs. M. Haslem

Mrs. E. Shipperlee Mrs. M. D'Mello

VICTORIAN RAILWAYS.

ADVERTISING HOARDINGS.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Gal'la Province) asked the

Minister for Local Government-(a) Have any advertising hoardings been

removed from metropolitan railway stations since 1st July, 1970; if so-(i) what stations were involved; (ii) why were the hoardings removed; and (iii) on whose authority?

(b) Did any advertising contracts offering this year have to be reduced because of the lack of hoarding space; if so, how much space, measured in larg.e and/ or small hoardings, was involved?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The an­swers are detailed and contain a list of railway stations. I seek leave of the House to have them incor­porated in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave was granted, and the answers were as follo,ws:-

(a) Yes. 4,058 lineal feet of 10 ft. hoardings have been removed from suburban stations since 1st July, 1970.

(i)

ADVERTISING HOARDINGS REMOVED FROM

SUBURBAN STATIONS SINCE 1ST JULY, 1970.

Feet

North Melbourne 80 Macaulay 70 Jewell 60 Brunswick 170 Moreland 120 Coburg 100 West Richmond 100 North Richmond 160 Collingwood 84 Merri 220 Northoote 175 Thornbury 84 Preston 95 Regent 80 Reservoir 50 Alphington 80 Ivanhoe 100 Heidelberg 40 Mont Albert 100 Heyington 60 Hawksburn 100 Toorak 100 Arm adale .. 135 Prahl"an 230 North Brighton 500 Brighton Beach 360 Sandringham 85 St. Kilda 160 Middle Park 100 South Melbourne 200 Port Melbourne 60

Total 4,058

(ii) The hoardings were removed because their condition had deteriorated so much that they were no longer suitable for poster displays.

It would not be economical to rebuild these structures or spend the considerable sum necessary for maintenance.

(iii) The R<ailways Commissioners.

Questions {26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1765

(b) All advertisers displaying posters on railway hoardings at the end of 1970 were asked to accept an adjustment in space to conform to the usable available space.

The reduction of displays amounted to-

103 No. 24 sheet posters (20 ft. wide x 10 ft. high).

466 No. 8 sheet posters (6 ft. 8 in. wide x 10 ft. high).

ADVERTISING DIVISION.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) asked the M'inister for Local Government-

(a) Is the advertising section of the Rail­way Department operating at a profit?

(b) Is there scope to extend the functions of this section to exploit profitably the advertising opportunities offering; if so, are plans in hand to do' this?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government).-The an­swers are-

(a) Yes. Earnings by the Advertising Division for last financial year amounted to $250,507 with a net profit of 56 per cent.

Profits for the last five years have avel'laged over 50 per cent of revenue received.

(b) Yes. There is scope to extend the activities of the Advertising Division and these are being exploited as far as circum­stances and permits allow.

POVERTY. People in Poverty-A Melbourne

Survey. The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta

Galla Province) asked the Minister for Local Government-

Will the Minister for Social Welfare lay on the table of the Library the findings published under the title People in Poverty -A Melbourne Survey.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government).-The ques­tion refers to a report written by Ronald F. Henderson, Alison Har­court and R. J. A. Harper. There is no need for a copy of the report to be laid on the table of the Library because a copy for honorable mem­bers to read is already available there, as well as in many other libraries.

POLICE DEPARTMENT. SHIRE OF WHITTLESEA: POLICE

STATIONS.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) What is 'the population of the Shire of Whittlesea?

(b) How many police 'are stationed at police stations within the shire, naming the stations and the strength 'at each?

(c) Has the Police Department any plans for the erection of extra stations within ,the shire?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-As the answers are fairly lengthy, I seek leave for their incorporation in Hansard without my reading them.

Leave was granted, and the answe'rs were as follows:-

(a) The Shire of Whittlesea advises that, as at December, 1970, the estimated popula­tion was 27,170, which is the latest figure available.

Strength

(b) Station Senior First con-

constable stable and Total constable

Thomastown .. 5 6 Epping 1 1 Whittlesea 1 2 3

In 'addition, part of the north-east portion of the shire is policed from Hurstbridge, part of the south-east portion is policed from Greensborough, part of the south-west portion is policed from Fawkner and part of the north-west portion is policed from W'allan.

(c) A block of land has been purchased at Lalor on which it is proposed to erect 'a combined 24-hour police station and divi­sional headquarters but, 'at this stage, it is not possible to give an indication as to when these works are likely to commence.

VICTORIAN PORTS. WHARFAGE CHARGES.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

What 'are ,the current rates of wharfage charged at the ports of Geelong, Melbourne, Portland, and Westernport, and how do they compare with wharfage charges in other States?

1766 Questions, ,: [COUNCIL.] on Notice. ~

The. Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

Overseas general cargo wharfage rates are shown in the following schedule:-

Port

Geelong Melbourne Portland Westernport Sydney .. Brisbane Adelaide Fremantle Hobart ..

Import rate

Per ton $

0.50 1.00 0.83 1.00 1.25

*1.36 1.10 1.35 1.20

Export rate

Per ton $

0.30 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.50

t1.19 0.65 0.80 0.60

• Comprising a charge payable to the Brisbane Oversea Wharfowners Association of 69 cents and a charge payable to the Department of Harbors and Marine of 67 cents.

t Comprising a charge payable to the Brisbane Oversea Wharfowners Association of 69 cents plus a charge payable to the Department of Harbors and Marine of SO cents.

The honorable member will be pleased to note that rates charged at Victorian ports 'are the lowest in Australia.

HOUSING COMMISSION. RENTS.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) What increased costs have necessi­tated the current incre'ases in Housing Com­mission rents?

(b) Wha:t are the respective comparative totals in each of the past five financial years?

(c) What have been the increases in rents of pensioners occupying Darby :and Joan units and lone-person units over the past five financial years?

(d) What additional revenue is ,antici­pated in the next financial year as a result of rent increases?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answers are-

(a) and (b) Rentals of commission dwellings have not been increased since September, 1970. Concessional rentals paid by tenants on low incomes are con­tinually subject to variation depending on their incomes as compared with the national base wage.

(c) Rebated rentals paid by single aged pensioner couples on full pensions have varied 'as follows:-

Single Aged pensioner pensioners couples $ per week $ per week

$ $

October 1966 2.10 3.25 October 1967 2.10 3.25 October 1968 2.10 3.25 October 1969 2.10 3.25 October 1970 2.60 3.95 October 1971 2.90 4.45

(d) Unless some exceptional circum­stances arise it is not intended to increase basic rentals next financial year.

PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS IN RICHMOND.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Mel­bourne Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

What is the location of each of the 258 properties purchased by the Housing Com­mission in the City of Richmond since 1st July, 1968?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-As the answer is fairly detailed, I seek leave of the House to have it incor­porated in Hansard without my reading it.

Leave was granted, and the answer was as follows:-

149 properties purchased in the area known as the Highett Street reclamation area, Richmond, the boundaries of which are Lennox, Highett and Church streets and the rear of properties on the north side of Rule Street, the east side of Bromham Place and an irregular line from the south-east comer of Vere Street and Belgium Avenue to Bromham Place being the area which is more particularly described in an order made by the Governor in Council and pub­lished in Government Gazette No. 31 on the 3rd April, 1970, at page 883.

109 properties purchased in the area known as the Lennox Street reclamation area, the boundaries of which are Lennox, Elizabeth, Church and Risley streets, and a line on the north side of Risley Street to the south west comer of No. 30 Ross Street, then south to the south-east comer of No. 42 Mahoney Street, thence in a westerly direc­tion along the southern boundaries of Mahoney Street properties to Lennox Street

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1767

being the area which is more particularly described in an order made by the Governor in Council and published in the Government Gazette No. 87 of 15th November, 1967, at page 3433.

Most of the properties acquired in ~e aforementioned areas have been or are m the process of demolition.

P,ERSONAL EXPLANATION. ApOLOGY BY MEMBER.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province) (By leave) .-Whilst read­ing the Hansard report of the debate of 5th October last on the motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss metropolitan transport, to my consternation I found that during the debate you, Mr. President, asked .for an unequivocal apology for an obJec­tionable statement on my part. I thought I had made an unequivocal apology, but on reading the !lans~rd report at page 923, and checkmg wIth Hansard-I am grateful for their advice in this direction-I find that I did not do so. In my respect for the Chair, and particularly as later in the debate you, Sir, protected me quite strenuously against the verbal onslaught by members on the Gov­ernment side of the House and also last week extended to me indulgence during my dissertation on the nostalgic nonsense of movie mean­derings, I desire to have .it recorded in Hansard that I fully Intended to make an unequivocal apology on 5th October and I now tender it to you, Mr. President.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-I accept Mr. Elliot's apology.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. ALTERATION OF SESSIONAL ORDERS.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture).-By leave, I move-

That so much of the sessional orders as provides thlat the hour of meeting on Tuesdays shall be half-past Four o'clock and on Wednesdays Four o'clock; that on Wednesday in each week priv,ate members' business shall take precedence of Go~ern­ment business· and that no new busmess be taken after half-past Ten o'clock be

suspended until the end of December next, and that until the end of December next the hour of meeting on Tuesdays shall be Four o'clock and on Wednesdays Two o'clock and that Government business shall take precedence of 'all other business.

I remind the House that the rights of honorable members in presenting private members' business will be preserved. The assurances that have been given in past years will also be observed this year.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 thank the Leader of the House for those assurances. I should like to explain to the House that last week I stated that I would be delivering my second-reading speech on only one Bill. That assurance still stands, but I fear that my speech will refer to a different Bill from that which I indicated to the House.

The motion was agreed to.

REDUCTION OF VOTING AGE BILL.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) by leave, moved for leave to bring in a Bill to reduce to eighteen years the vot­ing age in respect of elections for the Legislative Council and for the Legislative Assembly and for other purposes.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was brought in and read a first time.

REVOCATION AND EXCISION OF CROWN RESERVATIONS BILL. The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER

(Minister of Agriculture ).-1 move-That this Bill be now read a second time.

It is similar in form to others which have been submitted for the con­sideration of honorable members over the years. The measure con­tains reference to four areas of Crown land which have been permanently reserved for specific purposes, but which are required for other public purposes.

,7()8 Revocatio.n pm! Excision [COUNCIL.] of Crown Reservations Bill.

Clause 1 cites the short title. Clause 2 revokes the Crown grant of the land referred to in item 1 of the First Schedule. The permanent reser­vations of the lands referred to in the First Schedule and the lands descri­bed in Parts II. and III. of the Second Schedule are revoked by clause 3. By the provisions of clause 4, the lands of which the Crown grant and the permanent reservations are revoked are deemed to be unalienated lands of the Crown. Clause 5 is the usual provision that no liability shall attach to the Crown.

The First Schedule lists the lands of which the Crown grant and perma­nent reservations are proposed to be revoked in full. The Second Schedule lists in Part I. the permanent reser­vations from which it is proposed to excise the lands respectively de­scribed in Parts II. and III. thereof.

The details of the proposed revoca­tions and excisions are as follows:-

FIRST SCHEDULE. ITEM 1: Town­ship of Ballarat East-Site for a public garden and for the recreation, convenience and amusement of the people. - This reserve comprising 34 and two-tenths perches was created in 1908. By a Crown grant dated 15th June, 1909, the land was vested in the Board of Land and Works and the corporation of the town of Ballarat East-now the Minister of Lands and the corporation of the City of Ballaarat respectively -on trust for the purpose of the reservation. The land, which lies between Curtis and Little Bridge streets, is traversed by the Yarrowee Creek.

The reservation was effected fol­lowing the relevant portion of the creek being covered with decking by the municipal council. At that time the council proposed to erect a ladies' retiring room, a refreshment room and ornamental hoarding on the land. These proposals were not carried out and the land has been used for many years as a pedestrian thoroughfare and access to adjacent shops. In recent years the decking over the

The Hon. G. L. Chandlp,r.

creek has been replaced and the city council has requested that the land be proclaimed as road. I t is pro­posed that on revocation of the reser­vation and the Crown grant the land will be proclaimed" a road under the Land Act.

FIRST SCHEDULE. ITEM 2: Town­ship of Warrnambool-Site for cattle yards and general market pur­poses.-This reservation containing 2 acres 1 rood 6 perches is bounded by Raglan Parade, Kepler Street and Spence Street, and has been placed under the control of the corporation of the City of Warrnambool. In 1893 that portion of Raglan Street abutting the permanent reserve was reduced in width. The closed portion of road was temporarily reserved as an addition to the cattle yards and market reserve. The temporary reservation was revok­ed in 1970 when the land contained therein was required by the Country Roads Board in connection with the widening of the Princes Highway in the City of Warrnambool.

The board's works caused the city council to erect new saleyards on other land and the site is not required for the purpose of the reservation. The council has requested that the land be rereserved for other public purposes, incorporating public gar­dens, limited public car park, comfort station and tourist information centre, and placed under the management of the municipality. On revocation of the present reservation, it is proposed to proceed accordingly. A small area of 3 perches at the intersection of Spence Street and the Princes High­way is required by the Country Roads Board for a splay to provide satis­factory traffic conditions. The city council has consented to this area being used for the board's purposes and the portion will be set apart as a road.

SECOND SCHEDULE. ITEM 1 : Parish of Korkuperrimul-Site for watering and camping purposes.-The reserve containing 3 acres is situated on the Korkuperrimul Creek in the municipal

Revocation and Excision [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] of Crown Reservations Bill. 1769

district of the Shire of Bacchus Marsh. The area proposed to be excised com­prises 1 acre and 17 perches as de­scribed in Part II. of the Second Schedule. The excision is sought by the Country Roads Board for the Western Freeway and a related access road. Portion of the area will be traversed by the freeway. The re­mainder is required by the board for the construction of an access road to connect the northern truncated part of Con dons Lane with the Western Highway just east of the existing bridge over the creek.

The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission and the Bacchus Marsh Shire Council have both consented to the proposed excision for road pur­poses. The divisional surveyor of the Lands Department has reported that the benefit of the road works out­weighs the loss of the little public amenity of the reserve.

SECOND SCHEDULE. ITEM 2: Parish of Prahran, at Caulfield-Site for pub­lic recreation.-This public recrea­tion reserve originally contained 9 acres 2 roods 5 and nine-tenths perches, from which a small area of seven-tenths of a perch was excised for road purposes in 1968. Previously the land had been temporarily reserved for the same purpose. The area to be excised comprises 2 acres 3 roods 13 and two-tenths perches as described in Part III. of the Second Schedule.

The excision is sought by the Mini­ster of Education in order to provide an extension to the adjacent site occupied by the Caulfield Institute of Technology. The institute is urgently in need of more space. On its present site of 2 acres and 22 perches it now has 1,600 full-time tertiary students and 2,300 part-time students. Honor­able members will have read of the recent agreement between the State and the Commonwealth to expand the institute campus still further by ac­quiring approximately 6 acres of free­hold properties in the area bounded by Princes Avenue, Railway Avenue,

Queens Avenue and Dandenong Road. This latter acquisition may take some years.

The Caulfield Recreation Club has held the subject land under a permis­sive occupancy agreement since 1913. The Government believed that as the local community has enjoyed its pos­session for recreational purposes for nearly 60 years, it was morally obliged to provide similar facilities elsewhere in the district. Hence an alternative site of some 1 ~ acres was purchased in Serrell Street, East Malvern, which will be made available to the bowling section of the club. The moneys used for the purchase of this site came from Advanced College of Education funds and not from the Education Department.

The tennis section of the club will be re-established on vacant reclaimed land owned by the Education Depart­ment to the immediate north of the Murrumbeena High School. On excision from the recreation reserve it is proposed that the land will be re­reserved under the Land Act as an addition to the existing reserve as a site for a technical school. I should like to advise honorable members who have a particular or general interest in the proposals that I shall place in the Library detailed plans of each proposal for their inspection.

A set of plans, which accurately sets out the areas involved, will be available to any honorable members interested. I commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Melbourne Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL. The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister

for Local Government) .-1 move-That this Bill be now read a second time.

This is a further measure to make general amendments to the Local Government Act 195'8. Although

1770 Local Government [COUNCIL.] , Bill.'

Bills of this nature are regularly submitted to Parliament there con­tinues to be a constant demand for changes and additions to the legis­lation to adapt it to pres~nt-day and changing needs. There is no common principle running through the Bill; it is, in fact, a series of isolated amendments, and I therefore propose to deal with it clause by clause.

Clause 2 covers the first of the changes and was requested by the Local Government Advisory Board appointed under Part II. of the prin­cipal Act. The board investigates and makes recommendations to the Minister on the matters provided for in that Part. These include such matters as the constitution of new municipalities, resubdivision of muni­cipal districts, and severances and annexations from and to municipal districts. The board, as a result of its experiences in holding hearings of evidence, has recommended the adop­tion in part of certain provisions of the New South Wales Local Govern­ment Act which prohibit legal repre­sentation of parties in proceedings before the Boundaries Commission, which is the New South Wales equivalent to the advisory board. The board considers that while bar­risters and solicitors may provide valuable assistance in the preparation of submissions and related docu­ments, legal representation of munici­palities and other parties is generally neither necessary nor expedient hav­ing regard to the nature of the pro­ceedings before the board. Legal representation adds materially to the cost of proceedings and may cause them to be unduly protracted. The hearings held by the board are only part of the process of inquiring into this type of matter. Their purpose is to enable the board to hear the opinions of the ratepayers, officers and councils concerned, and questions of law are unlikely to be involved.

I might add that the board, unlike a court, makes no final determination but a recommendation only to the Minister and the Governor in Council.

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

I should also add that in many cases the cost of proceedings before the board has been enormous. Even a small municipality which had repre­sentation found itself faced with legal costs-costs which the Government believes were avoidable--of over $5,000. Groups of ratepayers who, perhaps, desire to propose or oppose any course of action with regard to severance or annexation, have not the means available to them which are available to municipalities and they are deprived of representation which a municipality can afford.

Mr. Galbally wrote to me recently about just such a case at Berwick, pointing out the unfairness of the situation whereby a council could engage expensive legal representation to put its view while a ratepayers' organization obviously could not. The amendment proposed will provide simply that in any proceedings before the board no person shall be repre­sented by any person acting for fee or reward except with the consent of the board granted upon application made at least 30 days before the hearing.

Clause 3 will empower the Gov­ernor in Council to fix a day for the holding of an election to fill an extra­ordinary vacancy where the chair­man, or the council, of the municip­ality fails or finds it impracticable to appoint a day within the period of 40 days. Currently, it is required that when an extraordinary vacancy occurs the chairman, or in default of the chairman, the council, shall appoint a day for the election be­tween the 21st and the 40th days after the occurrence of the vacancy. In recent proceedings in a Magistrates Court, a councillor was convicted of an offence against section 181 of the principal Act and was disqualified from office. The councillor concerned claimed that he had acted completely honestly-there is no reason to doubt him-that there was no offence, but, if there was one, it was of a most technical nature.' He appealed to the County Court, which held that he was

'wrongly convicted and set aside the conviction.

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1771.

The setting aside of the conviction meant that the conviction had never existed, that he had never ceased to hold office as a councillor. However, in the meantime, the council had been obliged under the Act to fix a fresh election within 40 days. Prior to the hearing of the appeal, this election had not only been fixed but had been held and a new councillor elected to fill the vacancy. Fortunately, in that case the appeal was completed very quickly after the election and the original councillor claimed his seat, as he was perfectly entitled to do. The person who had been purportedly elected at the extraordinary election, acting on legal advice, did not attempt to claim the seat. One can see the difficulties which would have arisen if he had done so.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-He withdrew gracefully.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-That is so, and he acted perfectly correctly. That sort of situation should not arise. It is obvious that greater flexibility is required.

Cases also occur occasionally where, because of an oversight, the chairman or the council fails to fix the date for an extraordinary election within the prescribed period. The proposed amendment will permit a date to be fixed in compliance with the statutory provisions in these cases also.

Clause 4 concerns the disposal of ballot papers and rolls used at an election of councillors. Under the law as it stands, these must be re­tained for twelve months and then destroyed by the municipal clerk in the presence of three councillors.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-They are burnt.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Normally, that is so. A number of honorable members in this Chamber have under­taken the task of attending on such occasions. Provided that the ballot papers and rolls are kept for twelve months, there does not seem to be

much reason. for the present super­vision of their destruction when the time limit for any appeals or demands for a recount has long since passed.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.­Obtaining the attendance of three councillors causes a lot of in­convenience.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-That is so. I have been present at a burning, although I was not a councillor at the time. I shall not inform honorable members how I came to be there. I think honorable members will agree that the presence of councillors is unnecessary. It is proposed that, in­stead, the municipal clerk or a person authorized by him shall supervise the destruction of the papers and rolls. As Mr. O'Connell interjects, it is a sensible bit of progress.

Clause 5 makes a minor amend­ment to section 181 of the principal Act. Honorable members are fairly familiar with that section which re­quires a councillor who has a pecu­niary interest in a matter before his council to declare that interest and retire from the room while it is being discussed and voted upon. It has been claimed that a councillor may be un­aware that he has a pecuniary interest in a matter before his council. This could occur, for example, if a council contracts with a subsidiary company and a councillor holds shares in the parent company but is unaware of the connection between the two bodies.

Last session, during the debate on a previous amendment to this section, if I recall correctly, I mentioned the case of a councillor who voted on the supply of Brownbuilt office equipment to a council. He sub­sequently found out that the Brown­built company was a subsidiary of John Lysaght (Australia) Limited and that that firm, in turn, was a subsidiary of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-Surely that is a company of more than twenty members.

1772 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-This coun­cillor was worried. I mention that case purely as an example. It is proposed to provide that no offence will arise in cases where a councillor honestly does not know of the interest, which of course may be a very indirect one. The new provision will be added to sub-section (8) which already provides for somewhat similar circumstances. A councillor in any proceedings against him for a breach of section 181 would, of course, have the task of convincing the court that he was ignorant of his interest in the particular matter.

Clause 6 will empower 'councils to charge a fee not exceeding $1 for any permit granted under a by-law. It is considered reasonable that coun­cils should be able to charge these fees to cover administrative costs in connection with permits, but at pre­sent no power to do this exists.

Clause 7 amends section 236 of the principal Act, which empowers any municipality, with the consent of the Governor in Co un'c il , to sell "any lands purchased for value or acquired by such municipality from Her Maj­esty or any other person ". In some cases, consent is sought to sell land vested in the municipality by the operation of the statute, and at pre­sent the section does not cover such lands. It is proposed to substitute the expression "vested in the muni­cipality" which will clearly cover any land however acquired.

Clause 8 inserts a new provision in the principal Act to enable councils to create reserve funds for specific purposes when large sums of money are received as a result of some unusual transaction. In two cases recently councils have received substantial amounts-Malvern City Council from the sale of land for the South-Eastern Freeway, and Essendon City Council from the sale of a quarry. These moneys must be paid into the respective municipal funds and can lawfully be expended for any purpose authorized by the Local Government Act. Both councils wish

to ensure, however, that the moneys are used for capital expenditure­particularly for the provision of open space-and that they are not dissi­pated on ordinary revenue expendi­ture.

The amendment proposed will permit the creation of reserves for specific purposes. Approval of the Governor in Council will be required and a minimum amount of $100,000 will be necessary to justify creation of any such reserve. As these re­serves will thereby become statutory reserves, any expenditure from them for purposes other than those speci­fied in the order creating them will require legislation. By this means, it is intended to protect large capital sums which councils receive against dissipation for ordinary expenditure. I think honorable members will agree that it would be tragic to see large sums received from the sale of capital assets used for ordinary ex­penditure purposes rather than for the creation of capital assets for the municipality. The Bill does this in that it enables the annual income from any such fund to be expended by the cQuncil in any year or paid into the fund as the council sees fit.

Clause 9 re-enacts in revised form the present section 244 of the princi­pal Act, which authorizes councils to expend moneys out of the municipal fund for a variety of purposes. The clause contains only one new item but it is perhaps the most significant in the Bill. The new item will autho­rize municipal councils to expend moneys on the provision of any social services for the benefit of the people of the municipality. Currently this provision applies only to the City of Melbourne.

Where there is any doubt about the powers of a council to expend its funds on social services, as, for example, in payment of the salary of a social worker, a council would, at present, exercise the power provided by sub-section (7) of section 246 to make the desired payment. This pro­vision permits expenditure of up to 3:

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1773

per cent of revenue from general rates for purposes not expressly auth­orized or prohibited. That includes all sundries such as the mayoral allowance. Social services are there­fore tied in with these things.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-I thought the Minister was going to say that the mayoral allowance was a social service.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-No, but in effect the higher the mayoral allowance the less the council can spend on social services. The new provision puts social services in the same position as any other works or services which the municipality is authorized or required to undertake. It in fact allows the council to make its own determination on this matter and to be autonomous in its decisions, with responsibility only to its rate­payers.

Clause 10 amends sub-section (6) of section 251 of the principal Act, which requires a person who sells pro­perties exempt from rating to pay five years back rates to the council. The properties concerned are mainly those used for charitable purposes-that is charitable in the legal sense-but also include residences of practising ministers of religion. The five years back rates become payable when the legal or equitable interest in the pro­perty is transferred and it becomes rateable. In some instances, however, the use which confers the exemption ceases and for a period the property is vacant and unused or is let to a tenant. It thereupon becomes rate­able and when it is subsequently sold there is no liability for payment of the five years back rates.

I am sorry to inform the House that some well-known charitable in­stitutions have used this loophole as a device to avoid paying five years back rates after the sale or subdivi­sion of a property. The use of the property has been changed from a charitable to a non-charitable one for a brief period so that at the time of disposition the property was rateable.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-How dreadful that a charitable institution should have to do that.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I am sure the honorable member will agree that the section which allows this exemp­tion to charitable institutions is a generous one. When a property is sold for profit, the exemption for the last five years is lost. It is proposed that the liability to pay rates shall cease when the use which conferred the exemption ceases. A further effect of the new sub-section will be that for the purpose of assessing the back rates the properties will be valued as if they had been included in the valuation or valuations in force in the municipality in the relevant years. The present provision requires the rates to be assessed on the value of the property immediately after it becomes rateable. The new provision will operate from the beginning of the current municipal year on the 1st October.

Clause 11 amends various provi­sions dealing with the valuation of rateable property. The amendment to the interpretation of "net annual value", and the amendments conse­quent upon it, are matters of some importance and I shall describe them separately. The other amend­ments are purely editorial and require only a brief mention. The changes in the interpretations of " capital improved value ", " improve­ments" and "unimproved capital' value" bring them into conformity with interpretations relating to site value in Part XI. The amendment to sub-section (4) of section 254 deletes the words " during such time as such trees remain thereon". The sub­section provides a valuation conces­sion to encourage tree farming. The omission of the words mentioned ensures that the concession is not lost as a result of the normal process of thinning out young trees.

The amendment to sub-section (5), which deals with the valuation for ra ting purposes of certain Crown lands held under licence, is for the purpose of adding a reference to site

1774 Local Government .[COUNCIL.] Bill .

value. This was previously over­looked. The alteration in the interpre­tation of "net annual value" which I previously mentioned will require that the net annual values of certain properties be assessed at 5 per cent of the capital improved value in each case. Currently, of course, all pro­perties, except Crown lands licensed for pastoral purposes, are assessed either at 5 per cent of the capital improved value or on the basis of the net rental which the property could command, whichever is the greater. The correct application of the inter­pretation of "net annual value" is necessary to ensure uniformity of valuations, particularly of pro­perties throughout the metropolitan area rated by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. However, it does result in the lower valued houses bearing a pro­portionately higher net annual value than the more valuable houses. This is caused by the greater demand for the renting of cheaper properties. Accordingly, those who occupy such properties, and often they are pen­sioners or retired persons, sometimes pay proportionately higher rates than their more affluent neighbours. The amendment will provide for net annual values fixed at 5 per cent of the capital improved value in the case of-(a) Farm lands-in practice this does not alter the present position; (b) All single unit houses, including tenanted houses; (c) All owner occupied flats and home units.

In defining these properties it has been found necessary to specifically mention own-your-own flats and units whether held under the Strata Titles Act or otherwise. These pro­perties are to be valued at 5 per cent of the capital improved value even when they are temporarily occupied by tenants.

All other properties, including blocks of tenanted flats, will have net annual values fixed as at present. Apartment houses, boarding houses

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

and lodging houses are in this cate­gory and they have been speCifically mentioned because it has been held that, for rating purposes, a landlord has exclusive occupation even though he has lodgers or tenants. The occupation of the landlord is para­mount, that of the lodger subordinate. It is proposed that the new system shall operate from 1st October, 1972, when the new valuations for metropolitan municipalities become effective.

On and after that date other municipalities can alter their valu­ations by making supplementary valuations where necessary. A con­sequential amendment of sub-section (3) of section 254 is also necessary.

This sub-section provides that when the capital improved value, the ~n­improved capital value or the SIte value of a multi-occupancy property is determined the value of each portion shall bear the same proportion to the value of the whole as the net annual value of each portion bears to the net annual value of the whole. In any case where some portions are required to have net annual values of 5 per cent of the capital improved value and other portions have net annual values fixed on the present basis, the computation would be affected. Accordingly it is proposed that for the purpose of this comput­ation the estimated annual value will be adopted. This is the net rental which the property could command as presently defined in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) of the inter-pretation of net annual value.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-That is a complicated procedure.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-It is, but its purpose is laudable. It ensures that the rates paid by a home owner who lives in his own home will not be greater than 5 per cent of the value of the property. It relieves the home owner from a hardship which could exist on occasions.

A fu'rther consequential amend­ment is the provision in section 258 of a ground on which a supplement­ary valuation shall be made. Such

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1775

valuations will be necessary where existing valuations are in force when the new provisions come into opera­tion and subsequently they could become necessary by reason of a change in the occupation of any property.

Clause 12 will empower councils to furnish, to any person who makes written application, the current valu­ation of any rateable property. A fee of $1 may be charged for each pro­perty in respect of which the inform­ation is required. Many councils are concerned at the number of requests received for information on the valuations of properties. These are received from estate agents, banks, prospective purchasers of properties and from many people who are curious about the values placed on the properties of their neighbours.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.-It is important when a person wants to lodge an appeal.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Yes. Since municipal valuations are now made on the basis of the market values of properties the information can be of considerable value to those dealing in real estate. A committee comprising the Valuer-General and represent­atives of the Municipal Association of Victoria and the Institute of Muni­cipal Administration recently con­sidered the matter.

The committee recommended that valuation information be supplied in response to a written request and that a fee of $1 be charged in respect of each property for which information is supplied. The proposed amend­ment provides accordingly and also repeals certain provisions of section 302 of the prinCipal Act which permit inspection of the rate book by any person interested in or rated under any rate made by the council. Retention of these provisions would enable any person to evade the proposed requirements respecting the

. supply of valuation information. A general right to inspect the rate book is, in any case, neither necessary nor desirable. Recently the right was

exercised in a country municipality by a person who took photocopies of the whole rate book for election­eering purposes.

Clause 13 provides for a matter which can arise when a muniCipality rates partly on net annual values and partly on unimproved capital values. Sub-section (4) of section 266 pro­vides for a farm rate, and similarly an urban farm rate and a residential use rate, to be fixed at a lesser amount in the $1 than the gen­eral rate on other land. In ·making the general rate, a council must fix the amount in the $1 by which the farm rate is to be less than the general rate. Where a composite rate is used this must be fixed both f.or net annual value and unimproved ·capital value. I am referring, of course, to what is commonly known as the shandy rate. Since there is no relation between the two bases of rating, the only way in which a uni­form reduction for the two bases can be determined is by fixing a figure for .one basis and adopting for the other basis a rate which will pr.o­duce an equal amount of revenue. The .amendment provides according­ly. This method of equating rates is specified in sub-section (2) of sec­tion 266 and paragraph (a) of sec­tion 328, but these pr.ovisions do not apply to the fixing of farm rates, urban farm rates and residential use rates.

Clause 14 amends the provisions relating to separate rates and will enable the Governor in Council dur­ing the currency of a separate rate to direct that a particular property shall no longer be subject to the rate or shall be rated ·at a lesser amount in the $1 than the existing rate. This will normally be done on the application of a council. It is pos­sible for a person to be made liable under ·a separate rate for which a petition has been submitted to the council without that person being aware of the proposal until he re­ceives a rate notice. At that point there'is not, at present, any way in

1776 Local Government [COUN~.] Bill.

which the property ·can be excluded from ·the rate if the person liable has a valid objection. It is also possible for a change in the use of a property to occur so that the property would receive less benefit from the works financed by the rate than formerly. There is provision for the inclusion of properties during the currency of a rate but no provision for the ex­clusion of a pr-operty or the reduc­tionof the rate imposed on a partic­ular property. The amendment will confer on the Governor in Council the necessary power to do this.

The last amendment arises from representations made to me by Messrs. Campbell Turnbull, M.L.A., and David Bornstein, M.L.A., who have stated that they believe that certain properties in their electorates have been included in error in the area to be covered by a separ­ate rate. They believe inadequate investig.ation was made by the local council before the properties were included. There is now no way in which those pr-operties can be taken out. This amendment will provide in appropriate and very limited circum­stances a means for adjusting errors.

Clause 15 amends section 298 of the principal Act which enables councils to excuse or defer the pay­ment of rates in the case of ·any person in necessitous circumstances. The effect of the amendment is that any person who is in receipt of a maximum pension under the Com­monwealth Social Services Act may apply for payment of his municipal rates to be deferred without 'offering any proof that he is in necessitous circumstances. In the case of a de­ferment, of course, the rates are ultimately recovered-generally after the death of the pensioner.

This amendment has been sought by a number of pensioner organiza­tions and will relieve them of a pro­cedure which they regard as demean­ingin having to submit full details of their assets to a local authority in the district in which they live.

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

Clause 16 amends section 385B of the principal Act which empowers the Minister to vest in a municipal­ity land upon which rates are owing and which has proved to be unsale­able. Some of the provisions of sec­tion 526 have been applied for the purposes of section 385B but the powers in the former section are exercised by the Governor in Council. It is accordingly being provided that any reference in section 526 to the Governor in Council shall be read and construed ·as a reference to the Min­ister for the purpose of section 385B. Provision is also made in the amend­ment for any land not under the Transfer of Land Act to be brought under that Act by the operation of the section.

Clause 17 will empower councils to impose speed limits to be obser­ved on r-oads under construction or repair. The new provision has been added to an existing one which en­abIes councils to fix a maximum speed to be observed in driving any vehicle over a particular bridge or culvert. The maximum penalty has been increased to $50 to conform with the penalty provided for offen­ces against speed restrictions under the Road Traffic RegUlations.

Clause 18 makes a minor amend­ment to the provisions enabling councils to remove and dispose of derelict vehicles left in streets or in other municipal parking areas. The amendment makes it plain that, in the -case of an unregistered vehicle, the council is not required to be of the opinion that the vehicle has been abandoned before action is taken to remove it to a pound.

Clause 19 is a further amendment of the provisions which enable coun­cils to require that 5 per cent of any area of land being subdivided for residential commercial or industrial purposes be transferred to the coun­cil for a place of public resort and recreation or that the cash equiva­lent be paid to the council for the purchase of land. The amendment

Local Government [26 OCTOBER,· 1971.] Bill. 1777

now proposed will extend these pro­visions to cover two lot subdivisions where either or both of the proposed lots is capable of being further sub­divided under the provisions of any relevant by-laws, regulation or plan­ning scheme. The object of the amendment is to prevent evasion of the requirement for a 5 per cent con tribution by a series of two lot subdivisions. The subdivision of an area which cannot, under the appro­priate by-law, regulation or planning scheme, be divided into more than two lots will not be affected.

Clause 20 amends section 569H which applies the 5 per cent contri­bution to multiple occupancy build­ings. This provision originally ap­peared in the S tra ta Titles Act. The erection of own-your-own flats in­creases residential density in any area ·and a contribution towards the pr,ovision of open space can reason­ably be demanded from such develop­ments. Section 569H extended the principle to flats erected for renting and enabled a council to demand the 5 per cent contribution before issu­ing a building permit .for this type of development. Flats are separate resi­dences containing cooking and laun­dry facilities, and the provision for the 5 per cent contribution on flats has tended to encourage other types of developm'ent, such as apartment houses, which are not subject to the contribution. These developments in­crease residential density just as the erection of flats does. Accordingly, it is proposed to extend section 569H to include all developments which provide a place where a per­son eats and sleeps on a more or less permanent basis. The amend­ment provides accordingly but cer­tain premises, such as hotels, 'motels and residential accommodation at schools and colleges, have been speci­fically excluded.

Clause 21 amends section 582, which empowers councils to charge interest on amounts outstanding when any person elects to pay his liability under a private street con­struction scheme by instalments. The

present section provides for the nor­mal case where a council finances the scheme by a loan or by over­draft.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett). - The time has ar­rived for this House to meet the Assembly in the Assembly Chamber for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose three members 'of the Parliament of Victoria to be recom'mended for appointment to the Council of Monash University.

The sitting was suspended at 6.10 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Prior to the suspension of the sitting, I was dealing with clause 21, which amends section 582 of the principal Act. This section authorizes municipal councils to charge interest on amounts outstanding when a person elects to pay by instalments his liability under a private street con­struction scheme. I pointed out that the present section provides for the normal case in which a council com­mences a scheme by means of a loan or by overdraft. In some cases, however, a scheme may be financed by the contractor or by moneys re­ceived under other private street construction schemes. Both methods are authorized by the legislation. Doubts have been raised as to the powers of councils to charge interest in these circumstances. The Crown Solicitor was consulted and recom­mended that amending legislation be enacted clearly to indicate the cir­cumstances in which interest may be charged and the rates of interest. The proposed amendment fixes a maximum rate of 8 per cent per annum in any circumstances not at present provided for in the legisla­tion. This is the rate of interest chargeable on rates and other moneys outstanding to a council.

Clause 22 repeals a provision which requires a council to keep a separate bank account in every case where advances are obtained from a bank by overdraft on current account

1778 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill.

in order to finance a private street construction scheme. The Municipal Accounting Regulations, however, permit one bank account to be kept for all schemes. A separate account­ing is, of course, undertaken for each scheme in the books of the councils. The provision in question serves no useful purpose and, accordingly, it will be repealed by this clause.

Clause 23 corrects an error in an amendment made to the principal Act by the Urban Renewal Act 1970. Clause 24 amends section 755G which authorizes councils to provide and maintain municipal offices and storeyards. The section at present provides for councils to exercise these powers for the purposes of this Act, namely, the principal Act. The amendment substitutes the expres­sion "this or any other Act".

Clause 25 adds a further provision to the power of the Governor in Council to make regulations control­ling the approaches to municipal landing grounds for aircraft. This was requested by the Department of Civil Aviation. Clause 26 remedies an omission from the Local Govern­ment (Further Amendment) Act 1971, which was passed in the autumn sessional period. That Act provided, amongst other things, for municipal councils to license car parking stations and to regulate their operation. Provision was also made for councils to issue licences but the matter of licence fees was over­looked. The proposed amendment will enable the Governor in Council to prescribe a maximum fee from time to time. This will cover the admini­stration costs involved as well as the cost of inspections of the premises by or on behalf -of the municipality.

Clause 27 makes a minor improve­ment to the provisions dealing with scaffolding inspection. Section 833 empowers any inspector or super­visor to give appropriate directions where he finds that the regulations are being infringed or that a potenti­ally dangerous situation exists. One of the occasions when directions may

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

be given is when some person has failed to erect scaffolding or to use gear required by the regulations.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-Who polices it?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-At present~ it is policed by the municipalities. The amendment makes it plain that a direction may be given in this in­stance. The inspection of scaffolding is still being carried out under Part XLIII. of the Local Government Act pending the coming into operation of the Scaffolding Act 1971.

Clause 28 covers two subjects. Sub-clause (1) extends to the cities of Melbourne and Geelong the pro­visions of Division 3 of Part XLVII. of the principal Act. This deals with the service of notices on owners and occupiers of rateable property. The Melbourne City Council is currently experiencing difficulty in respect of the service of notices under Division 3 of Part XLIX.-fire protection in existing buildings. Application of sec­tion 876 of this Division will enable councils to serve notices by post. The present pOSition is that notices must be served personally on the person to whom they are directed. I am sure honorable members will agree that this may often prove impossible.

Sub-clause (2) repeals section 882 of the principal Act and inserts a similar provision in the County Court Act 1958. Section 882 provides that actions against municipalities for negligence in respect of streets, bridges and so on under municipal control shall be brought in the County Court, although either party may apply to have any such action brought in or transferred to the Supreme Court and any judge of that court may so order. However, when an action reaches trial later than the expiration of the statutory limitation period of three years after the cause of the action arises the plaintiff in an action brought initi­ally in the Supreme Court could not then obtain the order for transfer­ance to the Supreme Court nor could

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1779

he then commence the action in the County Court. The provision being inserted in the County Court Act omits the present restriction on the bringing of any action in the Su­preme Court. The result of this will be that all actions, regardless of amounts involved, may be brought as heretofore in the County Court, but the person bringing a case may, if the amount is small and it is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court, bring it in that court. How­ever, if the amount is large and he would prefer to go to the Supreme Court, he has that right.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-Would it apply in the case of the Lower Yarra Crossing?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-That is an example of an action which may be brought in the Supreme Court. In future, actions may be brought in the County Court regardless of the amount involved, but the litigants will have a right to choose in which court they take action.

Clause 29 is the first of several of amendments relating to the Uniform Building Regulations. It is proposed that ultimately Part XLIX. shall be detached from the Local Government Act and form part of a comprehen­sive Buildings Act. The present pro­posals were prepared as part of that legislation but, as it will be some time before it can be submitted to Parliament, these proposals have been added to the present Bill. Clause 29 provides that the Uniform Building Regulations shall have effect in every municipality and, where the Minister so directs, in any area not in a municipal district.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-It is long overdue.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-That is so.

The Hon J. M. TRIPovlcH.-Will the regulations apply to railway buildings?

"Vhe Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Possibly. French Island is the best example. The Uniform Building Regulations do

not apply on French Island. The Minister may direct that a public authority or the council of an adjoining municipality shall admini­ster the regulations. It is also pro­vided that in an area declared to be an alpine resort pursuant to the Local Government Act the Minister may direct that the public authority con­trolling the resort shall administer the regulations.

The present position is that the regulations apply in cities and towns and may be applied by Order of the Govern·or in Council to the municipal districts of other municipalities. Cur­rently the regulations have effect in 202 of the 210 municipalities. In 47 of the 202 municipalities, the regula­tions do not, however, apply to the whole municipal district. The Muni­cipal Association has 'Supported exten­sion of the operation of the regula­tions to the whole of Victoria and it is proposed that six months' notice of the change shall be given to the municipalities affected-that is, to the eight municipalities wholly affec­ted and the 47 municipalities affected in part. Some country councils have objected to the application of the regulations to farm house outbuild­ings and post and wire fences on farms but a recent amendment en­ables a council, by resolution, to exempt such outbuildings and fences from the requirements of the regula­tions.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-It will be tough if the regulations are applied to fences.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-In a rural municipality, under the Uniform Building Regulations, the council can, and no doubt would, pass a resolu­tion exempting outbuildings and fences.

Section 199 and the Sixteenth Schedule to the principal Act are to be repealed by clause 29. These provisions apply only in municipali­ties or par.ts thereof where the Uni­form Building Regulations do not apply. They provide for referees to

1780 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill.

determine va'rious ma tters arising under the building by-laws in force in these municipalities.

Clause 30 will authorize the Build­ing Regulations Committee to ap­point advisory committees to assist the committee. Each advisory com­mittee will have a member of the Building Regulations Committee as chairman and members expert in a particular field. The Building Regula­tions Committee will shortly be faced with a great deal of additional work in order to deal with recommenda­tions of the interstate committee on Uniform Building Regulations and with the task of metric conversion. By co-opting expert representatives of industry and persons with special skills and knowledge, the Govern­ment departments' work on these committees will be undertaken speedily and efficiently. The present Building Regulations Committee will, of course, be responsible for super­vision and ,co-ordination of the work.

I had intended to include in this clause provision for payment of fees and expenses to advisory committee members, but that is not possible in a Bill introduced in this Chamber. However, I indicate to honorable members that if the Bill finds fav­our with this House, the Govern­ment will seek in another place to add a further sub-clause making that provision.

Clause 31 deals with the powers of the members of the Building Reg­ulations Committee acting in their capacity of building referees. The referees may, on the application of an affected party, direct that a by­law made by a council under the powers conferred by the Uniform Building Regulations shall not apply to a particular building or shall apply with some modification or variation. This power to give directions with respect to council by-laws may only be exercised with the consent of the council concerned as the law stands at present. In two recent appeals for permits to erect flats the decisions of

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

the tribunal have been frustrated be­cause the councils concerned would not ,consent to the modification of their by-laws controlling the erection of flats.

I consider that such a situation brings local government and the planning process into disrepute, where the decisions of an indepen­dent tribunal can be frustrated by a municipality acting in an arbitrary manner and refusing even a right of appeal against its decision.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-Are not these by-laws meant to be uniform between municipalities?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-No. I think 'Mr. Clarke misconceives the position slightly. The Uniform Building Regu­lations are in fact uniform, but in addition councils may make by-laws to further control building, buildings or requirements in certain circum­stances. For example, a by-law may limit the number of flats on an area of land or may prohibit certain types of building in certain streets. In any event, it is now generally accepted that the nature of the development should be controlled primarily by planning schemes. The residential code proposed to be adopted in the Metropolitan Planning Scheme will ultimately oontrol flat development in the metropolis. Pending adoption of this code, it is considered that the referees should be authorized to direct that a by-law should not apply with modifications in the case of a proposed flat building for which a town planning permit is held. The amendment will enable the referees to do this even without prior con­sent of the council where it is neces­sary to do so in order to obtain con­formity with a planning scheme, a permit issued under a scheme, or a decision of the appeals tribunal.

Clause 32 is a drafting amendment. Sub-section (2) of section 929 re­quires amendment because of the extension of the operation of the regulations to all municipalities.

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1781

There is a similar provision in Divi­sion 3, which was added to the Part in 1963 and this provision is being incorporated in the new sub-section.

Clause 33 amends the Thirty-third Schedule to the principal Act. This schedule confers powers on the mem­bers of the Building Regulations Committee to enable them to act as referees to determine disputes arising under the regulations and to modify or vary regulations or by-laws in certain circumstances. The first amendment affects clause 7 of the schedule which empowers the ref­erees to modify or vary regulations and by-laws "in the case of any particular building proposed to be altered or erected". This limitation makes it impossible f.or the referees to deal with some matters relating to site requirements where no build­ingopera tions are proposed. The amendment proposed will enable the referees to deal with such matters if, after consultation with the building surveyor, they are satisfied that" in any particular circumstances" action is warranted.

The second amendment increases from 25 cents to $1 in each case the fee chargeable for cop-ies of any award made by the referees and for inspection of the register of the mat­ters referred to the referees. The final amendment to the schedule will relieve the Building Regulations Committee of the obligation to keep and preserve all documents conne'c­ted with the duties of the referees. This is proving to be impracticable and it is proposed that only copies of awards shall be preserved on a permanen t basis.

Clause 34 amends the recent leg­islation which provided for appoint­ment of an arbitrator to hear objec­tions against private street construc­tion schemes and appeals in connec­Hon with subdivisions of land and buildings. The amendments proposed insert transitory provisions to cover the change over from one jurisdiction to the other. The gist of the provi­sion is that any appeals unheard at the date of the appointment of

the arbitrator will in fact be heard by the arbitrator rather than by a Magistrates Court. There are provi­sions on this subject in the Acts Interpretation Act, but it -is thought desirable to have specific provisions in this instance. As I indicated at the outset, the amendments are un­related and cover a wide variety of matters; some are machinery only, but several interesting principles are involved. I commend the Bill to the House ..

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 move-

That the debate the ·adjourned for four weeks. Might I inquire from the Minister whether he intends to follow the practice adopted by the previous Minister for Local Government who, after introducing local government Bills of this type, deferred the debate until the following session to give municipalities which are vitally in­terested an opportunity of examining them. This has been the practice since I have been a member 'Of this House, and I ask the Minister wheth­er he intends to follow that practice. If so, I shall move accordingly.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister .for Local Government) .-1 point out that the Bill contains a number of useful provisions which I am sure munici­palities wculd like to have in opera­tion at a comparatively early date. 1 suggest that the adjournment be taken in the normal way at this stage, namely, for, 'say, fourteen days; then on the resumption of the debate, if Mr. Walton feels that fur­ther time should be given to muni­cipalities, I shall give the Govern­ment's answer at that stage.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (North­Western Province) .-1 think the Minister is being a bit unreason­able. This proposal is all right for the metropolitan area and cities and towns where councils hold meet­ings on three or four nights a month, but country 'shires are also vitally concerned and they meet only once a month at the end of the month.

'1782 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill. '.

H,ow will shire councillors have an opportunity 'Of considering this meas­ure and of expressing their opinions? The Minister may say that the Bill has been considered by the Municipal Association of Victoria, but I point out that the association's decisions are not always unanimous. Other persons 'Should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions to their Parliamentary representatives to be put on their behalf in this Parliament. I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) (By leave).­I point out to the Minister that many of the provisions in the Bill result from the fact that proper considera­tion was not given to previous meas­ures, even as recently as the last amendment to the Act. If municip­alities had had the opportunity of giving the previous measure proper consideration some of these .amend­ments may not now be necessary.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) (By leave).­Mr. Mansell has asked me to recon­sider my decision. I should like to make it clear that no decision has been reached.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-Before I spoke the Minister s'aid, "fourteen days ".

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I sugges­ted that 'Mr. Walton should initially seek an adjournment of the debate for fourteen days. I should not en­visage that any attempt would be made to pass the Bill through both Houses in such a time as would disentitle or disable any municipal­ities from submitting their comments upon it. That means that I would certainly undertake that the mini­mum time from the introduction in this House before the Bill passed another place would be five weeks, but I am ce~tainly prepared, if need be, to assist in every way possible. I believe fully in the process of con­sultation, and my desire would be to ensure that there was ample op­portunity for consultation and that,

if municipalities felt they had not had a chance to consider the Bill,. they would certainly be afforded that opportunity. I should like to make it clear that the practice to which Mr. Walton referred has not been a uni­versal one by any means. Quite a large local government Bill was passed in the last session. I took it over in the middle of the session, and that was passed ;in the one session.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-The previous Minister for Local Govern­ment did not do that.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The Bill was introduced in the last session by my predecessor and the debate was adjourned for fourteen days on the application of Mr. Walton.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-At your request.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-No, not at my request; I was not the Min­ister.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-At the Minister's request.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-We do not want to call the Minister" Bull­dozer" 'Hunt.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I took over that Bill in the middle of the session, upon my appointment not even to this portfolio but as Minister without Portfolio.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT.-Parlia­ment was prorogued which preven­ted the Bill from being passed.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I have made it clear that we certainly want to see consultation take place, and I give an undertaking that we will take action to ensure that it is en­abled. I am merely suggesting that the debate should be adjourned at present for the usual period. No Governmen t decision has been taken that the Bill will be put through, or "bulldozed" as Mr. Elliot said. That is not intended.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) .-Could the Minister inform the House whether it is the

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1783

Government's intention to have this Bill passed through both Houses be­fore Parliament rises for Christmas?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) (By leave) .----1 hoped the Bill would be passed by the two Houses before the end of the sessional period. However, as 1 have indicated, if a longer period for con­sideration of the measure is neces­sary, the Government will be pre­pared to assist.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) (By leave). -Mr. Mansell has suggested that it would take four weeks to get a deci­sion from the country munic'ipalities, which meet only once a month. It is not unreasonable to seek an adjournment of the debate for a period of four weeks.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-The motion should be put in two parts, the first being-

That the debate be now adjourned.

On the motion of the Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne NOTth Province), the debate was adjourned.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 move­

Th'at the debate be adjourned for four weeks.

The Hon. G. L CHANDLER (Mini­ster of Agriculture) .-The Minister for Local Government has assured the House that, if the debate is 'ad­journed for fourteen days and after the expiration of that period the Opposition is not prepared to pro­ceed, he will consider a further period of ·adjournment.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-What is the point?

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.­That is the point. The Minister for Local Government has indicated that he would grant a further period of adjournment. It is not the position that this House would not have the opportunity of studying the Bill. 1

suggest that the period of adjourn­ment of fourteen days is not un­reasonable. If it were 'a period of s'even days, some criticism would be justified.

The Hon. L A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province). - The Leader of the House is a little unreasonable. This Bill has far­reaching effects. The municipalities are entitled to make a decision and 1 do not think this can be done in one month. The Minister has said that, after a fortnight, he will examine the position. The decision of the Government could well be that the debate would continue in a fortnight or three weeks. This is not fair to country municipalities; this treatment has not been meted out in the past. These matters are im­portant to the third arm of govern­ment. Municipalities have the right to examine any proposed legislation relating to local government. If the Federal Government said that it would deal with proposed legisla­tion rel'ating to State matters within a fortnight, there would be an out­cry. Mr. Walton has moved a motion in accordance with his rights in this House. I was watching the Minister for Local Government when he sug­gested that the Bill should pass both Houses within five weeks.

The Han. A. J. HUNT.-I said exactly the opposite. I gave an undertaking that no endeavour ,would be made to put the Bill through two Houses in less than five weeks.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.­That is what I said. The Minister should not get "hotted up" about it. The 'Minister said that he hoped the Bill would pass through both Houses in ,five weeks. That would not give municipalities throughout the State every opportunity of con­considering the measure. I am against the principle of putting a measure through one House and leaving it to another House to deal with it after representations have

1784 Local Government [COUNCIL.) Bill.

been made. This House should deal with the proposed legislation. We should have the right to consider the representations of everybody. The Bill should not pass through this Chamber with the proviso that it will go to another place. Due con­sideration should be given to the representations of all parties before the Bill is passed through this Cham­ber. The Minister for Local Govern­ment is not per-mitting this; he has introduced a Bill ,with only five weeks of the sessional period left and honorable members are expect­ed to pass it. I voice my protest at this proposal; members of the Country Party will support the motion moved by Mr. WaHon.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-It is a pity that this controversy has arisen. Un­doubtedly, this is a most important measure. Sixteen Bills on this sub­ject have been brought before the House since the principal Act was passed in 1958. It would be a pity if the House were to rush into deal­ing with this measure within five or six weeks. There should be no pos­sibility of two Houses passing this measure during this sessional period. I ask the Minister for Local Govern­ment to agree to the adjournment of the debate as suggested by Mr. Walton and supported by Mr. Swin­burne. Local government is with us all the time. Submissions of all arms of government have to come to the- House from time to time seek­ing amendments and it is not good that the House should have to deal ,with these amendments in a hurried fashion. p.art of our time seems to be spent correcting measures dealing with local government Bills which have been rushed through. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree with what I regard as a reasonable approach. This measure is being introduced into this House for the first time; it' has not gone' through another place. Why should not honorable members consider the matter calmly and thoroughly?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-Either Mr. Swinburne misheard me or I must have expressed myself badly. The Hansard report will prove the form­er, or I trust so.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE. -Or it could be played back on the t'ape. The 'Minister would not be the first to have been found wrong.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-What I intended to say, and believe I said, was that I would give an undertak­ing that no effort would be m'ade to have the Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament in less than five weeks. In other words at least a total of five weeks would be given for the discussion of the Bill in two Houses and that would ensure that ample opportun'ity was available for consultation. In the course of my remarks I said that full opportunity would be given for consultation. I regret the approach adopted by Mr. Walton in seeking the adjournment of the debate for four weeks because the honorable member has not yet had the oppor­tunity of studying the detail and fully appreciating the importance of the Bill.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I listen­ed to the M'inister very carefully.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I know that 'Mr. Walton has listened with interest. He will find that a study indicates that many of the amend­ments, although of a machinery nature, are of considerable import­ance to local government.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-That is so.

The HoOn. A. J. HUNT.-They are of considerable importance to local government and it is important that the amendments should be passed within reasonable time, although without undue haste. I should prefer Mr. Walton to accept a normal ad­journment of a fortnight in the first instance and utilize that period to study the implications of the B~ll. I have already given an undertaking

~ocai (1overnr.nent [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1785

that if that time is insufficient I shall meet the honorable member on the question of adjournment. I believe that is perfectly fair. An adjournment of four weeks rules out any possibility of the matter being dealt with by the Parliament as 'a whole in this sessional period. 1 do not believe this House should rule out that pos­sibility at this stage.

The Hon. R. J. EDDy.-The Minis­ter is ruling out the possibility of local government bodies dealing with the matter.

The H'Dn. A. J. HUNT.-Not at all. -Mr. Walton should not rule that out.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.-There is a long time yet.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-If the debate is adjourned f.or four weeks, one ·would not know how long it would take to conclude, and 'One could expect complaints from an­other place about its opportunity to consider the matter. 1 imagine there would be complaints from an­other place at having such a short time to deal with such an important measure, and using the same sort of arguments that Mr. Walton has advanced.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-It is only seven weeks to Christmas.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I am ask­ing only that Mr. Walton does not rule out in 'advance, in a study of the Bill, the possibility of its pas­sage during this sessional period. In effect, his motion does that. If Mr. Walton would agree to amend his moti'Dn that the debate be adjourned for three weeks, 1 should certainly go that far to meet him.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (Western Province) .-1 am in an awkward position in relation to the question that the debate be adjourn­ed for 'a fortnight or even three weeks. Mention has been made of the debate of this Bill in another place. 'I believe the matter should

be debated in this House. I shall have no chance to debate the matter in another place; this is the place in which members of this House represent their constituents. If the time for consideration is re­duced, it will not be possible for me to speak on behalf of my electors, and therefore 1 shall not be repre­senting them as 1 should. Action by the Government to push this measure through both Houses during this session will make it impossible for me to say what I want to say in this House.

One could say that even four weeks is not a sufficient period because copies of the Bill have to be circu­lated to municipal councils. Then the shire secretary has to examine the measure before he places it before the council and so another week passes. It is stupid for the Govern­ment to ask that the debate on this measure be adjourned for less than four weeks. The Bill is one of the most important to be presented to the House during this session and its ramifications will affect many country people. Accordingly, 1 insist on an adjournment of the debate for four weeks.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-By leave, 1 indicated to the Minister for Local Government that I would have no difficulty whatsoever in proceeding with debate on this Bill in seven days if the House were sitting then, but I am concerned about the many muni­cipalities which would like to have a say on local government matters and have their views voiced in this place.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I will guar­antee that they will have a say.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-It is of no use the Minister giving a guar­antee because many of them will not meet for up to a month. Mr. Hunt knows the formalities of municipal councils as well as any other member of this House. Often matters are referred to a committee of the council

1786 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill.

and then quite often more than one council meeting is required to finalize them.

I am not happy about the Bill being passed in another place. Honorable members in this Chamber should be able to discuss the measure and make final decisions here. Why should the Bill be put aside for some Liberal Party committee to look at? This House ought to be able to decide what amendments should be made to the Local Government Act, instead of the measure being referred to a Liberal Party committee in another place. At present, we are waiting for Liberal Party committees to examine several Bills and, if this House adopts the Minister's proposal, this will be another Bill which is referred to such a committee. I insist that the debate be adjourned for four weeks.

The Hon. W. G. FRY (Higin­botham Province) .-Crocodile tears are being shed over this matter. Even whilst the Minister was explain­ing the Bill, Mr. Walton was examin­ing it, and he now knows what he is going to say-he has just said so-regarding various amendments. All honorable members in the metro­politan area can find out quickly the feeling of their local municipal coun­cils. For many years, I lived in the country and I know that shires hold special meetings to deal with impor­tant matters such as the shifting of sale-yards from point A to point B. If this measure is so earth shattering that all this manoeuvring should take place, one imagines that the people concerned would be able to prepare themselves adequately within three weeks.

Mr. Mansell has been handling Bills on local government for many years and he knows that when such a Bill is brought to the notice of a shire council, the council does not spend the whole afternoon and the next couple of days discussing it; a few items of special interest are selected and debated. If there is a particularly important matter in the Bill, a special meeting of a council may be held.

The Minister has made a reason­able compromise and the contents of the measure could quite easily be discussed by municipal councils and honorable members apprised of the views of the councils.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-The House is arguing over only seven days. The Minister has said that he will accept three weeks and the Labor Party has suggested four weeks. The measure cannot be passed by Parliament this year and therefore I suggest that sweet reason ought to prevail.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I suggested an adjournment of fourteen days, but I was prepared to compromise to avoid ruling out the possibility of the measure being passed this year.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-In the circumstances, perhaps the Leader of the House may suggest four weeks and then we can get on with the business of the House. After all, we are arguing over only seven days.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) (By leave).­I appreciate Mr. Galbally's invitation to enter into this debate. The Minister for Local Government has indicated that he desires the debate to be ad­journed for fourteen days, whilst Mr. Walton wants an adjournment of four weeks. The Government has compromised with another week.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-That will not help municipal councils which meet only monthly.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-The majority of them will probably have met before three weeks have elapsed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Not all of them.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-If the debate were adjourned for four weeks, very likely there would still be some who had not met and Mr. Walton could advance the same argu­ment in four weeks' time. Any hon­orable member who has been a coun­cillor will know within three weeks

Local Government [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. "1787

whether or not he supports this Bill. I have sufficient confi­dence in the intelligence of members of the Labor Party and of the Country Party to know that they will make up their minds within three weeks on what they are going to do. Therefore, I think the Minister's com­promise of three weeks is reasonable. I suggest that the Labor Party and the Country Party should accept the assurance given by the Minister that if two weeks is not sufficient he will agree to a further week. The Govern­ment has extended the period for one week and it would be sensible for the Labor Party and the Country Party to compromise a little.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-The motion is that the debate be adjourned for four weeks and I must put it.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-Mr. President, what will be the position if this motion is defeated?

The PRESIDENT.-It will be neces­sary for another motion to be moved.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-By leave, if the debate is adjourned for three weeks and at the end of that time honorable members feel that they are not ready to proceed, will the Mini­ster agree to a further week?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) (By Zeave).­When speaking on the adjournment of the debate for two weeks, I gave an undertaking that if honorable mem­bers are not able to obtain the infor­mation from municipalities and it is necessary to continue the process of consultation, I should certainly do so. If in three weeks' time, honorable members, bona fide, say that they have not obtained the information from their local councils, then certainly I will honour the same undertaking but I invite honorable r:nembers to make every effort to get the information in three weeks.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (North­Western Province) .-1 have some understanding of what happens in

country areas. Once the BiU is distributed, the municipal officers examine the measure and prepare a precis on it. When it comes before the council, the nine or twelve mem­bers will want to know how the measure will affect them individually. Naturally they do not make up their minds in a hurry. The Government is looking at this measure from a centralized point of view. Admit­tedly, in the larger towns and cities, and in the metropolitan area, coun­cillors win meet frequently during the month and will have an opportunity of discussing matters, but in the far distant parts of the State coun­cillors have to travel 60 or 70 miles to attend a meeting.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-Do they not meet on sale day? "

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-No, they do not. The interjection by Mr. Hamilton indicates his lack of under­standing of what happens in the far distant places. In the shire of Walpeup three of the councillors have to travel more than 70 miles to attend council meetings. These men are not on high salaries or engaged in big business. Things are tough in the country and councillors truly give their time-it is difficult for them at this time of the year because of harvesting-to local government affairs. The Government is being inconsiderate to far distant places. Country councillors take their work very seriously. The Country Party intends to stick out for an adjourn­ment of the debate for four weeks. I realize that we shall lose the vote but at least we shall' have played our part for the country people.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON (Templestowe Province) .-Mr. Pre­

sident. am I permitted to move an amendment that the debate be ad­journed for three weeks? I believe that the business of Parliament is a matter for Parliament and not for bodies outside Parliament. Anv hon­orable member who wishes to oppose or amend the provisions of the Bill should do so on his own initiative and

1788 Local Government [COUNCIL.] Bill.

not on the initiative of someone who virtually has nothing to do with the Parliament.

Amendments to the Local Govern­ment Act are introduced as a result of constant consultation with local government bodies. Many areas of local government will be dependent on and looking forward to the passing of this measure before the end of the year. If consideration of the measure is deferred for four weeks, the Bill is likely not to be passed before Parlia­ment rises. Mr. President, I should like to move the amendment which I have foreshadowed.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Mr. Houghton, the better procedure would be for me to put the motion that the debate be adjourned for four weeks. If that is defeated, I shall then be able to accept a motion that the debate be adjourned for three weeks.

The House divided on Mr. Walton's motion (the Hon. R. W. Garrett in the chair)-

Ayes 16 Noes 18

Majority motion

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Clarke Mr. Dunn Mr. Elliot Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell

Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Mr. Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Fry Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider

against the 2

AYES.

Mr. Mitchell Mr. O'Connell Mr. Swinburne Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: IMr. Eddy Mr. May.

NOES.

Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Gross Mr. Hamilton.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 16.

JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT. MONASH UNIVERSITY: COUNCIL

VACANCY.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-I have to report that this House met the Assembly this day in the Assembly Chamber for the pur­pose of sitting and voting together to choose three members of the Par­liament of Victoria to be recom­mended for appointment to the Coun­cil of the Monash University, and that the Honorable Graham John Nicol, M.L.C., the Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, M.L.C., and Robert Clive Fordham, Esquire, M.P., have been duly chosen to be recommended for appointment to the council.

COMPANIES BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government), was read a first time.

STATUTORY SALARIES BILL. The debate (adjourned from Octo­

ber 19) on the motion of the Hon. G. L. Chandler (Minister of Agriculture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) .-In his second-reading explanatory speech, the Minister fully explained the implications of this Bill and the reason for its introduction. In the course of that speech, I interjected to ascertain the position of the president of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board. Following a conference with the Minister and Parliamentary Counsel, I intend in the Committee stage to move that it be a suggestion to the Legislative Assembly that they make the amendment which has been circulated and which provides that for the words "salary as is" the words "salary and allowances as are" be substituted in sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958.

My party does not wish to delay this measure and it offers no opposi­tion to it.

Statutory [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Salaries Bill. 1789

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (North­Western Province) .-1 do not know why this measure is now being con­sidered, because it should have been before the House during the last ses­sional period. Fourteen different bodies are mentioned in this Bill. They are important bodies which provide excellent service to the State; for that reason, 1 cannot understand why they have been left until now. I do not know whether it is the fault of this House or of another place, or, perhaps, of the Cabinet.

My party does not oppose the Bill. However, I have been asked about the position of the Country Roads Board. 1 take it that it was included among the organizations which were con­sidered on the previous occasion. I think the Country Roads Board is often taken for granted because, although its work is widely appreci­ated, the board does not seek publi­city. One has only to travel through­out Victoria and interstate to realize the high quality of our roads and bridges. They are unequalled in the Commonwealth.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

C1ause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Amendment of Act No. 6203) .

The HOD. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-As Mr. Knight has informed the House, during my second-reading speech he indicated that he thought the pre­sident of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board was not included in this Bill. I had inquiries made and found that the honorable member was correct. 1 handed Mr. Knight the amendment which has been cir­culated because he raised the matter, and 1 thought that he might move that it be a suggestion to another place.

Mr. Mansell asked a question concerning the Chairman of the Country Roads Board. An Act was proclaimed on 22nd December. 1970,

Session 1971.-64

providing for allowances for the Country Roads Board. Unfortunately, it was not included among the statutes on the table. If it had been, the information would have been availab1e earlier. It is desirable that the Bill should be passed as soon as possible. It will bring up to date the provisions relating to the heads of the variou.s departments. A lot of people are waiting on the passage of this measure. 1 thank honorable members for dealing with the Bill so quickly.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province).-I thank the Leader of the House, who is in charge of this Bill, for the courtesy he showed me when 1 raised, by interjection, a matter relating to the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Board. I shall now be able to move the amend­ment which has been circulated. With due deference to another place, the need for the amendment shows that we should all closely watch the pro­visions of any Bill. I repeat that I am grateful for the courtesy of the Minister of Agriculture.

The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province).-I move-

That it be a suggestion to the Legislative Assembly that they make the following amendment in the Bill:-

Insert the following new clause to fol, low clause 8:-

C A. In sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958 for the words cc salary as is" there shall be substituted the wo'rds cc salary and allow­ance as are".' The amendment is self-explanatory.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (North­Western Province) .-The Country Party does not oppose the suggested amendment but, without relating it to the Act, it is not clear to what officers it refers.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT.-It

relates only to the president.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-I am grateful for that information.

1790 Lotteries Gaming and Betting [COUNCIL.] (Pre-Post Betting) Bill.

The suggested amendment was agreed to.

Progress was reported, and the suggested amendment was reported to the House and adopted.

It was ordered that the Bill be returned to the Assembly with a message intimating the decision of the House.

LOTTERIES GAMING AND BETTING (PRE-POST BETTING)

BILL. The debate (adjourned from Octo­

ber 13) on the motion of the Hon. V. O. Dickie (Minister for State Development) for the second read­ing of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Mel­bourne Province).-This is a Bill to authorize pre-post betting on the Melbourne Cup at a certain licensed sporting club, namely, the Victorian Club, one of the oldest sporting clubs in Victoria. It was established over a century ago. Like many of the licensed sporting clubs, it has a tradition of conducting Calcutta sweepstakes and calling the card on Melbourne Cup eve. Of course, Calcutta sweepstakes can be run by these clubs with the approval of the Chief Secretary, but the calling of the card is illegal. If this Bill is enacted, it will be legal to call the card, but only at the Victorian Club. I was surprised to read in the Minis­ter's second-reading notes-

The Bookmakers and Bookmakers Clerks Registration Committee constituted under the Racing Act 1958 has recommended that the practi'ce of "calling of the card" be re­introduced and legalized.

Surely that committee would not be asking for this to be done. Is the Minister sure that it was not the Victorian Club which asked for this practice to be reintroduced?

There are many more licensed clubs in Melbourne, one of which is the Victorian Anglers Tatter­salls Club which, like the Victorian Club, is a very old established

sporting club which has a high pro­portion of bookmakers among its membership. In fact, many Victorian bookmakers are members of both clubs. An interesting situation will arise in the future and it remains to be seen whether applications will be made for this privilege to be extended to other clubs, such as the Victorian Anglers Tattersalls Club.

It seems that the Government is at present interested only in the Vic­torian Club, but why should other clubs be disfranchised? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House. There is no doubt that the Government ex­ploits the racing industry in all ways it can, and this measure is one of those ways. Some of the reasons for the introduction of the Bill were given by the Minister who said-

I am advised that many wagers are made in circumstances which result in the Govern­ment being deprived of turnover tax which would be payable if those wagers were made on a Government licensed racecourse.

The amount of revenue being lost to the Government in this way is substantial and since there is no doubt that the betting takes place it is considered proper to legalize it and to obtain the lost revenue.

I agree with that but I condemn the Government's attitude as it has known that this type of betting has been going on from about 1950 or 1952 on every Melbourne Cup eve. I have nothing against the legalizing of this practice so long as the revenue re­ceived goes into the proper channels. The Government should divert this money to hospitals and charities. A 2 per cent turnover tax must be paid on every bet and a voucher or betting ticket carries a 2 cent duty stamp.

Of course, bookmakers who bet on the Caulfield Cup-Melbourne Cup double may want to layoff some of their liabilities. They bet not only on that double but also on the Derby and the Cup and straight out on the Cup. In some cases, their liabilities are heavy and, when laying off, they may be able to obtain better odds on Cup eve than they could on Cup Day, and so balance their books more easily.

Lotteries Gaming and Betting [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Pre-Post Betting) Bill. 1791

If this Bill is enacted, members of the Victorian Club and privileged visitors will have the chance to attend the calling of the card and to back their fancies on Cup eve, and perhaps obtain better odds than they could on the day of the race. The Labor Party has nothing against the measure but it was concerned about the way in which it was introduced. I was surprised that this practice had gone on illegally for so long.

Everyone knows that the Bill must have Royal assent before next Monday so that the calling of the card can take place legally next Monday night. It will be interesting to see which bookmakers operate. I do not know whether the committee of the Victorian Club will ballot for the bookmakers or whether they will pick them. I was intrigued at the provision in paragraph (c) of sub­section (3) of proposed new section 66A which restricts the eligibility of bookmakers to take part in the calling of the card. That paragraph refers to-bets being laid only with persons who are the holders of current certificates of regis­tration as bookmakers under Part IV. of the Racing Act 1958 and who are entitled to field in the grandstand enclosure at the Flemington Racecourse.

The grandstand enclosure takes in the elms, the ordinary ring, and the rails. The poor old bookmaker who transacts his business on the hill is ostracized; he cannot take part in the calling of the card. Some of the hill bookmakers do as much business as some of the rails bookmakers. Just because a man bets on the rails does not mean that he does the volume of business. What I said about the hill bookmakers is also true about the bookmakers in the elms or in the ordinary ring. The Minister for State Development would know tha t some of these bookmakers trans­act as much business as some of the rails bookmakers. I cannot under­stand why bookmakers from the hill who are members of the Victorian Club should not be allowed to take part in this calling of the card. They

still have to pay for their Govern­ment licences and pay their fielding fees to the Victoria Racing Club.

The Government should consider what I have said about other sporting clubs, such as the Victorian Anglers Tattersalls Club, making applications to receive the same concession. The Labor Party has nothing against this Bill and wants it -to pass for the benefit of the Minister for State Development who might not be able to wear his top-hat next Saturday, or to get into the Victorian Club if the Bill is not passed.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-In the course of a Parliamentary session, many and varied subjects are considered by the House. However, I think I am right in saying that, whenever an amend­ment to the Lotteries Gaming and Betting Act is proposed, by the time the Minister for State Development and Mr. O'Connell have given us the benefit of their knowledge and long experience of the subject, we are all well-informed.

This small amending Bill will legalize a practice which has been going on for many years at the Victorian Club. As Mr. O'Connell pointed out, in his explanatory second-reading speech, the Minister stated that the amount of revenue being lost to the Government is substantial and that, as there is no doubt that the betting takes place, it is considered proper to legalize it and obtain the lost revenue. This is a sound principle to follow. There is also no doubt, again as Mr. O'Connell pOinted out, that this type of pre-post betting takes place at other clubs in Melbourne and throughout the State. Irrespective of whether the Act is amended, this practice will continue. For this reason, my party will support the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

1792 Lotteries Gaming and Betting [COUNCIL.] (Pre-Post. Betting) Bill.

Clause 2 (Betting at Victorian Club on the Melbourne Cup).

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister for State Development).-The Bill has met with the approval of the House, but Mr. O'Connell raised some minor questions as to why the Victorian Club should be the only club legally to call the card. Harking back to pre-war years, I can recall having attended a calling of the card at the Victorian Club when I was only about eighteen or nine­teen years old. On that occasion I was completely intrigued by Mr. Alan Cooper, who at that time owned the racehorse, Talking.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-He paid $38,000 for it.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE.-That is right, and he also bought Mala. One must see a calling of the card to appreciate what takes place. The Bill sets out to legalize the position or in effect make the premises of the Victorian Club the equivalent of the Flemington racecourse for the Melbourne Cup, which means that betting will take place on Cup eve, next Monday, just as it has illegally for some time. The procedures were explained in the second-reading speech, but this is what happens. The owners of the various horses are present at the club, the names of the horses are called, prices are offered, and the owner is given the oppor­tunity of backing his horse at the price quoted. Then the doubles book­makers, who are heavily committed, can also back that horse to cover their commitments in the Melbourne Cup. Big betting takes place at the Victorian Club.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-It also takes place at the Collingwood club.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE.-That is only chicken feed. The Bill proposes to legalize something which has been going on illegally for 50 years and, in so doing, harness the betting.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-It is the Victorian Club now. What will it be next year?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE.-I shall have a chat with Mr. O'Connell about that later. All that the Govern­ment is seeking to do is to legalize this huge volume of betting so that it will be harnessed to; such a degree that the betting tax will be paid on it, just as happens at the Flemington racecourse. A substantial sum of money will be involved and I hope some of it will be channelled to the hospitals. This is all that the Gov­ernment has set out to do in this measure.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Mel­bourne Province) -Honorable mem­bers must not mistake a Calcutta sweepstakes for the call of the card. There is a renowned difference. A master of ceremonies conducts the calling of the card; bookmakers are elected and they call the card.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Is it legal?

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-Of course it is not legal. It is conducted at the Victorian Club, and that is what I am worried about.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-I am worried that the race might start before honorable mem­bers place their bets.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-With respect, Mr. Chairman, I was endeav­ouring to enlighten the Committee on the difference between a Calcutta sweepstakes and the calling of the card. The calling of the card has been going on for ov~r 50 years, not only for horse-racing, but also on Waterloo Cups, which are related to dog-racing events, and the Stawell Gift.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE.-We won a Waterloo Cup.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-I know you did, and my grandfather did also. I was perturbed when I noticed that bookmakers who ope­rate on the Hill at Flemington and who are members of the Victorian Club are to be prevented from ope­rating on the calling of the card.

Lotteries Gaming and Betting [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Pre-Post Betting)- Bill. 1793

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province) .-In joining with the bet­ting fraternity in this debate, I wish to refer to a question which has been put up to me by a group of book­makers who are members of both the Victorian Club and Tattersall's Club. From a legal point of view, how would this affect pre-post betting on the Melbourne Cup? As the Minister is aware, charts are circulated throughout Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea and beyond, indicating the prices for doubles and outright winners not only on the Melbourne Cup, but also on the Derby, the Caulfield Cup, and the Grand National events. The group of book­makers to whom I have referred are a little worried about the legal aspect of this betting.

I also lodge a mild but purposeful protest and admonish the Minister. It would appear that the honor­able gentleman is concerned only with betting turnover, but that must have been a slip of the tongue. Many registered bookmakers who are domiciled in country areas are members of the Victorian Club and Tattersall's Club. In the towns in which they live there are registered and licensed clubs which might not provide through the agency of bookmakers a grea t turnover in betting, but which would nevertheless in total constitute a formidable amount of pre-post betting on the Melbourne Cuo. If the Government is " fair dinkum ,j about the betting turn_ over tax as a means of adding to Consolidated Revenue, or to hospitals which sorely need help, I should expect it to consider eventually giving a similar franchise to any approved club provided that the procedure is conducted exclu­sively in the club in conjunction with registered bookmakers. There is great food for thought in that sug­gestion and I am fortified by many letters which I have received from different parts of the State indicating that this would be a welcome addi­tion to country life. As honorable members have been told on numerous occasions, country life today could do with a little more happiness

occasionally. This proposal would not be out of place when a major horse-race in Australia is conducted.

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister for State Development) .-1 have listened with interest to Mr. Elliot. The last thing that the Government wants to do with this measure is to extend facilities for betting in any shape or form. Initially the Government wishes to con­fine this proposal to the Victorian Club, but the Chief Secretary is pre­pared to look at other arenas. How­ever the Government must be rea­sonahle in its approach. I may be wrong, but I have been around in the horse-racing game and honorable members must appreciate what is done by the Victorian Club-I have witnessed this-for owners of horses running in the Melbourne Cup. Most of the large doubles bookmakers are members of the Victorian Club. There may be one or two others, but my assessment is that most of the large bookmakers operating legally at the Flemington racecourse also operate at the Victorian Club.

I am aware that Tattersall's Club and smaller country clubs can be carrying on this type of betting ille­gally, but the Government must look at the volume of the betting and if an argument is put forward for extension of the proposals con­tained in this Bill, the Chief Secre­tary has indicated that he is prepared to examine the matter. Initially at least 90 per cent of the large betting on the Melbourne Cup will be har­nessed under the provisions of this Bill, which is as large a step as the Government would like to take at this stage.

The clause was agreed to. The Bill was reported to the House

without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

EVIDENCE (BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS) BILL.

This Bill was received from the Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government), was read a first time.

1794 Portland Harbor Trust [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

PORTLAND HARBOR TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

As I indicated to the House when I was explaining a Bill to amend the Geelong Harbor Trust Act, I am anxious that the Government should up-date the legislation relating to the various ports in Victoria. Because of the precedents of this House, even though the various Bills are uniform it is necessary for me to introduce a separate Bill relating to each port.

In furtherance of this policy, I shall also be introducing a Bill to amend the Harbor Boards Act and I should point out that in a number of cases, the amendments which will be pro­posed for the Harbor Boards Act will also apply to Portland Harbor Trust as a number of sections of the Harbor Boards Act extend and apply to the Portland Harbor Trust Act as if in­corporated in that Act.

The Harbor Trust Commissioners at Portland are very active and dedi­cated in their efforts to advance the interests of the port and the continued development of the port of Portland is a good example of decentralization in the State of Victoria.

The decision to establish a horizon­tal storage for wheat with a capacity of 4 million bushels and the comple­tion of the storage building in time for the 1970 wheat harvest was a further boost to the capacity of the port to handle the export of grain crops. With the total port trade now passed the 500,000 tons, the future of the port is assured.

I refer now to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 covers the short title and provides for its commencement by proclamation. Clause 2 anticipates an amendment in the Harbor Boards Act. Clause 3 inserts a new section 27 A. This new section will empower the commissioners, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make

regulations granting exemptions from the payment of tolls, rates or charges, the making of refunds or prescribing the circumstances in which such exemptions and refunds may be authorized. This provision will cover the case of vessels delayed in the port through causes which are not the responsibility of the owners or master of the vessel.

Paragraph (a) of clause 4 amends paragraph (h) of section 45 of the principal Act by increasing from $1 to $2 the maximum wharfage charge per ton or part thereof which the commissioners may, with the consent of the Governor in Council, impose on cargo landed or discharged from or loaded into vessels in the port. A similar increase in the maximum wharfage charge is also set out in proposed legislation for the Mel­bourne and Geelong harbor trusts. It should be noted that in all cases, the commissioners have to obtain appro­val of the Governor in Council before any increase can be made in wharfage rates. At present there is no sugges­tion that these rates will be increased. However, as several Bills are being introduced and as the maximum charge has been reached in the port of Melbourne, it is desirable that a similar clause should be inserted in each Bill. Honorable meinbers will recall that in answer to a question today I stated that the wharfage charges in Victoria are the lowest in Australia. The proposed insertions of the words "machinery mechanical equipment" by paragraph (b) of clause 4 is to up-date the existing provision of the regulation-making powers of the commissioners. Clause 5 repeals sub-section (2) of section 46 which is now redundant as there are now no regulations in force with reference to boatmen under the Police Offences Act.

Again I remind the House that a number of the proposals which it is intended to bring forward in a Bill to amend the Harbor Boards Act will also apply to the Portland Harbor Trust Act. The Bill is commended to the House.

Melbourne and M etropolitan[26 OCTOBER, 1971. ] Board of Works (Amendment) Bill. 1795

The HOD. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) .-1 move-

That the debate be now adjourned.

1 suggest that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, 2nd November, and in doing so 1 direct the attention of the Minister to a provision relating to pollution in the Bills to amend the Geelong and Melbourne harbor trusts Acts.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-That provision will be included in the Bill to amend the Harbor Boards Act.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and it was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS

(AMENDMENT) BILL. The debate (adjourned from Octo­

ber 12) on the motion of the Hon. A. J. Hunt (Minister for Local Govern­ment) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-Honorable members will recall that the Minister for Local Government, in explaining this Bill, said that it was urgent and suggested that the debate be adjourned for only one day. The reason for the urgency was that a meeting of the Board of Works was to be held to decide its fate for the next five years.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Not a meet­ing of the board; a conference of municipalities.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I accept the correction. One would expect that most of the commissioners of the Board of Works would have been present at that meeting, as would other municipal councillors. The Bill proposes that three or four munici­palities which have been recently gathered into the net of the metro­polis should be allowed to participate in this meeting. The Bill was urgent, but a fortnight has since elapsed. One now wonders whether there was any

urgency about the Bill or whether it contains a retrospective clause which makes this meeting legal. I hope the Minister will explain the position to honorable members at a later stage.

Those honorable members who know how the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works operates and who took some interest in the meeting that was held would know that typical of meetings of the Board of Works it lasted for only eight minutes. A speCial Bill had to be passed to permit an eight-minute meeting to be held! Immediately after the meeting some councillors complained to the press that they did not have a chance to oppose the motion that was put forward at the meeting. There is nothing new about that; I have often told the House that the meetings of the Board of Works last for an aver­age of seventeen minutes. In that time 70 or 80 items of public importance involving the expen­diture of millions of dollars are agreed to. Now honorable mem­bers are being asked to give their blessing to the board being per­mitted to operate for a further five years with an additional number of commissioners. In a few years there will be more members at that end of Bourke Street than there are at this end.

I suggest that when the Minister receives the recommenda­tion from the committee that met, he should examine it in con­junction with a proposal which has been nut forward bv members of the Labor Partv on a -number of occa­sions that the board be reconstituted as a commission of three or five members somewhat similar to the State Electricitv Commission. The Board of Works is unwieldy and it is wrong that representatives of muni­cipalities should, after a meeting, have to tell the press that they were not given the opportunity of speak­ing on behalf of their municipalities because the chairman of the meeting ruled that they would not be per­mitted to sneak. If honorable mem­bers attended a meeting of the board

1796 Melbourne and Metropolitan [COUNCIL.) Board of Works

they would find that that is the w~y in which the board conducts Its business.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-They would not have to wait very long to find that out.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-They would have to be quick or they would miss the meeting. It is time for a change in the constitution of the Mel­bourne and M'etropolitan Board of Works; in fact, it is time the board was abolished. It operates on a com­mittee system and meetings of the board are a joke. The meetings are just an excuse for members to go you know where.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-I do not.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I shall enlighten you later outside the Chamber, Mr. President. The Bill contains other contentious issues. The Governm·ent proposes to pass the buck bv handing over to the Board of Works· the responsibility of setting maximum water and sewerage rates for vacant blocks of land. At present the board cannot levy rates of more than $10 against a vacant block of land, but the board contends that the cost of installing facilities to the point of entry of the block of land is $15.84 for water and $26.03 for sewerage. If that were true it would be fair for Parliament to say, as it has in the oast, that the Parliament will raise the maximum amount that the board can charge and will accept the responsibility. Parliament should not lust say to the board, as it is being asked· to tonight, that in future the sky is the limit. Honorable mem­bers know that the Board of Works is short of money and is trying to raise extra revenue. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that if the board is given the power proposed in this Bill it will increase the rates on vacant land every year. Honorable members should have some regard for those people who have owned blocks of land for twenty years and who ha ve been paying these charges.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Is Mr. Walton referring to people who have owned vacant blocks of land for twenty years?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Yes, and water supply and sewerage facilities might have been connected to the blocks for some time. The cost of installing those facilities was not as high as the figures quoted by the board, so why should those people have to pay the higher rate?

Members of the Labor Party will oppose the clause. If the Government had been reasonable we would have agreed to an increase in the maximum rate that the board could charge, but we are opposed to the Government's handing over its responsibilities to the board. Probably at its next meet­ing the board will pass an innocuous resolution in a few minutes and the rates to be charged on vacant land will be increased.

It is also proposed that the borrow­ing powers of the bo~r.d shall be increased from $500 mIlhon to $750 million. I do not know the amount in the $1 that the board is paying to service its existing loan raisings, but some years ago it was twelve shillings in the one Dound and more recently it was 57 or 60 cents in the $1. The other 40 cents are used to finance the works undertaken by the board. It is well recognized fn municipal financing that once the service charges increase beyond 20 per cent a municipality is in financial difficulty. The desirable figure is 17 per cent. I take it that the Minister does not deny that the board is paying 57 to 60 cen ts in the $1 to service its existing loans.

The Han. A. J. HUNT.-No.

The Hon . .1. M. WALTON.-Very well.

The Hon. W. V. HouGHToN.-The arguments being used by Mr. Walton are contradictory.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I shall be olea sed to hear Mr. Houghton speak on this subject later. The Melbourne and Metropolitan Board

(Amendment) [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1797

of Works is entrusted with spending a great deal of public money. On this occasion the Government is pro­posing to raise from $500 million to $750 million-a 50 per cent increase -the amount the board is to be per­mitted to borrow. I have already said that the board is committed to paying back a large amount in servic­ing its present loan. If the board takes up the full amount of $750 million, for which this Bill provides, it will be interesting to discover how much in the $1 will be left of its general revenue to spend on its every­day needs and to service its loans.

Clause 6 deals with the power of the board to take land compulsorily. When it wishes to resume land under the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works Act, the board is required firstly to obtain the approval of the Governor in Council and to publish in the Government Gazette and once in not less than two daily newspapers notice of its intention to do so. The Minister said that this requirement has operated since the 1800s and does not seem applicable now. Therefore, it is proposed that in the future the Board of Works will be required to obtain the consent of the Governor in Council, but it will no longer be required to publish notices of compulsory acqui­sition in the Government Gazette or the daily newspapers. However, the board will still be required to do this for routes for roads, sewerage or water lines or other major projects. Nevertheless, it is proposed to require the board to give advance pUblicity to the location, as a prerequisite to any consent to acquisition. As the Minister stated, this will be achieved as a simple matter of administrative policy.

I am interested to know how the board will give advance pUblicity to the location. Will it do it by word of mou.th, by knocking on people's doors, by sending everyone a copy of the newsletter we receive regularly from the board's publicity branch, and which costs a fortune, by an advertisement in the paper, or by

way of press releases? Of course, press releases do not always hit the press. The only way the board can be certain of getting this information to the people is by paying for ad­vertisements, as it has been doing in certain cases, or by notifying each person separately. I should like the Minister to state whether this will apply.

As in the past, I could spend a grea t deal of time speaking about the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. The debate on this Bill provides honorable members with their one chance in five years to alter the composition of the Board of Works and make it a body which can operate in a proper and efficient manner. It is all very well to say the board is carrying on efficiently at present. I do not deny that the work it has done is good, but it is costing much money. If the board could function somewhat similar to the State Electricity Commission, which is controlled by a commission of three or five members, the work could be done more efficiently than at present. Members of the Opposition propose to oppose clause 3.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province).-I have listened with great interest to Mr. Walton in his grizzle session-it is almost an annual event-against the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works. I am aware that over the years honorable members have had many ideas concerning what should be done in the metropolitan area from the points of view of control and planning. At 'One stage the Country Party suggested a most original idea which did not receive much support in certain quarters, and caused so much trouble in the dovecotes around Melbourne that eventually it was rejected. I still believe that if the proposal-it was termed a greater Melbourne proposal -had been implemented, the plan­ning and over-all control of the city would have been in a better posi­tion.

1798 Melbourne and Metropolitan [COUNCIL.j Board of Works

As Mr. Walton stated, the board's' set-up is unsatisfactory; it is a massive body which is continually growing and which .is responsible for controlling water, sewerage, drainage and planning in Melbourne. The board functions under the control of the Minister for Local Government and has some direction from the Local Government Department, but in the main, it is an unwieldy body that is long overdue for reform. Something should be done to bring it back to a reasotlable basis of control. Fifty per cent of the mem­bers of the board have little know­ledge of what is really happening within the board. The Minister will agree that it is not humanly possible for its members to have an over-all knowledge of what the board is doing under the present system.

For five or six years I was a member of the Joint Drainage Com­mittee. I had a close association with the officers of the board and I give them full marks for an efficient set-up and for the dedicated members of the staff who carry out the various functions of the board. However, they are completely ham­strung by the board's mode of opera­tion. A complete review should be made into the board's system of operation and control. The fact that many of the functions which fall within the ambit of the board are more or less hamstrung by other departments, such as the Department of Health, causes much concern. Honorable members who have read the reports of the Drainage Commit­tee would realize that the Government has ample scope to examine the problems of the Department of Health and the Board of Works, especially with regard to drainage.

Much is heard about pollution and whose responsibility it is. The recommendations of the Drainage Committee, if adopted, would over­come many of the fundamental problems of pollution. A body could be set up which was responsible for the control and maintenance, which at present is a fragmented control between not only the Board of Works

The Hon. I A. Swinburne.

but departments of the State. I believe this should be overcome and straightened out. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Walton that a review of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works is long overdue. I hope the Government will give some considera­tion to this, and to the recommenda­tions of the committee, of which Mr. Granter and I were members, to bring about a better liaison between the Board of Works and those of the Department of Health with a view to overcoming the difficulties which exist.

Clause 2, which amends section 67 of the principal Act, relates to the attendance of delegates at meetings. Mr. Walton has fully explained that it would not have mattered much whether the delegates attended the meetings because many meetings conclude in nine or ten minutes. However, that provision will be repealed and probably they will a ttend the next meeting and make some contribution.

I thoroughly agree with Mr. Walton's stand on clause 3, which transfers for all time a right which has been jealously held by Parliament for many years. The clause proposes that the board may from time to time fix the minimum rate for water and sewerage services. A ceiling has always been placed on these rates, and I understand that at present it is $10. I know of no reason why the rate could not have been fixed at a maximum of $20 or $25. This pro­vision can be used to force people to sell. The Government should not entrust the board with a power which could cause so much difficulty for a person that he could be forced to sell a property. There has been much talk about the services provided by the board over the years; the board has been criticized for not making maximum use of properties through which its water and sewerage mains passed. Taken to its logical conclusion, it is discovered that there are many properties that belonged to early settlers in Melbourne which might be called large estates, and

(Amendment) [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1799

probably range from 1 to 5 acres in the middle of all the services. The landholders pay their rates according to the property valuations, but no­thing is done to force them into the position of selling or subdividing. I hope no action of this type is taken, because some of the old properties are among the richest heritage handed down to this city, and are something of which the citizens can be proud, irrespective of where they are located.

I look upon vacant blocks of land, factory land, or other land owned in these areas, in the same way. If this measure is passed as drafted, it will empower the board to impose such rates as are fixed by the board from time to time. It could be any amount. I do not think this was ever intended. I have a fair idea that what is in the mind of the Minister and the board is that instead of having to come back to Parliament once in every five or ten years and get the maximum rate extended this is an easier way to do it.

I am not sure that this power would not be used for other purposes than those intended. It could be a mighty weapon to force people to sell or subdivide land. It is the right of every owner of property to be the master of that property. Parliament should not hand over to a bureau­cracy such as the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works, or any Government department, the right to force people by a taxing method, which this is, to do certain things to their land. The Govern-ment should amend the Bill to provide for the imposition of a maximum rate, which has been the principle over the years, rather than give full authority to the board. I make that comment after listening to speeches by Mr. Walton on other occasions outlining how this is done and how people would have little knowledge of the effect the altered law would have on their areas. In the outer districts now being included in the Melbourne and Metropolitan

Board of Works area, some people will be forced to subdivide land prema turely.

Clause 4 extends the board's borrowing powers. We might as well apply the principle in clause 3 to clause 4. The Government names the maximum which the board can borrow because the money has to come through the loan funds of which the State and Commonwealth are custodians, but no rights are given to the custodians of the land con­cerning the ra tes which will be charged. On the one hand the Government is giving the board an open cheque, and on the other hand it is placing a restriction on the board.

So, we do not seem to be con­sistent in relation to the two matters. Another clause of the Bill relates to payments to certain municipalities as compensation for rates which they would have received.

The final clause of the Bill prO'­vides that the board must obtain the consent of the Governor in Council before compulsorily acquiring any land. Compulsory acquisition has al­ways been a contentious matter. My party has always held that the right of any authority compulsorily to acquire property should not be written into any Act unless some brake is applied at the same time.

Those who have had property compulsorily acquired know that it is said that there will be adequate compensation. This is a nice phrasE; but the victim cf compulsory acquisi­tion finds himself the possessor of an area of land or a building for which there is no purchaser other than the acquiring authority. The property immediately ceases to have the value it had before the blanket of proposed acquisition was thrown over it. As Mr. Elliot said, it do'es not matter whether the property is in the city or the country; it has no value other than that placed on it by the acquiring authority. There may be argument at great length on the price to be paid and much money may be spent on court cases, but it

1800 Melbourne and Metropolitan [COUNCIL.] Board of Works

is seldom that much more than the price offered by the acquiring au­thority is ever obtained.

If the compulsory acquisition of land can be brought back under the authority of the Governor in Council, it can be brought back to the Parlia­ment so that the people concerned can have some say through their re­presentatives. It will then be the responsibility of the Government to ensure that reasonable and adequate compensation is offered by the acquiring body, and I am pleased that the consent of the Governor in Council will be necessary.

Mr. Walton raised some questions on how notices and so on will be effected. I believe that they will be dealt with in much the same way as similar notices are dealt with under other Acts. The fact that one does not like the acquiring authority do'es not make the position any better or worse. When due notice is given, there will be an opportunity to argue on what the compensation should be.

My party has no option but to oppose clause 3 of the Bill because it has always endorsed the principle that Parliament should fix the maxi­mum rate charged for supplying services to vacant land. In addition, the maximum rate should be laid down in the Bill. Parliament should not give some outside body the authority to set a levy on land which is not occupied for residential pur­poses. This Bill will affect land on the outskirts of Melbourne. In many places, it would be better if develop­ment was contained within certain areas. At present, there is great difficulty in providing proper services all over the place. The same principle applies in country towns where great difficulties are met in supplying proper water and sewer­age services. The reasons are the same. There are too many sub­divisions and too many areas being developed ahead of their proper time.

I repeat that the Country Party is not happy with the suggestion that Parliament should hand over to the

The Hon. I. A. Swinburne.

Board of Works the power to fix minImUm rates for the supply of services to unoccupied land. If the Bill is passed and this is done, Parlia­ment will have no say in the future on what these rates should be.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to'.

Clause 2 (Delegates to Confer­ences) .

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-Honorable members listened with great interest to the thoughtful remarks of Mr. Wal­ton and Mr. Swinburne. Of course, the main issue which has arisen is not strictly raised by the Bill; it affects the composition of the board itself. I can appreciate the argument that a small commission may well act more efficiently and less expensively than the present board, but that is not all that should be considered. In effect, the board is an arm of local govern­ment through which all municipali­ties within the metropolitan area can have their say. Their representa­tives on the board report back to the local council. To deprive munici­palities of this right would be to reduce their powers.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Why do you not have a greater Melbourne and put all the municipalities to­gether?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Mr. Swin­burne knows the bitter opposition which has been engendered even by attempts to amalgamate municipali­ties on a much smaller scale. Be that as it may, it is not an issue raised by the Bill.

It was fortunate that the delegates to the quintenniel conference last week invited in the representatives of the four municipalities concerned. I can understand the feelings of those municipalities. They did not want to be there only by invitation; they wanted to attend as of right. Never­theless, they were there. I give an

(Amendment) [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1801

undertaking that the recommenda­tion of the conference will be ex­amined most carefully before any decision is made on any changes in represen ta tion.

I appreciate the arguments put by Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Walton on the clause which deals with rates. In the long run, the decision here is a matter of making a judgment on con­flicting arguments. When presenting the proposal to Cabinet and to the House, I did not do so without care­fully considering in advance the arguments which those honorable members raised tonight. It is impor­tant that the board should be able to change the minimum rate applying to vacant land-for that is what the provision of the clause amounts to­as changes in costs occur. If the board cannot do that, home owners will pay more than their fair share of the costs of the board. I would rather that the holders of vacant land who leave it unused pay their fair share than that home owners sub­sidize them. If there were to be any subsidization, the main position should be reversed, but the board certainly does not have that in mind.

The board has in mind fixing minimum rates at something like the actual costs of providing services. I agree with Mr. Swinburne that the provision will enable the board to impose higher rates, but I see nothing wrong with the board fixing the rates a little higher than the actual costs of providing the services. After all, by holding land within the metropolis vacant for long periods, the owner could be said, in a sense, to be de­priving the board and the local muni­cipality of the revenue which the land should provide. He is withholding from the community an asset which should be used. However, there is no current intention of using this measure to impose a withholding tax. At present, the board fixes its own rate in the $1. The board can ex­ercise flexibility in doing this; it does not have to apply to Parliament for approval to fix that rate. These rates are fixed to meet costs, not to make a profit.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT.-There is a ceiling.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-But a maximum rate is rather different from a minimum rate. I think it is the other way around with a minimum rate. The maximum figure fixed for the mInImum rate becomes the rate that is charged. If as has been suggested, Parliament fixed the maximum figure for the mmI­mum rate at double that presently set by the Act, quite obviously, the Board of Works would immediately double the minimum rates on vacant land. That is not what will happen. The board will merely be given power to fix the minimum rates and it is en­visaged that these will be somewhere in the vicinity of the actual costs of supplying the services.

I understand the reason for the remarks about loan funds. Perhaps there is a great increase in one step in the maximum which the board may borrow, but the board has great re­sponsibility and is faced with heavy expenditure. Mr. Swinburne thought tha t there was inconsistency in Parliament having control over the amount which the board may bor­row whilst not over minimum rates, but I suggest that there IS none. The Government must keep control of the amount for Loan Council purposes and, in addi­tion, the loans of the board are guaranteed by the Government. No honorable member would sign a guarantee for an unlimited amount; the amount which is to be borrowed must be known. The Government is in precisely the same position. I thank honorable members for their contributions to the debate on this measure.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel· bourne North Province) .-Mr. Acting Chairman--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (the Hon. K. S. Gross).-I have allowed the Minister to reply to matters raised in the debate while clause 2 was under consideration. If Mr. Walton intends to relate his remarks to the clause, he may address the Chair.

1802 Melbourne and Metropolitan [COUNCIL.] Board of Works

The Han. J. M. WALTON.-I intend to deal with the clause, Mr. Acting Chairman. It relates to the additional municipalities which may send repre­sentatives to certain meetings. I men­tioned that I had some doubts whether the Bill in its present form validates the attendance of these other muni­cipalities allowing them to take part and vote for the recommendation. There is statutory provision for a recommendation to be made to the Minister as to the number of com­missioners who will represent the board for the next five years. The wording of the proposed sub-clause (3) , which is a little difficult to follow, is as follows:-

The several provisions of this Act shall come or be deemed to have come into operation on a day or the respective days fixed by proclamation or successive pro­clamations of the Governor ·in Council published in the Government Gazette.

I am not sure whether that means that the Governor in Council can take a date of, say, two weeks ago and pro­claim that as the date on which the Bill will come into effect. If that were done, it would be retrospective action. I am not disagreeing that it should be retrospective because a lot of time was taken up in another place debat­ing this measure and only a little time was allowed for this House to give it proper consideration. The meeting had to go on to comply with the pro­visions of the Act, and did in fact occur. Therefore, there would be no complaint about making the date retrospective if this were necessary, but I point out to the Minister that it might as well be done properly. A meeting was held and my authority for the remarks which I made is a report that appeared in the Sun News­Pictorial of 15th October, 1971, under the heading " Board of Works Vote a Disgrace". The report stated-

Councillor B. T. Taylor, of Eltham said:

"A motion was put forward, it was seconded. An amendment was suggested, this was defeated and later the motion was voted for.

" It was ruled that any further discussion was out of order. It all happened so quickly."

That is exactly what I was endeavour­ing to convey to the Committee-it all happened so quickly. Discussion at meetings of the board is deliber­ately discouraged and frowned upon. They do not want to have questions asked. It is said that the files are there to be examined, but there can be up to 1 00 items on the notice paper and a member would have a busy time going through 1 00 files to prepare himself to speak on any particular matter in a meeting which may be over within a matter of minutes.

I urge the Government to consider the proposals of the Labor Party and the Country Party for reconsti­tution of the Board of Works. At present the board is growing gradually by stealth from 49 up to 53 members. Certainly a couple of members have been removed-they represented Camberwell and Malvern councils­but three new members from outer metropolitan councils have replaced them. The net result is that the board's recommendation to the Min­ister will be for an increase in the number of members.

The Minister has stated that it would be more economical to run the board with a commission of, say, three or five members. Surely that is the objective for which the Govern­ment should be aiming. It should be endeavouring to run the Board of Works in the most economical fash­ion, instead of having all these men coming in once a fortnight for a meet­ing lasting eight or nine minutes, followed by a friendly chat and a drink. That is not good enough. The Minister should have these facts be­fore him when making his final de­cision.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The further point raised by Mr. Walton concerns the validity of the meeting held on 14th October. Section 7 of the principal Act provides for a confer­ence to be held in regard to repre­sentation on the board and also

(Amendment) [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1803

enables delegates to be appointed by councils. Delegates were in fact appointed and the conference was held. In common with the position which exists at many other confer­ences, those who had no strict legal entitlement were brought in by invi­tation of the meeting. As I under­stand it, they did not vote at the con­ference. I see no possibility that there was any invalidity in the meeting, or any apparent need for the use of retrospectivity.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-Or need for the clause.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The clause still is necessary for future meetings.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 3 (Minimum water rates) .

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel-bourne Province) .-1 have indicated that my party intends to oppose this clause. The Minister put forward a plausible reason why there should not be a restriction on the amount that the board may charge on vacant lots of land, as this encourages de­velopment. It is realized that this has to be paid for and we do not argue on the amount. Our argument is that the Government is walking away from its responsibilities. Ob­viously it is unpopular to set the rate, or the Government does not want to accept the responsibility. In the past it has been possible to keep the rate down by fixing the maximum, which becomes the minimum. Again, the amount is known. Even if Parliament was to grant the board the right to charge up to the amount sought, which was mentioned in the Minis­ter's second-reading speech, that figure could be changed, but Parlia­ment should not give away its powers as it is being asked to do under the provisions of this Bill. It is no wonder that the States are becoming a back number. Here is an oppor­tunity for Parliament to say what people should pay by way of rates in our metropolis but Parliament is

handing the matter over to another body for decision. My party will oppose this clause.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North­Eastern Province) .-The Country Party will oppose this clause. We do not believe the right to fix the minimum rate should be handed over to the board. These rates should be fixed by Parliament, which should retain the right to do so.

The Committee divided on the clause (the Hon. G. J. Nicol in the chair)-

Ayes Noes

Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Mr. Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Fry Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hamilton

Mr. Clarke Mr. Dunn Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell

AYES.

Mr. Hauser. Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. Storey Mr. Ward.

17 17

Tellers: Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton.

NOES.

Mr. May Mr. Mitchell Mr. O'Connell Mr. Swinburne Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Bradbury Mr. Thomas.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-There being an equality of voting, I am required to give a casting vote. In order that the clause may remain in the Bill to receive further consideration, I cast my vote with the Ayes. The Ayes therefore have it.

The clause was therefore agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

The House adjourned at 10.47 p.m.

.1804 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

i1j~gi!llatitt~ i\!l!l~mbly. Tuesday, October 26, 1971.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie) took the chair at 3.5 p.m., and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE.

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated:-

EX-SERVICEMEN. RECOGNITION OF REHABILITEES AS

TRADESMEN. (Question No. 450)

Mr. CURNOW (Kara Kara) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry-

Whether ex-servicemen, trained under rehabilitation schemes since the second world war, are recognized as qualified tradesmen and can now have apprentices under their care; if so, whether, at the request of such persons, consideration will be given to the issue of documentary evidence of their fully qualified tradesman status?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry).-The answer is-

The recognition as tradesmen of ex­servicemen trained under the Common­wealth reconstruction training scheme is the responsibility of trade committees estab­lished under the Commonwealth Trades­men's Rights Regulation Act, which is administered by the Commonwealth Minister for Labour and National Service.

MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY. PENSIONER PATIENTS AT PSYCHIATRIC

INSTITUTIONS. (Question No. 462)

Mr. LIND (Dandenong) asked the Minister of Health-

1. Whether pensioner patients at psychi­atric institutions are to be called upon to pay $12 per week board and lodging; if so, when?

2. Whether patients have been encouraged to apply for Commonwealth supplementary benefits of $2 per week; if so, whether it is proposed that the patient will retain half of this amount and that the institution con­cerned will receive half?

3. Whether the receipt of this supplement­ary assistance will further restrict the earning capacity of patients who are being rehabilitated in places such as sheltered workshops or outside industry?

4. Whether patients with private incomes and/or superannuation are not called upon to pay board and lodging at such institu­tions?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The answers are-

l. There is no provision in mental health legislation for persons in psychiatric hos­pitals or mental hospitals to be asked to contribute towards the cost of care and treatment.

2. Application is made by the Mental Hygiene Branch of the Department of Health under the Social Services Act for the payment of supplementary financial assist­ance on behalf of eligible patients resident in wards of mental hospitals accepted by the Commonwealth as benevolent homes. When this is granted $2 is paid by the Commonwealth to the State and $2 is made available to the patient concerned.

3. Regular income from employment or from property affects an otherwise eligible patient's entitlement to supplementary assist­ance under the Social Services Act.

It begins to be affected when the patient's separate income is $1 a week and supple­mentary assistance ceases when separate income reaches $3 a week. It also termin­ates if property held is valued at $1,960.

4. No charge is made for care and treat­ment of patients in mental institutions.

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS. CHILDREN ATTENDING SCHOOL.

(Question No. 464)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-

l. How many Aboriginal children in Vic­toria are of school age or 'above?

2. How many attend-(a) primary schools; (b) secondary schools; (c) senior technical or similar educational institutions; and (d) universities?

Mr. MEAGHER (Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) .-The answers are-

1. The numbers provided relate to those Aboriginal children known to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs-2,540.

2. (a) 962.

(b) 473. (c) Five. (d) Four.

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1805

METROPOLITAN FAIR RENTS BOARD.

RENTALS FOR PRESCRIBED PREMISES.

(Question No. 473) Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine) asked

the Attorney-General-In respect of the 26 properties declared

as prescribed premises by the Governor in Council pursuant to section 44 of the Land­lord and Tenant Act 1958, during the year ended 1st October, 1971-

1. How many of these properties were subsequenHy dealt with by the Fair Rents Board?

2. What was the minimum and maximum reduction, respectively, granted and what was the rent prior to the determination?

3. In how many of these cases a Fair Rents Bo'ard refrained from making a determination?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­The answers are-

1. Fifteen. 2. The minimum reduction granted by the

Metropolitan F'air Rents Board was $4.50 a week, the rental prior to reduction being $10.50 a week. The maximum reduction granted was $18 a week, the rental prior to reduction being $50 a week.

3. The board made a determination in relation to all cases coming before it. In fifteen of the 26 cases, applications were made to the board. In eight cases, reductions in rent'al were ne.gotiated by the Rental Investigation Bureau and it was not neces­sary for the lessees to lodge applications with the board. Applications were not made to the board in the remaining three cases.

CASES INVOLVING PENSIONER LESSEES.

(Question No. 475)

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine) asked the Attorney-General-

In respect of the 355 cases dealt with by the Fair Rents Board during the year ended 1st October, 1971, in how many cases the lessee was a pensioner?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).­The answer is-

The board does not keep records of the numbers of pensioners 'concerned in applica­tions coming before it. An examination of the papers relating to the 355 cases dealt with by the board in the period indicated that at least 140 pensioners were concerned. If a lessee attends 'a hearing before the board he is 'always asked whether he is a pensioner, firstly, as a guide in taking into account the provisions of section 64 (j) of the Landlord and Tenant Act and, secondly, to inform the board whether the lessee has

any claim for assistance under the rental assistance scheme administered by the Public Trustee. In approximately half of the 355 cases, the lessee did not appear and, con­sequently, it is not known whether pen­sioners were involved in these cases.

RENTAL ApPLICATION BY MR. T. KUNG.

(Question No. 476)

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine) asked the Attorney-General-

If he will lay on the table of the Library the file relating to a rental 'application by Mr. T. Kung in respect of a dwelling situate at 502 Tooronga Road, Hawthorn East?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).­The answer is-

The file to which the honorable member refers forms part of the official records of the Metropolitan Fair Rents Board. The honorable member will appreci'ate that the same difficulty arises in rel,ation to records of the board as would arise in respect of the official records of a court, and I do not feel able to comply with this request. If, however, the honorable member will indicate what information he requires I will have inquiries made and advise him thereon as soon 'as practicable.

RENTAL INVESTIGATION BUREAU. RENTAL REDUCTIONS.

(Question No. 474)

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine) asked the Attorney-General-

In respect of the 380 cases in which the rent was reduced by negotiation between the Rental Investigation Bureau and the landlords during the year ended l'st Octo­ber, 1971, what was the minimum and maximum reduction, respectively, obtained and what was the rent prior to a reduction?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).­The answer is-

The minimum reduction of rental nego­tiated by the Rental Investigation Bureau was $2 a week, the rental prior to reduction being $14 a week. The maximum reduction negotiated was $18 a week in respect of each of two properties, the rentals prior to reduction being $50 a week. These two properties were on the same title and similar in nature to the property referred to in my answer to part 20f question No. 473 in relation to the maximum reduction granted by the Metropolitan Fair Rents Board. The bureau ,acted upon the precedent established by the board. In three other cases, where there was no such precedent, the bureau negoti'ated reductions 'Of $16 a week on rentals of $35 a week in one c'ase and $40> a week in two cases.

1806 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT. ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL

CENTRES AT PRESTON AND GEELONG.

(Question No. 477)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister for Social Welfare-

1. Who are the members, specifying their positions, of the steering committee estab­lished by him to investigate administrative and mechanical procedures relating to the decision to establish regional welfare centres at Preston and Geelong?

2. When the committee was formed?

3. On how many occasions the committee has met?

4. Whether the committee has prepared any working papers on regionalization; if so-( a) what specific aspects of regionali­zation are covered; and (b) if he will lay such papers on the table of the Library?

Mr. I. W. SMITH (Minister for Social Welfare).-The answers are-

1. Mr. A. D. Green, Supervisor of Classi­

fication and Treatment, Youth Wel­fare Division, Social Welfare Depart­ment (convener).

Mr. D. Lord, Deputy Director, Proba­tion and Parole Division, Social Wel­fare Department.

Mr. J. McGinty, officer-in-charge, Main­tenance Collection Section, Family Welfare Division, Social Welfare Department.

Miss G. Mal,are, officer-in-charge, Family Counselling Section, Family Welfare Division, Social Welfare Department.

Mr. N. Semmens, accountant, Central Administration, Social Welfare De­partment.

2. On 12th May, 1971.

3. Nineteen occasions as a full committee. Fifty-six other subsidiary meetings have been convened by individual members with other departmental officers.

4. (a) The committee has so far made interim submissions to me concerning-

functions transferable, lines of authority and accountability, staff organization, duties and qualifications, and accommodation.

(b) No.

PORT OF PORTLAND. VISIT OF M.V. Seawise University:

DREDGING.

(Question No. 481)

Mr. W. J. LEWIS (Portland) asked the Minister of Labour and Industry, for the Minister of Public Works-

Whether, in view of the proposed visit of the M.V. Seawise University to a Vic­torian port he has received and considered representations to provide money to dredge the port of Portland to enable this ship to berth at Portland; if so, whether funds will be made available for this purpose?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry).-The answer is-

The Minister of Public Works advised me that he has received representations from the Portland Tourist Association and the Hon. K. S. Gross, M.L.C.

The Portland Harbor Trust has advised the Minister that to accommodate this vessel in Portland the following considerations would have to be taken into account:-

1. Vessels scheduled for cargo would have to be diverted to other ports whilst the Seawise University was in port;

2. Weather conditions at the time of arrival and departure would need to be calm in order that a vessel of this size could be safely handled with the limited tug boat power on station;

3. Considerable prior notice would be required in order that shipping companies could be made aware that the port would be closed except the No. 6 (bulk berth) and the oil berth;

4. The turning circle and the berths at No. 1 quay would have to be dredged to 45 feet (current depths being 36 feet) as it is understood that the draft of the vessel may be in excess of 39 feet 6! inches due to the placement of permanent ballast; and

5. The cost of dredging is estimated at $585,000 and would take some five years using the trust's existing equipment.

In view of the foregoing the Minister does not propose to authorize any works to be carried out to enable the M.V. Seawise Univers.ity to berth at Portland.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. CAVENDISH PRIMARY SCHOOL.

(Question No. 483) Mr. E. W. LEWIS (Dundas) asked

the Minister of Education-1. Whether he is aware that the Caven­

dish Primary School residence has been con­demned for four years and that the floors

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1807

have been necessarily replaced at the ex­pense of the teacher; if so, when this dwell­ing will be replaced?

2. When the Cavendish Primary School will be connected to the town water supply?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-The answers are-

1. This house was condemned four years ago on the basis of a proposed road widen­ing and minimum maintenance has been carried out since then.

The widening is now in doubt and this necessitates a review of the decision to demolish. If the widening is not to pro­ceed, the house will be retained and reno­vated.

2. Work will probably commence next month.

SCHOOLS IN PORTLAND ELECTORATE: ACCOMMODATION: TEACHERS.

(Question No. 486)

Mr. W. J. LEWIS (Portland) asked the M'inister of Education-

1. Whether sufficient accommodation will be available at all schools in the electoral district of Portland to cater for enrolments of pupils in the 1972 school year?

2. Whether sufficient teachers will be available to fully staff all such schools?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-The answers are-

1. Firm February enrolments have not yet been established for any schools in the electoral district of Portland.

A survey will soon be conducted to ascer­tain this information and this will be the basis for determining the accommodation needs of the respective schools.

2. Every endeavour will be made to staff fully all schools in the electoral district of Portland for 1972.

TEACHER HOUSING IN COUNTRY AREAS.

(Question No. 487)

Mr. W. J. LEWIS (Portland) asked the Minister of Education-

Whether housing provided in country areas by the Education Department for teachers is fully utilized at present; if not, whether steps will be taken to ensure that teachers seeking such accommodation are provided for?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-The answer is-

Houses provided for teachers are cur­rently being fully utilized. There are isolated examples of residences standing vacant by

reason of the school to which they are attached having been unstaffed or where all members of staff are adequately housed and -residence is temporarily surplus to needs. In the latter instance efforts are made to temporarily sublet to non-teachers.

CLEAN AIR ACT. PROSECUTIONS AND CONVICTIONS:

ORDERS ISSUED.

(Question No. 488)

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the Minister of Health-

Further to his answer to question No. 410 asked on 19th October, 1971-

1. Whether anv oros'ecutions have been launched under the-Clean Air Act 1958 or the Clean Air Regulations by any municipal council; if so, what prosecutions and what was the result of each action?

2. What records are kept in the Depart­ment of Health of such legal actions taken under the Act or the regulations?

3. With respect to the eleven orders issued by the Commission of Public Health­(a) what was the nature of the installations required of each industrial organization; (b) what type of industry was involved in each cas'e; (c) whether any such orders were not complied with in the time set out in the notice; (d) whether any such orders have not been fully complied with as at 19th October. 19'71; and (e) whether any legal actions are pending in respect of any of these eleven orders?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The answers are-

1 and 2. Prosecutions have been launched by a number of municipal councils in the terms of the Clean Air Regulations and the Clean Air Act 1958. Records of these pro­secutions are not held by this department.

3. In addition to the eleven orders referred to in my answer to question No. 410, there was also one case in regard to a foundry which ceased operations when given a direc­tion in writing to undertake certain modifi­cations to its foundry plant. This has been included in the list of industrial organiza­tions.

(a)-(1) Raw meal mills.-Increase in

the existing baghouses; vertical kilns; install an electrostatic precipitator.

(2) Gypsum dryer.-Install a bag­house and increase the height of the exhaust stack; kettle; install a heated and jacketed cyclone followed by a baghouse.

(3) Annealing stove.-Install auto­matic feeding equipment on each 'annealing stove.

1808 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

(4) Spray booth.--Increase the height of the exhaust stack.

(5) Woodwaste incinerator.-In-stall high efficiency cyclones. A storage hopper and automatic feed equipment; McCashney or multiple chamber incinerator; auxiliary heat­ing equipment 'and interlocking.

(6) Coffee roaster and cooler.­(i) Supply fan and ducting; (ii)a gas-fired afterburner;

(iii) a temperature recorder; (iv) electric interlocking.

(7) Hotmix plant.-High efficiency cyclones followed by a sectionalized baghouse,and increase in the height of the exhaust stack.

(8) As for No.7.

(9) Woodwaste incinerator.-(i) High efficiency cyclones; (ii) storage hopper and auto­

matic feeding equipment; (iii) a McCashney or multiple

chamber incinerator.

(10) Boiler plant.-(i) Extend chimney;

(ii) insulate chimney effectively; (iii) provide means to enable the

person in charge of the boiler to view the chimney outlet without leaving the boiler room.

(11) Dye winches, stentering machines and tentering machines.-

(i) Provide a supply ,fan and ducting;

(ii) a gas-fired afterburner; (iii) a temperature recorder; (iv) electrical interlocking.

(12) Thermal phosphoric acid plant.-Repair 'and maintain the venturi scrubber.

Coke drying kiln.-Provide cyclones followed by a baghouse.

Phosphorus furnace.-Provide ,telescopic seals and erect a two-stage electrostatic precipitator; dry collec­tion hoppers for the dust fitted with sealed transfer valves and slurring equipment; provide ,a spray 'condenser and a tubular condenser to follow the precipitator; provide 'a scrubber and exhaust stack.

Conversion tower.-Provide high efficiency cydones and 'a ven­turi scrubber and extend the stack to a height of 120 feet.

(b)-(1) Cement.

3) Foundry. (

2) Plaster.

4) Chain manufacture.

(c)-

(5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

(10) (11) (12)

Sawmill. Coffee merchant. Asphalt plant. Asphalt plant. Sawmill. Bakery. Knitting mill. Phosphate manufacture.

( 1 ) A short ex·tension of time was granted by the Commission of Public Health to allow the organization time to complete an installation cost­ing more than $300,000. The plant has now been operating successfully for a number of years since the modification was carried out.

(2) and (3) The operations of these companies in Victoria terminated shortly after the expiration of the time allowed in the order.

( 4) Installation was .completed in time, ·and is operating satisfactorily.

(5) The company ceased incinera­tion of their sawdust following the expiration of the period of ,time allowed by the order, and now com­pletely removes ·all sawdust from the site.

(6), (7), (8) and (9) The time specified in the order as yet has not elapsed.

(10) A short extension of time is being considered. Technical discus­sion between the firm's engineers and officers of the Clean Air Division are proceeding.

(11) The equipment was not installed in ,the specified time 'and the Commission of Public Health has directed that legal proceedings be undertaken. The matter is now in the hands of the Crown Solicitor.

(12) The time specified in the order as yet has not elapsed.

HEALTH ACT. TYPHOID CARRIERS: NORTH COTE CAFE.

(Question No. 489)

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the Minister of HeaIth-

Further to his answer to question No. 408 asked on 19th October, 1971-

1. Whether a senior district health officer advised an officer of the Northcote City Council that there was no necessity to take action in respect of the food in the Northcote cafe conducted by the typhoid carrier nor to carry out any precaution in respect of the premises; if so, whether the council acted to remove the food and disinfect the premises against such advice?

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1809

2 Whether an officer of the Department of Health indicated that it was satisfactory to allow the carrier's wife to continue to conduct the cafe wtthout her having been cleared as a possible typhoid carrier, and whether she did so carryon the business for a period of some days?

3. Why legislation has not been introduced to amend the Health Act 1958 or no amend­ment made to regulations to give power to close premises similar to those involved in the Northcote incident?

4. Whether the Department of Health keeps an up to date written record of the names, locations and places of emplo~ment of all typhoid carriers in the State; If so, when the record was first commenced?

5. Whether no direct surveillance is under­taken by the Commission of Public Health or its officers over the day-to-day employ­ment of knDwn typhoid carriers?

6. What control a municipal cDuncil has .over a typhoid carrier who moves out of that municipality?

7. Whether the existing controls allow for a carrier to change his place of abode into a new municipality without detection?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The answers are-

1. The advice of a senior district health officer was that, in regard tD food in sealed and unbroken packages, there was no necessity to take any action. However, as stated in my reply of the 19th October, 1971, any broken packages of food or .other food capable of contamination by handling by the carrier should be removed and the premises disinfected to the satisfactic:>n of the medical officer of health of the CIty of NDrthcDte.

2. The advice of an officer of the Depart­ment of Health was that the carrier's wife could cDntinue to conduct the cafe provided that she had been cleared as a pDssible typhoid carrier tD the satisfaction of the medical officer of health to the City .of Northcote.

It was subsequently ascertained that the medical officer of health had permitted the carrier's wife to continue to conduct the cafe prior to the completion of a series of bacteriological tests. Officers of the City of Northcote were advised that she should not be permitted to continue to conduct the cafe until all tests were completed and clear.

3. Experts in epidemiology do not consider it necessary to amend either the Health Act or the regulations to provide such power in cases such as that at Northcote.

4. Yes, except that occupation instead of place of employment is recorded. This list was first established in 1948 following approval by the Governor in Council of the Infectious Diseas'es Regulations 1947. .

5. Under the Infectious Diseases Regula­tions direct surveillance is the responsibility of the appropriate municipal council and its officers.

As stated in my reply to question No. 408, the function of officers of the Department of Health in regard to such matters is general supervision of the work .of council officers.

6. Regulation 53 of the Infectious Diseases Regulations 1941 (as amended by the Infectious Diseases Regulations 1947) pro­vides that a carrier must not change his place of residence without notifying the medical officer of health of his change of address and the medical .officer .of health being so notified shall forthwith inform the commission thereof.

7. Provided that controls laid down in the Infectious Diseases Regulations are com­plied with, a carrier cannot change his place of abode to another municipality without the fact being known.

PACKAGING OF FOOD: NUFARM CHEMICALS PTY. LTD.

(Question No. 492)

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the Minister of Health-

Further to his answer to question No. 409 asked on 19th Ootober, 1971-

1. What procedure is adopted when food, which has been prepared or packed in one municipality and sold in another munici­pality, is found to contravene the provisions of the Health Act 1958?

2. What is the reason for the defined policy of the Commission of Public Health that it did not enter directly into correspon­dence with municipal health inspectors?

3. Whether such a policy has resulted in the deterioration of co-operation or com­munication between the commission and munici palities?

4. Whether officers of the commission have co-operated fully in assisting heaHh inspec­tors of the City of Broadmeadows at all times in the implementation of the Health Act 1958 and the Clean Air Act 1958?

5. Whether any officer or employee of Nufarm Chemicals Pty. Ltd. has been advised since 1st January, 1968, that the company's factory premises at McBryde-street, Fawkner, were satisfactory and fully com­plied with the Clean Air Act 1958 and the Clean Air Regulations?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The answers are-

1. As mentioned in my reply to the honor­able member's question No. 409, it is the accepted procedure in such cases for a council heaHl'1 inspector to consult with and obtain assistance of either departmental

1810 Questions [ ASSEMBLY.] without Notice.

health inspectors, whose jurisdiction extends throughout the whole of Victoria, or of the health inspector to the municipality where the food was prepared or packed. It would, of course, be essential for the health inspec­tor who discovered the breach, before seek­ing to involve other parties, to assure him­self that the food being offered for sale is in the same condition as it was when originally packed and had not been subject to local adulteration or mishandling.

2. The Commission of Public Health is required in the terms of the Health Act 1958, to see to the enforcement and carrying out of all of ,the provisions of the Health Act. The Health Act places on municipal councils responsibilHies in relation to the local admini­stration of various sections of the Health Act and the council, and not any particular officer, is responsible for this administration. In these circumstances the commission deals directly with a council through its executive officer; that is, the municipal clerk. All communications from the commission to councils on matters dealing with Health Act administration are issued over the signature of the chairman of the 'commission or its secretary. With regard to municipal health inspectors, the attention of the honorable member is drawn to the fact that such officers are subject to the direction and in­struction of the medical officer of health who in turn is responsible to the council.

3. No. The co-operation and communica­tion between the commission and municipal councils is considered to be at its most satis­factory level for many years, and the policy goes a long way towards ensuring that those council health inspectors who are not pro­perly controlled by their employing councils do not exceed their authority when dealing with the general public.

4. Yes, but within the respective respon­sibilities of the municipal health inspectors, and departmental officers in the terms of the Health Act and Clean Air Act.

5. No departmental officer has any recol­lection of advising any offi.cer or employee of Nufarm Chemicals Pty. Ltd., in this manner. These is no record of any such discussion on any departmental file.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE.

CRIME. Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Can the

Chief Secretary inform the House what action the Government contem­plates taking to combat the crime wave in Melbourne over the past week-end?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­We must be careful in defining our terms when discussing a "crime wave". The fact is that last week­end the number of offences was no

greater than what can be regarded as normal. What was striking was the number of serious offences which were committed. Of course, this is a serious matter and gives rise to concern.

Firstly, there was certainly no relaxation by the police in their patrols or in the protection they ex­tended to the cOlnmunity. On the contrary, a larger number of police than normal were operating last week-end, because, as most honorable members are aware, they were trying out a new computer system of record­ing stolen cars and were carrying out what resulted in a highly successful exercise. In fact, the figures show that during the week-end the police checked 1,729 cars with the com­puter, which was at a rate of two cars a minute for 60 hours, and they recovered 53 stolen vehicles, which is about double the normal rate. How­ever, this highly successful exercise took place at a time when the number of serious crimes increased.

Secondly, a much higher number of arrests were made last week-end than normal. The number of arrests was 88, of which 39 were for the more serious crimes involving assault, and there was one case of rape.

This sudden increase in crime occurred after a relatively quiet period. For many preceding week­ends the number of offences had been lower than normal. To illustrate how these matters can fluctuate, I point out that the crime rate over the past 24 hours has been the lowest for a long time.

Mr. EDMUNDS.-AH the crooks are at work.

Mr. HAMER.-That may be so. Overall, the expectation is that the increase in crime will be lower in 1971 than it has been in the preced­ing years. All these matters must be taken into account in assessing the incidence of crime over this one week­end. Whether this is part of a pattern remains to be seen, but I assure the

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] without Notice. 1811

House that the police and the Govern­ment do not propose to wait and see.

Conferences were held yesterday and today, and it has already been decided that 1,000 or more police will be on patrol and ready in the metropolitan area next week-end. These police will concentrate in par­ticular on a number of known trouble spots.

J point out that many serious offences arise out of domestic disputes, private brawls, and argu­ments at parties, hotels and other places. In many cases the community can help in this context. Requests and even appeals will be made to the com­munity by the various news media to co-operate with the police in prevent­ing these incidents from developing into serious matters of assault. We want the community to send for the police at the first sign of a dispute or a brawl, in order that the police can intervene at an early stage.

With the taking of these steps the House can be assured that protection of the community will be redoubled. This is regarded as a serious matter and the Government does not propose to let it rest with­out taking extreme precautions.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Does it necessarily follow that when the police conduct a traffic blitz police establishments in areas which, accord­ing to the Chief Secretary's figures and statistics, are crime prone, are left short of men to carry out the neces­sary law enforcement in those areas?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­Certainly not. As I have indicated, additional people were called in last week to try the computer system. In any event, the test was carried out mainly by Crime Squad cars and mobile traffic patrols which, in any case, would have been on the road. They were on the look-out for stolen cars and when they encountered a vehicle which aroused sus­pIcIon they were able to call D.24 and have it checked and thus be in the position to take quick action. Police patrol work was not reduced because of the test.

Mr. BILLING (Heatherton).-Is consideration being given to in­creasing the penalties for the types of crime about which the Deputy Leader of the Opposi tion asked­that is, for assault on persons, for aggravated assault, for rape, and so on?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­I cannot say that that matter has been canvassed as yet, but it may be necessary to do so if this sudden rise in serious offences continues. I point out that although we hear a great deal about offences, we do not hear as much about the arrests which are made in consequence of them, nor do we often hear about penalties which are imposed on the people who are convicted.

Generally speaking, J believe the penalties which have been prescribed by the Parliament are probably ade­quate, but in many cases-and J say this advisedly-the courts naturally have more regard for the person before them in the dock than to the deterrent effect of the penalty imposed. Perhaps we should look for greater deterrents through the imposition of more ade­quate penalties and the publication of those penalties than we have in the past.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-From the answer that the Chief Secretary has just given, does it follow that the honorable gentleman is critical of the approach of the courts in imposing sentences which are appropriate to protect individuals in such a way that they will do justice to the individual offenders who are before the court?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­J believe the task of the courts is a difficult one. A person appears before the court charged with an offence and, as the Leader of the Opposition would know because of his profession, a strong plea on the part of that person is often made. A plea is made for compassion and, in many cases, even for mercy.

1812 Questions [ASSEMBL Y.] without Notice.

A court is only human, and it is influenced by the pleas which are made. It is proper that the pleas should be made. I was saying that where this happens-that where mercy is extended or consideration is given to the person affected-it may lead to the imposition of a sentence which is lighter than that which this Parliament had in mind when fixing the maximum penalty.

I am not criticizing anybody; I am saying that this is the natural result of the law as we see it; but, in serious cases, I think more pUblicity needs to be given to the actual penalties imposed, which should operate as a deterrent in the way that this Parlia­ment intends.

ST. KILDA FORESHORE. Mr. DIXON (St. Kilda).-Is the

Minister of Lands aware that a private contractor has machinery placed on Crown land alongside the St. Kilda marina and has had it there for about two years? Will the Minis­ter investigate this use of Crown land?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands) .-1 was unaware of this, and I thank the honorable member for bringing it to my attention. The reclaimed land on the bay side of Marine Parade, St. Kilda, is partially controlled by the St. Kilda City Council as a committee of manage­ment. That area is between Marine Parade and what was the high-water mark before reclamation. The area between the former high-water mark and the present high-water mark is currently unreserved Crown land, and action is being taken to have it reserved and placed under the control of the St. Kilda City Council. I shall investigate the honorable member's complaint, and advise him.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT. Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the

Opposition) .-In view of the fact that the Chief Secretary is concerned to express a viewpoint on the attitude of the courts to the deterrent effects

of punishment, is the honorable gentleman yet able to inform the House of his own position and the view which will operate in his depart­ment on the deterrent effects of capital punishment?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­The question seems to have nothing to do with the administration of my department.

BENDIGO INSPECTORATE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. SHILTON (Midands).-1 address a question to the Minister of Education. The Education Depart­has announced its intention to aban­don the Bendigo inspectorate on 1st January, 1972. Following protests against this decision by the school principals and committees concerned, at a meeting during the week-end, 'will the Minister reconsider ihe deci­sion, particularly in view of the inten­tion that three of the schools will be inspected from Swan Hill, 120 miles away?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-The honorable member representing the Bendigo Province in another place discussed this matter with me yesterday, and again this morning, and I have promised to in­vestigate it. I suppose this is a case of a decentralized area becoming more decentralized.

VICTORIAN ARTS CENTRE CONCERT HALL.

Mr. EDMUNDS (Moonee Ponds).­Will the Premier inform the House what representations have been made to him to have the new concert hall of the Victorian Arts Centre con­structed in park land?

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-No representations have been made to me about the projected concert hall which, not originally, but at about the third stage of the plan­ning, was to be incorporated in the complex of theatres. It was found

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] without Notice. 1813

that the exclusion of this hall from that complex would save some $12 million and that appealed tremen­dously to me as Treasurer. However, I gave instructions to the building committee that it was at liberty to submit to the Government, at a later date, any proposal it might have for the building of a concert hall separa­tely and independently. As yet, I have received no proposal that the concert hall should be built on Crown land.

COOLING OF SCHOOLS. Mr. WHITING (Mildura). - I

address a question to the Assistant Minister of Education.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-The question should be directed to the Minister of Education.

Mr. WHITING.-Mr. Speaker, the ma tter was originally dealt with by the Assistant Minister of Education.

The SPEAKER.-Questions may be directed only to Ministers on matters affecting their departments. The ques­tion should be directed to the Minister of Education.

Mr WHITING.-I direct the ques­tion to the Minister of Education. Have the funds set aside for the mech­anical cooling of schools in hot areas of the State been exhausted on ex­periments? If not, what work is it intended will be undertaken this year on this important project?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-Extensive experimental work has been carried out in this field to determine the most suitable form of cooling for schools in the warmer areas of Victoria. Experts are in con­flict on the most suitable type of co'oling in the north-west of the State. This has been discussed with depart­mental officers, and further experi­mental work will be carried out this year. I cannot tell the honorable member for Mildura the exact amount in the fund, but I shall let him know by letter.

WILLIAMSTOWN HIGH SCHOOL. Mr. FLOYD (Williamstown).­

Is the Minister of Education aware of the allegation by parents at Wil­liamstown that the completion of the assembly hall at the high school is long overdue? If so, what are the reasons for the delay, and can the honorable gentleman give an assur­ance that the building will be com­pleted in time for occupation after the Christmas holidays?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-It may well be that the fire which occurred there in August has had a delaying effect.

Mr. FLOYD.-The assembly hall was not burnt.

Mr. THOMPSON.-The new as­sembly hall is on a different site. The old assembly hall is adjacent to the huts which caught fire in August. I know a contract is about to be let for the repair of those buildings. If the new assembly hall is being con­structed on a new site, as the honor­able member for Williamstown has indicated, I shall have an investiga­tion made to see why the delay has occurred and when the building will be completed.

COMPENSATION FOR ASSAULT VICTIMS.

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir).-In view of the fact that victims of assaults are involved in heavy losses, including medical and hospital costs and loss of income, would the Prem­ier and Treasurer consider the estab­lishment of a fund to compensate persons who are victims of assaults?

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-Over the years, this proposition has been canvassed, but as yet the Government has not seen its way clear to enter into this field.

BANK ROBBERIES. Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).-­

I direct a question to the Chief Secretary. In view of the apparen~ never-ending spate of bank robberies

1814 Questions [ASSEMBL Y.) without Notice.

and the resultant danger to bank staff and members of the public, has the Government conferred with the banks to ensure that they are adequately protected against hold-ups?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­Yes; a conference between the police and representatives of the banks was held on the subject only in the past few days. Of course, this is a dual problem-firstly, the protection which the banks themselves can give, the means which they can adopt to call for the police when a hold-up occurs; and secondly, the protection which the police can give. All of these matters are being examined, and it is hoped that from these talks will result greater pro­tection for the banks and for their customers.

DEMONSTRATIONS. Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Can

the Chief Secretary give the House any indication of what took place at the conference between the Police Department, the Government and certain other interested parties in the community about the future control of demonstrations?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).-I should have thought what transpired from that conference had been given at least some publicity already. The conference was called as a step to­wards trying to devise guidelines for people who wish to conduct demon­strations as a form of protest or as a means of indicating their views on public matters. The assumption was that the persons conducting the d~m<?nstrations would wish to keep withm the law and within whatever bounds might be dictated by common sense, having regard to the rights of other people to use public streets and public places without interference or obstruction.

A range of organizations was represented at this conference, which was called at my request by the Under-Secretary, Mr. Dillon. After several hours' discussion a set of

unanimous recommendations was drawn up. These recommendations were forwarded to me, and they have been adopted by the Government as simple guidelines for both the police and persons organizing a demon­stration as to how to go about it, what are the bounds and what will bring trouble from the police if those bounds are exceeded.

Mr. WILKEs.-Have they been pub­lished?

Mr. HAMER.-Yes, they have been published in just about every news­paper in the State.

COMMONWEALTH-STATE FINANCIAL RELATIONS.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-1 direct a question to the Premier and Treasurer. In view of the honorable gentleman's state­ment to a captive audience of some 300 Liberal ladies urging support for the return of the Federal Government, presumably led by Mr. McMahon and Mr. Snedden, has he had any recent discussions with either of those two gentlemen which would indicate any difference in policy to be pursued by the Commonwealth Government in its attitude towards the financial problems of Victoria?

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! I find that this question has nothing to do with State Government administration.

Mr. HOLD IN G.-On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, has the Premier had any recent discussions with the Prime Minister, or the Federal Treasurer, which would indicate to the honorable gentleman that the return of either of those two gentlemen to the Com-

monwealth Government would involve a change in the attitude which the Commonwealth Government has taken towards the financial problems of Victoria and the representations that have been put by the Premier on behalf of this State to the Com­monwealth Government?

Questions [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] without Notice. 1815

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 would not have to have such talks with either of the two gentlemen mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition prefaced his ques­tion with the remark that 1 spoke to a captive audience of some 300 ladies.

Mr. HOLDING.-Liberal ladies.

Sir HENRY BOL TE.-I remind the honorable member that they all attended voluntarily. 1 have noticed lately that the Leader of the Opposi­tion buys into audiences that attend not at his request, or even volun­tarily-probably they have been sent by the employers.

As to the second part of the ques­tion, 1 do not have to consult the Prime Minister or the Federal Treasurer to know what is good for Victoria. The Govern­ment has its own opinions and you, Mr. Speaker, might rule my answer out of order. It is simply a matter of opinion-whether that of the Leader of the Opposition or my­self. My good medicine for Victoria would be a Liberal-Country Party Government in Canberra.

DEMONSTRATIONS. Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East).

-I ask the Chief Secretary: Follow­ing an answer given by the honorable gentleman earlier today, is the House to believe that the uniform recom­mendations approved by the Govern­ment concerning the conduct of people at demonstrations included a recommendation that the names of policemen should be attached to their uniforms; if not, what is the attitude of the Government to this recom­mendation?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­This was not a unanimous recom­mendation-it was a majority recom­mendation. It is a matter which ought to be discussed with the people concerned, namely, the Chief Com­mission~r of Police and the Police

Association, before any action or decision is taken upon it, and 1 pro­pose to do just that.

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-Can the Attorney­General inform the House what response, if any, he has had from the Commonwealth Government to the request of this Parliament for the holding of a Constitutional conven­tion?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­r point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the resolution of both Houses of this Parliament envisaged an approach initially to the States. All States-with the exception of Western Australia, with which, for various reasons, I have not been able to have discussions but which I am sure is in line with the other States-are in favour of a preliminary conference of State representatives. That is the first step, but the terms of the resolution were such that in the first instance 1 was not obliged to approach the Commonwealth Government until after the conference with the States.

INSURANCE FOR VOLUNTEER FIRE FIGHTERS.

Mr. W. J. LEWIS (Portland).­Can the Chief Secretary inform me whether any insurance cover relating to accident or death is carried by the Country Fire Authority for volunteer fire fighters?

Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).-1 am not clear about the question asked by the honorable member for Portland. If he would put it on the Notice Paper, 1 shall ensure that he gets an answer.

ETHANE PIP·ELINE UNDER PORT PHILLIP BAY.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).-Can the Minister for Fuel and Power in­form me whether any hydrographic or geological survey was made of the

1816 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] without Notice.

floor o'f Port Phillip Bay by his or any other department prior to the granting of a licence for the construc­tion of an ethane pipeline under the bay; and if so, will he table such documents in the Library?

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie ).-Order! Was not this ques­tion asked before?

Mr. DOUBE.-No, Sir.

The SPEAKER.-The change is that a request has been made that the documents be tabled. 1 call on the Minister for Fuel and Power.

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Fuel and Power) .-Prior to' the granting of any licence or permit, the applica­tion was advertised and a period for objections to be received was laid down. During that period certain in­quiries were made by the Ports and Harbors Branch of the Public Works Department, the Fisheries and Wild­life Branch and other Government departments. The Ministry for Fuel and Power or the Mines Department did not carry out a survey of the floor of th~ bay at that stage, but since that time a great deal of evidence has been obtained which would show that the placing of the pipeline across that area would cause absolutely no damage.

Concerning the request that the documents be laid on the table of the Library, 1 shall ensure that as much of this information as 1 can get will be made available to the honorable member.

STAMP DUTIES. Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of

~he Country Party).-Is the Treasurer In a position to indicate to' the House on ~ha~ d~te the new scale of stamp dutIes IS lIkely to come into opera­tion?

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 know that the Leader of the Country Party has been inter­esting himself in this matter. He has made some inquiries which prompted

me to have a survey taken. It is my considered opinion that 1st January, 1972, should be the approximate date.

COMMONWEALTH CONSTITUTION.

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray).­Following a previous question asked of the Attorney-General, can the hon­orable gentleman inform me when it is intended that the preliminary meet­ing between the States tOi discuss the Commonwealth Constitution will be held; and can he give an assurance that the meeting will consist of mem­bers of the Parliaments rather than of representatives of the Governments of the time?

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .-1 shall answer the second part of the question first. I assure the honorable member that it has always been· the intention of the Government that any conference should be representative of the Parliaments and not of the Gov­ernments, and that all parties would be represented at the conference. As regards the proposed time for the conference, it was in mind-we are working towards this end-that it would be held somewhere about February of next year.

CHILD-CARE CENTRES. Mr. GINIFER (Deer Park).- Can

the Treasurer inform me whether he is aware that a new wage scale is being negotiated for assistants in in­fant welfare centres and kinder­gartens which will mean an increase from $20 to $33? Is the honorable gentleman also aware that no subsidy is . available for the employment of thIS type of person in kindergartens; and because of the proposed steep rise in wages, is he prepared to have this matter investigated so that assist­ance by way of subsidies can be given?

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! Is this not a matter for the Minister of Health?

Mr. GINIFER.-I thought that it was a Treasury matter.

Yarragon Land [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Exchange Bill. 1817

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 cannot be of any assistance to the honorable member.

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The Government is investi­gating and examining the implications of the recent rises granted to these people in the pre-school field, and in addition the inquiry into pre-school education will be looking at this matter closely.

REPRESENTATIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. FELL (Greensborough).­Is it the normal procedure for the Minister of Water Supply to notify a member of the result of represen­tations made on behalf of constituents prior to the organization concerned being informed, and if this is so why was not the member informed of a decision concerning the Plenty-Yar­rambat Waterworks Trust? I am informed that the trust has been in­formed of the decision.

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply) .-1 cannot speak on behalf of other Ministers concerning the procedure that they follow with their correspondence and responses to re­presentations. If the honorable mem­ber for Greensborough has made per­sonal representations to me regarding this matter, he will certainly receive a reply. If he has not made repre­sentations to me, I would have replied in the normal course to the trust which made the representations to me. I shall look into this matter, and if there has been an error or lack of courtesy this will be rectified imme­diately.

YARRAGON LAND EXCHANGE BILL.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor recommend­ing that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to make provision with respect to the surrender to Her

Majesty of certain land in the town­ship of Yarragon and the grant to the corporation of the Shire of Narracan of certain other land in that township.

The House went into Committee to consider the message.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands) .-1 move-

That it is expedient that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to make provision with respect to the surrender to Her Majesty of certain land in the township of Yarragon and the grant to the corporation of the Shire of Narracan of certam other land in that township.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Can the Minister give more information con­cerning the Bill?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands) .-Early in this century, an area of 8 acres 1 rood was reserved in the north-western section of the Yarragon township for public recrea­tion. It was low-lying land with many drainage problems. The muni­cipality has purchased 11 acres 1 rood of more suitable, and indeed, more valuable land, and has offered this area to the Crown to be reserved for recreational purposes on the un­derstanding that the original land will be vested in fee simple in the munici­pality so that the municipality may dispose of the land and use the pro­ceeds therefrom to develop the 11 acres of better land.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was reported to the House and adopted.

On the motion of Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands), the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

WATER SUPPLY WORKS AND SERVICES BILL.

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor recom­mending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to authorize

1818 Educational Grants [ASSEMBL Y.] (Amendment) Bill.

expenditure on works and services and other purposes relating to irriga­tion water supply drainage sewerage flood protection and river improve­ment, and for other purposes.

The House went into Committee to consider the message.

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply) .-1 move-

That it is expedient that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to authorize expenditure on works and services and other purposes relating to irrigation water supply drainage sewerage flood protection and river improve­ment, and for other purposes.

Mr. WILTON (Bl'oadmeadows).­Can the Minister explain whether this is the annual Water Supply Works and Services Bill, which was previously known as the Water Supply Loan Ap­plication Bill?

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply) .-The title of the Bill is the Water Supply Works and Services Bill which in past years has been known as the Water Supply Loan Ap­plication Bill. It is an annual Bill to supply loan funds totalling $17·8 mil­lion for the current financial year.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was reported to the House and adopted.

On the motion of Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply), the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor recom­mending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to amend sub­section (5) of section 2 of the Edu­c:a.tional Grants Act 1967, and for other purposes.

The House went into Committee to consider the message.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-1 move-

That it is expedient that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to amend sub-section (5) of section 2 of the Educational Grants Act 1967 and for other purposes.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Can the Minister explain the purposes of the message before the Committee?

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-The purpose of the message is to pave the way for the introduction of a Bill to carry out the Budget undertaking of the Treasurer that the Government would make available to independent schools a per capita grant of $40 per head to primary school pupils, thus extend­ing the present grant of $20 per head to primary school pupils. The grant would operate from the 1st July, 1971, for the remainder of the finan­cial year and thereafter.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was reoorted to the House and adopted. -

On the motion of Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education), the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICES BILL.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Con­solidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to authorize expenditure on public works and services and for other purposes.

The House went into Committee to consider the message.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-1 move-

That it is expedient that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of a Bill to authorize expendi­ture on public works and services and for other purposes.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Would the Minister of Labour and Industry, who appears to be representing the

Parliamentary [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Officers Bill. 1819

Minister of Public Works, explain whether the measure outlined in the message is a substitute for what was known as a public works loan applica­tion Bill?

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry).-Yes, that is correct. It is the annual Bill now known as the Public Works and Ser­vices Bill 1971. The purpose of the Bill is to authorize the expenditure of $132,066,000 for the works and services account. The expenditure is scheduled in 88 separate items. It will be embodied in the Bill. I assure the honorable member that the second-reading speech will not be nearly as long as it was last year.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was reported to the House and adopted.

On the motion of Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry), the Bill was brought in and read a first time.

PARLIAMENTARY OFFICERS BILL. Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­

I move-That this Bill be now read a second tim~.

This measure is a companion to The Constitution Bill which I explained to the House recently, and is a consequence of the Government's decision to remodel the Constitution of the State of Victoria. It was thought desirable to excise from the Constitution what is at present Part IX. of The Constitution Act Amend­ment Act 1958. At the same time the opportunity is being taken of modernizing the provisions and, most importantly of reinforcing the control by the Parliament of its own officers.

All honorable members will be conscious of. the importance of the staff to the State and the Parliament; they would be equally aware of the need for the Parliamentary staff to be well-trained, independent, and fearless in the service of the members of all parties, whether on the Oppos­ition, corner or Government benches. Parliamentary officers should be serv­ants of the Parliament rather than

servants of the Executive. This has been true of Victoria since 1888 when the Officers of Parliament Act of that year separated the Parliamentary Officers from the remainder of the Public Service.

Over the years we have been well served by the officers in all of the Parliamentary Departments-the staff of each of the House departments, Hansard, the Library, and the House Committee department. I am con­fident that I express the feelings of all honorable members when I extend the grateful thanks of the House to all members of the staff for their loyalty, their courtesy, and frequently their self-sacrifice, in the interests of the Parliament and its members. There has for some time been growing awareness of the need for changes. Senior members of the Parliament have sought to increase the independence of the Parliament in selecting, classifying, and adminis­tering the staff of this institution.

The Bill, by clause 5, proposes to establish a Parliamentary Offices Committee. The members are pro­posed to be Mr. President as chair­man, Mr. Speaker and the Treasurer. A similar committee has functioned in the United Kingdom House of Commons since 1812. Our committee will have a number of tasks, including that of recommending to the Gov­ernor in Council, with respect to· certain new offices, the number of persons to be employed and in res­pect of all new offices to be created, the classification and duties to be attached and qualifications required.

Clause 15 proposes a change in the present section 405 of The Con­stitution Act Amendment Act 1958 in discipline matters. It provides for the appointment of a special board consisting of the Attorney­General or his nominee and two honorable members. Their task will be to inquire into the truth of any serious allegations of breaches of diSCipline by an officer. The Con­stitution Bill provides for the presid­ing officers to continue to act in some

1820 Road Traffic [ASSEMBLY.] (Penalties) Bill.

necessary matters following the disso­lution of a Parliament. Similarly, clauses 12 and 20 of this Bill make necessary provision for decisions which are required during a hiatus period between dissolution and the commencement of a new Parliament.

Clause 13 expands the regulation­making power at present in section 403 of The Constitution Act Amend­ment Act 1958. Sub-clause (5) of clause 6 envisages that each officer of the Parliament, other than the Clerks of the two Houses, shall hold a classification equivalent to a classifi­cation in the Public Service. It envis­ages, too, that they shall be entitled to the same salary and allowances as are attached to those equivalent Public Service positions, and varia­tions are to apply automatically. Some adjustment will be required following the commencement of this provision. A similar system has worked well in Great Britain since 1954.

The remaining provisions will re­enact the existing provisions in Part IX. of The Constitution Act Amend­ment Act 1958 with minor drafting corrections. This Bill represents a gain in the autonomy of the Parliament in respect of its officers, and I commend it to the House.

On the motion of Mr. WILKES (Northcote), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November, 9.

ROAD TRAFFIC (PENALTIES) BILL. Mr. HAMER (Chief Secretary).­

I move-That. this Bill be now read a second time.

This short Bill amends Schedule Two of the Road Traffic Act to provide for increases in eleven of the sixteen penalties prescribed for certain traffic infringements. The present scale of penal ties of $10 and $20 on traffic infringements notices was established in 1965, when the "on the spot" provisions were inserted into the principal Act, and there has been no change since that time.

It is obvious that the scale of penalties should be reviewed from time to time, both to adjust the penal­ties to current money values, and to vary the scale where necessary, if the penalties appear to be inadequate to keep any particular offence in proper check. This applies particularly to the more serious offences which are likely to contribute directly to road accidents. Accordingly, a review has been made, and as a result the Bill provides for an increase in penalties for eight offences by 50 per cent, two by 25 per cent, and one-passing a stationary tramcar-because it is particularly dangerous and selfish, from $10 to $25. Five of the penal­ties remain unchanged-four at $10, and one at $20.

The serious offences of driving over double lines and failing to give way at an intersection, both of which are prime causes of collision, and both of which have shown an increas­ing rather than a decreasing inci, dence, will in future carry a fixed penalty of $30, and the next group of three, which will carry penalties of $25 have also shown a clear tendency to increase. They are-Disobeying any traffic control signal; exceeding any speed limit by more than 10 miles per hour; and passing a station­ary tramcar.

Any effective attack on the road toll requires realistic fixed penalties for these common offences. The ob­ject is not to catch motorists, but to prevent these breaches of traffic rules from happening. Traffic rules are after all only a matter of common sense. Therefore, the penalties must provide a real deterrent, and I ask the House to support the unremitting effort which is being made to reduce the loss and heartbreak arising from death and injury on our roads, by legislating for adequate penalties on those who, through folly, selfishness or incompetence, menace their own safety and that of other motorists and pedestrians.

Labour and Industry [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1821

On the motion of Mr. WILKES (Northcote), the debate was ad­journed.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 9.

,LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill is to amend the Labour and Industry Act 1958 in three im­portant respects-. 1. with ·respect to the payment of wages, to make lawful (a) payment by certain means other than cash and (b) deductions for specified purposes;

2. with respect to the regulation of the bread trade, to facilitate the enforcement of the 30-mile limit on the carting and delivery of bread; and

3. with respect to apprenticeship, to remove from the Act the remaining provisions about apprentices and improvers.

These are three quite separate and different matters, and I shall deal with each one in turn.

Sub-section (1) of section 198 of the principal Act contains the basic provision of the Act with respect to the payment of wages due. It states-

Where any employer employs any person on work for which the lowest prices or rates have been fixed in a determina­tion, such employer shall be liable to pay and shall pay in full in money without any deduction whatever to such person the prIce 'or rate so determined.

This provision was first enacted by the Factories and Shops Act 1900. Since then it has served its purpose well, and every year my department has recovered for complainants amounts of wages due for work performed. But the Government is concerned to see that its industrial legislation keeps abreast with the times, and the fact is that there are two aspects of sub-section (1) of section 198 which are now obsolete, owing to changes that have occurred in our SOciety.

Session 1971.-65

Firstly, there is the requirement that wages be paid in money. In this context, money means legal tender, or what is commonly referred to as cash. It is immediately obvious that the law is being broken every day by more and more employers as time goes on and more sophisticated office systems are developed. Payment by. cheque has become very popular dur­ing recent years; further, with the increased use of office computers, a continually greater proportion of employees will receive their wages by means of a computer-produced cheque or by payment into the employee's bank ac'count.

The Bill therefore makes lawful the payment of wages by cheque, postal order or money order, or into a bank account specified by the employee. There can be no objection to this if it rests on the agreement of each employee concerned. Under the Bill, payment by -any of these alternative methods is not lawful without the authority in writing of the employee. Similar legislation has in recent years been enacted in other places. I refer specifically to the United Kingdom Payment of Wages Act 1960 and the South Australian Industrial Code 1967. I mention, also, a most recent variation of the Federal metal trades award in this respect. That variation, made on lOth August, 1971, permits wages to be paid by cheque where the employer and employee so agree.

Secondly, there is the requirement tha t wages be paid "in full . . . . without any deduction whatever." Honorable members know that this is not literally the case, in that deductions may be made pursuant to other laws-for example, income tax instalments under the Income Tax Act and amounts attached pursuant to garnishee orders made by the courts.

Honorable members know, also, that it is quite usual for other deductions to be made by agreement between employer and employee.

1822 Labour and Industry [ASSEMBLY.] (Amendment) Bill.

This is in contravention of the pro­visions of section 198, but it must be agreed that the enforcement of those provisions would seriously affect the operation of such areas as health benefit organizations, superannuation schemes and life assurance schemes.

The Bill proposes, therefore, to legalize deductions for these pur­poses, and also for subscriptions to trade unions and professional as­sociations, and for rent or board and lodgings where the amount to be paid has been fixed in a determina­tion; again, these deductions will be lawful only on the authority in writ­ing of the employee.

I now pass to the restrictions on the 'carting and delivery of bread. Sub-section (4) of section 104 of the principal Act provides-

A person who carts or delivers bread in the cours'e of trade or business beyond a distance of 30 miles from the place where it was made or baked shall be guilty of an offence.

Sub-section (5) empowers the Min­ister to grant exemptions in certain circumstances, but honorable mem­bers are here concerned with the general rule enunciated by sub­section ( 4) .

This provision was enacted by the Labour and Industry (Bread) Act 1967 as an aid to decentralization of industry. The recent history of the bread trade, both before and after the passage of the 1967 Act, has been one of large companies buying up small local bakeries and closing them down, or forcing them out of business by fierce competition and so estab­lishing an industry pattern of a rela­tively small number of large bakeries equipped with modern machinery to serve a large area by delivery routes extending over long distances.

This development was seen to be contrary to the good of the State, in so far as decentralization was con­cerned, so the 3D-mile delivery limit was introduced in an effort to save the local baker and the employment that he provided in the small towns.

Mr. Rafferty.

To some extent this has been success­ful, and in the view of the Govern­ment the objective ought still to be pursued. However, one of the main difficulties in the situation is that, as the Act stands, it is almost impossible to obtain a conviction. Therefore it is considered that some amendment of the evidentiary provisions ought to be made.

Inspectors of my department have often reported cases in which they have reason to believe that the law has been broken, but the persons con­cerned are not willing to make any statement. It is then a matter for the Crown to prove every element of the offence alleged. In a typical case, to do this it would be neces­sary for the inspector to give evidence to the court that he watched a batch of loaves being baked at a certain' bakehouse, kept them under con­tinuous observation until thev were loaded into a particular vehicie, kept that vehicle under continuous obser­vation until it had gone at least 30 miles-which distance in a straight line from the bakehouse he would have to prove-stop the vehicJe-or wait for it to stop-and identify the bread stHI in the vehicle as the bread that he had seen baked at the bake­house.

Mr. HOLDING.-Mr. Deputy Speak­er, I direct attention to the state of the House.

A quorum was formed.

Mr. RAFFERTY. - Further, he would have to prove that the bread was being carted 'in the course of trade or business and, if the employ­ing company were charged as distinct from the hapless driver, that the bread was being carted on behalf of that company.

This is' why there have been so few convictions for offences against section 104. Since the section was enacted in 1967, there have been only 24 prosecutions and nine convictions. It has become quite clear to the Gov­ernment that a decision now has to

Labour and Industry [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1823

be made on whether to strengthen the provisions of section 104 as to the 30-mile limit or to repeal them entirely. The Government has de­cided on the former and therefore includes in the Bill a number of evidentiary provisions that should greatly assist in the enforcement of the legislation.

A proposed new section 104A will, for the first time, place responsibili ty on sellers of bread. Until now, it has been only the person carting or delivering who has been constrained by the law. Now the seller-which includes the shopkeeper-will have to satisfy himself that the bread he sells was, to the best of his know­ledge, baked within 30 miles of his shop, or be guHty of an offence in selling it. A new section 104B will allow evidence to be adduced from such things as bread wrappings, labels, and delivery dockets, and thereby remove some of the difficul­ties of oroof to which I referred ear­lier. This would be quite consistent with the existing provisions of the Labour and Industry Act with respect to the. onus of proof in proceedings for offences.

A new section 106 will make a holding compa~y liable for offences committed by any of its subsidiary companies. With the complex cor­porate organizations adopted by some companies, it has been very difficult on occasion to decide which subsid­iary company should be charged. The obvious answer is to charge the holding company when there is any doubt.

It is also proposed to enact a regulation-making power that will enable regulations to be made to require that loaves of bread be identified as to their manufacturer either by use 'of labels or wrapper~ or by means of impressing or em­bossing the loaves. It is not the intention of the Government, at present, to make such regulations, but the. power to do so will be there

for future use if this becomes neces­sary for the proper enforcement of the law.

The Government has received representations from many country members urging that the provisions of section 104 be enforced to protect the interests of local bakers in their electorates. The Government has been conscious of the fact that the law needs strengthening and, if it is to be effective, the provisions contained in the Bill are the least that ought to be considered.

The third main subject-matter of this Bill is apprenticeship, and these provisions of the Bill need to be considered in relation to the Appren­ticeship (Amendment) Bill which I introduced into Parliament earlier this session. In introducing that Bill, I said-

The third main aim of the Bill is to give effect to a recommendation of the commis­sion that there be a consolidation of the statute law on apprenticeship. Until recently there were four statutes dealing with apprenticeship matters-the Apprenticeship Act, the Labour and Industry Act, the Employers and Employes Act and the Master and Apprentice Act. The last Act was repealed in 1969. This Bill repeals those sections of the Employers and Employes Act which relate to apprenticeship and it is proposed that a subsequent Labour and Industry (Amendment) Bill will repeal the apprenticeship provisions of the Labour and Industry Act.

This Bill therefore merely repeals the provisions of the Labour and Industry Act which relate to appren­tices and improvers, these matters then being governed by the Appren­ticeship Act. It is interesting to note that the term improver is a relic from by-gone days when it was quite usual for a young man to learn a trade, not through a formal appren­ticeship, but by going from one employer to another, from job to job, improving-one hopes-as he went. It is a term not now found in the industrial laws of the other States or the Commonwealth.

There is one other provision of substance in the Bill which I should mention. It concerns the time limit

1824 Labour and Industry [ASSEMBLY.] (Amendment) Bill.

for bringing proceedings for offences under the Act. The present limit in section 192 is six months, except in relation to two matters, namely-

(i) failure to stamp furniture with the maker's name and address; and

(ii) receiving a premium for employing an apprentice or improver-

in which cases it is twelve months. As the second of these offences will disappear from this Act, it seemed desirable to reconsider the matter and it has been decided to fix a time limit of twelve months with respect to offences of all kinds.

Clause 1 of the Bill contains the usual formalities and clause 2 makes such consequential amendments to definitions as are necessary. Clauses 3 and 4 repeal certain provisions about apprentices and improvers. Clause 5 inserts the additional sec­tions concerning the carting and delivery of bread that I have already explained. Clauses 6 and 7 repeal certain other provisions about appren­tices and improvers, while clause 8 deals with the time limit for bringing proceedings.

Clause 9 contains the new provi­sions for the payment of wages, both as to the way in which they are to be paid and as to the deductions that may lawfully be made. Clause 10 repeals certain other provisions about apprentices and improvers, clause 11 contains the regulation­making power about identifying loaves of bread, while clause 12 brings up to date the Second Schedule to the principal Act. I com­mend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 9.

Mr. Rafferty.

VEGETATION AND VINE DISEASES (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Octo­ber 14) on the motion of Mr. Borth­wick (Minister of Lands) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. CURNOW (Kara Kara).-This is an important Bill because it con­tains a number of provisions to pro­tect Victoria from the locust plague currently gathering in New South Wales and endangering the border areas of this State. The Bill amends the definition of " parasite" to ensure that it includes chewing insects such as grasshoppers. A new section will enable the Governor in Council to proclaim an area, or the whole of Vic­toria if necessary, if danger threatens from a plague of locusts. If this action is taken, landholders within the pro­claimed area will be required to give notice when the parasite reaches a certain stage, and' will be required to take action to remove the locusts or parasites from their land.

It is proposed that an inspector shall have power to enter upon any landholder's property to control the outbreak further if that action is considered to be desirable. Under the existing provisions of the Act an inspector has to wait 21 days after serving notice on the landholder, but in future the inspector will be able to gain immediate entry. Furthermore, he will be empowered to take such action as is required to control the outbreak. The Bill introduces a new concept into the Act by giving inspec­tors power to enter upon land without giving notice. This may appear to be a rather drastic change, but in his second-reading explanatory speech the Minister gave an assurance that operations will be carried out under the control of the Department of Agriculture in the best interests of Victoria in view of the real danger frot:I1 the locust plague in New South Wales.

The ex1sting plague in New South Wales is spread over a wide area. The densest beds of eggs are in the

Vegetation and Vine Diseases [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1825

Hay-Griffith-Hillston area; other beds occur around Deniliquin and Balran­aId, in all encompassing 20,000 square miles of land. The Victorian Govern­ment has sent eight officers, including two entomologists, and also a heli­copter to New South Wales to assist the New South Wales Department of Agriculture in containing the plague. The present cost is estimated at $22,000. So long as the campaign is successful, this will be a minor expense because in 1955 measures to control a locust plague cost the State of Victoria the sum of $400,000.

Locusts are interesting creatures. As far back as 3,400 years ago they were described in the following terms:-

And the locusts went up over all the land of Egypt . . . . they covered the face of the whole earth, so that the land was darkened; and they did eat every herb of the land, and all the fruit of the trees . . .

Those words are contained in the book of Exodus, chapter 10, verses 14 and 15. Therefore, locusts are not some­thing new. Unfortunately for Victoria, locusts come from Queensland during the wet season and migrate to New South Wales.

The locust's breeding habits are controlled by the weather. A wet cold front is required to activate the male organs in some way. The male becomes a mature, virile locust fol­lowing cold, wet weather. Twelve days after mating the female lays eggs 4 or 5 inches beneath the surface of the ground and covers the eggs with a waterproof substance which protects the eggs for years from dis­integration or deterioration. If favour­able weather conditions occur the eggs can hatch within seventeen days after which the baby locusts, or hop­pers, slowly go through further development. Another mating occurs, the female lays the eggs, and this time the eggs are hatched within twelve days. Within a few weeks, the cul­mination of a major breeding is mil­lions of locusts swarming over thousands of square miles. In favourable weather, this process,

which is at present occurring in New South Wales, does not stop within any particular period.

The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization has carried out intensive research into the problem. In my own researches in the Parliamentary Library I extracted from encyclopaedias material pub­lished only three or four years ago. I also learned that the latest reports prepared by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization are substantially diffe­rent from reports published six years ago. It has been discovered that locusts can travel at night and, flying south or south-easterly-unfortuna­tely for Victoria-they can cover hundreds of miles. Some swarms of locusts have risen in Queensland and flown right across New South Wales before landing in South Australia.

Mr. WHITING.-They would have travelled south-south-wester:ly.

Mr. CURNOW.-That is so. The main danger to Victoria is along the river boundary of the State, especially between Swan Hill and Yarrawonga, where the locust swarms are now forming.

I ask the Minister whether he has anything in mind for compensating farmers whose properties are attacked by the locusts, one swarm of which can eat 100 tons of green crop each day; this is frightening. The threat is probably greater than has been stated in the press. Given favourable weather conditions, such as the damp conditions now prevailing, the locusts could easily swarm into Victoria within the next month or six weeks. They have been sighted in large num­bers as close as 36 miles from Mathoura, just across the River Murray from Echuca. This is excel­lent country for crops and dairy pas­tures and the area is attractive to the locusts.

The provisions of the Bill are .in line with the measures needed.to con­trol outbreaks of locusts' and they have the full support of my party. It

1826 Vegetation and Vine Diseases [ASSEMBLY.] (Amendment) Bill.

is to be hoped that it will not be necessary to use the provisions con­tained in the Bill, and that the locusts will not cross into Victoria.

Mr. BROAD (Swan Hill).-I not only approve of the provisions of this Bill, but congratulate the Government on introducing it. I speak as a farmer representing many other farmers in the Swan Hill electorate which, more than any other electorate in the State, is threatened by this serious plague of invading locusts. I welcome the prompt measures that the Govern­ment is taking to deal with this emergency.

Twice in the course of my life I have experienced the threat of invad­ing locusts. I was a boy on the first occasion that a serious plague of locusts occurred in the district.

Mr. BORTHWlcK.-In those days they were called grasshoppers.

Mr. BROAD.-Nevertheless, they were locusts, but by good fortune a spell of cold wet weather set in and they were destroyed. The second occasion to which I refer was in 1955, when prompt action taken by the Government to combat the problem was highly successful, at a cost of $400,000.

It will be appreciated by every farmer in the path of invading locusts that for twenty years continuous research into the habits of this pest has been undertaken by the State and Federal Governments and a close watch has been kept on breeding grounds. I am sure that farmers and conservationists will appreciate the foresight of the Premier who, in 1966, established the Pesticides Review Committee for the purpose of observing the effects of various chemicals and poisons that have been used in many districts. This committee, under the chairman­ship of Mr. R. G. Downes, Chairman of the Soil Conservation Authority, has maintained close contact with farmers. and with the Department of Agricultqre, and as the campajgn con­tinues to progress I have no doubt

that it will ensure that there is a minimum of destruction to the local ecology.

The main attack on the locusts will be by means of ground spraying, fol­lowed by aerial spraying when the hoppers reach the flying stage. Land­owners will be responsible for the ground work on their properties, just as they are for the destruction of rabbits and other vermin. I con­tacted the Mid-Murray Field Natural­ists Association with the view of getting its advice and hearing its ideas. Naturally the members of that association hope that when spraying is carried out every endeavour will be made to avoid contaminating streams and water supplies, and to avoid orchards and gardens as much as possible. They also expressed the idea that malathion should be used in preference to the more dangerous lindane. It will be a difficult decision to make because lindane is more effective. However, it must not be overlooked that the main purpose of the campaign is to destroy the locusts. Because of the large harvest expected in much of the Swan Hill electorate, farmers and irrigationists are hoping for the success of this campaign to destroy the locusts, and my party approves the Bill.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).­It. is generally accepted that agri­culture is a matter for the State, but under certain circumstances the Com­monwealth Government should in­terest itself in activities affecting primary industry. This is one occa­sion on which the Commonwealth Government should become involved. This measure will strengthen the Department of Agriculture in its efforts to control a hazard which is threatening primary industry in this State. The crops that could become seriously affected as a result of the plague of locusts are a signifi­cant part of. Australia's export trade. Consequently, the Commonwealth Government should assist the State authorities to handle the problem.'

Vegetation and Vine Diseases [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1827

On many occasions a ridiculous situation arises when State author­ities are committed to heavy expense in the chartering of aircraft and the employment of labour to protect an industry, when the Commonwealth Government-which is responsible for the defence forces of the country, including the Air Force, on which it expends a significant amount of the taxpayers' money and which has all sorts of sophisticated aircraft located in various parts of the Com­monwealth-is in a position to assist. Some members on the Government side of the House, because of a nar­row viewpoint, may not accept that the Air Force, or any other section of the armed services, is capable of improvising to meet a particular situation.

There ought to be much closer liaison between State and Common­wealth Ministers on matters such as this, and a much more serious exam­ination should be made at Ministerial level to see what can be done to make more use of sections of the armed forces in emergencies su.ch as a plague of locusts. I do not accept that it is not possible to do this if there is a genuine desire by State and Common­wealth Ministers to make suitable a1iI'angements whereby facilities of the armed forces may be made avail­able by the Commonwealth to assist the States to overcome a problem.

While agreeing that the present problem cannot be ignored, the Oppo­sition accepts the proposed legislation on the basis of the suggestion that I have put forward. Too frequently the States are left to battle with prob­lems on their own. The financial resources of the State are not unlimit­ed, and I point out that in the long term the greatest benefit to be derived from the crops and other produce of the farmers will be derived by the Commonwealth Government. The State ~ill get very little in return because of the limited area in which it operates. On many occasions the State is carrying the ball, so to speak, for the Commonwealth and an attempt should be made to ensure

that the Commonwealth realizes that it has a responsibility in this area and that it ought to make a genuine effort to determine whether a suitable programme can be arranged.

My suggestion should not be limited to this aspect because many other State departments have to use air~ craft for various reasons· and iri emergencies have to call upon large numbers of personnel to handle the problems that are met. This subject ought to be looked at from the point of view that all of these things pose a threat to the community, and the Commonwealth Government should be prepared to face up to any res­ponsibility that it might have and to co-operate with the States to the fullest extent.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages.

LANDS TRIBUNAL BILL. The debate (adjourned from August

31) on the motion of Mr. Reid (Attorney-General) for the second reading of this Bill was ·resumed.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-Members of the Oppo­sition oppose this Bill in its present form and the principles ennunciated therein. This is not necessarily our final view, but we believe the Bill ought to be referred back to the Statute Law Revision Committee or a similar body to consider some of the policy points r~ised by the Att~r­ney-General in hIS second-readIng speech and some of the pOints raised by the committee which was set ~p to examine the measure. I say wIth deference to the committee that it was a body of men much learned in the law and some of its members were expert in some of the problems which are involved in the adminis­tration and interpretation in the multiplicity of Acts in Victoria relat­ing to land acquisition. Other. im­portant principles have been raIsed by the committee, but, with all

1828 Lands Tribunal [ASSEMBLY.] Bill.

respect to the committee, I consider that they have not been canvassed as they ought to be.

I am bound to acknowledge, as possibly other speakers will during the debate, our indebtedness to the Goulburn Valley Law Association for its submissions on the Bill and the law relating to land acquisition. I publicly acknowledge the worth of those submissions. The argument for the creation of this new tribunal, if it is reduced to its simplest form, is that there is a multiplicity of statutes which deal with the prob­lems associated with land acquisition and it is desirable in the interests of uniformity to have those Acts subject to administration by one judge who, according to the recommendations of the committee, would occupy a position somewhere between a County Court judge and a Supreme Court judge. At present, any question on the interpretation of these Acts is usually dealt with by anyone of a number of Supreme Court judges sitting as ·a member of the Supreme Court.

The same argument could be advanced about many other branches of the law in Victoria. I am more familiar with the complex field of the law on industrial accidents, motor car accidents and what an injured man is worth than I am with the law on land acquisition. The argument could be advanced by people experi­enced in the law relating to land acquisition that the administration of the Supreme Court would be much more efficient if this jurisdiction were taken from the Supreme Court and became part of. another tribunal.

As our society develops and be­comes more complex the old time practitioner of the law who was an expert in many areas is a rapidly fading character. As the Attorney­General well knows, large legal firms are tending to become more special­ized in specific areas of the law. In view of the relationship that exists between the citizen and the State this could be an argument for provid­ing separate or allegedly more expert

Mr. Holding.

tribunals to operate on their own outside the framework of the general structure of the law.

However, in view of the way in which courts and judges regard them­selves as being bound by precedent, I do not think it follows that more uniformity will be obtained from one specialist jurisdiction than is achieved by the Supreme Court at the moment. At present the citizen gets from the Supreme Court or the County Court a multiplicity of points of view and in the long term this makes for the formation of a body of law which is uniform and binding and which enables any injustices which might occur to be rectified within the law. In my view it is the multiplicity of opinions which provides more pro­tection for the individual citizen in his relationship to the State than the simple appointment of one judge and the creation of one so-called expert tribunal.

With due respect to the Attorney­General, I contend that this Bill proposes to create a legal structure in which all the decision making, all the power relevant to that decision making, and the whole substructure necessary to administer and enforce it, will be created within one tribunal.

The argument that the tribunal will promote uniformity is not neces­sarily valid. I suppose it is more correct to say that when one judge be­comes pre-eminent in this jurisdiction and he expresses a particular view­point, it will become well known and he will be unlikely to overrule sub­missions supporting it. However, if there is a panel of judges, each with a different social background, train­ing, and practice in the law, and a different viewpoint to bring towards the application of the law to a par­ticular problem, but having due re­gard for the weight and body of evidence, which weighs heavily upon lawyers, this new jurisdiction will be a more expensive way of dealing with problems than the existing one.

Lands Tribunal [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1829

The Government does not create a new jurisdiction simply by appoint­ing a judge. He must have the ancil­lary administrative services which will enable him to do his work. Presumably there will be a registrar of this new court, and administrative proceedings must be established. That can become quite expensive.

The House has been informed that one further result of this measure is that a more economical and advantageous use will be made of the services of those persons who have experience in the valuation of real property. That might be so, but if one looks at the report of the committee appointed to investigate and make recommendations on the establishment of a law tribunal, one must conclude that that view does not come through to Parliament with any vigour or force. I am opposed to Parliament being asked to deal with legislation such as this on the basis of a report of an expert committee which, with due respect to the mem­bers of the committee, on examin­ation tends to look like merely a series of conclusions, rather than conclusions based upon a series of arguments which are available to members of Parliament. Expert committees and the Government have to do better than that. If one of the arguments of the expert committee in support of this tribunal is that a more advantageous use will be made of the services of those people hav­ing experience in the valuation of real property, I should like to see all the arguments for and against set out, with the committee indicating the reasons why it feels compelled to support these conclusions.

Equally, we are informed that there will be more expeditious hear­ings. That mayor may not be so, but again if one looks at the sub­missions of the committee one does not find that argument set out in any detail. Then there is the reference to the minimizing of legal C0StS. It does not follow that be­cause a new tribunal is created legal costs will be lessened. The scale of

legal costs for members of the legal profession have been pretty well determined. Has it been suggested that relevant documents could be lodged before the new tribunal with­out the payment of duty? of course it has not. The committee must do better than that. If it is the view of the Attorney-General that legal costs will be minimized, I, as one who has had some experience in how legal costs are formulated in this city, would have to be convinced that that is necessarily so.

In the final analysis, the compell­ing argument for members of the Opposition is that whether a Liberal Government, a Labor Government, or a Country Party Government is in power, whatever its political views, the Administration must face up to its responsibilities for planning in our society, which is developing rapidly. In the acquisition of land by Government instrumentalities such as the Housing Commission or by municipal councils, the relation ... ship between the citizen and the State is very important. In deal­ing with the power of the State to acquire property from the citizen Parliament must always make ~ judgment heavily in favour of the enduring rights of the citizen. I do not believe a presumption could be made any other way. The citizen is protected by having the right to go before anyone of a number of judges of the Supreme Court. That tribunal can tend to become an administra tive answer to the Executive, with a judge exerciSing a judicial power to deal with pressures which can easily mount in the corridors of power upon a tribunal. I am not suggesting any corruption or nepotism, but I am speaking of what I believe is the reality of the exercise of power by any Government. That exercise of power becomes much more difficult when dealing with the Supreme Court's power, under which our system stands apart from the powers of the Executive, and ·in the final

1830 Lands Tribunal lASSEMBLY.] Bill.

analysis has to be the final deter­,miner between the rights of the ,citizens and the rights of the ~Executive.

Members of the Opposition be­lieve that this matter of a Lands Tribunal should be examined much more deeply. It should not be examined in terms of the convenience of the Government or 'Of the Execu­tive, or of what might be described as the unfortunate tendency existing within certain areas of the State's court structure, for judges, particu­larly Supreme Court judges, to make themselves almost members of an exclusive brethren. It should be examined in terms of its final impact upon the rights of the citizen as against the rights 'Of the State. On the basis of the evidence before Parliament at present, I do not be­lieve that the rights of the citizen have been as fully examined as they should. The duty of Parliament to ,protect the rights of the .citizen has not been examined as fully as it ·should have been. What has been examined is the convenience of the Executive, and to some extent the convenience of the legal profession. ,As a member of that profession, I do not believe that is good enough.

The Opposition do'es not dose its mind at this stage to the body of evidence which may be adduced in favour 'Of this measure, but I should like this Bill and all the evidence that has been produced in favour of it to ,be examined by the members of the Statute Law Revision Committee. They are a body of practical men drawn from Parliament whose final duty is to the Parliament and the State. They will be more capable of weighing all the arguments which have been produced in this matter in a way which will answer some 'Of the problems which, from the Oppos­ition's point of view, certainly have yet to be answered. Accordingly, in due course, I shall move, by leave, that the proposals contained in this

Mr. Holding. .

Bill be referred to the Statute Law Revision Committee for examination and report.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-In ,common with the OppOSition, the Country Party has mixed feelings about this measure, which establishes a tri­bunal which will be a superior court of record. As mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, it will give the tribunal a status somewhere between that of the Supreme C'Ourt and the County Court. It is sur­prising that such an important meas­ure, which virtually sets up a new court in Victoria, has attracted very little attention from either the legal profession or the public.

Mr. REID.-Copies of the Bill have been circulated.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-As the Attorney-General has mentioned, people have had access to the Bill, and they have had due time to con­sider it, but apart from my own Goul­bum Valley Law Association I have not read of any criticism or sugges­tions by any legal body of how this measure will apply. The benefits of a Lands Tribunal will doubtless be to expedite hearings, to lower costs, to make appeals simpler, and to provide uniformity of decision. These would be its aims and objectives. One won­ders whether the establishment of the tribunal will achieve these pur­poses, or whether it will be-come a court in the usual sense operating with the same problems and re­strictions as the established ,courts. Clause 11 provides-

Any matter coming before the tribunal may be heard and determined by a judge sitting alone.

Therefore, it would be a single person who determined an appeal. Clause 14 provides, inter alia-

(1) A judge of the tribunal in detemining any matter under this Act may if think,s fit elect to sit with one or more assessors.

(2) A judge shall not be bound by the opinion or finding of any such assessor.

Lands Tribunal [26 OcTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 183l

An assessor would be an expert :in the field of valuation, yet the judge is not to be bound by his recom­mendations or opini'Ons. It is hard to see the value of having assessors at all.

Once a judge is aPP'Ointed, unless he is removed for misbehaviour, he may stay there and go on his merry way deciding valuations at a particu­lar level. He does not have to take any notice of the opinion or any suggestion of the assessor. One danger is that a judge may strike a certain level of valuation which is too high or too low. What the judge did would be binding not for only one or two years, but for many years. These are the possible dangers in an appeal tribunal consisting of only one man.

I realize that, in the system at present operating, Supreme Court decisions may vary. One judge may be more generous than another. But there is an evening up, and the judgment of one judge must have an effect on the judgment of the 'Others so that there tends to be a levelling process. This is characteristic of the law so that, although one may be nervous about 'One judge making low assessments, overall, they tend to strike an average. This balancing process will not operate if the Lands Tribunal is set up in accordance with the terms of the Bill.

The C'Ountry Party believes that the present arrangement of the Lands Valuation Tribunal, which consists of a judge, 'Or a legal man, as chairman, and two assess'Ors chosen from a panel of persons competent to sit, is very satisfactory. This could well be examined by the Government in an attempt to find a soluti'On to what I would be the first to admit is a difficult problem. This principle has been supported by the Select Com­mittee on Drainage which, in its final report, suggests a similar type of tribUl1aI. The Country Party feels that the Lands Tribunal could be set

up in the same way to give greater safety to a pers'On submitting an appeal.

My party has mixed feelings about the measure. It believes there is a lot to be gained from the setting up of a Lands Tribunal, but it feels nervous about one judge being the final arbiter. I repeat that, once a judge is appointed, he is not there for only a year or two. In this State, I am happy to say, a judge retains his office until he reaches the retiring age of 72 years.

It W'Ould be interesting to know the opini'Ons 'Of the judges of .the Supreme Court on this measure. It would be unusual to seek their 'Opinions, but the measure takes from them some of their duties and func­tions. As they have ca'rried out the work which is envisaged by the Bill, their opinions would be well worth· while.

I supP'Ort the suggestion put for­ward by the Leader of the Opposi .. tion that the Statute Law Revision Committee would be a suitable body to inquire further into this Bill. The last thing the Country Party wants is to have the Bill thrown out com­pletely, but it is not happy with its present form and, if forced to vote on the second-reading motion, my party would vote against the Bill.

On the motion of Mr. MEAGHER (Minister of Housing), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until next day.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-By leave, I move-

That the proposals contained in the Lands Tribunal Bill be referred to the Statute Law Revision Committee for ex­amination and report.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).­I have listened with interest to the arguments put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the Country Party, both .of whom, like myself, are members

Companies [ASSEMBLY.] Bill.

of the legal profession and have a special interest in this measure. At this stage without assenting to the motion of the Leader of the OpPosition,·.I suggest that the debate On the m'OtiOn be adjourned so that we might tJ.ave an opportunity of considering the proposal put by him and by the Leader of the Country Party. Theref'Ore, I move-

That the debate be now adjourned.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and it was ordered that the debate be ad· journed until next day.

COMPANIES BILL. . The debate (adjourned from Octo­

ber 12) on the motion of Mr. Reid (Attorney-General) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine).­The Opposition does not oppose this Bill on this, the occasion of its third presentation. The Bill was first pre­~ented in March of last year. It was I)ot preceded with, I believe, be­cause Parliament was prorogued. The Bill was again presented in the spring sessional period last year. Again, it was not opposed by the Opposition. At the time, it was dealt with for the Opposition by the honorable member for Melbourne. Now, the Bill is again presented, in a different form directed towards its improvement in accordance with re­commendations made earlier.

I refer those requiring a detailed explanation of the Bill to the sec'Ond­reading speech of the Attomey­General made on 12th October 'Of this year and reported at page 1238 of the current Hansard. I refer those who desire to inform their minds on the background 'Of the Bill to the five reports 'Of the Company Law Advisory Committee to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The 'first report,· on accounts and audit, was published on 17th October, 1968. The other reports followed on 28th February, 1969; 2nd June, 1969; 20th February,· 1970 ; and 12th Octo­ber, 1970.· These reports, to which

the Attorney-General referred, fl'Ow from an interstate committee of Attorneys-General and their 'Officers established in 1967 which appointed an expert committee, headed by Mr. Justice Eggleston, to inquire into these matters. With Mr. Justice Eggleston, Mr. John R'Odd and Mr. Philip Cox comprised the expert committee.

I have much pleasure in j'Oining with the Attorney-General in his commendation of Mr. Justice Eggle­ston. His Hon'Or had a wide experi­ence in the industrial jurisdiction prior to being elevated to the indus­trial bench. The Attorneys-General could not have 'secured a more com­petent member of the legal profes­sion to provide them with the background analysis which is the basis of the Bill now before Parlia­ment.

In his sec'Ond-reading speech, the Attorney-General referred to what I understand was a false suggestion from certain quarters that Mr. Justice Eggleston had recommended the establishment of a securities com­mission. In passing, and only be­cause the Attorney-General referred to this matter, I point out that, since the preparati'On of the Bill, a decision has been made by the High Court which clearly brings into perspective a possibility of Commonwealth action in regard to this matter. I under­stand it is not the present policy of the Liberal p.arty for corporation law to be under national control and for company legislation to be nation­ally administered. But, certainly, according to the decision of the High Court-headed by Sir Garfield Bar­wick-it is c'Onstitutionally possible for the Comm'Onwealth to take over this kind of administration.

Theoretically, it could take over this administration irrespective of any decisions made by the States. I am tempted t'O utter a heresy and say that I would much prefer that the States should continue to handle these matters if they do so in the way in which they have begun to tackle

Companies [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1833

the problems. The decision of the High Court of Australia related to the actions of some pipe companies. They were Australian companies although, I believe, one of them had some intern a tional connection. In effect the court sat in judgment on the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, conceived by Sir Garfield Bar­wick when he was a member of the Commonwealth Parliament, and sub­sequentlY,adopted in an emasculated form by one of his successors to the Attorney-Generalship in the Com­monwealth Government. This Act, which was the, subject of a High Court decision, is now to be made the subject of debate in the Com­monwealth Parliament next year, as the Federal Government has prom­ised to introduce a Bill to amend the Res trictive Trade Practices Act. The Labor Opposition in the Com­monwealth Parliament has made a number of concrete suggestions deal­ing with the subject. I mention these matters in passing merely to express the opinion that, whilst the Oppos­ition takes no responsibility for this proposed legislation, it does not op­pose it and, without prejudice, re­serves the right to examine its operation and the various matters which arise from its administration after it becomes law.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that the various amendments to the Com­panies Act may come operative on different days. The clause states-

The several provisions of this Act should come into operation on a day or on the respective days to be fixed by proclamation or successive proclamations of the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette.

It is to be hoped that because of administrative inability of the depart­ment to deal with the Act the proc­lamation will not be delayed as long as some sections of the Social Wel­fare Act. I understand that the Min­ister has already stated that the Companies Branch is to be strength­ened considerably.

Mr. REID.-There will be a con-siderable strengthening of the branch.

Mr. LOVEGROVE.-The Attorney­General has pointed out that further measures will be taken to give the branch the necessary strength to handle the measure. This will be necessary because the records of the branch cover ,more than 90,000 com­panies registered in Victoria. The Bill deals with substantial share­holdings; duties and liabilities of officers and disclosures of directors' shareholdings; accounts. and audit; special investigations; and take-overs. The Bill flows from two origins the first of which I have referred to in part-.,;..the action taken by the interstate conference of Attorney­Generals to appoint an expert com­mittee, headed by Mr. Justice Eggles­ton, to examine legislation through­out Australia and bring about im­provemen ts designed to protect the interests of investors.

This desire to protect investors arose from the crop of company failu­res that occurred during the 1961 re­cession-as it was described-and the immediate period following it when the commercial life not only of Victoria but also of ·aH other States was notable for the number of company failures, obviously caused not merely by bad manage~ ment but by fraud and various bad practices which took no heed of the interests of the investors. No doubt the origin of this legislation was the crop of company failures of approxi­mately ten years ago, which gave rise to the need for company re­form throughout Australia, but it also springs from the nature of the eco­nomic system and the fact that great changes have taken place in Western capitalism since the turn of the cen­tury. Whereas private enterprise­or free enterprise, as it is described by Liberals today---once bore some resemblance to its description, today the description of private enterprise, or free enterprise, merely conceals the true nature of the economic system.

This proposed legislation places new responsibilities and, in some cases, most onerous burdens upoc auditors and directors, but it cannot

1834 Companies [ASSEMBLY.] Bill.

hope to influence what today the economists call in the vernacular the macrocosm-that is, the larger sphere of economic activity in Aus­tralia-or have any decisive effect in the short run, but in the microcosm it is dealing with the daily activities of people who run companies in Aus­tralia. If the current crop of company failures can be taken as a criterion, it is to be hoped that the proposed legislation works quickly.

I support that brief observation by a reference to a publication from the Parliamentary Library entitled The Controllers, by Hylda A. Rolfe, a chapter of which deals with inter­locking directorates in large Aus­tralian companies and which classi­fies interlocking directorates by a number of companies. It refers to 50 of the largest companies which are classified by the pattern of the industry and the number of com­panies exhibiting the pattern into three categories-directly, directly and indirectly, and indirectly. In these 50 companies there are 7 directorates between competitors; 6 between potential competitors; 8 with a community of interest, in­cluding directors who are directors of 4 banks and 2 hire-purchase com­panies; 16 with suppliers; 13 with consumers; 32 with financial instit­utions ; 8 with family interests ; and 21 with investment interests. I men­tion this merely to make the point that with the interlocking of direc­torates there raises the question of a conflict of interest, which is speci­fically provided for in the measure now before Parliament, and to point out that the big multi-national cor­porations which in the last few years have established themselves in Aus­tralia-mainly in Victoria and New South Wales-are organizations with decades of experience in 'Other coun­tries in corporation law in its most sophisticated form. Therefore, they are organizations which no doubt carefully examine the nature of this measure. In his second-reading speech the Attorney-General, as re­ported at page 1244 of Hansard of 12th October, 1971, pointed out that

Mr. Lovegrove.

on two matters the Bill did not adopt the recommendations of the Eggles­ton committee's report to' the Stand­ing Committee of Attorneys-General. One of these matters relates to the disclosure of turnover. The honor­able gentleman stated inter alia-

The committee-

that is, interstate committee of Attorneys-General-did not find this matter to be one of great significance in relation to the protection of investors, but said that no great harm had come from requiring its disclosure in other jurisdictions. The committee, however, adverted to problems of making the dis­closure meaningful and not misleading, and suggested that the power to dispense with the requirement would be necessary. The standing committee believes that at the present time there is no justification for requiring disclosure of turnover . . .

I assume that that matter will be under review, having regard to the manner in which this proposed legis­lation works when it is proclaimed.

The second of the matters on which the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General did not adopt the suggestion made by the Eggleston board of inquiry was a suggestion for an interstate companies commis­sion. This suggestion was not adopted because the Standing Com­mittee of Attorneys-General felt that by a closer co-ordination of the Attorneys-General, their officers, and the various company officers, the matter would· be handled nationally in an efficient way.

I shall now refer to the first report of the board of inquiry to the Stand­ing Committee of Attorneys-General on 17th October, 1968, section D of which was headed, "Proposals for a Companies Commission", and set out what it believed the functions of a commission would be. I do this for two reasons; firstly, because in the light of its future adminis­tration and success the matter may again need review; and secondly, for the information of those both here and in the Commonwealth Parlia­ment who for some reason have drawn an analogy between a Com­monwealth Securities Commission

Companies [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1835

on the American model and the kind of companies commISSIon recom­mended by the Eggleston board of inquiry. In paragraph 52 at page 16 of the report of the Eggleston board of inquiry its functions are summarized as follows-

(a) to grant exemptions from-(i) the legislative provisions as to ac­

counts in cases where compli­ances would impose unreasonable burdens or result in the supply of misleading or inappropriate information.

(ii) specific requirements such as those ·referred to in paragraph 46 of this Report;

(iii) such other statutory requirements (e.g., ·as to prospectuses) in cases where on further examination of the legislation this is considered necessary ;

(b) to issue general orders giving com­panies of a defined class power to omit specified information required by the Act or to present their accounts in ·a different form from that required;

(c) to alter or 'add to the requirements as to accounts and the director's report;

(d) to perform the duties at present carried out by the Companies Auditors Board;

(e) to undertake tasks at present carried out by the Regi,strars in cases where they could more conveniently be performed by a single body.

An appendix A is then set out dis­cussing proposed sub-section (SA) of section 162 to indicate :in detail the authority which is recommended to be granted to the Companies Commission. Paragraph 46 then pro­vides-

There may also be cases where a re­quirement to disclose particular information should for reasons of policy include provision for exemption on application to an indepen­dent ·authority. The following 'are examples enacted by the General Revision Bill :-

Disclosure of holding company-the proposal in section 162A (5) (see section 24 of the Gener·al Revision Bill) for disclosure in or in a note to the accounts of the name of the company's ultimate holding company and its country of incorporation. While the proposed section contains no provision for exemption (cf. section 5 (2) of the U.K. Act of 1967) it may be decided that this is desirable (see paragraphs 22-24 above).

Disclosure of subsidiaries-this is required under the proposed paragraph 11 (1) (a) of the Ninth Schedule and in this instance

also it may be decided that there should be some provision for exemption (cf. section 3 (3) of the U.K. Act of 1967).

Substantial shareholdings-disclosure is required under proposed Division 3A con­tained in section 7 (e) of the G.R.B. Sections 69B to 69H do not include any provision for exemption such as is found in the U.K. Act of 1967. If it is decided to enact these pro­visions it may also be decided ,that it is appropriate to include ·some provision for exemption.

In paragraph 21 of this Report we have referred to the question of exemption. We consider that if there is to be any provision in this regard the power to exempt should be exercised by a single body which will apply uniform standards for all companies wheresoever incorporated in Australia. The appropriate authority for this purpose would be the Companies Commission.

I have quoted this report to draw a sharp distinction between the func­tions of a National Securities Com­mission controlled by the national Parliament and the Companies Com­mission recommended by the Eggles­ton report. In not opposing the Bill, the Opposition believes tha t every State Government, including the Vic­torian Government, has the responsi­bility of ensuring that the choice made will work properly.

Mr. R. S. L. McDONALD (Rodney). -Members of the Country Party support this measure. They entrust this Bill to the Government with the belief that in its wisdom 'it will exercise the powers contained there­in. The Bill is to make provision with respect to the disclosure of substantial shareholding in com­panies, to re-enact provisions of the Companies Act 1961 relating to accounts and audit, and to take-over offers, to amend the Companies Act 1961 and for other purposes.

The Attorney-General has fully explained the purposes of the Bill in the lengthy explanatory memoran­dum attached to' it. 'Members of my party trust that the Standing Com­mittee of Attorneys-General will en­sure that the legislation is enacted in all States to retain control over the activities of companies. In the past few years ten or eleven companies

1836 Companies [ASSEMBLY. ] Bill.

have failed and it is hoped that the provisions of this Bill will tighten up the Companies Act to ensure that similar failures will not again take place.

Mr. McLAREN (Bennettswood).­I compliment the Attorney-General on the tremendous amount of work that he and the Attorneys-General of other States have done in pre­paring the amendments to the Com­panies Act proposed in this Bill. This matter has been carefully con­sidered over a number of years. Companies now form an important part of our society and the purpose of this Bill is to control and assist companies operating within its ambit. The submissions now before Parlia­ment are of substantial consequence and, as the two previous speakers have said, only experience will show what the final effects will be.

In regard to the over-all approach to companies, it is necessary for the States to recognize the national nature of the economy and the need for uniformity of the various com­panies Acts. One has already been able to see that substantial differ­ences exist between the 'amendments that have been brought down by the various States. This is a matter of concern because, unless there is uniformity, the sense of respon­sibility .and interference will become a matter of consequence. It is neces­sary that the various States should be aware of the need for substantial, if not total, uniformity, in regard not only to the form of the Acts but also to their implementation, as they proceed further to interfere with the companies operating throughout Australia as distinct from within Victoria.

I compliment the Company Law Advisory Committee which has advised this and other States on the Bill now bef.ore the House. That committee consisted ·of Mr. Justice Eggleston, ·Mr. John 'Rodd, a Mel­bourne solicitor who is well-known in relation to company matters, and

Mr. Philip Cox, a chartered accoun­tant. This well-balanced committee brought down the reports the provi­sions of which have been incorpor­ated in this Bill. Further, various bodies within the community made substantial contributions towards the ultimate provisions of the measure. These included the Law Institute of Victoria, the Joint Committee of the Australian Society of Accountants, the Institute of Chartered Account­tants in Australia, the Institute of Directors 'and other bodies.

The second report of the Eggles­ton committee dealt with substantial shareholdings. This now brings Aus­tralia into the same field as the United States of America and the United Kingdom by providing some control over shareholdings in a com­pany and a declaration of interests that is necessary in this regard. This aspect will assist people who mayor may not have an interest in the companies concerned. The com-mercial community is concerned that it is not always possible-al­though this was intended by those who first enacted the Companies Act -to know of the shareholdings and the shares held by nominees ·and others. At present, it is not always possible to know who holds shares or buys shares in a particular company. There needs to be a full disclosure in order that the commercial com­munity and the shareholders of com­panies are aware of the holdings.

Part III. of the Bill covers the liability of officers and controls in­side trading. This is referred to in part 4 of the Eggleston report. I t also covers disclosures of direc­tors' shareholdings. Here again it is necessary that the public and the shareholders should know the hold­ings of 'a company director both in his own right and in any other rela­ted right in the companies. I share the concern that has been expressed in regard to the possible effect of over-control that might apply to the position of a director of a com­pany.

Companies [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1831

It is possible that the nature of the controls that are now proposed to be placed on directors may pro­duce over-caution by directors. In a company operating in a free enter­prise community-whether one ac­cepts it or not, it is the basis of com­mercial activity-there is a neces­sity for directors to find out the facts of a particular situation, make decisions -and act accordingly. The more restrictions that are placed on directors the less opportunity there is for a quick and prompt decision to be made on various matters. In some respects this Bill will freeze out some people from accepting respon­sibility as directors.

I hope that, in the working of the provisions of the Bill, the Attorneys-General of the States will keep in -view the possibility of over­control and the inhibiting of aspects of the - responsibility of directors. Part IV. deals with accounts and audit and the institutes that are interested in this field. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Aus­tralia and the Australian Society of Accountants have expressed their concern how they might be placed in indicating their pleasure or dis­pleasure at various aspects of re­sponsibility introduced in this Bill.

At present, the Institute of Char­tered Accountants is providing cer­tain guidelines and there is a ten­dency for the accounts of a number of companies to be qualified because of the guidelines laid down not only in this country but also in the United States of America -and Great Britain. If a company does not disclose or introduce an item rel~ting to deprec.iati?n of buildings, owmg to the gUIdelInes laid down by the Institute of Chartered Ac­countants. there is a necessity for the auditors in those instances to qualify their report on the company's accounts.

The business community 'is con­cerned that constantly the press carries' headlines that the accounts of a company have been qualified.

Rather than have guidelines laid down by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the guidelines should come within the ambit of the Com­panies Act.

This legislation will impose great­er responsibilities upon auditors and accountants in providing an adequate audit within the terms of the re­muneration that can be paid by com­panies. One can see an increase in the audit fees payable by public com­panies, particularly if the auditors need to undertake a fuller investiga­tion of a company's accounts in order t~ ensure that they have adequately dIscharged their responsibilities to­gether with the added responsibilities which will be imposed by this meas­ure. This is the second sphere of operation which it will be neces­sary for Parliament to watch as this substantial alteration to the Compan­ies Act is brought into effect. Some experimentation will take place but companies play an important part in the life of the community. In many ways, companies make quick deci­si.o.n~. Bearing in mind th~ir responsi­bIlItIes under the legIslation for shareholders' funds and to the com­mu~i!y itself, in making such quick deCISIons, I hope that companies will not be inhibited in coming to an adequate and full decision on the matters before them. The same thing applies to auditors and accountants who will have added responsibilities under this legislation.

Part V. of the Bill relates to special investigations which were covered by the third report of the Eggleston committee and Part VI. relates to take-overs, a subject which was cov­ered by the second Eggleston com­mittee report. I believe that the pro­visions of the Bill adequately cover all the requirements necessary to meet the changing nature of our community. In line with other legis­lation which has been presented to the House concerning the control of the operations of companies, insur­ance, the share market and the secu­rities market. this measure demon­strates the added responsibilities that

1838 Companies [ASSEMBLY] Bill.

Governments are attempting to im­pose by bringing the wider operation of companies within the ambit of the Companies Act.

The Standing Committee of Com­monwealth and State Attorneys­General has undertaken a mammoth task in consolidating the company law, and it deserves our congratula­tions. In particular, the Victorian Attorney-General should be compli­mented on the amount of work he has undertaken in this respect. I am sure that honorable members will watch the progress of this substan­tial alteration to the Companies Act with a great deal of interest.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and com'mitted, pro forma.

The House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).-I move-

That under and subject to the Companies Act 1961 'as proposed to be amended by the Companies Bill there shall be paid to and for the use of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors the following fees, namely:-

(a) for registration of a company $ whose nominal share capital does not exceed $10,000 .. .. 100.00

(b) for registration of a company whose nominal share capital ex­ceeds $10,000 the -above fee of $100 with the following ad­ditional fees regulated accord­ing to the ,amount of share capital (that is to say)-

For every $1,000 of nominal share capital, or part of $1,000, after the first $10,000 up to $200,000 .. For every $1,000 of nominal share capital, or part of $1,000, after the first $200,000, up to $1,000,000 .. For every $1,000 of nominal share capital or part of $1,000, after the first $1,000,000

(c) on lodging notice of increase of share capital-an amount equal to the difference (if any) between the amount which would have been payable under the Companies Act 1961 on first registration by reference to its capital as

2.00

1.00

0.50

increased and the amount which would have been payable under the Act by reference to its capital immediately before the increase but in the case of a company registered before 15th November, 1956 with a share capital of less than $10,000 the fee shall be $15 per $1,000 or any fractional part of $1,000 for any increase up to $10,000 and thereafter an amount calculated as afore­said.

(d) for registration of a foreign company the share capital of which consists wholly or partly of shares having no fixed nominal value, one half of the fee that would be payable if those shares had a nominal value being-

(i) in the case of shares for which a maximum issue price is fixed by the in­strument constituting or defining the constitution of the company-the maximum issue price; and

(ii) in any other case-$l;

(e) on lodging by a foreign com­pany the share capital of which consists wholly or partly of shares having no fixed nominal value, of notice of increase of share capital---one half of the fee that would be payable if those shares had a nominal value calculated in accordance with the preceding paragraph.

(f) for registering any charge $ created by a corporation .. 10.00

(g) for registering particulars of a series of debentures .. .. 10.00

(h) for registering particulars of each series of debentures where more than one issue in the series 5.00

(i) on lodging under section 78 of the Companies Act 19.61 any deed or copy of a deed .. 50.00

(j) on lodging any statement in lieu of prospectus, or ·any deed (or copy of a deed) under sec­tion 78 of the Companies Act 1961 ,amending 'a deed lodged· under that section .. 20.00

(k) on lodging, in relation to a corporation that is a foreign company incorporated or to be incorporated in another State or Territory of the Common­wealth, any prospectus or statement under section 82 of the Companies Act 1961 being

Companies [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1839

a prospectus or statement registered or acceptable for registration in that other State or Territory

(l) on lodging any prospectus or statement under section 82 of the Companies Act 1961, other than a prospectus or statement referred to in the preceding paragraph

(m) for lodging an application under section 162c of the Companies Act 1961

$

20.00

50.00

25.00

(n) for entry in the register of charges of any memorandum of satisfaction 5.00

(0) on lodging any Annual Re-turn of a Corporation .. .. 12.00

(p) on lodging any balance sheet of ·a foreign company .. 12.00

(q) on lodging, registering, de­positing or filing any other document with or by the Regis­tration under any Act (where the fee is not specified in any relevant Act or regulation) .. 4.00

The purpose of the motion is to pro-:­vide for the revised scale of fees under the Companies Bill. The actual fees are specified in various clauses of the Bill.

The motion was agreed to, and the resolution was reported to the House and adopted.

The House went into Committee for the consideration of this Bill.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Commencement).

Mr. REID (Attorney-General}.-I acknowledge the contributions made by the honorable members for Sun­shine and Rodney, on behalf of their respective parties, and the hon­orable member for Bennettswood, during the second-reading debate and the constructive way in which all honorable members have received the measure. I shall take notice of the suggestions made.

The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

The Bill was reported to the House without. amendment, and· passed through its remaining stages.

The DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-The time has come for this House to meet the Legis­lative Council in this Chamber for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University.

The sitting was suspended at 6.13 p.m. until 8.5 p.m.

JOINT SITTING OF PARLIAMENT. MONASH UNIVERSITY: COUNCIL

VACANCIES.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-I have to report that this House today met the Legislative Council in the Legislative Assembly Chamber for the purpose of sitting and voting together to choose three members of the Parliament of Victoria to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash Univer­sity, and that the Honorable Graham John Nicol, Esquire, M.L.C., Robert Clive Fordham, Esquire, M.P., and the Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, Esquire, M.L.C., have been duly chosen for recommendation for anoointment to the Council of the Monash University.

EVIDENCE (BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Sep­tember 28) on the motion of Mr. Reid (Attorney-General) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).-If the Government had any concern for the distinction between Parliament and the judiciary, and had heeded past warnings, this Bill would not be before the House. Parliament is being asked, in what might be called a good cause, to do something whicl. must be abhorrent to all people who value the institution of Parliament and its place in society and who value the judiciary and its place in society.

1840 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBLY. ] Commissions) Bill.

The Attorney-General was kind enough to allow me to discuss the ramifica tions of the Bill with his officers, and I appreciate his courtesy. However, my complaint is that the Minister's second-reading speech would indicate that. the measure was innocuous and was merely designed to correct a wrong. It is wrong for this House not to receive the fullest information about matters with which it deals. In his speech, the Attorney­General outlined what he said was the purpose of the measure. He stated-

Its purpose is to amend the Evidence Act 1958, to which I shall refer as the principal Act, to overcome separate problems brought to the attention of the Government by the Chief Justice and by the Crown Solicitor. The Chief Justice has pointed out that, unlike the Commonwealth and other States, Victoria has no legislative provision confer­ring immunity upon persons appointed to conduct Royal Commissions or boards of inquiry or upon counsel aSSisting o'r appear­ing before such commissions or boards.

That, indeed, describes the first part of the Bill. The Attorney-General went on to say-

The Crown Solicitor has drawn attention to doubts whether section 20 of the prin­cipal Act, which provides the machinery for deal'ing with offences against sections 16 and 19 of the principal Act, applies to the numerous bodies which are given powers by reference to sections 14 to 16 of the prin­cipal Act.

If that was all there was to know about the matter, the measure would be innocuous. However, the honor­able gentleman and the Government are blam'eworthy in that they did not also tell honorable members that, if the Bill passes through Parliament and receives Royal assent, it will effectively stop a person, or a body, who is taking legal action against another person. That is why I say that it is abhorrent for members of Parliament to have to deal with a measure of this nature.

All honorable members believe in the separation of this Parliament and its functions from the judiciary and its functions. The Minister should have told us much more than he did. We should have been told that a writ which was destined to come

Mr. Doube.

before the Supreme Court will be stopped in mid-air, as it were, by an action of this Parliament. There is an old adage that justice should not only be done but must be seen to be done. The passage of this Bill through Parliament will indicate to many people that justice-in the sense of a person being able to plead his case in court......;...will not even get off the ground. Proceedings will not be allo~ed to start in the court.

It is true that the writ which, has been filed and which will be stopped by this measure has been brought by the so-called church of scientology, which comprises a body of people who, some years ago, were the sub­ject of a board of inquiry and of legis­lation in this Parliament.

Mr. MANSON .-Did you support it?

Mr. DOUBE.-I did not catch the interjection but I understood the honorable member to ask whether I supported them. Only a member of the Liberal Party could offer such an irrelevant comment. It is not a ques­tion of whether we support or do not support these people. The point is whether it is right for the Govern­ment to introduce a measure to stop a writ before it reaches the court. Even the meanest subject in the land is entitled to appear before the courts. It does not matter whether I support these people or whether anyone else supports them. I offer no comment about the scientologists because that would not be germane to the Bill. My fear is that because we may not like scientologists we may be in danger of allowing our dislike to override our respect for the due processes of law.

If the Government had really been looking at the problem and dealt with it effectively, Parliament would not have to consider this Bill, which can only be described as abhorrent. Every honorable member who votes for it will vote to stop an action which a person is entitled to take under law. I am confident that I can say that no honorable member

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1841

is very happy about that situation. In addition, I am not happy that the Minister did not indicate that this situation existed. The broad outlines which the honorable gentleman gave of the Bill did not indicate that Parliament was being asked to take an almost unprecedented step.

The Government has often been charged with being lazy and incom­petent. The fact that this Bill is before the House indicates a degree of laziness and incompetence. Perhaps it is the sort of thing that happens when a Government has been in power for a long period and is unchalleriged because of a certain situation such as its backing by the Democratic Labor Party in a gerrymandered elector~te.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order ! The honorable member for Albert Park on the Bill.

Mr. DOUBE.-I thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. The measure with which honorable members are dealing is important and significant, and I repeat the charge that if the Government really had been inter­ested in the problem of the proper separation of the powers of Parlia­ment and the courts the House would not be dealing with this matter tonight. I am sure that other honor­able members do not like being par­ties to legislation which will deprive someone of an existing right in the Supreme Court.

It is the duty of the Minister to explain fully to the House the real provisions of the Bill. If what I have said is true, my question to the Minister is: Why were not honorable members told about this in the Mini­ster's second-reading speech? Unfor­tunately, honorable members were not told, so they must ferret out the information. The Minister's offi­cers have explained the matter to me, but it was not explained in this House, where official :responsibility must be taken.

Mr. REID.-U is explained in the proposed new section 21A.

Mr. DOUBE.-That does not ex­plain the position when there is actually a writ before the court. It may be known to members on the Government side of the House who have studied the matter, and who may be aware that if this Bill is passed and goes to another place and even­tually becomes law, legal action which someone is taking will be cut off by an Act of Parliament. The Minister cannot pretend that he is happy about this position'. The meanest subject in the land is entitled to go unhindered to the courts and be dealt with as the law stands. It is wrong that Parliament should intervene and prevent people from continuing a legal action.

Mr. WILKES.-Is there a writ before the court now?

Mr. DOUBE.-There is.

Mr. WILKES.-How did the Gov­ernment go ahead with this?

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member for Albert Park on the Bill.

Mr. DOUBE.-The Government proposes to extend to Roval Commis­sions and boards of inquiry--

The SPEAKER.-Order! The hon­orable member should address the Chair.

Mr. DOUBE.-The Government proposes to extend to Roval Commis­sions and boards of inqUIry the same privilege powers as those held by the Supreme Court. The Minister has said this but he did not state the powers of the Supreme Court, nor did he indicate where these powers are contained. They are not con­tained in the Supreme Court Act, the Evidence Act, or The Constitution Act. I can only imagine that they are powers which have come down to us through long years of practice and are part of the common law of this country. In view of the serious­ness of the -matter the Minister should have indicated precisely where the privileges conferred on the Supreme Court are to be found, because the

1842 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBLY.] Commissions) Bill.

Bill proposes to confer on Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry the same powers as those held by the Supreme Court.

Mr. A. T. EVANs.-Does the honor­able member object to that?

Mr. DOUBE.-I am objecting, and I hoped I had made it clear that I object to the Government's allowing so much time to elapse before intro­ducing a measure which will now pre­vent some persons from continuing a court action. I am sure that the honor­able member must object to that, be­cause if this is accepted as a precedent all sorts of actions in a court could be stopped. That is what I object to, particularly as the Government has had plenty of time in which to ex­amine the· situation. It has had ample time to ascertain whether Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry, and the persons assisting them, were protected or not. Because the Gov­ernment is lazy and incompetent, as it has often been told, it has waited until the last minute to do something. We are now in the unhappy posi­tion of stopping some person, or per­sons from prosecuting what is at this moment their legal right. That is what I object to.

The Government proposes to con­fer on Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry an absolute pri­vilege-not a qualified privilege­and, as honorable members are doubt­less aware, the difference is signifi­cant. This House of Parliament has an absolute privilege. The courts of the land have an absolute privilege. But apparently Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry at present have only a qualified privilege, and the difference is important. It means that if an absolute privilege is be­stowed on Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry-that is, that no action can be taken against a person for defamation-the statements made before a commission or inquiry, whether true or false, will be abso­lutely and unconditionally privileged. Until now action could be taken in regard to statements allegedly made

with malice at Royal Commissions or boards of inquiry. This is known as a conditional privilege.

In the courts of this land a person who is a witness, or anyone else in court who takes part in a case, is absolutely privileged. No matter what he might say about another person in that court, no action can be taken for defamation. He may be cross-examined in the Court about the truth of his statement, but no action can lie against him for having used defamatory words. It is understandable that this should apply because it would not be easy to get people to tell the truth if they felt they could be under threat out­side the court. The Bill now pro­poses that Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry also should be com­pletely and absolutely privileged.

A word of warning should be uttered. Cases of illegal practices, such as abortions and matters such as the practice of scientology should be examined; but the same sort of rights which exist to protect persons in the courts should also protect them before Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry. I am not sure that this will be the case under this proposed legislation. No doubt many honorable members were under the impression that a commissioner and people assisting him were privileged, and that boards of inquiry and people assisting them were privileged. I am sure that persons who have under­taken to sit as a board of inquiry, or to be a Royal Commission, have been under the impression that they were privileged and could not be sued for defamation as a result of their activities. For at least 100 years Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry have been operating in this State under that impression, and doubtless the Government will argue that it also was under that impres­sion. However, I remind the Govern­ment that it has had ample warning that there was danger in the situation.

On two previous occasions Par­liament has taken action which,' to some extent, has interfered· with

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1843

activities in a court. In one case a woman claimed damages against the Victorian Railways and, because of ,a certain set of circumstances, Par­liament passed legislation which in effect meant that she was unable to recover damages. Another case con­cerned a solicitor in Wodonga who had dealings with the Wodonga Sewerage Authority and whose actions before a court were curtailed by an Act of this Parliament. Every­thing that I have read on this matter indicates that it is clearly abhorrent for Parliament to pass retrospective legislation which negates the rights of a person to continue an action before a court. In no case have I found any constitutional lawyer or authority prepared to argue that Par­liament is justified in interfering with legal processes, but unfortunately this is what the Government proposes to do.

The Government had warning of this situation approximately eighteen months ago. Honorable members will be aware that Mr. Kaye, a bar­rister-at-Iaw, was appointed to con­duct an inquiry into illegal practices connected with abortion. One of the people named in the inquiry, Dr. Bretherton, took out a writ against Mr. Kaye and last April Parliament debated a Bill which was brought in for the purpose of granting the board absolute privilege, but which did not go as far as stopping the writ. In that debate, the Deputy Leader of the OppOSition warned the House that it was necessary to ensure tha t Royal Commissions and boards of inquiry were in the clear on the subject of privilege. At page 3370 of Hansard of 17th March, 1970, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said-

It may be necessary at some later stage to introduce legislation to protect future boards of inquiry. It is essential that the legislation should be sufficiently embracing and water-tight to protect those persons who are responsible for the conduct of future in­quiries of this type.

In reply the then Chief Secretary said that he had listened with care and attention to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. He thanked the

Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for their co-operation in having the Board of Inquiry (Corrupt Practices) Bill passed. The honorable gentleman also complimented the honorable member for Benambra. He then said that he agreed with the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that the whole question relating to boards of inquiry and Royal Com­missions must be examined. The honorable gentleman also said it was essential for the future that any Government, irrespective of its com­position, should have a good look at this problem, and commended it to the Attorney-General. The honorable gentleman concluded by saying-

But the whole question of privilege for Royal Commissions, boards of inquiry and so on should be referred to the Statute Law Revision Committee for consideration and report. That could be of tremendous value to this Parliament and to the State.

Mr. WILKEs.-What has happened? Mr. DOUBE.-Nothing has hap­

pened. The Government has been dilatory and it is shameful that members of this Parliament are being asked to agree to this Bill which stops a person from exercising his legal rights. It is even more shameful when it is considered that the Gov­ernment had eighteen months in which to do something about this. I am confident that you, Mr. Speaker, and most honorable members do not appreciate the position which the laziness of the Government has forced upon them.

Some time ago the present Chief Secretary pointed out that it would be bad for Parliament to intervene after a writ had been issued. Surely the Government needs no further evid­ence of its laziness. Honorable members are now being forced to make the unpleasant decision whether they will protect Mr. Anderson, who was appointed to inquire into sciento­logy, because a writ has been issued against him and as a board of inquiry he was not covered by absolute privilege-apparently his privilege was what one might call partial privilege-or they should grant the

1844 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBLY.] Commissions) Bitl.

so-called church of scientology the right to continue with its writ. That is an unenviable position for any honorable member to be placed in. It is difficult for a member of Parlia­ment to act as a judge. Honorable members have to decide whether to uphold the right of absolute protec­tion which they thought was con­ferred on Mr. Anderson, now Mr. Justice Anderson, or whether the right of the so-called church of scien­tology to go ahead with its action in the court must be withdrawn forthwith.

Only a Government which is insensitive to a situation and lacking in initiative would have allowed eighteen months to pass without taking action to pro­tect Mr. Anderson. The Govern­ment has now placed all honorable members in the position of having to say to the scientologists, who have a writ before the court, "Your writ will cease forthwith." The need to make that decision has been forced upon honorable members because the Government did not heed the warnings that were given to it eighteen months ago. Honorable members now have to act as judges on the rights of Mr. Anderson and the rights of this so-called church. I am sure that most honorable mem­bers, irrespective of how they cast their votes, will agree that any Gov­ernment which does not take notice of warnings that were issued is vague and deserves to be condemned.

Members of the Opposition will not vote against the measure because we assumed that Mr. Anderson was fully protected. Apparently he was of the opinion that he was fully protected, otherwise he would have not agreed to take the appointment. Members of the Opposition have come down on the side of Mr. Anderson but this is not an enviable position for any honorable member to be placed in. Although we will not vote against the Bill, we deplore the fact that the Government has been so lethargic and so indifferent about this matter.

Mr. Doube.

During Committee, I hope the Attorney-General will further enligh­ten honorable members on this matter and if I am wrong in what I have said I shall be happy for the honor­able gentleman to correct me.

Mr. MITCHELL (Benambra).­Members of the Country Party sup­port the Bill because we believe that unless men like Mr. Anderson are given protection it will be difficult in the future to get men of his calibre to accept apPOintments as royal com­missioners or boards of inqUiry. At the same time we, too, are critical of one or two points of the Bill. I agree with the honorable member for Albert Park that the Government was given ample warning to do some­thing to protect Mr. Anderson before he was hurt. It is typical of this slovenly, socially blinded, miscalled Government that it put Mr. Anderson into an invidious position and now has to try to protect him. The Government is indicted for its slovenliness.

The British people have always been jealous of the way in which justice and the machinery of the courts of law are protected. I was a member of the Government which was in office during the Lee, Clayton and Andrews murder trial when the three defendants appealed to the Privy Council. The Government delayed implementing the judgment. The British people have always adopted the philosophy that the court must be uninfluenced and that the course of justice must not be altered in any way. Unfortunately, to the shame of the present Govern­ment, in this instance there is a case before a court of law. It does not matter what or who the scientologists are; from what little I have heard of them they are a craven creed.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member should discuss the Bill.

Mr. MITCHELL.-I am discussing the Bill with considerable vehemence, Mr. Speaker, and I am sayIng that a party is before a court of British

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1845

justice and its rights are being inter­fered with. The court is being over­ruled by retroactive legislation. Who­ever the scientologists may be, unlike the Falls Creek Committee of Manage­ment, they have the guts to put their case before members of Parliament. In a submission to my Leader they put forward a suggestion which my party is concerned about. They referred to the vagueness of the Attorney­General. I think the honorable gentleman realized that he was on unpleasant ground and he scuttled for cover as soon as he could. In his submission to my Leader, Mr. Tampion said-

The facts indicate that no such legislation exists except in so far as defamation is concerned..

The House will remember that the Attorney-General said-

The Chief Justice has pointed out that, unlike the Commonwealth and other States, Victoria has no legislative provision confer­ring immunity upon persons appointed to conduct Royal Commissions or boards of inquiry or upon counsel assisting or appear­ing before such commissions or boards.

I ask the Attorney-General to tell honorable members at the appro­priate time exactly why the immunity must be extended beyond defamation and whether the legislation in other States to which the honorable gentle­man referred goes further than that. The Attorney-General has been vague to a reprehensible degree and in fair­ness to the House the honorable gentleman should give an explanation at the proper time.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-There is no doubt that members of the Opposition believe that people who conduct inquiries for the Government should be protected. However, we have difficulty in understanding the attitude the Government adopts regarding sub judice matters in debates in this House. We have been informed that a writ has been issued but honorable members are still per­mitted to debate the validity of the need for legislation of this type. If the Opposition introduced a private member's Bill or moved a substantive motion on a matter on which a writ

had been issued, would the Govern­ment take the view that a debate should not be permitted because the matter was sub judice? This cer­tainly does not apply to the Govern­ment. The House has heard no sug­gestion from the Government that the matter of sub judice should be taken into consideration with this measure because a writ is already before the court dealing with this aspect.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! Sub judice is a matter for the Chair.

Mr. WILKES.-I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter for the Chair if it is raised before the Chair, but you, Sir, have not been asked during this debate to give considera­tion to that aspect. With respect, I make that observation in passing.

It was pointed out by the honorable member for Albert Park that the Opposition warned the Government when Mr. Anderson found himself in difficulties some eighteen months ago. The best Minister that this Government has produced-the for­mer Chief Secretary, Sir Arthur Rylah -said the Government should act and would act upon the suggestions made at that time. Although eighteen months have elapsed, the Govern­ment has taken no action to protect anyone. In the inquiry by Mr. Marchesi, which was instigated by the present Attorney-General into the Geelong Gas Company shares, Mr. Marchesi had no powers and was not protected in any way, although he was conducting the inquiry on behalf of the Government. The Oppo­sition rejects the principle that mem­bers of the Public Service should be appointed by the Government to con­duct inquiries, such as the inquiry Mr. Marchesi was expected to con­duct, without any power to place a witness on oath, to accept evidence on oath, or having the protection that the Government suggests is necessary in Royal Commissions or in certain inquiries instituted by it.

1846 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBLY. ] Commissions) Bill.

Why should any distinction be made between a Royal Commission, a public inquiry, or an inquiry that might embrace the public, such as Mr. Marchesi's inquiry into the Gee­long Gas Company's share deal? Why was a distinction made in that case? No reference has been made by the Attorney-General during the debate on this proposed legislation that officers of the Law De­partment or officers of the companies' fraud office, with which Mr. Marchesi is associated, should be protected. The Opposition believes that he should be protected as anyone else should be protected, but it is a belated effort on the part of the Government. After a writ has been issued and a citizen and taxpayer of Victoria has exercised his pre­rogative in taking a certain action, why does the Government decide to promote a measure of this type and expect it to receive the full blessing of the Opposition?

Opposition members are entitled to receive substantial answers from the Attorney-General to the questions they have asked. If a certain gentle­man had not exercised his preroga­tive in respect of the issue of a writ, the Government would still have been glued to its seat and no action would have been taken. .

Mr. FLOYD.-The back-bench mem­bers of the Government are doing all the work.

Mr. WILKES.-Probably, this measure was promoted by the back­bench members. Surely it reflects on the integrity and political expertise of the Government if it waits until a situation occurs before taking action. One has only to examine past legislation by this Government to discover that frequently the event which legislation is designed to cor­rect occurs before the Government takes action. It never plans ahead in the light of previous events, nor does it organize its legislation to compen­sate for conditions that may occur in the community. Eighteen months ago the Government was given fair

warning that this could happen. The warning was acknowledged by the former Chief Secretary, Sir Arthur Rylah, and the Government would not be in its present position if he was still here. That is one compli­ment I pay to the former Minister.

Ample evidence exists that people who conduct Royal Commissions or inquiries on behalf of this lazy Gov­ernment are entitled to protection. The type of protection to which they are entitled has been envisaged by the Opposition and the former Chief Secretary, and·now after all this time it is being promoted by the Govern­ment. The Government refused to take any action with regard to the hiatus that occurred eighteen months, ago, but in the meantime it was pre­pared to appoint all sorts of inquiries, including the Kaye inquiry, the inquiry by Sir Eric St. Johnston into the Victoria Police Force and the Marchesi inquiry into the Geelong Gas Company's shares. Notwith­standing its preknowledge of Mr. Anderson's case, no suggestion ema­nated from the Government concern­ing the need for protection.

The honorable member for Albert Park and Opposition members realize that it was not until a citizen exercis­ed his prerogative and issued a writ, that the Government was shaken off its seat as it were and decided to take action. Without such action, the same situation would have prevailed and persons con­ducting inquiries ·on behalf of the Government would have been without protection and, in certain instances, without rights, as Mr. Marchesi found himself to be in taking evidence from people on their word alone. Similarly, if I said to a member of the com­munity, "Did you do this?" and the person replied, " No. I did not do it ", that would be substantial evidence in the eyes of the Government. The Opposition objects to that procedure. If the Government wants people to conduct inquiries on its behalf, it should afford them proper powers and proper protection.

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1847

Mr. KIRKWOOD (Preston).-In common with the previous speakers, I am disturbed at this measure. If associations such as my trade union or my political party were taking action of the type proposed by the Government, I would probably not be as calm as I am now, because I con­sider that people now have a funda­mental right to take out a writ. After this measure has been proclaimed, they will no longer have that right. I cannot understand why for eighteen months people have had the right, but now it is to be taken from them. If an association with which I was linked acted in this manner, I would be very bitter. I would also have some hostile words to say to those who are responsible for a Bill of such complexity.

Like the honorable member for Benambra I received a letter on this matter. The scientology organization has raised a question which should receive careful examination by this legislature. After all, every person in the community and every organi­zation, is entitled to fair play.

It seems that the right of a certain organization to protest will soon be taken away, as will the right of other people in the community. The privileges and immunities granted to persons who sit on a board are not as simple as this. They are not as simple for an obvious reason. If people 'claim' that their privileges have been abused, and this has been the c'ase with an edited book by the scientology organization called The Kangaroo Court, I do not know what legal processes are available to have the matter determined.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member of Preston should not dis­cuss scientology. This is a Bill purely for inquiries into commissions.

Mr.' A. T. EVANs.-The honorable member· is arguing against his Deputy Leader now.

Mr. KIRKWOOD.-Thank you for your "guidance, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the interjection, I point out

that I am arguing against no one but I am quite prepared to argue against the honorable member for Ballaarat North. The Opposition will not oppose the Bill. Doubtless Government members are amateurs at attempting to put words into the mouths of other people. Opposition members are not so immature, but it is their right to criticize and to point out that a wrong is being done. Normally, Government members would agree that people who have made submissions to a Royal Com­mission-it is their right by law to do so-should not have their right taken away by legislative action. The Government intends to go beyond the accepted principle in this case. As the honorable member for Albert Park and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition stated, the action should have been taken eighteen months ago or as soon after that date as possible. If action of that type had been taken, no one would have had any gripe about it. However, at this stage, and because of the events that have taken place in the courts, the Government's action leaves a lot to be desired. The Government's action is open to question, and the legitimate arguments that have been put forward by the Opposition warrant an answer in substance. I hope the Minister will do' just this.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Privileges and immuni­ties in relation to inquiries).

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­During the second-reading debate, honorable members made several points concerning this Bill. I thought it was obvious from my second­reading speech that the more impor­tant clauses of the Bill, would have retrospective effect. Furthermore, I Was at pains, as the honorable mem­ber for Albert Park freely acknow­'ledged, to make available the services of the Solicitor":General so that the

1848 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBLY.] Commissions) Bill.

honorable member could have a full discussion with him of the principles of the Bill. The honorable member for Benambra referred to a letter which was circulated by Mr. Tampion and which cast doubts on some of my statements. I point out that Mr. Tampion wrote me a further letter in which he withdrew some of his earlier statements.

The Deputy Leader of the Op­position referred to the degree of protection afforded to company inspectors under the Companies Act. My impression is that some statutory protection is accorded to those of­ticers under the Companies Act, but in view of the honorable member's comments-I always take note of what he says-I will have the ques­tion examined to determine whether some further protection should be provided in this Bill, more particu­larly as this House has just passed the Companies Bill. I have taken note of the matters that were raised during the second-reading debate and before the Bill is transmitted to an­other place I shall have them fully examined to determine whether the Bill should be amended.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).-I thank the Attorney-General for his assur­ance on the matters which he men­tioned. However, I emphasize that the criticism that was made during the second-reading debate did not relate to the question of whether this measure would have retrospective effect. The Opposition recognized that certain provisions of the Bill would be retrospective. However, honorable members did not know that an actual writ was in the process of being dealt with. It renders a disservice to this Parliament when information of this type is not sup­plied to honorable members.

Mr. A. T. EVANS.-Do you agree with the legislation?

Mr. DOUBE.-The honorable mem­ber for Ballaarat North can draw his own inference from the remarks of Opposition members during the

second-reading debate. We do not in­tend to oppose the Bill. However, the Government's action has placed Opposition members in a dilemma; they must decide whether Parliament should protect the rights of Mr. Anderson. I am questioning whether it is proper for Parliament to act in this way. The authorities to which I have referred state that it is ob­noxious for Parliament to intervene in the processes of the courts. All persons in the community have certain rights. The organization to which this legislation refers has un­challengeable rights at present; cer­tain processes of law are available not only to the organization, but to other persons in the community, and nothing can stop the processes of law from being carried out. However, Parliament is being asked to take action which will alter this state of affairs.

The honorable member for Bal­laarat North may be sensitive enough to recognize the reality of a differ­entiation between the powers of Parliament and the powers of the courts, but he must now act as a judge and decide whether he should support a Bill which wi'll blot out a right that exists for all persons in the community. The Attorney­General, who approached this ques­tion in a cursory manner, indi­cated that the Bill will confer on boards and commissions the same privileges and rights as those of the Supreme Court. I invite Government members to inform. me concerning those rights and privileges and to state where they can be found in an Act of Parlia­,ment. Unfortunately, honorable members are forced to Dass this measure which will deprive some persons of their legal rights. The Op­position is not happy with this situa­tion, particularly in view of the fact that the Attorney-General did not inform honorable members of writs th.at had been ·issued. I hope one of the Government members who have criticized the OPPosition for its atti­tude to this Bill will answer the ques­tions that I have posed.

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1849

Mr. MITCHELL (Benambra).-I thank the Attorney-General for his partial explanation concerning the points that were raised during the second-reading debate. I listened to the honorable gentleman carefully and there are still two aspects which cause me some concern. - The Attor­ney-General did not inform honor­able members why it was necessary to extend the immunity further than actions of defamation, nor did the honorable gentleman explain to what extent the immunity applied in the legislation of the other States. I do not know whether the Attorney-Gen­eral meant that it applied in all other States and the Commonwealth, or only in some other States. The Mini­ster referred to the letter of 24th Oc~ober from the scientology organi­zatIOn.

Mr. REID.-I thought you were referring to a letter of an earlier date.

Mr. MITCHELL.-Apparently there was some misunderstanding and I thank the Attorney-General for clari­fying the position. Mr. Tampion makes it clear that, in the other States, no such legislation exists ex­cept in regard to defamation. J ask the Attorney-General to clarify this point. Furthermore, 1 do not like my Leader being referred to as Mr. P. Ross-Edwards. If the scientology organization does not correctly address a member of Parliament, either it is ignorant or insulting, or both. 1 invite the Attorney-General to explain why it is necessary to ex­tend protection beyond det"amation and to what extent the legislation has been extended beyond defamation in the other States.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-I thank the Attorney-General for his courtesy, which is customary when he handles matters of this type. 1 should like the honorable gentleman to state whether he considers this debate is sub judice because of the fact that a writ has been issued. I can recall over the years in this Parliament, when the honorable member for Sunshine and 1 have attempted to

debate wage rises, the matter has been declared by the Chair to be sub judice.

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply) .-1 rise to a point of order. Surely, the Chair should determine whether a matter is sub judice.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­J might be able to assist you, Mr. Chairman, in your ruling on whether the matter is sub judice. I have had occasion recently to examine this question. It is clear that Parliament fixes its own rules in determining whether a matter is sub judice. Some guidance can no doubt be obtained from decisions of the courts as to whether statements in the press and by individuals may occasionally amount to contempt of court. The mere fact that a writ has been issued in a matter does not make that matter sub judice. Before it gets into the range of contempt of court, an action would have to reach such a stage as to influence the trial to the action Although Parliament makes its ow~ rules, it is not a bad guide for Par­liament to consider what has hap­pened in the courts.

Dealing with the writs, 1 point out that two writs were issued one against Mr. Justice Anderso~, the Royal Commissioner, and one against Mr. Kaye, who assisted the commis­sioner. Two other writs have been issued. J am not clear whether they have been served on the parties, but cl~arly in the eyes of a court dealing WIth a contempt proceeding, this matter would not be regarded as being as sub judice. J respectfully suggest that as these proceedings are in their infancy, they could not be regarded as sub judice to prevent honorable members from making comments con­cerning the effects of the actions.

The honorable member for Ben­ambra askeQ whether the proposal to confer immunity was limited only to defamation, or whether it extends to other matters as well. From the information I have received, I under­stand that at times there have been proceedings before the courts where

1850 Evidence (Boards and [ASSEMBL Y.] Commissions) Bill.

dissatisfied parties have aimed nat only at defamation but also actions of conspiracy. This legislation would be wide enaugh to' caver a wide range of cases. However, I shall examine this matter alang with ather aspects af the legislatian befare the Bill is dealt with in anather place.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-I thank the Attarney­General far his assistance. In ruling an the point of order, I prapase to quate fram page 396 af the seven­teenth editian af Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice. Under the heading, "Rules Governing Subject Matter af Matians", May states-

Matters pending judicial decisions.-A matter, awaiting or under adjudication by a court of law, should not be brought before the House by a motion or otherwise. This does not apply to Bills.

Cansequently, there is nO' paint af arder.'

Mr. WILKES (Narthcate}.-I did nat raise the paint af arder, Mr. Chairman; it was raised by the Min­ister af Water Supply. Hawever, I am indebted to' yau, Sir, far yaur rul­ing as I am indebted to' the superiar legal training af the Attarney-General and to his great knowledge af juris­prudence. I hape this rule will became an established precedent be­cause that has nat always been the case, as the Attarney-General is aware. On ather accasians the hanarable gentleman has raised the questian af sub judice.

Mr. REID.-That is nat entirely carrect; I went the hanarable mem­ber's wayan ane occasian.

Mr. WILKES.-That is So', in ane instance. I shall leave the matter at that. I am satisfied with the ruling given, and I hape the Attarney­General is satisfied with his advice in this matter.

One further questian which can­cerns members af the Oppasitian is tha t in the periad between 1960 and 1970, particularly in the early 1960s, Victaria was subjected to' a spate af cammercial immarality unparalleled

in its histary. This resulted in additional work being placed on companies inspectors. The Attorney­General is aware that, since then, other problems associated with syn­dicatian have required to' be inves­tigated by campanies inspectars. This will give them endless wark and put them in positions where they will need pratectian ar at least can­sideratian by the Attarney-General and the Gavernment.

Even disregarding the enarmaus investigatians which will have to' be made in respect to' syndicatian, the Attarney-General is aware that the warklaad an his campanies inspec­tars will be daubled and trebled. That being the case, members af the Oppasition suggest that companies inspectars shauld nat anly have pratectian but alsO' have specific pawers which they dO' nat have at present to' bring to' justice persons whO' are prepared to' take the easy way in cammercial activities against the laws af the land. I ask the Attarney-General to' examine that aspect. We dO' nat want to' see a repetitian af the inquiry by Mr. Marchesi intO' Geelang Gas Campany shares and ather farms af commercial immarality.

Sub-sectian (I) af prapased new sectian 21A pravides-

Where, either before or after the com­mencement of this Act, a board has been appointed or a commission has been issued to persons by the Governor in Council to make an inquiry-

(a) the members of the board or the persons to whom the' commission has been issued (as the case requires) ;

(b) legal practitioners and other persons appearing by leave before the board or commission; and

(c) witnesses in the inquiry-shall have and shall be deemed always to have had the same privileges and immuni­ties in respect of any act matter or thing done in or in relation to or arising in or out of the inquiry or any report of the inquiry as they would have or have had if the act matter or thing was done in or in relation to or arose in or out of an action in the Supreme Court' of Victoria or a report of any such action.

Evidence (Boards and [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] Commissions) Bill. 1851

As the honorable member for Albert Park rightly pointed out, members of the Opposition cannot ascertain what privileges and what protection per­sons in that situation would have. This may have been an oversight on the part of the Attorney-General, but members of the Opposition contend that they should be informed what this protection is that the persons concerned would be deemed to have had if the inquiry had been held in the Supreme Court rather than by Royal Commission or board of in­quiry. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General could advise honor­able members in that regard.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General) .­To answer the question briefly, those persons would have an absolute privi­lege as developed by common law precedent.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).-Fol­lowing what the Minister has said, one would have thought that, when the Minister specified that it was the sort of privilege that the Supreme Court had, it would be a reasonable inference that some other court may not have had it. In other words, it is the same privilege as the County Court has and that Magistrates Courts have. I do not think the position· is clear to honorable mem­bers. This clause is the principal clause in the Bill. Proposed new section 21 C deals with something entirely different from the granting of privilege which the Committee has just been discussing. In his ex­planatory second-reading speech, the Minister said-

Proposed section 21c is designed to over­come the problem raised by the Crown Solicitor, to which I have already referred. As I then indicated there are numerous bodies which are given powers by reference to sections 14 to 16 of the principal Act.

I suppose they would be bodies such as the Teachers Tribunal. The Min­ister went on to say-

Section 16 provides that a person who f ails to respond to a summons or to give evidence shall be guilty of an offence and liable to be dealt with under s'ection 20. However, having regard to the usual fonn in which sections 14 to 16 have been applied

to the 'bodies in question, the Crown Soli­citor has advised that it is very doubtful whether, on the proper construction of the provisions, proceedings can be taken under section 20 when a summons issued by such a body is not obeyed. It is believed that the proposed section 21c will remove the existing doubts. I think this might well be the case, but this is an area on which honor­able members should be given more information. I do not know whether there have been any cases in which the Crown Solicitor's doubts have been proven, that in fact somewhere in the course of a hearing before a board or commission of inquiry it has been found that the Evidence Act as it stands, particularly the sections re­ferred to, are not adequate. As a layman, they appear to me to be adequate and to contain ample power to summon witnesses and to deal with persons who do not attend. It is not reasonable for the Minister who, in the main, is talking to laymen in this Committee, not to provide that in­formation so that honorable members can make a reasoned judgment. All we have is that the Attorney-General has been told by the Solicitor-General that sections 16 and 19 and some other sections of the Evidence Act do not look as though they would stand up· to pressure in any court and· there­fore in his opinion, which could be a valid opinion, Parliament should do something about it.

Ministers are getting in the habit of coming into the Chamber, because they have been here for about eighteen years and have become institutionalized in their positions, and they are not doing the sort of work which honorable mem­bers require to be done if they are to discuss legislation sensibly and adequately. This matter is being approached in a sloppy manner so that a member of the OppOSition or a member of the Government party who takes an interest has to do an im­mense amount of work to ascertain precisely what is behind the proposal.

The Minister was good enough to allow me access to his officers who were kind to me in the inquiries I made, but honorable members should be completely informed in

1852 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.J and Penalties) Bill.

the House so that any honor­able member may know precisely what is in the Bill without hav­ing to journey to the Law Depart­ment or make his own private inquiry. I am sure honorable members who are going to support the Minister will not be able to advance one reason why proposed section 21c should be agreed to if they examine the existing powers contained in the Evidence Act. I could take up the time of the Committee--

Mr. DIXON.-YOU are doing well!

Mr. DOUBE.-It is unfortunate that I have to take up so much time. If honorable members had had more in­formation they could have got through this debate in half the time. One does not like to talk for the sake of talking. Honorable members who are apparently bored could not in­form me why the provisions of sec­tions 14 to 21 of the Evidence Act are not strong enough to be used without the proposed amendments. The Minister has said that that is so, and that is good enough for them. It is not good enough for Parliament when the Minister states that the Solicitor-General is of the opinion that it should be done and that there­fore Parliament should do it. If hon­orable members are seriously to de­bate matters which affect the people in our society and perhaps every in­dividual in their electorates, the pro­posals should be fully explained. The Minister has failed on this occasion to supply the Committee with the sort of information which will allow honorable members to make a reasoned judgment on the proposals before them.

The clause was agreed to, as was the remaining clause.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

HEALTH SERVICES (FEES AND PENALTIES) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Octo­ber 5) on the motion of Mr. Rossiter (Minister of Health) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. LIND (Dandenong).-As the Minister of Health explained in his second-reading speech, this Bill deals with many matters affecting public health. As he stated, the Bill relates to inspections and exam­ination of plans and specifications for septic tank systems; registration of cinematograph operators; offences against the Health Act and regulations made thereunder where no specific penalty is provided; obstructing or s~opping and authorized officer from investigation an alleged offence; registrations of child-minding centres; dangerous trades premises, food pre­mises, offensive trade premises, pri­vate hospitals, public buildings, transfer of registration; authority to exhume· human remains; and contra­ventions of the Clean Air Act and regulations made thereunder. These are most important aspects because they deal with our way of life and the manner in which it may be im­paired. Therefore, it is imperative that action be taken. The penalties provided in this measure are worthy of note. The honorable gentleman spoke about the necessity for a close liaison between the Department of Health and the municipal councils. This approach is to be applauded. It is obvious that many shortcomings exist in the field of public health, particularly because of a short age of health officers both in the depart­ment and in the municipal sphere.

Recently, I had occasion to write to the Minister of Health concerning the ooeration of the Clean Air Act, to which reference is made in this amending Bill. In Dandenong, I was approached by a family that had been forced to leave its home and take residence in a neighbouring motel to escape from an odour which ema­nated from a semi-government un­dertaking in the locality. The honor­able gentleman admitted that the conditions were offensive to this family. This matter has been effect­ively dealt with without the neces­sity for prosecution. However, in some cases prosecutions have been more than justified. Members of the

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1853

Opposition hope that closer liaison will exist between the various depart­ments, the public and the munici­palities.

The Minister of Health said that it was rarely necessary to invoke the penalty provisions of the principal Act. This amending Bill proposes to increase penalties, with many of which the Opposition agrees. Although, on two occasions in his secon~-~eading explanatory speech the MInIster stated that the rectifica­tion of the offence was better than c?urt ac~ion, members of the Opposi­tIon beheve that adequate penalties ~rovid~ a salu~ary effect, particularly If theIr relatIon to the offence is realistic. The honorable gentleman has pointed out that sometimes an offending industry has spent thou­sands of dollars in an effort to rectify the offensive part of its undertaking. Unless the penalties provided in the proposed legislation - are adequate, some organizations will find it cheaper to continue to break the law. In the past few months the Mel­bourne and- Metropolitan Board of Works has appealed to municipalities to report the illegal discharge of effluent into its sewers and mains. This practice is continuing. In the municipality in which I live. and in the electorate of Heatherton and the City of Springvale, the sewerage authorities have had trouble in this regard.

On a number of occasions the en­gineer of the sewerage authority and his assistant have found that offenders have illegally connected storm-water drains and downpipes to the sewerage systems and that fac­tories have connected pipes dis­charging waste into the sewers. This has caused a great worry to the authorities and has upset their plans for the effective disposal of sewage. It has caused an excessive discharge of chemicals and other effluents into the sewerage systems. The printing industry has been involved in the discharge of certain acids into the sewers. This is an offence against the public health and in the cases

Session 1971.-66

I have mentioned penalties could not be severe enough. Offenders against our living conditions should be dealt with severely.

Therefore, generally speaking mem­bers of the Opposition do not oppose the imposition of the penalities pro­vided in this Bill. In one case, how­ever, they question the limit of $2,000. They believe that in certain circumstances the penalty could be insufficient. They applaud the in­crease of penalty for pollution in one case from $400 to $5,000. As reported at page 1509 of Hansard of 19th October, 1971, the honorable mem­ber for Coburg asked the Minister of Health what prosecutions under the Clean Air Act 1958 had been launched by the Department of Health since 15th January, 1959, and what was the outcome of each such action. The Minister of Health answered " None". He also said that eleve~ orders had been issued by the Com­mission of Public Health on industrial organizations under the provisions of the Clean Air Regulations requiring the installation and maintenance of specified air pollution equipment, and that compliance with these orders had involved the industries concerned in the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of dollars. He said that this was considered a more effective method of dealing with particular problems than by the mere institution of legal proceedings.

Members of the Opposition see merit in the proposal to increase the penalties to $5,000 if the law is invoked. I cite the Yarra River, which is in process of being destroyed. The Minister for Local Government has an aerial photograph in his office showing the discolor­ation of the Yarra River. This discoloration extends some hundreds of yards out to sea. The pol­lution is most apparent. The same problem arose in Great Britain with the River Thames. A con­certed effort on the part of the Government cleaned up this river. I hope that similar action will effect an improvement with the Yarra River and that it will be restored to

1854 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.] and Penalties) Bill.

its natural freshness. Recently, I referred to the pollution of a creek at Mordialloc.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! This Bill does not deal with the pollution of rivers and creeks.

Mr. LIND.-It is a matter of public health when these rivers and creeks are polluted. The effluent of blood and milk from the factories cause pollution and upset the ecology of the streams more than any other materials. However, I shall not pro­ceed with that line of argument. The report of the Dandenong Valley Authority emphasized the pollution of the Dandenong Creek from septic tanks. The only criticism I should make of the provisions of this Bill would be that the increased charges for septic tanks should relate not to the ordinary home builder but to new subdivisions.

Members of the Opposition agree with the extension of the fees pay­able by private hospitals and child­care institutions. A watchful eye must be kept on these institutions. Municipal health officers and officers of the Department of Health say that the fees to be charged are in order. This field should have been covered many years ago. The Opposition also believes that the fines to be imposed on persons who endeavour to impede the activities of a health officer of the department or of a municipality are justifiable. It is noted that these fines are higher than those for the actual offence, which is as it should be.

Generally, the Opposition agrees with the Bill. The payment of a fee by the ordinary householder for sep­tic tanks should be watched closely and not allowed to creep beyond his means. The other matter of concern is that continuing offences should receive the close attention of the department. Some factories require the installation of equipment costing $10,000, and the owners who fail to conform with the law should not be

permitted to evade their responsibili­ties by the payment of, say, $2,000. Those are the only criticisms that the Opposition has of the measure.

Mr. TREWIN (Benalla).-In general the Country Party supports the mea­sure. It appreciates that it is a money Bill to increase fees, some rather substantially, under the Health Act. The Department of Health has a wide and varied responsibility. Some of its activities have been dele­gated to muncipalities. The fees are being updated to meet existing eco­nomic standards and to match the value of the efforts of the department in policing the relevant sections of the Act. Inspections of septic tank in­stallations require considerable scien­tific knowledge, and observance of health regulations play an important part in the planning of a home.

The activities of the department are important to our living condi­tions, whether they relate to the plan­ning of a home, the storage of food or perhaps more importantly the hand­ling of foodstuffs. Some months ago, the press highlighted two instances in which the Department of Health had to take action concerning offen­ces in the presentation of food to be consumed by the general public, but it could not be severe because the Act did not allow severe penal­ties to be imposed on the offenders. Strict inspections are made of meat­killing works and other food process­ing establishments, but because of the location of restaurants and eating houses, sometimes the system of in­spection is not carried through to the point where the food is prepared for consumption by members of the public.

To my mind nothing can be worse than to enter a restaurant and find stale bread on the table. Sometimes the bread looks as-if it has been presented to at least half a dozen different customers. As a wheat grower, I have had to improve my method of harvesting to ensure that the wheat that I produce for human consumption is placed in containers

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1855

which will prevent deterioration. It is only right that this control should be followed through to the consumer.

The measure will extend the pay­ment of fees into the field of private hospitals and child-minding centres. This is necessary because these estab­lishments accept a greater amount of responsibility as they are dealing with human beings, and the condi­tions under which they operate must be hygienic. From time to time inspectors must inspect these estab­lishments to ensure that they are suitably furnished and meet the pre­scribed health standards. The in­spectors spend many hours in carry­ing out their work; hence it is neces­sary for the department to ensure that it recoups the cost of the inspec­tions.

All honorable members are aware that the atmosphere and our water­ways are being polluted. The honor­able member for Dandenong has de­bated this subject rather widely but I shall comment in a more general way. The industrialist has a responsibility to ensure that his establishment does not cause air pollution and, where he has to discharge waste, that the streams are not polluted. Despite strict supervision, pollution has occurred and the penalties imposed should be severe enough to indicate to those concerned that prevention is better than cure. In this instance, the cure is the fine, and the preven­tion is the placing of the machinery within an industry in such a way as to ensure that pollution will not take place. One has to look at some overseas cities to see the damage that has been done by pollution and the high cost involved in lessening what has almost become an unbear­able burden, both physically and financially, for the people concerned.

The Country Party supports the Bill and accepts the need for in­creased fees and penalties. Whilst the department is accepting these in­creased fees, it must accept responsi­bility for equipping those who carry

out technical inspections, and ensure that they are undertaken in as econo­mica'l a manner as possible.

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg).-The pur­pose of the Bill is to increase certain fees and penalties under the Health Act, the Cemeteries Act and the Clean Air Act. Many municipal councils ap­preciate that they will be empowered to supervise more closely certain as­pects of the Health Act. They will also be enabled to exercise control over the installation of septic tanks. The measure will also enable municipali­ties to charge higher registration fees for child-minding centres and similar services.

I am concerned with what has prompted the Government, after a lapse of 81 years, to introduce this measure. The Government will prob­ably say that it has been in office for only seventeen years, but dur­ing that period it has made no other attempt to bring before this House a measure to protect the health of the community -in this way. However belated this legislation may be, I must support it because although it does not go as far as I should like at least it is a step in the right direction. From my own- personal observ~tions,. in many instances the penaltIes WhICh are to be imposed by the measure will not be sufficient to act as a pro­per deterrent against the unscru­pulous and undesirable types of people who have no regard for the health of the community.

Section 422 of the Health Act establishes some form of administra­tive control over the handling of food. The current fine of $40 for an offence against the section was fixed in 1890. Municipalities were administering these provisions then and they still are. From memory, the basic wage then was, in present-day currency, $4 . 20 a week and probably a maxi­mum fine of $40 was sufficient in the light of existing economic conditions. Today, the economic situation is vastly different. The present mini­mum wage is in the vicinity $46.30

1856 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY. ] and Penalties) Bill.

a week and, although the Bill pro­poses to increase the fine for breaches of the provisions of the Act relating to food handling from $40 to a maxi­mum of $500. it is still not adequate. When one reads the Minister's second-reading explanatory speech one finds that the honorable gentle­man believes that a person who handles and ,sells adulterated food is worse than a person who handles food in unclean circumstances. I ask the House which is the m,ore serious offence-that of a person who sells a sausage which has an excessive fat content, or that of a person who is personally filthy and who sells food in unbelievable filthy premises I do not think the Minister should concern himself ,with dr'awing a distinction in these matters.

In his second-reading speech the Minister stated-

The ,regulations dealing with general cleanliness in handling and displaying food usually apply in circumstances somewhat less serious than those involving the adulteration of food. However, although a maximum penalty of $500 will be fixed for offences, against the regulations the actual rate of penalty could be set by regulations below that maximum so as to maintain consistency with specific penalties provided in the Act for what are often more serious offences.

I emphasize that although a maxi­mum penalty of $500 is to be fixed, when the regulations which cover the administration of the legislation come into operation, the fine could be reduced to between $60 and $100. If that is not the impression that the Minister wished to convey, I suggest that the honorable gentle­man should furnish a further ex­planation to the House.

In the past few w,eeks 'I have asked a series of questions about the activities of the Commission of Public Health. My purpose in doing so was to enable the inform'ation to be included in Hansard. I regret that many of the replies I received were irrelevant and many of them did not appear to be completely factual.

Mr. Mutton.

The Minister of Health should not bask in the glory of hav­ing introduced this measure into the Parlia,ment. It would never have been introduced if it had not been for the actions of certain public-minded citizens such as Mr. Peter Fitzgerald, who wrote reports on the subject in the Herald and Mr. Brian Hicks, the health officer of the City of Broad­meadows.

As I said during the debate on the motion that the 'Minister sf Health did not possess the confi­dence of this House, it is high time the Government conducted an inves­tigation into the activities of this most redundant section of the ne­partment of Health. It is antiquated and archaic.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! I do not think there should be a debate on the Commission of Public Health. The honorable member should confine himself to the matters in this Bill.

Mr. MUTTON.-Very well, Mr. Speaker, but I say that it is the duty of the Commission of Public Health to submit recommendations to the Minister to enable him to introduce into the House Bills affecting mat­ters of health. It is also time that the Government ascertained what is taking place in other States which do not have a Commission of Public Health but have a Director-General of Health who is directly answerable to the Minister.

I recently asked the Minister of Health what prosecutions under the Clean Air Act 1958 had been launched by the Department of Health since January, 1959, and what was the outcome of each action, and I am sure that the honor­able member for Dandenong and other honorable members were just as surprised as I was to learn from the Minister that there had been none. If that is so, what action has the Comm'ission of Public Health taken in this ,field to' protect the ,wel­fare and health of members of the

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1857

community? 1 suggest that it is an organization which needs :to be c'Om­pletely reconstituted.

1 have been making approaches and representations to the Commis­sion of Public Health for lapproxi­mately eighteen or twenty years and 1 contend-and I am sure that honorable members who have had experienoe in municipal government will agree with me--that of all Vic­torian administrative bodies it is the worst. 1 po'intout lagain that it has taken 81 years to rectify 'section 326, which has been operating from as far back as 1890. The Com,mis­sion of Public Health w'as ,estab­lished in 1920.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie ).-Order! The honorable member would be out of order :in debating the Commission of Public Health. He may debate matters in the Bill.

Mr. MUTTON.-I should now like to refer to the activities of the Department of Health in its adminis­tration of the Clean Air Act, and in doing so, 1 .shall cite a typical e:xample which took place in my area. I refer to the activities of the firm of NuF'arm Chemicals Pty. Ltd., Fawkner. The firm has been engaged since 1967 in manufacturing pesti­cides and various forms of weed killers and, in making those sub­stances, it uses chlorine gas. On 8th December, 1967, the gas escaped and it was so bad that the police and fire brigade had t'O be caned in to evacua te people from homes in the area. They had to remain away from their homes from 3.45 p.m. until about 6.30 p.m. The gas destroyed every leaf on tre.es in the 'area, all the vegetables .in gardens and all the grass.

Since 1967 the City of Broad­meadows has been requesting assist­ance from the Department of Health to bring the activities of this com­pany to a halt, but NuF'arm Chemi­cals Prty. Ltd. is still operating. :1 hope this proposed legislation will

increase the prospects of municipal health officers to take effective action against companies such as this.

In 1970 the City of Broad­meadows :took the firm to court on twelve charges. The maximum penalty that could be imposed a:t that time was $40, and on the twelve charges the company wa.s fined a total of only $130, despite the fact that the leakage 'Of chlorine gas was a hazard to human life. The costs awarded to the City of Broad­meadows amounted to $1,200, but the absurdity of the situation is re­vealed by the fact that the City of Broadmeadows found itself $8,000 in debt as. a result of launching the prosecutIOns.

I am sure that all honorable mem­bers and other persons who have had practical experience of local government and have witnessed :the blatant disregard of some people and some companies for the welfare of ather.s must be highly incensed that this situation has been allowed to operate for so long. Councils which are trying to obtain justice find that they are hampered rather than assisted by the health authori­ties.

The Government appears to have realized that it must consider the health of the people and it was gratifying to hear the Minister say that there is a possibility that further measures to control dirty food shops will be introduced. It is necessary ·to enact legislation to im­prove many sections of the Act and it is of no use the Government merely bolstering up .one section of it.

If the Department 'Of Health had adm'inistered the Health Act and the Clean Air Act correctly, the Gov­ernment would not 'have needed to introduce the Environment p.rotec­tion Bill during the last session, because if the situation is examined it will be found that the prov:isions of the Health Act empower the de­partment to control all aspects of pollution. It was only because of the failure of the Department of Health

1858 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.] and Penalties) Bill.

to take action that the Government was compelled to' introduce the En­vironment PrO'tection Bill.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-This Bill does nothing to correct the ills affecting the health of the people of Victoria which have been brought to the attention of the Minister; indeed it ,merely .increases fees for inspec­tions made by officers .of the Depart­ment .of Health. As an example I refer the House to the remarks of the Minister in his second-reading explanatory speech as rec.orded at page 957 of Hansard--

The subJect-matters which relate to the fees and penalties dealt with in the Bill vary widely and comprise-inspections 'and examination of plans and specifications for septic t,ank systems; registration of cinematograph oper-ators; offences against the Health Act and regulations made there­under where no specific penalty is provided; obstructing or stopping an authorized officer from jnvestigating ,an ,alleged offence; r-egistrations of child-minding centres; dan­gerous trades premises, food premises offen­sive ,trades premises, rrivate hospitals, public buildings, transfer 0 registration;

.If the Government and the Minister do not in tend to take any further steps, this Bill will be superfluous other than to provide additional revenue for the Government and the Departmen t of Health. If ever an area was crying out for Government action and Government administra­tion it is in some of the fields covered by the department and mentioned by the Minister.

It is proposed to increase the fee for inspections of septic tanks. The number of septic tanks in Victoria is increasing out of all proportion be,cause of the Government's atti­tude, and because the number of unsewered premises is increasing out of all proportion. The latest figure issued by the Minister some weeks ago was that 70,000 premises in Victoria were unsewered. No won­der there is an increasing number of septic tanks. Is the Government doing anything to increase the num­ber of sewerage connections? Indeed not! In this Bill the Minister states that fees for inspecting septic tanks will be increased. That is how the

Government provides additional sew­erage facilities for the city of Mel­bourne.

Fees are also to be increased for the registration of cinematograph operators, perhaps to make provision for the additional showing of films on Sundays. That will be a great help to the community!

Mr. WILTON.-It will force up prices of admission to matinees.

Mr. WILKES.-It will certainly not assist towards ensuring that pic­ture theatres provide health facili­ties. .If it does nothing else, it will probably have an effect on the price of admittance to theatres, as the honorable member for Broadmead­ows suggests. If the Minister and his department can be proud of that achievement, let them.

The next matter mentioned by the Minister was increased penalties for offences against the Health Act and regulations made thereunder where no specific penalty is provided. Some time ago, a question was raised con­cerning an 'Outbreak of typhoid in a cafe in Northcote. It did not take some Government members long to place questions Dn the Notice Paper asking whether or not any fault or blame could be laid at the feet of the health officer at Northcote. Un­fortunately for the Government, the question back-fired to some extent.

As recorded at page 251 of Hansard of 8th September, 1971, the honor­able member for Mitcham asked the Minister of Health-

Whether, in view of conflicting statements that have been made and the confusion which appears to exist regarding the relative responsibilities of the City of Northcote on the one hand and the Department of Health on the other in the matter of the recent typhoid case, he will clarify the position in reg,ard to the duties ,and responsibilities of the two bodies concerned?

The answer was most revealing. From the preamble to the Minister's second-reading speech one would have thought that, in future, munici­pal health officers would be -able to take more positive action than was outlined in the answer given by the

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1859

honorable gentleman. The Minister made it plain in his reply that muni­cipal health officers had their hands tied behind their backs and that 'all they could do was report that a pe-r­son was suspected of being a carrier of an infectious disease, and to con­fiscate food if it were a food premi­ses, but that they could not order the premises to be 'closed.

One would have thought that this would be the first action taken by the Department of Health, the Minister or the Government, but that is not the case, and this Bill makes no such provision despite the pUblicity which has been given to the inadequacies which exist in this field. Shops can remain open where there 'is a carrier of hepatitis, typhoid or any infec­tious disease. All that can be done by the municipal health officer is to confiscate food and have the suspect referred to the infectious diseases hospital at Fairfield. That is not good enough, and the Minister should be the first to recognize that fact.

In this case, the health officer at Northcote should be complimented on the speed with which he acted to prevent any spread of the disease which was directed to his attention by the health officer or someone in the Broadmeadows council. At any rate, it had to be acknowledged, unfortunately from the point of view of the Government, that no blame attached to the municipal health officer.

In the final part of the Minister's answer to the question of the honor­able member for Mitcham the hon­or,able gentleman said-

In the particular instance mentioned by the honorable member, inquiries by officers of the Broadmeadows council concerning an investigation of a case of typhoid fever disclosed that one of the contacts of the sufferer was ,a cafe proprietor in the City of Northcote. These contacts were investi­gated and it was found that the cafe pro­prietor in Northcote was a carrier of typhoid organisms. Immediately on receipt of laboratory results in respect of this carrier, the medical officer of health ordered the patient to be taken to the F,airfield Infectious Diseases Hospiotal and any food likely to

have been subject to contamination was removed from the cafe premises and des­troyed.

. Th~ Chief Health Officer consider.ed that In thIS partIcular case, the City of Northcote acted expeditiously :and conformed with the Health Act and the Infectious Diseases Regulations and consequently intervention by officers of the Department of Health in the terms of section 122 of the Hea1.th Act 1958 was not warr,anted.

The Department of Health should have been the first to take action.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! I do think this Bill relates to penalties, not to the Act.

~r. WILKES.-I agree, Sir, and I d.eslre to .rel~te my re-marks to penal­tIes. If It IS proposed to increase penalties, consideration should be given to whether increased penalties are the answer to preventing what took place at Northcote and whether the powers of the local health officer or of officers of the Department of Health should be such that the first action taken would be a closure of the premises. However, no such power exists, and despite that case the department is reluctant to sug­gest that muniCipal heal,th officers or indeed officers of the department should be given such powers by an amendment to section 122 of the Health Act. All we have from the Minister and the Government is a suggestion that fees should be in­creased.

The local health officer at North­cote and the Northcote council are not so concerned about the increase in fees as they are about the health of the persons for whom they are responsible. The only way in which they can demonstrate that concern is to carry out their duties as ex­pedi tiously as they did on the occa­sion referred to, for which they were complimented by the Department of Health, but without the power and support which they should have from the department. Never let it be said that municipal health officers do not act in a proper manner. They do not get much assistance from the

1860 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY. ] and Penalties) Bill.

GoOvernment other than the sugges­tion that if fees are increased the oOfficers might be able to struggle through in some way.

Most municipalities, particularly in the northern suburbs and the inner­metropolitan area,could employ more health officers if the Act were to be policed as it should be, but f.rom where would they get assist­ance? There is no suggestion that it will come from the Department of Health. The only proposal is that fees foOr inspections of boarding­houses, camping areas, child minding centres, common lodging-houses and S'O on should be increased. Fancy the Minister and the Government having the audacirty to propose an increase in fees for boarding-houses and rest homes! I am not sure whether rest homes are mentioned, but boarding­houses and apartment houses have been the subject of debate in this Parliament. Some boarding-houses are confused with rest homes, and some rest homes are confused wi>th private hospitals. Members of the Opposition would have preferred the Minister to provide a clear defini­tion of the functions of private hos­pitals, rest homes and boarding­houses so that proper supervision -could be provided not only through municipal health officers but also through the Department 'Of Health.

The honorable member for Haw­thorn, who is interjeeting, realizes that this Bill is designed merely to increase Governm:ent revenue. It will not guarantee the people of Victoria any better supervision of or any clear definition of the functions of the places I have mentioned. The press has contained articles recently concerning some of the worst cases which could possibly occur of neg­lect of bed-ridden patients. The Gov­ernment has had little to do over the past six months. Why has it not introduced legislation not only to increase fees but also to provide better care and supervision for patients under the Health Act, and to a lesser degree under the Hospitals and Charities Act, so that

Mr. Wilkes.

patients who are forced to enter these places will obtain better treat­ment?

Child-minding centres were the subject of a lengthy debate in this Chamber when a holoOcaust occurred in a north-eastern suburb and chil­dren were injured and burnt through lack of supervision. It is proposed to increase fees for child-minding centres to $25, but this will not guarantee that inspections will be carried out any more effidently than at present. Something more than in­creased fees is required to ensure ,that child-minding centres conform ,to the regulations laid down by the Department of HeaHh. There is nothing wrong with the regulations; all that is required is for the Depart­ment of Health to see that they are carried out.

If one wishes to build an elderly citizens' centre, one encounters many problems associated with the approval of plans by the Department of Health. I do not disagree with that situation.

Mr. ROSSITER.-It is about time you agreed with something!

Mr. WILKES.-I find it difficult to agree wi>th the Minis:ter on anything. .I do not mean that personally, but I find it difficult to agree with any matter ooncerning the Department of Health. If the depar<tment goes to so much trouble over the inspection of plans for an elderly cirtizens' centre it should exercise the same care in inspections of child-minding centres. In fact, the department should be responsible for ensuring >that all child-minding centres are registered. Everyone, including the depar.tment, is aware that some child-minding Icentres are operating illegally in Victoria.

Food premises are dealt with and the penalties are astronomically in­creased. If it is the intention of the Government by this Bill to' stamp out proprietors of food premises who are supplying food that does not comply

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1861

with the regulations, Opposition members will not object to it. It is not only fees that the Minister or his department should be concerned with but the end result of making certain that the public is protected and not relying on an increase in fees to provide that protection. I have great faith in municipal health officers but they need assistance from the De­partment of Health. Until they get that assistance, the answer is not en­compassed in this amending legisla­tion.

Mr. JONA (Hawthorn).-I was not intending to rise and participate in this debate and I do not consider that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would permit me to extend my remarks beyond the provisions of the Bill, namely, the increase in the various penalties and fees prescribed in the three Acts which are subject of the legislative review. However, I have listened to a blistering attack by the honorable member for N orthcote on the administrative abilities of the municipal councils and it is neces­sary that someone should defend the work which has been carried out by the officers of those municipalities.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister of Health indicated quite clearly that this Bill is only part of a general review that is taking place in respect of penalties and fees and that this review will continue with a view to bringing forward further amending legislation in the near future. The honorable member for Northcote expressed concern at what he regarded as the failure of the Department of Health to maintain standards for the health services in the community for which the muni­cipalities are responsible to the greatest degree. At the same time he did not point to any weaknesses 'or deficiencies in this Bill. His criticism was based entirely on what he re­garded as the inability of the muni­cipal councils to enforce the stan­dards set by the Department of Health; it was not levelled at the fact that those standards w'ere in­sufficient.

On the few occasions that I have had to make representations to: the Department of Health in respect of what I believe had been the failure of a municipal authority to enforce certain standards, whether it applied to the Clean Air Act or to boarding houses or similar premises, I found that the council was most meticulous in its attention to negotiations to ensure that the standards were main­tained. The honorable member for Northcote omitted to mention the harmonious co-operation that exists between the Department of Health and the municipalities. If he was concerned about the standards set by the department, he would have highlighted what were the weak­nesses. He did not do: so, but launched a bitter attack on the municipal councils and on their medical officers of health who carry out an important role in the com­munity with little financial recog­nition for the professional time and skill they make available. On this occasion, I should have thought that the honorable member would have commended them.

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir).-The previous Government speaker mis­represented the views of the Oppos­tion and the honorable member for Northcote in relation to municipal councils. The Minister of Health in­dicated that he thought that rather than the imposition of penalties, some sort of consultation and advice with specific industries would be better. This statement should be analysed to ascertain whether or not it correctly states the position. To some degree, my experience has been limited, but within my elector­ate I can quote a specific instance of where the Clean Air Section of the Department of Health and the municipal council have been involved over a considerable period of time. On at least thirteen occasions a company was prosecuted by the Preston and Whittlesea councils and convictions were recorded on each occasion under a section which pro­vided for a maximum penalty of $40.

1862 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.] and Penalties) Bill.

At the same time that these pro­secutions were launched, provision existed in the Clean Air Act for a penalty of $400 but this penalty has never been used by the Department of Health, and no prosecutions have been launched under the relevant provision. I t is a fair question to ask whether the provisions of this Bill are meaningful and whether they serve any purpose in increasing the penalty from $400 to $4,000. I suppose the threat that some day the Government may take action may be some sort of deter­rent; but on the known record of the Government, the deterrent is not great. This may be for a good reason, that the big people in the large industries are immune from Govern­ment action.

The company to which I refer is associated with one of the larger aluminium c'ompanies, namely, Comalco, which is -currently adver­tising on television that it is con­cerned about pollution, and that it proposes to reclaim aluminium cans. It is suggested that to amend the principal Act to provide for greater penalties would be a solution. There would have to be a change of atti­tude by the department and the Government. I refer to a report -com­piled by the Shire of Whittlesea upon the fume discharge from Non­ferral Pty. Ltd. at Keon Park. It pOints out that following the establishment of aluminium smelters, complaints were received relating to this company concerning dense fume discharge and that the matter was taken up with Mr. K. Brutton, man­aging director, and Mr. G. Sanders, the technical director. It was not until 1961 that the matter was referred to the Clean Air Section of the Department of Health and several inspections and tests were made by the officers of the department. The company had several discussions with the section without reaching a satisfactory solution to the problem.

In October, 1962, a nuisance notice was served upon Nonferral Pty Ltd to secure the abatement

Mr. Simmonds.

and prevention of fume nuisance and copies of the notice were sent to the Clean Air Section. As I have said, thirteen prosecutions were launched against the company and thirteen convictions were recorded.

Mr. JONA.-There is a penalty of $2,000 a day provided in the Bill.

Mr. SIMMONDS.-The present penalty of $400 has never been used. Can the honorable member for Haw­thorn inform me what effect this amending legislation will have on companies of this type? Nonferral Pty. Ltd. is described as a supplier to Comalco of aluminium ingots and it is stated that it reclaims aluminium cans at the rate of 7 per cent each year. The problem is not getting any better but is becoming greater. The fumes discharged are serious because they contain chlorine gas and hydrogen chloride. These heavy fumes are susceptible to moisture. In a heavy atm'osphere the fumes tend to stay at ground level and penetrate the houses in the community. They kill the vegetation and force people to keep their houses locked up in oppressive hot weather. The people have to shift their children from bed­rooms to other parts of the homes not exposed to the fumes. This is a clear instance of the Clean Air' Sec­tion failing to deal with the problem. The resources of the department are such that the problem will not be solved in the near future.

Mr. Colin Willman has spent much time on the problem of air pollution. On 8th October, 1968, he spoke at the Trade Union Research Centre on the subject of air pollution. One would have thought that over this period the Government would have made some investiga tion of the points he raised. He spoke of the necessity for inspection by the Clean Air Section. He said that Victoria does not licence industries or accept fees from them. He pointed out that air pollution control officers, eng­ineers and scientists of the New South Wales Government make 4,000 visits a year to factories, checking air pollution control and complaints.

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1863

By contrast, Victoria has made 400 inspections a year over the past five years. Victoria has over 17,500 fac­tories. The area to be policed for air pollution is 87,884 square miles. At the present rate of progress it would take another 40 years to make one inspection of each factory and by the year 5001 it might be able to make actual tests of all the stacks and other sources of air pollution only once. This is related to the capacity of the Clean Air Section.

I should be interested to hear of any improvement in the Clean Air Section particularly in relation to the resources made available to cater with the problem or any intent on the part of the Government which has proved in the past to be sub­servient to big business, which is the major pollutant of the atmosphere in Reservoir. This amending legis­lation makes provisions for penalties which could be effective if used. The time to use them is now. A period of ten or eleven years for consultation and advice is too long as a means of solution of this problem. It is time alternative measures were found. In this day and age :it is not fair and reasonable to allow an ex­panding industry tocrea.te an ever­increa,sing problem by continuing to pollute the atmosphere in the man­ner that this company 'is. If the provisions of this Bill 'a're imple­mented, an improvem'entcould be effected but I suspect the motives of the Government because it is unwilling to take action against this company.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).­The Government brings a consider­able amount of legislation before Parliament, has it passed by Parlia­ment and ·assented ,to by His Excel­lency, the Governor, but then nothing happens. This practice has become more prevalent in recent years and many Acts passed by this Parliament contain a provision which states-

The several provisions of this Act shall come into operation on a day or the respec­tive days to be fixed by proclamation or

successive procI.amations of .the Governor in Council published in the Government Gazette.

Much of the legislation that has been passed by this Pa,rliament has not been proclaimed. It is all very well for !the Government to go through the 'window-dres,sing exer­cise of bringing before the House Bills which receive the blessing of Parliament but which misle,ad the public into believ.ing that .the Gov­ernment is genuine in its desire to cure the ills afflicting the com­munity.

After reading the Bill and the Minister's second-reading speech, one could be excused for forming the opinion that the Government intends to .take action to assist the com­munity. However, the Government's record indioates .that this will not be SQ. I shall give an ·example. The Environm'ent Protection Aot was passed by Parliament and assented to by the Gove.mor on 22nd Decem­ber, 1970. However, paragraph (c) of section 5, sections 8 and 12, para­graph (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (4) of section 13, sec­tions 20 to 53 inclusive, sections 56, 58, 59, 62 to 64, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 65, and sections 66 to 70 have not yet been proclaimed.

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-On a point of order, I have listened with a good deal of interest ,to the pO'ints ·made by the honor­able member for Broadmeadows. However, his remarks 'are completely irrelevant .to the debaJte on fees -and penalties under the Health Act.

Mr. WILTON (Broadme-adows).­On the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I direct your attention to sub-clause (2) of clause 1 which clearly indicates !that the sever-al provisions of this Bill shall come into operation 'On the re,spective days to be fixed by pr-oclamation. I have been referring to the Environment Protection Aot which was passed by this Parliament last year and I have referred to :a number of sections of

1864 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.] and Penalties) Bill.

that Act which have yet to be pro­claimed. I did that in support. of the point I wa's making that rthe Govern­ment should clearly indicate Ino the Parliament whether it :is sincere and jntends to proclaim ,all the provisions of It he Bill now being debated.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-O~der! The point of order lis upheld. Whilsrt I under­st'and the point that the honorable member f.or Broadmeadows is en­deavouring to etablish, I ask him to relate hi,s remarks mOore closely t'O the Bill.

Mr. WILTON.-With due respect to you, 'Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was referr.ing Ito clause 1 .of .the Bill in support of my argument--

Mr. ROSSITER.-Is the honorable member arguing the point of .order?

Mr. WILTON.-Shut up, will you? I am talkling to the Deputy Speaker.

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-Mr. Deputy Speaker--

Mr. WILKES.-Do not :tell me you are hu~t.

Mr. ROSSITER.-And injured.

Mr. WILTON.-If the Minister is hurt and injured I apologize.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-O~der! The remark was unparliamentary and I ask the honorable member for Bro-ad­meadows to withdraw.

Mr. WILTON (Bro-admeadows).­If the Minister of Health 'is linjured and his finer 'senses are upset, I apologize. I should hate to thi?k that the Minisrter of Health of VIC­toria was in such a state.

I am concerned that many sections of legislation on the statute-book in Victoria have no,t been proclaimed, and I should like Ithe Minister of Health to indicate whether all of the provisions of this Bill will be pro­cJ.a!imed after it has been passed by both Houses .of Parliament. Will that happen, or w.ill there be a repeat of

what has happened w1th rthe Environ­ment Protection Act? The provisions of this Bill will have no effect merely because they are passed by Parlia­ment. That .in itself d.oes not make .them a law which can be used to protect the health of thecom­munity. If honorable members are to take the Minister's second-reading speech seriously and to accept that the honorable gentleman is sincere in his argument that thi,s legislation will be a contribution to the welfare and well-being of thecommun!ity, he should indicate to the House that he will ensure that all .of the provisions will be procla!imed without delay.

The Government's record with other measures does not give me much confidence :in that happening. If the legislation is not proclaimed the departments and officers charged w,i,th ;the ~responsibility of policing :its provisions wHI not be in a posi­tion to d.o so. The departments and officers have no authority to act until the legislation is proclaimed. I ,am concerned about the situation that is developing in Victoria and I 'suggest that other honorable mem­bers should also be concerned. The practice .of the Government of not proclaim'ing legislation ha's become prevalent in recent times.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).--Order! The h.onor­;able member is making reference :to what he believes should be done. The purpose of Ithis Bill 1's ,to increase certain fees and penalties under the Health Act 1958, the Cemeteries Act 1958 and the Clean Air 1958. I a'sk :the honorable member Ito con­fine his remarks .to the ambit of the debate.

Mr. WILTON.-I appreciate the point that you m'ake, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the purpose of the Bill is to increase ce~tain fees, but I point out .that the clauses of the Bill relating to the increases in fees will have no effect merely because they are passed by Parliament. They must qe proclaimed as is provided for in sub-clause (2) of clause 1. The mere

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1865

fact that His Excellency a,ssents to the Bill becoming ,an Act does nOit ensure that its provi'sions come into operation. Each section has to be proclaimed, and I am asking the M,inister to give an indication to the House that the Government :intends to have the legislation proclaimed.

Mr. KIRKWOOD (Preston).-I refute the charge ·made by the honorable member for Hawthorn that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition attacked municipal health officers. This is not what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said during the debate. Paragraph (a) of clause 2 relates to septic tanks, which have become one of the biggest contam­inators of creeks. The Lands Tri­bunal has described many of our creeks as main drains and suitable places to start the discharge of sul­lage, including effluent run-offs from various housing estates. One won­ders whether, instead of introducing fees for the installation of septic tank systems, the Government should not force the Board of Works to increase its sewerage mains through­,out the metropolitan area and thus do away with septic tanks altogether. If a time limit were placed on such action by the Board of Works, the health of the community would improve and we would have the clean creeks that we desire.

Paragraph (d) proposes the in­sertion of a new Eleventh Schedule relating to registration fees. Among the premises listed in the schedule are child-minding centres and it is proposed that the present fee of $10 should be increased to $25. Some persons run child-minding centres for a living whilst others desire to per­form a community service. An in­crease of $15 in the registration fee might make a difference to the small centres because, with the other in­creased costs that these centres have to meet, they may not be able to continue to provide a service. In these cases, perhaps the Government will not wish to impose the maxi­mum fee.

Some inspectors 'Of the Department of Health who are concerned with child-minding centres are very child­ish. The City of Preston has 'One child-minding centre which is per­mitted to accommodate a maximum of 50 children. Because more than 50 children are on the books, although never more than 50 are at the centre at the one time, I am led to believe -I do not doubt it-that a Gov­ernment inspector has threatened the council that the child-minding centre will be reported. It is ludicrous that these childish actions should be per­mitted when a community service is being provided.

I have also heard of departmental inspectors issuing conflicting direc­tions to different child-minding centres. In one case, the inspector directed that concrete should be placed under a swing, whilst at a centre 1 mile away he directed that tanbark should be used. Because of a particular individual's whim, some child-minding centres are being forced to spend their hard-earned capital on unnecessary items.

The Eleventh Schedule also covers registration fees for dangerous trade premises, of which there are two in Preston. It is disturbing that no reference is made in the Health Act to the inside of the premises or that the chemicals which are used will be examined by health inspectors. The iron foundries in this State are using Caradate 30 which the health inspec­tors know nothing about. The Department of Health allows the chemical to be used despite this warning which appears on the label­Harmful by skin absorption. If heated 'above 30° C. highly irritant

vapour developes. Avoid contact with skin, eyes and clothing. Avoid breathing vapour -at temper-atures

above 30° C. In case of contact drench with water For spiUage: :soak up with sland, earth or

sawdust. Leave for 10 minutes; dispose of this contaminated material by bury­ing in wet soil or flooding with water. Wash whole area with water.

Do not wash Caradate 30 down any drain.

1866 Health Services (Fees [ASSEMBLY.] and Penalties) Bill.

Reacts with water-keep container dry and tightly closed.

Store between 15° C. ,and 25° C., away from direct sunlight.

Premises should be inspected to ensure that chemicals of this type are not being used. The chemical to which I have referred should not be used in factories because it can be fatal. The Department of Health is failing in its duty by allowing the use of a ,chemical which has been proven destructive ; even the makers issue warnings which are being blatantly ignored by factory owners.

Clause 4 relates t'O penalties under the Clean Air Act which are in line with present-day living costs. How­ever, I doubt whether there is any reference in sections 13 or 14 of the Clean Air Act to odours. Perhaps reference is made to offensive trades, but I doubt whether it would be possible to prosecute any fact'Ory unless specific mention is made of odours. In my electorate, there is a meat rendering works which emits very strong odours which prevent anyone within 1 square mile of the establishment from going about his normal routine. Admittedly the factory is not in a residential area. Even with the as­sistance of the Department of Health it has not been possible to stop the smell, which is affecting the com­munity.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to dark smoke emISSIons, and again the local council can take little action. In 1970, in conjunction with the Depart­ment of Health, the municipal coun­cil gave directions to Hoffman Brick Co. Pty. Ltd. and suggested the work that should be done to prevent impurities being emitted from the kiln, as required by the Clean Air Act.

This morning when I was on my way to Parliament House the same factory and another in the immedi­a te area were emitting dangerous black fumes which were spilling on t'O the nearby houses. The local people have been complaining to

Mr. Kirkwood.

councils on the health aspect and the Clean Air Section of the Department of Health is aware of the situation. In this case the fines will not achieve anything unless the Clean Air Section says to the manufacturers, " This is how to prevent it, and this is what you will install." The technological data must bear the stamp of the Clean Air Section, which must be very determined and solve the prob­lems of providing a means of pre­venting impurities frOom endangering the health of people living near factories such as the two I have mentioned. The measure is one of bits and pieces.

I believe the Minister mentioned in his second-reading speech four­teen cases in which some unfoortun­ate had to re-dig a grave in aceme­tery for the body to be transferred in a lead coffin to some other place. I wonder if any honorable member has ever been to a cemetery where this job has had to be done. I am aware that the fee has been in­creased. When one member of staff undertook this duty for the first time he must have been very impression­able as he wore an attractive suit probably in the price range above $80. Ever since that day this man has felt that he could not wear that suit because of the smell. He also felt that it was one of the most degrading and difficult jobs that a human 'could be called on to do.

This arises from the fact that because of expansion 'Of the wooden coffin the body smells permeate it once the soil is removed. This is not a joking matter because individ­uals are affected in their everyday job, and even if there were 'Only fourteen instances over a period of six months or even twelve months, it means that on fourteen or 28 occasions people who had to earn their bread and butter were being subjected to something abnormal. The department should closely ex­amine this matter. Permission to open a grave should be given only in the most serious cases.

Health Services (Fees [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] and Penalties) Bill. 1867

I hope the Clean Air Section will provide technical information to the firms which are creating impurities in the atmosphere, and I hope in­dustry itself will learn that the Gov­ernment's intention is clear and that if they do not conform the penalties will be high enough to deter them from treating the matter as a joke as they have up till now.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 (Short title).

Mr. WILTON .(Broadmeadows).­During the second-reading debate, I drew the Minister's attention to sub­clause (2) of clause 1 and asked the honorable gentleman to inform the Committee of the Government's plans regarding the proclamation of the various sections of the Act. On that occasion I informed the House that a significant amount of legislation was already on the statute­book waiting to be proclaimed. This measure covers a range of matters mostly relating to fees, but I should like the Minister to indicate to the Committee what to expect concern­ing clause 4, for instance, which covers an important section.

Sir HENRY BOLTE.-The honorable member is debating clause 1.

Mr. WILTON.-Sub-clause (2) of clause 1 sets 'Out that various sec­tions of the legislation shall come in to operation on days to be fixed by proclamation or successive pro­clamations. While not wanting to debate clause 4, I merely draw the Minister's attention to the reference in the clause to clean air, which affects the Clean Air Act. This sub­ject has received considerable atten­tion from honorable members. I assure the Minister that many people are interested to know when the Minister will take the necessary steps to make the proclamation so that some improvements can be achieved. That is not unreasonable. Surely the Minister should have some idea of the planning of his

department on this measure. Can the honorable gentleman state when the various sections of the Act will be proclaimed, or is this just another exercise in semantics by the Minister and another little window-dressing episode as has occurred with other measures?

The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

The Bill w'as reportea to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

STATUTORY SALARIES BILL This Bill was returned from the

Council with a message intimating that on consideration of the Bill in Committee it suggested that the Assembly should make a certain amendment in the Bill.

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-The Council suggested that the following new clause be in­serted after clause 8 :-

C A. In sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Metropolitan Fire Brigades Act 1958 for the words "salary as is" there shall be sub­stituted the words "salary and allowances as are".

I move-That this House do make the amendment

suggested by the Council. The motion was agreed to, It was ordered that the Bill be

returned to the council with a mes­sage intimating the decision of the House.

ADJOURNMENT BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE:

HOURS OF MEETING. Mr. REID (:Attomey-General).- I

move-That the House, at its rising, adjourn until

tomorrow, at half-past Ten o'clock. The motion was agreed to. Mr. REID (Attorney-GeneraI).- I

move-That the House do now adjourn.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote}.-I should like to know when the Gov­ernment will make up its mind con­cerning the times of meeting of the

1868 Adjournment. [ASSEMBLY.] Adjournment.

House. The Secretary of the Cabinet advised members of the Opposition in good faith that the House would sit at 9.30 a.m. tomorrow and, in view of that, members 'Of my party made arrangements accordingly. In the short space of only half an hour the Government has changed its mind and has decided that the House will resume tomorrow at 11 a.m.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).-I should have thought that the Deputy Leader IQf the Opposition would be pleased that the House is to meet tomorrow at a later hour than was originally intended. I remind the honorable member that the House has received notice that a motion is to be moved tomorrow and that the atti­tude of the Opposition indicates that it will take the opportunity of wasting time in debating the matter. I regret to say that the Opposition's intention seems to be to obstruct the business of the House and the plans of the Government to have legislation en­acted during this sessional period. The Government is being more than reasonable in making the time of meeting 10.30 a.m. instead of 9.30 a.m. If the Opposition is opposed to that, the Government will revert to the time which was originally in­tended.

Mr. FLOYD (Williamstown).­Conceding the matters which have been raised by the Attorney-General, conceding the deficiencies of the Opposition, and conceding that the members of the Opposition are doing terrible things, would it not be pos­sible to add on time at the end of the day instead of varying the meet­ing times of the House in a way which does not enable honorable members to meet their commitments? I remind the House that there was to be a meeting of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.

Sir HENRY BCLTE.-This is all your doing.

Mr. FLOYD.-It is not our doing at all. The Clerks of the House were entitled'to arrange a meeting of the

association. The Premier has been very generous on some matters affecting the Commonwealth Parlia­mentary Association, and he wants a number of things to be confirmed at this meeting. We cannot have the meeting in the morning. There have been rumours that the House will meet at 8.30 a.m., 9.30 a.m. and 10.30 a.m. I do not agree with the Gov­ernment's policy. If the Premier believes that we are so bad, sc obstructionist and so 'Obstreperous tha t we are delaying the business of the House, why cannot the Govern­ment add extra time at the end of the day? There should be time on ; that is something that the honorable member for St. Kilda knows plenty about.

The SPEAKER (the Hon. Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member on the motion!

Mr. FLOYD.-I am not out of or­der, Mr. Speaker, I am asking why the Government is so spineless that it must put forward the time of meet­ing instead of adding time 'on. The Government is upsetting the deputa­tions and the time-tables of mem­bers of the Opposition as well as members on the other side of the House.

I appeal to the Government not to be so nasty. Let us settle down to the brutal business of fighting over Bills. If you think the Opposition is so bad, put the time on at the end of the day or have the House meet 'On Friday-that is, if you have enough guts!

The SPEAKER.-Order! The honor­able member should address the Chair and speak to the motion before the House.

Mr. FLOYD.-I am speaking about the Government making an ea'rlier time. The Opposition should know what time the House will meet every morning. The Opposition 'Objects to what the Government is doing.

The motion was agreed to.

The House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.

Monash [26 OCTOBER, 1971.] University. 1869

~atut ~ttttug af tltt 14tgtslattut C!taUuttl un~ 14t iGtgi.aluliUt

J\ssttttbly.

Tuesday, October 26, 1971.

MONASH UNIVERSITY. COUNCIL VACANCIES.

In accordance with section 7 of the Monash University Act 1958, a joint ,sitting of the two Houses was held this day 'in the Legislative As­sembly Chamber to elect three mem­bers to be recommended for appoint­ment to the Council of the Monash University.

Honorable members of both Houses assembled at 6.15 p.m.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).-I move-

That ,the Honorable Raymond William Garrett, President of the Legislative Council, be appointed President of this joint Sitting.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).---iI second the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

THE PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Thank you, Mr. Attorney­General. I am very conscious of the honor bestowed upon ,me.

Section 7 of the ,Monash Univer­sity Act 1958 provides that ·a joint sitting to recommend members for appointment to the council -shall be conducted in accordance with rules adopted for the purpose by members at the sitting. The first procedure, therefore, will be the adoption of the rules.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).­Before moving the adoption of the rules, Mr. President, I should like ito congratulate you on being elected to preside over this joint sitting. I am sure you will do so with the fairness and wisdom for which you are dis­tinguished in another place. I move-

That the following rules be 'adopted as the rules of procedure of this joint sitting :-

1. On any debate ·arising the same shall be conducted according to Parliamentary usage.

2. A member, addressing himself to the President, shall propose a member to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University and such proposal shall be duly seconded. When any member is so proposed his proposer shall state that such member is willing to be so recom­mended for 'appointment, if chosen.

3. If only three members be proposed and seconded, the President shall declare­" That have been chosen to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University. ".

4. If more than three members be pro­posed and seconded, the members to be recommended for appointment shall be chosen by ballot in the following manner:-

5. The President shall announce the names of the members proposed and shall cause each member present to be provided with a ballot-paper initialled by the Clerks of the two Houses.

6. Upon such ballot-paper the member receiving it shall write the names of the three members he wishes to be recommended for appointment; and if any ballot-paper contains a larger number of names it shall be rejected. Hav:ing marked his ballot-paper as provided, the member voting shall de­posit it ina ballot-box provided for .the purpose.

7. The President shall appoint three mem­bers to be scrutineers, who, with the Clerks, shall ascertain the number of votes for each member; and the three members who shall be reported to have the greatest number of votes shall be deemed to be duly chosen to be ·recommended for appointment. In any case of doubt arising through two or more members having an equality of votes, the scrutineers by drawing lots shall deter­mine which of such members shall be chosen to be recommended for appointment.

8. No informal vote shall be taken into account.

9. The President shall be entitled to a vote.

10. As soon as the ballot is concluded the President shall declare-" That have been chosen to be .recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University. ".

11. The records of the proceedings and the ballot-papers shall be retained by the Clerk of the Parliaments of the State of Victoria, who shall be the custodian thereof, ·and shall keep the ballot-papers safely for one year and thereafter destroy them.

Copies of the proposed rules are in the hands of honorable members.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-I second the motion.

The motion was ·agreed to.

1870 Monash (JOINT SITTING OF COUNCIL AND ASSEMBLY.] University.

THE PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-The rules of procedure having been adopted, :1 am now pre-pared to receive proposals from honorable members with regard to three ,members to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the 'Monash University.

Mr. REID {Attorney-General).-I propose-

That the Honorable Graham. John Nicol, M.L.C., be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University.

Mr. Nicol is willing to be recom­mended if chosen.

Sir HENRY BOLTE (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 second the proposal.

The motion was -agreed to.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-I propose-

That Robert Clive Fordham, Esquire, M.P., be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University.

Mr. Fordham is willing to be recommended if chosen.

Mr. DOUBE {Albert Park).-I second the proposal.

The motion -was agreed to.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-1 propose-

That the Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, M.L.C., be recommended for appoinment to the Council of the Monash University.

Mr. McDonald is wining to be recommended if chosen.

Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-I second the proposal.

The motion was agreed to.

TIlE PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Does any honorable mem­ber desire to propose any other m-ember to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University?

1 declare that the time for pro­posing members to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University has expired.

As section 7 of the Monash Uni­versity Act 1958 requires that three members of the Victorian P.arliament shall be recommended for appoint­ment to the Council of the Monash University and there are 'Only three members proposed, 1 declare that the Honorable Graham John Nicol, M.L.C., Robert Clive :Fordham, Es­quire, M.P., and the Honorable Stuart Richard MdDonald, M.L.C., have been chosen to be so recom­mended.

Mr. REID (Attorney-General).-I move-

That the President inform the Honorable Minister of Education that the Honorable Graham John Nicol, M.L.C., Robert Clive Fordham, Esquire, M.P., and the Honorable Stuart Richard McDonald, M.L.C. have been chosen to be recommended for appointment to the Council of the Monash University.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).---II second the motion.

The motion was agreed to.

Mr. REID (Attomey-General).-On behalf of all honorable members present, Mr. President, 1 have pleasure in thanking you for attend­ing this joint sitting and presiding over it so cap-ably and with'Dut dis­rupti'Dn of any kind.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).---I have pleasure in supporting the Attorney­General, Mr. President, in his thanks to you for presiding -over the joint 'sitting.

TIlE PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-I thank the Attorney­General and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for what they have said. It has been a pleasure to be with them and 'Other honorable members of the Legisl'ative Assembly at this joint sitting. It has been an arduous task! If ever assistance 'is needed from the Legislative Council, its members are always available.

1 now declare the joint sitting closed.

The proceedings terminated at 6.21 p.m.

Questions [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] on Notice. 1871

mtgt.alattut (!Innu!tl. Wednesday, October 27, 1971.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett) took the chair at 2.20 p.m., and read the prayer.

HOSPITALS AND CHARITIES FUND.

MAINTENANCE FINANCE. The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Mel­

bourne Province) asked the Minister for State Development-

In respect of the years 1969-70 and 1970-71, what maintenance funds have been made available from the Hospitals and Charities Fund to the St. Vincent's, Royal Melbourne, Prince Henry's and Alfred public hospitals, respectively?

The Hon. V. O. DICK1E (Minister for State Development) .-The answer is-

The following maintenance funds were made available from the Hospitals and Charities Fund for 1969-70 and 1970-71 to teaching hospitals as shown:-

(i) This school is s'ituated within a small settlement on the Melbourne and Metro­politan Board of Works farm south of the township of Werribee. As the sewerage farm is handling a greater quantity of effluent, the area of spraying, and so on, is being enlarged, thus necessitating the gradual removal of the settlement of Cocoroc. Many houses have already been vacated and then destroyed. It is likely that the entire settlement will have disap­peared within the next two years. The net enrolment is now six and will be five at the most at the beginning of 1972. Com­mittee members had, for some time, been aware of the possible closing of the school as a place of attendance for their children, and have tentatively made plans to transfer their childlien to schools in the Werribee area as from the end of this year.

(ii) As from the end of 1971.

OM EO HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL: RESIDENCE.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

Is a second Education Department resi­dence to be constructed in Omeo this finan­cial year; if not, will the Minister of Educa­tion inspect the housing conditions of the staff of the Omeo Higher Elementary School?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The

Hospital 1969-70 1970-71* answer is-

$ $

St. Vincent's Hospital .. 3,906,078 5,088,748

The Royal Melbourne Hospital.. 5,370,492 6,786,951

Prince Henry's Hospital . . 2,922,780 3,645,070

Alfred Hospital .. 4,990,734 6,189,495

* These amounts include additional special maintenance moneys paid under the Public Works and Services Act.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. COCOROC PRIMARY SCHOOL.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) asked the Minister of Public W orks-

Is it proposed to close Cocoroc Primary School No. 3230; if so-(i) why; and (ii) when?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

It is proposed to unstaff Cocoroc Primary School No. 3230.

A contract for the erection of a second residence at Omeo will be let this financial year.

GLENROY TECHNICAL SCHOOL. The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta

Galla Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

(a) What is the period of time that the Glenroy co-educational technical school has had no female vice-principal?

(b) As the school will have a form VI. for the first time next year, when can it expect its full quota of administrative staff?

(c) As a senior male teacher is acting female vice-principal, when does the Educ­ation Department expect to fill this position with a female?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answers are-

(a) No woman vice-principal was ap­pointed to Glenroy Technical School follow­ing the promotion of Mrs. B. Stevenson on 29th April, 1971. Mrs. Stevenson took up her new duties in February, 1971.

1872 Questions [COUNCIL.] on Notice.

(b) An acting vice-principal (woman) will be appointed at Glenroy for 1972.

(c) The vacant position will need to be readvertised in 1972.

HOUSING COMMISSION. PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS IN RICHMOND.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL (Mel­bourne Province) asked the Minister of Public W orks-

Has the Housing Commission negotiated for the purchase of any properties in Hodgson Terrace and Berry Street, Rich­mond; if so, in how many cases?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works).-The answer is, "No".

WORKERS COMPENSATION. COMPARATIVE RATES.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) asked the Minister of Public Works-

What are the comparative rates of workers compensation operating in Victoria, South Australia and the Commonwealth?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-As Mr. Kent will appreciate, to supply the information sought would involve a tremendous amount of work. I cer­tainly cannot provide an answer to the question. I have contacted the Chief Secretary's Department, which hopes eventually to provide the desired information. The department can provide many charts, but it would have to investigate in detail the position in every State in Australia.

MELBOURNE HARBOR TRUST.

SHIPPING FACILITIES AT NEWPORT.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) asked the Minister of Public W orks-

Will he hear representatives of the Williamstown City Council on the proposal of the Melbourne Harbor Trust to build shipping facilities in the City of Williams­town on that part of land south of North Road, Newport?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

I have already written to the town clerk, City of Williamstown, advising him that I would be prepared to have discussions with council representatives on this matter ,and have asked him to ,contact my office so that 'a suitable date may be 'arranged. I would also be happy to have the honorable member concerned accompany me at an 'appropriate time. I might add that no Melbourne Harbor Trust land is, in f.act, within the city of Williamstown.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) asked the Minister of Public W orks-

Has the Melbourne Harbor Trust any alternative plans to those stated in answer to question No. 6 asked in this House on 6th October, 1971; if so, what are the alternative plans?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-The answer is-

The only current plan is that referred to in answer to question No. 6 asked in the House on 6th October, 1971. However, if the honorable member has 'any other information I shall be happy to hear from him.

MELBOURNE AND METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS.

MAPPING OF CONSERVATION CRITERIA.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) asked the Minister for Local Government-

Will he prevail upon the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works to release the mapping of conservation criteria submitted by the Conserv'ation Council of Victoria to the board in January, 1971, so that the information in the submission can be used by educational bodies and others interested in conservation?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The answer is-

A very limited number of copies of the report ,and maps were prepared by the Conservation Council of Victoria at the request of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Bo'ard of Works specifically for the purpose of advice in connection with amending planning schemes.

I have arranged for the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works to consult with the Conservation Council to examine ways and means of making the information and basis of the report generally available.

Harbor Boards [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1873

HEALTH SERVICES (FEES AND PENALTIES) BILL.

This Bill was received from the Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister for State Development), was read a first time.

STATUTORY SALARIES BILL. This Bill was returned from the

Assembly with a message intimating that they had decided to make the amendment suggested by the Council on the consideration of the Bill in Committee.

It was ordered that the message be referred to the Committee on the Bill.

LAND TAX BILL. The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER

(Minister of Agriculture) .-1 move-That this Bill be now read 'a second time.

Its purpose is to declare the rates of land tax for the calendar year 1972. Section 6 of the Land Tax Act requires land tax to be assessed" at such rate as for each year is declared by an Act of Parliament" . This means that legislation to declare the rates of land tax must be presented annually.

No change in the rates of land tax is proposed for 1972, and this Bill provides that exactly the same rates of land tax as are in operation this year will continue for the calendar year 1972. I commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Prov­ince) , the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

HARBOR BOARDS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read 'a second time.

Its purpose is to amend the Harbor Boards Act. Honorable members will recall that, when I introduced the Bill relating to the Portland Harbor Trust, I indicated that many of the proposed sections contained in this Bill would relate to the Portland Harbor Trust (Amendment) Bill. Honorable members will be aware that a harbor board appointed under the provisions of the principal Act is not operative in Victoria, although sections 26 and 47 and sub-section (4) of section 27 of the Portland Harbor Trust Act state, respectively, that sections 41 to 73, 76 to 80 and 105 to 119 inclusive of the Harbor Boards Act shall extend and apply to the Portland Harbor Trust Act as if they were incorporated in that Act.

Honorable members will also recall that, when I introduced the Geelong Harbor Trusts (Amendment) Bill I intimated that an endeavour ~as being made to update and make uniform the provisions relating to those trusts. In a short time, I hope to introduce another measure relat­ing to the Melbourne Harbor Trust.

Clause 1 covers the short title and provides for its commencement by proclama tion.

Clause 2 provides that the re­muneration and allowances which a chairman or a member of a harbor board is to receive is to be fixed by the Governor in Council. This provision is in line with the arrange­ments either made, or in process of being made, for the fixing of remuneration and allowances for the chairman and members of Government authorities in Victoria.

Clause 3 amends section 44 of the principal Act relating to the powers of the board. In the day-to-day operations of a port, it could be necessary for a harbor board to seek indemnities against any loss or damage arising during, or in connec­tion with, the hire and use of board property and equipment by port users. The present powers under the prin­cipal Act in regard to the hire and usage of property and equipment of

1874 Harbor Boards [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

a harbor board are considered to be rather vague and the redrafted section 44 and the proposed new section 66A, will clarify the position as to a harbor board's right to accept and enforce indemnities or such other securities as are considered suitable by such board.

Clause 4 inserts proposed new sub­section (7) to section 54 of the prin­cipal Act, relating to vessels likely to be abandoned within the port. From time to time a harbor board may be faced with the problem of obtaining port dues from the owner of a vessel which has been virtually abandoned in the port and the owners of which have insufficient assets to warrant civil action being taken for the recovery of the port charges.

The existing section 54 of the principal Act permits a harbor board to seize the vessel and the goods therein when a vessel within the port is unseaworthy, or is likely to cause damage to property, or to other vessels, or is an obstruction to naviga­tion, and so on, if, after due notice, appropriate action is not taken by the owners.

To meet the problem of unpaid port dues, the new sub-section (7) has been drawn referring specifically to the circumstances where there is or is likely to become due and payable to a harbor board, tolls, rates and charges which exceed or are expected to exceed the value of the vessel and any goods therein, and that vessel is or is likely to be abandoned in the port. Then a harbor board can arrange the removal or destruction of the vessel or obtain from the owner security to the satisfaction of such harbor board for the payment of the moneys due.

Clause 5 substitutes a new section 63 in the principal Act. In the appli­cation of the existing section 63, a harbor board on occasion may ex­perience difficulty in identifying offen­ders on vessels in the port from which a pollution is observed. The new sec­tion 63 extends to the master of the vessel responsibility for any offence

The Hon. Murray Byrne.

of this nature arising from his ship. However, the latter part of the new sub-section (1) is so drawn-and Mr. Knight will be interested in this -that whilst the master of the vessel from which a pollution of the port has occurred will be deemed to be guilty of an offence, he will not be liable for any penalty where the actual offender is convicted for the offence. In addition, the maximum penalty for an offence of the nature described has been increased from $40 to $5,000, and that figure agrees with the penalty provision of the appropriate section of the Environ­ment Protection Act.

The proposed new sub-section (2) of section 63 protects the current powers of a harbor board to under­take reclamation work in the port or to permit reclamation work in the port to be undertaken at any place or in any manner approved by such harbor board and this freedom of action is desirable.

Paragraph (a) of clause 6, provid­ing for the insertion at the end of paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of section 66, will clarify the powers of a harbor board to carry out the pur­pose of the Act. The proposal in paragraph (b) of clause 6, is to repeal sub-section (3) of section 66. The existing sub-section requires that every contract taken by a harbor board shall be in writing. From a practical point of view this is not pos­sible. It is of course essential that every significant contract should be in writing, and the proposed insertion by paragraph (a) of clause 6 is designed to achieve this requirement.

As I mentioned when dealing with clause 3, the proposed new section 66A in clause 7 will clarify the power of a harbor board to accept and en­force indemnities, bonds or other securities which are taken by a board against loss or damage to the board or to any other person, arising out of the use of any building, equipment, vehicle, and so on, owned by such board, irrespective of how the loss

Harbor Boards [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1875

or damage occurred, that is, by negli­gence, wrongful act or omission, " act of God" or inevitable accident.

Clause 8 provides for the increase from $1 to $2 of the maximum whar­fage charge per ton or part thereof which a harbor board may impose on cargo landed or discharged, or loaded into vessels. This proposed increase in the maximum rate is the same as that proposed for Melbourne, Geelong and Portland harbor trusts.

Clause 9 substitutes a new section 79 in the principal Act. The genesis of this section pre-dates the Common­wealth of Australia and the Parliamen­tary Counsel has redrawn the section making it clear that where it appears to a harbor board that a vessel on which port dues are payable is being removed or about to be removed from the port without payment of such dues or without giving security to the satisfaction of the board for the payment of such dues, the board can detain the vessel until the dues are paid or suitable security given tha t they will be paid. This new sec­tion eliminates the archaic reference and clarifies the power required.

1 t has been the experience of the Melbourne Harbor Trust to have large sums of money outstanding for lengthy periods and it is considered reasonable that interest should be charged on these outstanding amounts in much the same manner as local government authorities and the Mel­bourne and Metropolitan Board of Works have the power to do, and suitable provision has been made in this series of Bills amending the Mel­bourne, Geelong and Portland harbor trust Acts to make port authorities parallel in this regard. The proposed new section 80A in clause 10 will give the same facility to a harbor board.

Clause 11 proposes the extension of the regulation-making powers of a board to grant exemptions, in whole or in part, from the payment of port dues or to make refunds of such charges in respect of vessels laid up or under repair or detained in a port

by circumstances which are not the responsibility of the master or owners of the vessel. I indicate the problem that vessels have in the case of strikes.

The substitutions proposed in sec­tion 109 by clause 12 are drawn to clarify the powers of a harbor board to recover damages from a vessel in­volved where the damage is done to the property of the board. The clari­fication is required where the circum­stances surrounding the accidents are claimed to be due to "acts of God " or inevitable accident. The associa­tion of Australian Port and Marine Authorities and the other States, are concerned to ensure that the inter­pretation of section 109 is placed be­yond any doubt and the substituted sub-sections (1) and (2) have been drawn to achieve this purpose. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. A. W. KNIGHT(Melbourne West Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

WATER (AMENDMENT) BILL. The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister

for State Development) .-1 move-That this Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill contains, without amend­ment, the two important provisions contained in the Bill which the Min­ister of Water Supply introduced in the last session of Parliament. Hon­orable members will recall that, at that time, the Minister indicated that the Bill would not be proceeded with beyond the second-reading stage be­cause of the far-reaching implications of the legislation. He indicated that it would be proceeded with in the present session but that, in the inter­vening period, the proposed provi­sions would be discussed with the irrigation area advisory boards and the various irrigators' organizations.

Since the Bill was originally intro­duced, officers of the Water Commis­sion have visited all the irrigation

1876 Water (Amendment) [COUNCIL.] Bill.

centres and have had discussions, both with the advisory boards and irrigator organizations. The Minister also received a number of deputations and submissions from various orga­nizations. Furthermore, these two major provisions of the Bill were the main topic of discussion at the recent advisory boards' conference held at Shepparton.

It is now fair to say that the drain­age rating proposals contained in the Bill have received wide acceptance, particularly as the provisions enable a flexible approach to rating within an irrigation district. It enables ra ting on the new basis to be fixed for a district as a whole or by indi­vidual areas within a district or by groups of areas in the district. It also provides for the old basis of rating to be retained when consi­dered desirable. These provisions will help in keeping changes in rating assessments under the new system to a minimum.

On the other hand, the water right proposals have not received the same general acceptance. Various alter­native proposals have been put for­ward by irrigators' organizations and by some advisory boards. Some of these proposals, because of the volumes of water involved, would not be practicable while others con­tain only minor variations of the pro­visions set out in the Bill.

However, at the advisory boards' conference held at Shepparton in July, which I mentioned earlier, the proposals were adopted as the most satisfactory basis for the allocation of future water rights. This majority decision was arrived at after an ex­haustive discussion during which many alternative proposals were considered. Any formula must at best be a compromise of many con­flicting interests and the Government shares, with the irrigation advisory boards, the view that the present provisions in the Bill which are set out in the proposed new section 65D in clause 3 represent the most satis­factory way of making any further water allocations.

The Hon. V. O. Dickie.

Perhaps at this stage I might re­capitulate some of the comments the Minister made when explaining the Bill in the last session. Although no additional water is immediately available for allocation and will pro­bably not be until the completion of the Dartmouth dam, the Water Com­mission has given very careful con­sideration to the possible basis of any future water allocations. After examining the views of the advisory boards and various irrigators' orga­nizations, and undertaking compre­hensive investigations into storage behaviour and stream flows, the com­mission came to the conclusion that the most satisfactory method for the allocation of additional water would be to retain the provisions of the present formula contained in Part I. of Schedule Three B of the Water Act intact, and to allocate any addi­tional water pro rata to all proper­ties on the basis of the commanded and suitable area of each property with the proviso that, where the commanded and suitable area is less than 100 acres, the first 100 acres of suitable area shall be used in calcu­lating the allocation.

Once Parliament has fixed the basis for apportionment of additional water, the actual allocations will de­pend upon the availability of water, and it is proposed that this will be done in each case by the Governor in Council. Parliament would fix the basis for water allocations while the actual quantity, which would be based on technical assessments, would be fixed from time to time by the Gov­ernor in Council. This seems a simple and sensible procedure.

In clause 2 of the Bill section 65AA and 65 AB of the principal Act are repealed. These sections are re­enacted and renumbered in clause 3 of the Bill. This has been done to enable a clearer understanding of the existing provisions which are at present out of sequence in the prin­cipal Act. In clause 3 the proposed sections 65B and 65c re-enact the existing section 65AB while, at the same time, the opportunity has been

Water (Amendment) [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1877

taken to delete sub-scetion (3) of section 65AB of the principal Act as it is no longer relevant.

It should be noted also that the reference to a date at present in­cluded in sub-section (1) of section 65AB has been extended to 30th June, 1973. This means that the water right formula contained in Schedule Three B stands in the Act in its present form until that date after which any extension or review would be a matter for Parliament to consider.

The proposed section 65n is a new provision. As indicated earlier it is proposed to retain the present formula intact. The proposed section 65n enables additional water to be alloca­ted pro rata to all properties on the basis of the commanded and suitable area of each property with the pro­viso, of course, that where the com­manded and suitable area is less than 100 acres the first 100 acres of suit­able area shall be used in the calcula­tion. Under sub-section (6) of this section the existing entitlement of any holding is preserved. Section 65E re-enacts the present section 65AA in the principal Act. This section merely lays down the obligation of the com­mission in respect of supply and de­fines "irrigation period".

Turning now to the drainage rating provisions contained in clause 4, these have been introduced because of general dissatisfaction with the pre­sent incidence of drainage rating. There are a number of factors invol­ved in this. Firstly, there is the problem that valuations are carried out by municipalities at various times with a subsequent wide variation of value of similar properties. Secondly, the high valuations placed on rural lands adjacent to large towns result in very high drainage assessments compared with similar properties in more distant locations. Thirdly, there is the question whether rating on a valuation basis is the most desirable method of assessing drainage rates as, in many cases, the valuation of a property has little relation either to the benefits received from the com­mission's drainage system or to the

cost of installing or maintaining the drains necessary to serve a particular holding.

It has been concluded that the most rational and simple method for deter­mining drainage assessments, where used in relation to the present system of drainage rating classifica­tion, would be a rate based on the total water right entitlement of a holding. While the present rating provisions will be retained, the legis­lation provides for an alternative basis of rating which would be a rate consisting of a uniform amount for each acre-foot of water right to which a holding is entitled. As indicated earlier, this proposal has received wide acceptance.

Following the amendments to sec­tion 93 of the principal Act contained in clause 4, it has been necessary to make some consequential amend­ments to section 100. This latter section sets out the procedure for levying rates in flood protection dis­tricts, partly by referral to the provi­sions of certain sub-sections of section 93. As the wording of some of these sub-sections has been changed it has been necessary to amend sub-section (2) of section 100. The opportunity has been taken to rewrite and clarify the wording in this sub-section with­out changing the intent of the present provisions. These amendments are contained in clause 5 of the Bill.

The present Bill also contains some machinery measures and a provision to enable a water authority to con­duct a poll in connection with the fluoridation of its water supply. Clause 6 amends section 156 of the principal Act which requires water­works trusts to appoint, in addition to other officers, a treasurer. The proposed amendment removes this requirement by deleting reference to the word "treasurer" from the Act. It has been introduced following a similar amendment to the Local Government Act in relation to munici­pal councils.

1878 Water (Amendment) [COUNCIL.] Bill.

Little purpose appears to be served by the appointment of a treasurer as the Act makes no mention of his quali­fications and, in most cases, the accounts are kept by the authority's secretary and his staff. The deletion will not prevent an authority appoint­ing a treasurer if it considers such an appointment necessary.

Clause 7 repeals sub-division 10 of Division 2 of Part III. of the prin­cipal Act as this has been made redundant by amendments to the Local Authorities Superannuation Act. Clause 8 will enable any water authority to undertake at its discre­tion the maintenance of service pipes between the water main and the meter if the consumer has installed the connection in pipe of a material approved by the Minister.

The Ballarat Water Commissioners already have the power to maintain at their expense service pipes installed by their consumers, and it has also been the practice since 1953 of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works where the consumer has installed a copper service pipe. However, as other materials may be found as durable in the future, provision has been made for the authority to undertake the mainten­ance of service pipes where the pipe is of a material approved by the Minister.

Clause 9 amends section 286 of the principal Act to clarify the rela­tion between that section and section 288, both of which allow temporary borrowing by bank overdraft. Tem­porary accommodation for payment of accounts to be met from loan funds is provided in section 288. The proposed amendment will make it clear that section 286 relates to temporary accommodation for all purposes other than expenditure properly chargeable to loan funds.

The amendment to section 286 also removes the present require­ments for the prior consent of the Governor in Council to be obtained to an overdraft under this section. It also removes the necessity for the

The Hon. V. O. Dickie.

authority to liquidate this authority before the end of the financial year in which it is obtained. However, the amendment still provides for the Governor in Council to fix a maxi­mum amount which an authority may have on overdraft at anyone time. This will effect a considerable reduc­tion in administrative work.

Clause 10 provides for the complete re-enactment of section 287 A of the prinCipal Act which concerns the capitalization of loan service charges in respect of such works as the Minister may declare to be "major construction works". The present provision enables capitalization only of those interest and sinking fund commitments not paid at the date of the Minister's declaration. This can create temporary financial difficulties for an authority which, initially, proposes not to capitalize such charges, but becomes financialy embarrassed by, for instance, the failure of a contractor and the conse­quent substantial extension of the construction period, or in other cases by the limitation of available loan funds. Sub-section (1) replaces the existing sub-section (2) and autho­rizes the Minister to declare works to be "major construction works" at any time before or during con­struction of those works.

Sub-section (2) of the proposed new section incorporates the only two variations from the provisions of the section as at present worded. The first provides for the waterworks trust or local governing body con­cerned to obtain Ministerial approval for the specific period over which it desires to capitalize its loan service charges. This provision is considered desirable since it may not always be practicable for the Treasury to autho­rize the additional loan expenditure involved, and other means are avail­able for the local authority to meet its commitments. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are identical with para­graphs (b) and (a) respectively of the existing sub-section (1) except

Water (Amendment) [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1879

that the words "loan fund" have been changed to " works and services account ".

The second variation is contained in the last part of sub-section (2) and clearly authorizes the reimburse­ment from the works and services account of payments made from revenue to loan service charges before declaration as "major con­struction works". Such reimburse­ment, of course, can be made only in respect of such payments as might lie within the period approved by the Minister, as previously mentioned, for the exercise of this section.

Sub-section (3) replaces the first part of the existing sub-section (1) which provides for the Minister to terminate the operation of this section at some appropriate time after com­pletion of the works. The existing requirement that the works shall first "have produced revenue" are now omitted as being too restrictive and rather difficult to direct deter­mination in some major works which might be concerned.

Sub-section (4) is the present sub-section (3) which excludes from the operation of this section the provisions relating to interest sub­sidies on private borrowings con­tained in section 304 of the principal Act.

Clause 11 contains a consequential amendment following an amendment to the Companies (Public Borrow­ings) Act 1963 in which certain sec­tions in that Act were renumberred. Clause 12 inserts a new section 307A to enable any water authority under this Act, if it so desires, to conduct a poll in connection with proposals for fluoridation of its water supply, and to meet the cost of such poll from its revenue.

The Government has indicated on several occasions that any decision regarding fluoridation is entirely a matter for the water authority con­cerned, but that it would be prefer­able to conduct a poll of its ratepayers

before implementing such a proposal. However, legal opinion has indicated that the Act at present provides no power for an authority to conduct such a poll and meet the cost from its revenue. The amendment there­fore corrects this situation. As an alternative, the amendment empowers a municipal council, if agreeable, to conduct such a poll on behalf of the authority concerned, which would then reimburse the council for the costs and exoenses involved. 1 com­mend the Bili to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Pro­vince), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

COMPANIES BILL. The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister

for Local Government) .-1 move-That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Bill will already be familiar to honorable members interested in company law. This is the third time it has been introduced into Parlia­ment. Although the Bill has been amended in a number of ways, since its first introduction in another place, most of the amendments go to im­proving the drafting and meeting objections raised but do not affect the substance of the measure.

The Bill represents a large and ex· tensive revision of the uniform com­panies Act. When the uniform com­panies legislation was first proposed to the Parliaments of Australia, it was well understood that new uniform Acts would require substantial and constant updating to meet the chang­ing conditions of business and new practices. In relation to the English legislation of 1948, in its report the Jenkins committee said-

We cannot however accept the view that the 1948 Act has left no room for further improvements of substance in the law as it now stands. It is not a field of legislation in which finality is to be expected.

The process of reviewing the uni­form companies legislation was com­menced by the Company Officers

1880 Companzes [COUNCIL.] Bill.

Committee of the Standing Commit­tee of Attorneys-General very shortly after the 1961 legislation was passed. The members of that committee ·carefully noted and analysed complaints made and brought to one another's attention problems which appeared in the operation of the Act. They constantly reported their work to the standing committee and it was apparent that a general revision would shortly be required.

Tribute should be paid to the work done by the Company Officers Com­mittee. Its members meet many times a year and, apart from the work of reviewing legislative proposals, they are constantly engaged in an effort to rationalize administrative proce­dures and to inform one another of developments in different jurisdic­tions. In recent years, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has devoted more than half its time to company and securities legislation. The amount of this work shows no sign of decreasing and this, of itself, is ample justification for the existence of the standing committee.

I trust that the House will substan­tially endorse the legislation which results from the reoort of the stand­ing committee and the Eggleston committee. The Eggleston committee consisted of Mr. Justice Eggleston, Mr. John Rodd and Mr. Philip Cox. Mr. Rodd is a leading M'elbourne solicitor with a large commercial and corporation practice, and Mr. Cox is a distinguished Sydney chartered accountant who is the current chair­man of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in New South Wales.

At the time that the general review was undertaken the report of the Jenkins committee in England became available. Some work had also been undertaken in Canada and this has continued to expand and grow more sophisticated. Company failures in many areas throughout the world highlighted, in one way or another, deficiencies in company legislation. The question of takeover of Austra­lian companies by foreign companies and the establishment of substantial

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

shareholdings in public companies' became matters of national as well as commercial interest and concern. Before presenting such a large and important measure to the Parliament, it was decided at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Common­wealth and State Attorneys-General held in 1967 that the whole question should be investigated by an expert committee. That committee was, of course, the Eggleston committee.

The most important part of the Bill gives effect to recommendations of this committee in its first four reports. It has been suggested in some quarters that the recommenda­tions of the Eggleston committee imposed perhaps too high a standard of care on directors and that the re­commendations require too much detail to be supplied in the accounts of companies and that the legislation would become unduly complex and burdensome. Perhaps such sug_· gestions can be rebutted by referring to the closely reasoned reports of the committee and by considering the qualifications of the men who constituted it. They are all expe­rienced and practical men of law and business with close connections with the day-to-day running of businesses large and small. They are not theorists.

The approach of members of the committee has consistently been to' limit the new legislation to what is required to provide reasonable and proper protection to the public. They have reached their conclusions only after receiving the submissions of persons and organizations familiar with the working and administration of companies who responded to ad­vertisements published by the com­mittee. Proposals to improve pro­tection for the public have always been opposed by some section of the community who would be limited in their activities by them. I do not necessarily impute sinister motives to' opposition to increased protection, but I suggest that such opposition

Companies [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Bill. 1881

may often be an automatic reaction to any proposal, no matter how rea­sonable and small.

Since the Bill was first published, many submissions have been received by the Attorney-General and his col­leagues in other States. All these submissions have been fully consi­dered by the officers, the Eggleston committee, and by the Standing Com­mittee of Attorneys-General. Many improvements have been made as a result of consideration of these sub­missions.

There is one major difference be­tween the Bill presented to this House and the Bill currently before the New South Wales Parliament. It is un­fortunate that there should be a dif­ference in what is intended to be uni­form legislation. The New South Wales Attorney-General accepted suggestions of a basic nature which relate to provisions which determine whether a person has an interest in a share or not for the purpose of determining whether that person has a substantial shareholding, whether a proposed acquisition of shares amounts to a takeover, and of de­termining what is the extent of a director's interest in the shares of his company. The Attorney-General in this State has not accepted that the New South Wales provisions are an improvement, and have followed the pattern of the Queensland legis­lation which has been passed and the ordinance that has been passed for the Australian Capital Territory. Despite this unfortunate divergence, it is believed that when the legisla­tion has been in operation for a short time the differences are likely to be resolved.

Perhaps something should be said about the principle of uniformity which is sometimes said to result in an abrogation of the powers of this Parliament. This proposal is not in­tended to deny the power of this Par­liament to determine its own affairs, but it is suggested that in areas that affect businesses which necessarily operate across State borders un­necessary distinctions and differences

should be avoided so far as practi­cable, and that differences in principle should be allowed only where the Parliament considers the matter to be of fundamental importance.

I do not intend to go through the clauses in detail, but have circulated to honorable members a memoran­dum explaining their contents. I should also add that an explanatory memorandum is attached to the front of the Bill. This memorandum ex­plains the differences between clauses in this Bill and the sections of the Companies Act 1961. I also have further details, as well as copies of various reports from the committees mentioned, which I shall be happy to make available to honorable members who may desire them. If I went through every matter contained in the Bill in great detail, the House would be listening to me for almost the remainder of the day.

The Hon. J. M. WALToN.-Honor­able members would be interested.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I am sure that many honorable members would desire to avoid that.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-No.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-I shall pro­ceed if the honorable member wishes. He should not tempt me. However, I offer co-operation to any honorable member who desires further informa­tion, and commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y (Melbourne North Pro­vince), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

STATUTORY SALARIES BILL. The message from the Assembly

intimating that they had decided to make the amendment suggested by the Council on the consideration of the Bill in Committee was taken into consideration.

1882 Aboriginal Lands [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

The House went into Committee for the further consideration of the Bill.

The new clause suggested by the Council as inserted by the Assembly, was agreed to.

The Bill, including the amendment suggested by the Council as made by the Assembly, was reported to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

ABORIGINAL LANDS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The Aboriginal Lands Act 1970, as honorable members will recall, pro­vided for the issue of a Crown grant of the Lake Tyers and Framlingham reserves to the residents. The titles which have now been issued are free­hold and are held by Aboriginal trusts set up at the respective locations.

The Act further provides that the land shall not be sold or otherwise disposed of except in accordance with a unanimous resolution of the trust. Such a resolution must be carried at a general meeting of the trust at which a quorum shall be one half of the persons entitled to vote at the meeting. This quorum is provided for in sub-section (4) of section 23 of the Act.

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-How many constitute a quorum?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Half of those who are 'entitled to vote. Committees of management are set up and generally have power to act for the trust. It is implicit in the Act that these committees of manage­ment shall act only in accordance with directions given by the trust.

Some doubt has been raised regard­ing the possibility that the committee of management, acting illegally, may sell a portion of the land without having fully complied with the requirements of the Act. On inquiry,

the Solicitor-General expressed the view that generally the provisions require a unanimous decision of the trust before disposal of any land can be effected. However, he sug­gested that the words" but no person dealing with the trust in good faith shall be concerned to inquire as to whether this section has been com­plied with" in sub-section (3) of section 11 of the Act could possibly be used to support an argument that a potential buyer having entered into a contract with a committee of man­agement in good faith was entitled to claim that the proposed sale, al­though illegal, was enforceable in law. The Solicitor-General stated that, in his opinion, it would be difficult for such a purchaser to estab­lish that he entered into the contract in good faith and without knowledge of the existence of the trust.

The purpose of this Bill is designed to clear up any doubts as to the necessity for a unanimous decision of the trust before any land may be disposed of. The Bill does not in any way alter the principle of the freehold ownership by the trust, neither does it add to nor detract from the right of the tru"tees to manage their own affairs.

Clause 2 has the effect of removing the special concession presently given by sub-section (3) of section 11 to persons acquiring land from the trust. This concession was given originally in order to spare purchasers the necessity for making inquiries into the internal affairs of the trust. The clause will have the effect of prevent­ing absolutely the giving of a land title without the authority of a unanimous resolution. This is due to the effect of sub-section (1) of section 11 in which a trust is em­powered to deal with land not subject to the Act, and that a body corporate may act only wi thin the scope of its powers. Section 16 of the Act concerns the internal government of trusts, and in particular the power of trusts in general meetings to limit the authority of committees of management to act on their behalf.

Lutheran Church of Australi [27 OCTOBER, 1971] Victorian District Incorporation Bill. 1883

Certainly it provides that a trust is bound by the acts of its committee of management, but it is, I believe, far from the contexts of the Act in general, that sub-section (3) of section 11 refers only to acts which the trust is entitled to perform. The amendment proposed by clause 3 is designed to make it perfectly clear that this is so.

Clause 4 amends the Act relating to unanimous decisions. In order to enable a person acquiring land from a trust and for the Registrar of Titles to confirm that a sale has been properly authorized, the clause requires copies of the unanimous resolutions to be sent to the Minister. It further requires the Minister to hold copies of these resolutions to be made available for inspection by any person, free of charge.

Although the Aboriginal owners of this land have declared emphatically that they have no intention of selling the land, and I believe them, this Bill will ensure that should a situation arise whereby they do propose to sell any of the land, it will be with the full knowledge and consent of the trust as required by the principal Act. I commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. J. M. Tripovich, for the Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province) , the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

LUTHERAN CHURCH OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIAN

DISTRICT INCORPORATION BILL. The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE

(Minister of Public Works).-I move--

That this Bill be now read a second time.

As the recitals in the measure indi­cate, the United Evangelical Lutheran Church in Australia Victoria District and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Australia (Victorian District) have agreed to unite and to form an association to be called the Lutheran

Church of Australia Victorian Dis­trict, and the purpose of the Bill is to incorporate the proposed new association. The history of the de­cision for union between the two bodies is that conventions of each of them were held in November, 1966, which resolved that the two churches be combined and in March, 1968, the first regular convention of the new body resolved that draft legislation for the incorporation of the Lutheran Church of Australia Victorian Dis­trict be adopted. Earlier this year~ representations were received from the church authorities for the intro­duction of the necessary legislation and the present measure has been drafted in consultation with the legal advisers of the church.

Honorable members will be aware that from time to time various Gov­ernments have introduced legislation dealing with aspects of the affairs of churches, and this Bill is introduced in accordance with the practice that has been established. In this case, of course, the purpose of the proposed legislation is to give statutory effect to a union of church bodies. It is interesting to note that the Methodist Union Act 1902 had a similar pur­pose.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 is the usual short title provision. Clause 2 defines various expressions used in the Bill. Clause 3 provides for the repeal of the legis­lation incorporating the churches which have now united, whilst clause 4 incorporates the Lutheran Church of Australia Victorian District.

Clause 5 sets out the various powers of the church. Clauses 6 and 7 deal with the vesting in the church of the property specified in the Third Schedule and also property held in trust for any congregation of either of the two churches which have agreed to unite or of the church which is to be incorporated by the Bill.

Clause 8 empowers the church to lease and otherwise deal with pro­perty vested in it, but subject to any

884 Stock Diseases [COUNCIL.] (Composite Licences) Bill.

prohibition in the trusts to which the property is subject. Clause 9 requires the proprietors of land in Tasmania described in the Fourth Schedule to take the action necessary to have the church registered as proprietor of the land.

Clause 10 provides for amendment of the Fifth Schedule. The First Schedule sets out the constitution of the church. The Second Schedule provides for the repeal of the Acts incorporating the churches which have united. The Third Schedule describes the property referred to in clause 6 of the Bill. The Fourth Schedule describes the property re­ferred to in clause 9 of the Bill. The Fifth Schedule defines the powers of the church in relation to the conduct of its property and other affairs. 1 commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, November 2.

STOCK DISEASES (COMPOSITE LICENCES) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Octo­ber 12) on the motion of the Hon. G. L. Chandler (Minister of Agricul­ture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province).-This measure simply pro­vides for one composite fee to be paid in respect of licences to collect food refuse for feeding to stock and for premises used for the collection, storage and feeding to stock of food refuse. There is no reason for the Labor Party to oppose the measure, as the proposed composite fee is a generous concession. All honorable members understand the necessity for strict supervision over such acti­vities and premises, and although the concession will not involve a sub­stantial loss of revenue it will assist those people who are engaged in the activity. The Labor Party supports the Bill.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (West­ern Province).-I support the remarks of Mr. Kent, but I should like to say a little more about the issues involved in the measure. In order to avoid outbreak of foot and mouth disease in this country, incinerators are being installed at various ports. One is in operation at Portland and I think the installation for the port of Melbourne is in course of construction, and should be completed soon. Victoria should do everything possible to avoid this dreaded disease being brought into the country, and the principal Act affords some assistance in this respect. However, I contend that canned meats should not be im­ported into this State because such products can be a source of the disease. Considering the small quan­tityof canned meat which is imported, in the interests of the State such imports should be prohibited. The Country Party supports the principle of a single licence fee as proposed in the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Composite licence).

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 agree with Mr. Kent that foot and mouth disease is one of the most dreaded stock diseases in the world and so far as possible this measure will minimize any outbreaks occurring in Victoria.

Mr. Mitchell referred to the instal­lation of incinerators at ports. 1 became involved in this matter at meetings of the Australian Agricul­tural Council when the Common­wealth Government was trying to force upon the States a proposition whereby the States would meet 50 per cent of the capital cost of these incinerators. It nearly became an accomplished fact. However, run­ning true to form, the Victorian

Stock Diseases [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Composite Licences) Bill. 1885

Government was not prepared to accept what is purely a Common­wealth responsibility in the field of quarantine.

I think it is true to say that nearly all ports along the Victorian coast have incinerators in operation. Some trouble has been encountered at Welshpool-Mr. May will know the position there-where due to local development in the past few years the port has been developed, and at this stage I do not think anybody is particularly happy with the set-up. The position is being watched closely. The incinerator at Portland is in opera­tion and the one for the port of Mel­bourne is either in operation or close to it. Accordingly, it is not now a real issue between the Common­wealth and the State Government.

Victoria is fortunate not to have such a length of coastline as Queens­land along which many ports have been established. An outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Australia would be a tragedy for the stock industry. This measure deals basically with the possibility of infection coming through the refuse which is fed to pigs. It will close up an existing loop­hole and will make the administration a little smoother. The fees to be charged are more reasonable than they were under the original legisla­tion and I think they are acceptable to the industry.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL.-Does the Minister feel that the importation of canned meats should be permitted or that it should be prohibited?

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-If Mr. Mitchell has a specific complaint in this direction, I shall take the matter up with the appropriate officers. One has to be careful when moving into the import field. A big market exists for Australian canned meats in the United States of America. Authorities in the United States of America are concerned to prevent the spread of foot and mouth disease from South American countries. If we get too deeply involved in this

Session 1971.-67

field we are likely to run up against a quota system as we have with beef exports to the United States of America. The United States of America feels an obligation to help South American nations by import­ing canned meats from those countries. If that is affected to any great extent, I think ·a quota will be imposed on Australia. So far as imports are concerned, and the pos­sibility of infection being caused by canned meats, I think that risk has been minimized. The Commonwealth authorities have been very particular in handling matters within that field. However, if the Committee requires further information about what is tak­ing place and about the possibility of imports causing infection, I shall have the matter investigated further.

The clause was agreed to, as was the remaining clause.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

GEE LONG HARBOR TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Octo­ber 26) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister of Public Works) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province).-In his second-reading explanatory speech, the Minister of Public Works pointed out that many of the provisions of this measure are self-explanatory. The Bill deals with matters which are re]evant to the Geelong Harbor Trust such as the taking and enforc­ing of securities, and charges in con­nection with the abandonment of a vessel. A new section 79A is being inserted in the principal Act. I t re­lates to exemptions from rates, tolls or charges, and also deals with dam­age to wharfs or sheds.

1886 Geelong Harbor Trust~ ~COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

However, as the Minister indicated in dealing with another measure, this Bill allows a penalty to be in­curred twice on a person who 'com­mits a pollution offence. Clause 10 of the proposed legislation states-

For section 110 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following section:-

" 110. (1) Where any refuse rubbish ·earth or other matter or any dangerous inflam­mable corrosive or offensive liquid is put or is permitted to fall or flow into any part of the port the person who put or allowed that refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid to fall or flow into any part of the port shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and w here the -refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid was put or was allowed to flow or fall from a vessel into any part of the port the master of the vessel shall also be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Penalty: $5,000.

(2) Nothing in this s·ection shall affect the powers of the Commissioners to undertake reclamation work in the port or to permit reclamation work in the port in any place or in any manner approved by the Com­missioners."

The relevant words in that clause are "shall also be guilty of an offence against this Act" . A penalty is imposed twice for one offence. After discussing this aspect with the Minister and Parliamentary Counsel, I believe the Minister will take steps to rectify the position. The Opposi­tion does not oppose this measure.

As oil has been discovered off the coast our port authorities could find themselves placed in a disadvan­tageous position because eventually crude oil which has been discovered will be carried by pipeline to the two main oil refineries in Victoria, namely, the Shell refinery at Corio, and the Mobil-Esso installation at Altona. The loss of oil cargoes will significantly reduce revenue received by the port authorities from wharf­age charges imposed on overseas ships which bring oil to the ports. If the fall in wharfage rates on oil cargoes is too great, the Melbourne Harbor Trust, the Geelong Harbor Trust and the Portland Harbor Trust may find it necessary to increase wharfage charges. The Opposition

The Hon. A. W. Knight.

believes that any such proposal should be examined with extreme care, because it could lead to a reduc­tion in cargoes coming in and out of the ports.

As I have already said, other matters in the measure are self­explanatory. The Opposition's only objection to this measure relates to proposed new section 100, contained in clause 10, which will permit a penalty to be imposed twice. As honorable members are aware, that is against all principles of British justice. Of course, the shipping companies are paying for the pollu­tion, but I do not think they should have to pay twice for the one offence. I think the provisions of this measure will enable the Geelong Harbor Trust to further its develop­ment of the port of Geelong.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (West­ern Province).-This is one of a series of Bills concerning harbor trusts which have been introduced by the Minister of Public Works. I shall not say much about the port of Gee­long; I shall leave that to Mr. Jenkins.

The history of our ports is interest­ing. Some years ago I read a letter from a person who lived north of Portland stating that there was a good deal of concern at Portland that Geelong was taking trade away from there. Geelong did fairly well as the years went by and it is only in the past ten or fifteen years that Portland has regained some of that trade. It is interesting to know that ports are jealous of each other. It keeps the harbor trusts alert and fighting for trade for their areas.

At Geelong in 1958 a commit­tee was formed and people paid in money to develop their area. Some­times I wonder whether, today, the Government is trying to do too much for everybody instead of allowing people to use their own initiative. In saying that I am not referring only to harbor trusts; I am speaking generally. We could reach a stage where, like a child who has been fed

Geelong Harbor Trust [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1887

,everything, we lose our own initia· tive. I wonder if we are doing that in our present society.

As with almost every Bill that is introduced into this House, this measure provides for increased fees. In almost every instance an increase of 50 per cent or 100 per cent is proposed-so much so that we have become used to it. I do not agree with this because, after all, we are attempting to curb inflation. I think the Government should consider this aspect. The Country Party supports the Bill.

The Hon. O. G. JENKINS (South­Western Province) .-1 could not let this occasion pass without saying something about Geelong. As Mr. Mitchell has said, he deferred to me. I do not altogether agree that jeal­ousy existed between the ports of Geelong and Portland. I think it could be better described as friendly rivalry. The facilities and services at both ports are of a high standard.

As Mr. Mitchell has said, this Bill is one of a series to cover the ports of Victoria and many clauses are common to each measure and have a common purpose. As the Minister said in his second-reading explanatory speech, the port of Gee­long is primarily a bulk port. The principal products which are handled there are oil and refinery products. Wheat is the product of next impor­tance and alumina-I am not using the American expression for "alu­minium "; I am referring to the white alumina powder which is imported from Western Australia-phosphatic rock and coal are also handled in bulk. The port is modem by any standards and has first-class facilities which enable the handling of a variety of cargoes. The port has a high reputation within the shipping industry and any ship which visits the port is assured of prompt and efficient service.

In recent times a new roll-on roll­off facility has been developed, and although great use has not been made of the facility to date, it is

available and it will be of particular use in handling newer types of vessels and cargoes which those vessels may carry, such as steel from Japan for the Ford company and partly assembled cars which are exported to New Zealand and South­East Asia to be assembl~d in those areas.

The port is well served by its three commissioners. The chairman is Sir Roy Fidge, who is well known to a number of members of this Chamber. He is ably supported by Mr. E. W. McCann, O.B.E. and Mr. Gordon Murray. These commissioners and their predecessors have given won­derful service to Geelong and the port of Geelong. There is no doubt that the port of Geelong has been the axis about which the whole of the Geelong area has developed.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-It is called the pivot.

The Hon. O. G. JENKINS.-That is so. It was the foresight of the former chairman, Mr. Spencer NaIl, and others, who saw the need for providing land for future industry, that has allowed Geelong to develop so rapidly in the past 40 years. Most of the principal industries in Geelong including Shell, International Harves­ter, and the Ford Motor Company, have been established on land which was made available initially at a reas­onable cost by the Geelong Harbor Trust. Even today the trust has sub­stantial land vested in it at Break­water, which is in the south-eastern corner of Geelong. Other areas of land are available in the vicinity of the port for new industries if they desire to come to the Geelong area.

In recent times a new development has been undertaken in the handling of coarse grain. A number of tria] shipments have been arranged for sorghum, maize and sunflower. In more recent weeks the export of bagged rice has been a new feature.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Is there not a depth problem for large vessels at the port?

1888 Geelong Harbor Trust [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

The Hon. O. G. JENKINS.-No, the entrance to the port of Geelong has been dredged to the same depth as the entrance to Port Phillip Bay and if a vessel can enter Port Phillip Bay, it can enter the port of Geelong. In addition, substantial realignment and enlargement of the channels have taken place so that large tankers can be handled at the port.

The harbor trust commissioners, in conjunction with a shipping company in the port, have conducted a num­ber of trial shipments of coarse grain and they appear to be quite success­ful. In the main, this grain comes from southern New South Wales and in handling it the port of Geelong is in competition mainly with the port of Newcastle. At present the State Development Committee is investi­gating the handling of coarse grain generally and I hope that the com­mittee can make an early assess­ment of the needs and present a report on the best way that facilities can be developed to handle coarse grain shipments in Victoria.

Mr. Knight stated that an increase in port fees at Geelong might be necessary because of the decrease in the amount of bulk oil handled. Yesterday he asked a question on notice concerning the rates charged for overseas general cargo in ports throughout Australia. I was pleased to note that the port of Geelong has the lowest import and export rates in Australia. In fact, the import rate at Geelong is only 50 cents a ton compared with $1 a ton for Mel­bourne and the export rate for Gee­long is 30 cents a ton compared with 40 cents a ton for Melbourne. I understand from the commissioners that there is no present intention of increasing the rates for the port of Geelong. Despite skilled management there may be a need to increase the charges in the long term.

The port of Geelong will be eco­nomically viable even if shipments of oil and refinery products are reduced. Facilities have been developed pro­gressively and the port is able to

make a substantial surplus each year. The commissioners have applied their funds and resources well.

I hope there will be an increase in the general cargo handled by the port. The bulk cargoes are sub­stantial and facilities are available to increase the general cargoes handled. The port of Geelong is in a position to service the areas to the west and to the south-west of Mel­bourne and to provide a quick and alternative service.

I have conferred with the commis­sioners on the amendments contained in the Bill and they are welcomed by them. They will facilitate the admini­stration of the port and will correct a number of anomalies. Therefore, I commend the Bill to the House.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second tim'e and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Contracts for use of improvements) .

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 thank honorable members for their unanimous support of this small measure and also for their kind words about the Geelong Harbor Trust and the work it does. Australia is a continent and we are as depen­dent today upon sea transportation as we were 200 years ago, despite the fact that remarkable advances have been made in air, rail and road transportation, all of which are high­ly subsidized by the community. It is my view that within the next ten years there will have to be consider­able changes in all the major ports in Australia and the community will obviously have to be far more in­volved in the development of ports than it has been in the past.

Mr. Knight was good enough to examine this Bill in some detail 6efore this debate was resumed and he brought to my attention a query on clause 10. I shaH deal with it

Geelong Harbor Trust [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1889

when the clause is called on. How­ever, I thank Mr. Knight for bringing it to my attention.

Mr. Mitchell raised an interesting point about the value of the t~ust and he said that it is a good Idea that local people are able to look after local affairs and that they do not get full credit for the work they do in this field. The sentiments that Mr. Mitchell expressed can be truly applied to the Geelong Harbor T~ust and they are good arguments agaInst the views of some people and the moves by certain groups in the com­munity to establish a marine board to control all of the ports of Victoria and moves by the Commonwealth Government for it to have over-riding control over all ports in Australia.

It has been an interesting experi­ence for me to be associated with these trusts because I had no prior knowledge of ports and shipping. I confirm the comments made by Mr. Jenkins. The commissioners of the Geelong Harbor Trust are local. m~n who are dedicated to and enthusIastIc about their local port. The local community gives complete support to the development of the port and this cannot be bought. It has not generally obtained in Government departments as a whole .. The com­missioners do a worthy Job for the area and they are ably supported by the local community.

Mr. Jenkins was an excellent sales­man for Geelong. He is following in the footsteps of his predecessor, Mr. Thorn. I thank him for the history and the background of the port and I confirm the comments he has made about the commissioners. I have the fullest confidence in the Geelong Harbor Trust. It may be experiencing difficulty beca~se of th.e decline in the amount of 011 and 011 products handled there, but there is plenty of evidence of development of the port for other cargoes. I shall be interested to read the report of the State Development Committee on coarse grains, but I am satisfied that the Geelong Harbor Trust will stand on its own feet in the future.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 3 to 9.

Clause 10, providing, inter alia­For section 110 of the Principal Act there

shall be substituted the following section:-

"110. (1) Where any refuse rubbish earth or other matter or any dangerous inflammable corrosive or offensive liquid is put or is permitted to fall or flow into any part of the port the person who put or allowed that refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid to fall or flow into any part of the port shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and wh~re. the refuse rubbish earth matter or bqUid was put or was allowed to flow or fall from a vessel into any part of the port the master of the vessel shall also be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Penalty: $5,000."

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-This clause deals with offences and pen­alties relating to ports. It increases the penalties for various offences to $5,000, which is in line with. the provisions contained in the EnVIron­ment Protection Act. Mr. Knight indicated that under the provisions of this clause it would be possible that two persons could be fined for the one offence. It was not my intention that this should be so. In fairness to the Parliamentary Counsel I must state that a similar provision has been included in practically every other similar piece of legislation on the statute-book. I am told that in all cases it is practically impossible to sheet an offence home against a sailor because he has to be identified. The master is the responsible person and he is the one who is charged. However, to clarify the position, I propose to move an amendment to the clause. I now move-

That, in sub-section (1) of proposed new section 110, as contained in clause 10, the words "shall also be guilty of an offence against this Act" be omitted with the view of inserting the words "shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence but shall not be liable for any penalty where the actual offender is convicted for the offence".

I hope that will make clear that only one person can be convicted of this offence at anyone time.

1890 Geelong Harbor Trust [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Mel­bourne West Province) .-1 am grate­ful to the Minister for suggesting this amendment. As I said earlier, two persons could incur the penalty, which is against all justice. One person should be responsible, and the amendment will remove any doubt. I believe such matters should be spelt out explicitly. I thank the Min­ister for his consideration of the matter brought to his attention.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province). - This appears to me to be a peculiar provision. Where there are two offenders, one will incur a penalty and the other will not. The Minister should have proposed the removal of a word or two to overcome the problem. If the word "also" were removed from sub-section (1) of new section 110, the responsibility would be that of the master of the vessel. If he wanted to penalize anyone on his ship for dropping something into the port, that would be his affair. I do not think two people can be guilty of one offence. Under the proposal, one person could be fined $5,000 and another let off. Even the amendment proposed by the Minister makes the master of the vessel liable even if the offence can be sheeted home to someone else. The master should be the responsible person and he should have to 'chase up the of­fender.

I agree with Mr. Knight that two persons cannot be found guilty of the same offence, but the amend­ment does not clarify that point. I should prefer the word "also" to be omitted so that the master of the vessel would be liable and he would have to chase up the person who dropped anything from the ship. Anyone who has travelled in ships knows that various things are put down the chute at various times. If a steward has an argument with the chief steward his only method of vengeance is to push something down the chute so that the chief steward has to pay the penalty because he gets the benefit of the returns when

the ship comes back. If a steward is going to throw something down the chute the master should be respon­sible for sheeting home the offence. The Minister might have another look at the sub-section with a view to removing the word " also ". I do not favour the amendment.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works).-The first point is that there are not two offences. There is one offence for pollution as indicated in proposed section 110. I think it is fairly clear tha t only one person can be convicted of the offence. On the other hand, it is not suggested that a person other than the master who can be identified and who may be polluting, although certainly without the knowledge of the master, should not be convicted of an offence. I do not think it would be wise to exclude everyone connected with the ship and who pollutes from being prosecuted under this provision. If that were done, the master would be in an impossible position and there would be no deter­rent against anyone associated with shipping to refrain from doing as they liked. Certainly, it is proposed to make the master the prime person responsible.

However, if a person is seen deliberately polluting and he can be identified, I see no reason why he should not be liable. Such a person could be a man walking along a wharf and who drops rubbish into the harbor. He will be responsible under this provision. Why should anyone be exempt if he pollutes any port or waterway? I do not know whether Mr. Swinburne intends that, but under his proposal he would give immunity to everyone associated with the ship to pollute whenever he wants to, and the person responsible, the master, may be away visiting his wife or interstate. For those reasons, I believe there is merit in the amend­ment. As Mr. Knight pointed out, two persons should not be convicted for the one offence, but certainly one person should be responsible.

Geelong Harbor Trust [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1891

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province).-I might be thick in the skull, but sub-section (1) of proposed section 110 provides, in part-

Where any refuse rubbish earth or other matter or any dangerous inflammable cor­rosive or offensive liquid is put or is per­mitted to fall or flow into any part of the port-

H has to fall from the ship, so the offender must be a member of the crew, or someone on the ship. Further, it provides that the master of the vessel shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence but shall not be liable for any penalty where the actual offender is convicted for the offence. So there are two offences; two persons are deemed to be guilty of the offence. One person will be fined and the other will not be fined. I do not agree with that proposal. I should think if the responsibility were left with the master of the ship that would be preferable. He is in charge while the ship is at sea; surely he is in charge when it is in port.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 am grateful for Mr. Swinburne's help, but if an offender is identified and convic­ted the master is not responsible.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-The master is deemed to be gUilty.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Not when the actual offender is convicted of the offence.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province).-This sub­section seems to me to contemplate a possible offence by a person who may not be on the ship.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Of course, it does. The master is guilty of an offence whether someone else is convicted or not.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.­Somebody on a wharf, passing by, may throw refuse or rubbish into the port.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-It has to be thrown from the vessel.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y.-No. 1 am pOinting out that provision should be made to cover a bystander or someone with a load of rubbish in a truck and who dumps it in the harbor. Tha t seems to be covered by the Bill. Under the Health Act, both the proprietor and the servant are liable in connection with the sale of adulterated food, and so on. Where the prosecution establishes that a certain person made the sale, it is unusual to seek a conviction against both the proprietor and the servant. This sub-section seems to contem­plate an offence which may have nothing to do with the shipowner and be quite unrelated to the ship. It may be desirable to put that provision in another section. 1 have had a look at it only as the debate has been flowing.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-Mr. Galbally is quite correct. There is no question that the person who pollutes can be caught up in the section, and that is the intention. Where a ship is concerned, in most cases the offen­der cannot be identified or apprehen­ded because one would need an army of persons to watch ships in a port all the time. Where there is rubbish alongside a ship and there is no evidence as to the person who threw it from the ship but the oil and many other things can be identified, the master is liable. It is also possible for a member of the crew to be liable. Prosecutions have failed in a number of cases because the crew member responsible could not be identified. The intention is to take action against anyone who throws rubbish, refuse and other offensive material into a port. If it comes from a ship the master is responsible, but that does not prevent a member of the crew, a passenger or someone who works on the ship from being liable also.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province). - I thoroughly agree with what Mr. Gal­bally has said, but his remarks relate to the first portion of the sub-section

1892 Veterinary Surgeons [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

which provides, in effect, that a per­son who drops anything into the port shall be guilty of an offence. The sub-section also provides that where the refuse, rubbish, and so on, is allowed to flow or fall from a vessel into the port, the master of the vessel shall be guilty of the offence but shall not be liable for any penalty where the actual offender is con­victed. 1 do not agree with what is being done.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province). - The penalty prescribed under the sub­section is $5,000. That would seem to be a little high for a person who dumps a load of rubbish. I suggest that this sub-section should be broken up into two portions.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 am anxious to make this provision as good as possible. We are all in agree­ment that action must be taken along these lines. Penalties can be left to the court to determine from the nature of the offence. I shall be happy to have the draftsman examine this provision so that there will be no doubt about the position. A number of other Bills have been drafted in a similar fashion, and my amendment was designed to cover the problem raised by Mr. Knight. I shall be happy to postpone the debate so that the matter can be further examined.

Progress was reported.

VETERINARY SURGEONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Octo­ber 20) on the motion of the Hon. G. L. Chandler (Minister of Agri­culture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-With the scientific ad­vance in farming and developments in animal husbandry, quite drama­tic changes have taken place in atti­tudes, veterinary services and growth, and also in the number of veterinary surgeons registered and practising in Victoria. This has been attributed to

the establishment of the veterinary school at the University of Mel­bourne, to which the people of Vic­toria have made generous contribu­tions.

Some years ago, the veterinary work in country areas was carried out by bush veterinarians who were unregistered but worked under hard conditions and served a useful pur­pose to the local communities. Not only has a new attitude towards animal husbandry been developed but a need, accentuated by pastoral development, has arisen for a greater number of veterinarians. Formerly, many animals died from lack of nourishment. Recently, as the result of intensive pasture develop­ment, some imbalance in nutrition has arisen, and animals are being lost through over-developed pastures. This has provided a dramatic demand for added veterinary services. A total of 722 veterinary surgeons are registered in Victoria, two-thirds of whom practise in country areas. A lucrative field also exists in the domestic pet industry which some­times makes it difficult for the demands of the farming community to be met.

I pay tribute to the veterinary services carried out by the officers of the Department of Agriculture, who are dedicated and provide a high standard of service to the farming community. Frequently these veteri­nary officers have to make themselves available under unpleasant conditions.

The main purpose of the Bill is to amend the Veterinary Surgeons Act to provide a full-time registrar and adequate office staff for the Veterin­ary Registration Board. At present the registrar works in a voluntary capa­city, and it is not reasonable that this should continue.

It is obvious that the present life­time registration of veterinarians cannot continue, and that an annual registration fee should be provided. A fee of $10 would be sufficient. This would enable the exercise of stricter

Veterinary Surgeons [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment)· Bill. 1893'

control over an essential service which is having a good effect on the animal industry in Victoria. Other provisions impose penalties for breaches of the principal Act. Clause 3 accepts the university degrees con­ferred by the University of Queens­land and the Massey University of New Zealand. The agricultural indus­try in New Zealand is said to be one of the most advanced in the world and it is fitting that the degree from that university should be accepted in this State. Provision is also made for conditions to be prescribed for vete­rinary surgeons. The Bill is worthy of our support, and 1 commend it to honorable members.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-Members of the Country Party support the re­latively small amendments to the Veterinary Surgeons Act. Mr. Kent has outlined the main provisions of the Bill, which will enable the board responsible for the registration of veterinarians to consider applications from graduates of the University of Queensland and the Massey U niver­sity of New Zealand. Mr. Kent has also referred to the increased number of veterinarians in recent years. Veterinarians in Australia have gra­duated from the two major schools in New South Wales and Queensland, and more recently from the re-estab­lished veterinary school at the Uni-' versity of Melbourne.

The second important amend­ment in the Bill provides for an annual registration fee of $10 a head to be used to update the method of registration and defray the costs of the general administration of the Veterinary Registration Board. The operations of the board are now of such a mag­nitude that its administration cannot be carried on a voluntary basis. It is now desirable that the board should have its own full-time adminis­trative staff. Members of the Coun­try Party believe the provisions of the Bill are worthy of support.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2, providing for regulations.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 thank Mr. Kent and Mr. McDonald for their comments. The provisions of this Bill will put the veterinary profession on a similar basis to that of dentis­try and medicine, and will update the registration system whereby the board will have its own full-time administrative staff and control the profession. Penalties are also to be increased. The veterinary school in Melbourne was closed down in 1928 at a time when only one student was attending. The school reopened in 1967 and in due course 38 students graduated. The number attending the course has been in the thirties ever since.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.-It is a most profitable profession.

The Han. G. L. CHANDLER.-Mr. McDonald may say so, but 1 do not know. 1 pay tribute to the veterinary schools in Sydney and Brisbane be­cause for many years they have pro­vided Victoria with veterinarians. Honorable members would agree that the school in Brisbane is battling under difficult conditions, but some fine veterinarians have graduated. 1 thank the honorable members for their comments relating to the veterin­arians of the Department of Agri­culture. Wherever one goes in the State one finds that the relationship existing between the veterinarians and the farmers who use their ser­vices is of the highest order.

The clause was agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

1894 Reduction of [COUNCIL.] Voting Age Bill.

REDUCTION OF VOTING AGE BILL.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

I will not tax the patience of the House by repeating the reasons I offered the House when I introduced a similar measure three years ago. I believe those arguments are even more valid today. Confronted with the dangerous might of the Executive, the impotence and irrelevance of Par­liament, I believe the answer to democracy is more democracy. That is what my Bill has in mind. Youth, with its ideals, its credulity, its aim at seeking a better world, its hor­ror at war, must be integrated and recognized into our political life. We ignore youth today at the peril of the survival of our political institu­tion. I believe that and I hope the House understands it. We must beware lest the process of govern­ment becomes so distant from young people as to become unacceptable to them. That is happening in certain quarters today. Some young people, including, I hop~, only a few students at our universities, have rejected our forms of government and openly and sincerely urge the overthrow of our society. We should not misunder­stand the issue. Their weapons are the injustice of having to fight abroad in a war which they do not under­stand and being denied a vote in the decision-making process of Australia going to war.

In Victoria their bitterness is in­creased by a recent decision of Par­liament to allow eighteen-year-olds to vote at municipal elections, but not at Parliamentary elections. They see the Parliamentary system in Vic­toria as one which has a Government and an Opposition which must never be allowed to govern. That is the system these young people believe exists in Victoria. I hope this Bill will remove the obvious and foolish inconsistency of an eighteen-year-old being allowed to vote in municipal elections but not in State e)p,ctions.

Broadly, why do we not enfranchise eighteen-year-olds today? I dealt with that matter before, but 1 made some reference to statistics. According to the Australian Year Book, in 1954 there were 29,000 students in univer­sities. In 1969, the total exceeded 100,000. That is the latest figure available. Today, I presume the number would be about 120,000. Besides the students at university, have we considered the many young people who have been given some form of tertiary education? I cannot give the House any figures, but our youth is receiving a form of tertiary education denied to it some years ago. In other words, the youth of today are better educated than some of us were, and they should not be excluded from our Parliamentary system.

I still believe that in Australia the governed ought to govern. The aspirations and ideals of youth must be allowed to flower in the commun­ity. The march of ideals cannot be stopped. Elephants cannot clear mosquitoes from a swamp. Youth cannot be prevented from entertain­ing these ideals. If we cannot lick them, let them join us, to put it crudely. Regrettably, many young people are justifiably cynical of gov­ernment in Australia. I know some of my remarks will not find fav­our, but let us face facts. I have had experience on the councils of two universities, the University of Melbourne years ago, and now the La Trobe University. As one gets older it does not become easier.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-I have discovered that.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Yes, but we must not live in an ivory tower. Most of the students are dedicated people. They perhaps express it differently, but they see the power and authority of the State Parliaments broken by the Common­wealth Government. By the Govern­ment I mean the Ministers, not the Parliament, but primarily the Com­monwealth Government. The law students particularly see the Federal

Reduction of [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Voting Age Bill. 1895

Constitution twisted to enable the Commonwealth Government to do as it pleases. It is twisted in a way which would seem inconceivable to the framers of the Constitution and the ideals of the founders of Federa­tion in Australia. These young people see a drowsy numbness which puzzles the will of our legislatures because we have been rendered, in many respects, impotent. The apparatus for reform is there but that apparatus is merely the ghost of the past. How do we seek to restore the confidence of youth in our traditional forms of government? Tackle it we must, or risk our country's future.

Our life in Australia, selfish, pre­datory, cynical, hard-hearted, is a paradise compared to conditions under which many people in the world are compelled to live. I do not wish to surrender it. There is no real conflict between youth and old age, only an imaginary one.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-It is only that we cannot keep up with them.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y.-Many of these young people are so ener­getic that it is hard to keep up with them. They are educated, industri­ous, able. Let us not underestimate them; we are the ones who are letting them down. They no longer believe in us and in our Government to lead Australia where it should be led.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-Are the young people all in favour of this voting age of eighteen years?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y.-I have not been able to ask them all. Some people will always be afraid of change.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Even people over 21.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Just as some people who attain the age of eighteen years may not be mature enough to be trusted with the vote, many people in their fifties and sixties have not reached the desired maturity to vote in an enlightened

democracy. The line must be drawn somewhere. There is no magic about 21, but it persisted for many cen· turies. I have explained the origins of that to the House. Twenty-one was the age when it was considered a person had the strength of charac­ter to go to battle. However, with the healthier youth of today, with modern medicines, and so on, child­ren develop more rapidly than they did years ago.

Look at the great athletes we have produced! No one would suggest that the average 18-year-old in the com­munity is intellectually handicapped. Most of them are as sharp as tacks. They are quick to resent pomposity, hypocrisy, and lack of leadership in the community.

The Hon. W. V. HouGHToN.-The greatest human endeavour requires men of 40 years of age. I am referring to the astronauts.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-That is a subject with which I am not familiar. I do not think any age is magical. I believe that Australia, not just Victoria, requires the goodwill of our children, their courage, and their passion for justice. Youth cannot be blamed altogether, but I detect in the community a certain cynicism about government in Australia. I regret it but it is to be noticed among the adult community as well as among young people. That casts a heavy burden on people in public life.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-Is that not true in democracies everywhere? The same situation applies in the United Kingdom and in the United States of America.

The Hon. H. M~ HAMILToN.-The same thing applied in ancient Greece, too.

Tho Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-In the civilization of every country" there are high points and low points. There is a mood of frustration all over the world. Whether this can be· attributed to our realization that man has now invented a means by which he can blot out civilization and man· kind. I do not know.

1896 Information [COUNCIL.] Storages Bill .

. ' My main concern is to integrate into our society, and into our tradi­tional methods of government, the youth of this community. I see that as a great issue today. So many of our youth fall by the wayside and into a life of crime. I am not now talking about university students but about another aspect relating to all our young people. We realize that a number of children in the community will finish up either in goal or in an asylum.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Do you think giving them a vote once in three years will stop that?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-No, I do not, but I believe that this Bill is a small token of our understanding of youth. Let the Government not trifle with it for, if it does, it is trifl­ing with our destiny.

On the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister of Public Works), for the Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Wednesday, Novem­ber 3.

INFORMATION STORAGES BILL. The debate (adjourned from Octo­

ber 20) on the motion of the Hon. G. J. Nicol (Monash Province) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-As you know, Mr. President, I have been a member of this House for a long time now, but this is the first time I have ever been called upon to take up the second-reading debate on a private member's Bill introduced by a mem­ber of the Government party. I hope that now one member of the Govern­ment party has broken the ice, we shall see more of these Bills.

Mr. Nicol must have put consider­able effort into the production of this measure. The House is indebted to the honorable member for his second­reading speech and the interesting figures and information which he

gave. The Labor Party intends to support the Bill because its principle appeals to its members. There may be some minor problems of drafts­manship which will appear, but they can be dealt with during the Commit­tee stage.

The principle enunciated by the Bill is that people who collect infor­rna tion on other people for gain ought to have the responsibility thrust on them of seeing that the informa­tion is accurate. Although the Bill does not say so, it would seem that the sort of information in mind is that having to do with a person's financial standing and his ability to obtain credit and so on. In that field, accuracy is essential and the Bill sets out to thrust the onus fairly and squarely where it belongs, on the person who collects the information.

I had thought that, perhaps, the Bill was wide enough to cover a newspaper which stores information about a person so that, when he dies and passes on to whatever place we go- and even the newspapers can­not tell us where that is-the news­paper is understandably ready to write an obituary. If the provision were wide enough to cover newspapers, then, for the first time in our history, we would be able to write our own obituaries because, on paying a fee of $5, one could ask to see the stored information and correct it. However, I am afraid that this delightful pros­pect must be excluded from the compass of the Bill as it was never intended to cover any such purpose. I direct Mr. Nicol's attention to sub­clause (2) of clause 2 which states, inter alia-

This Act does not apply to or in relation to-

(a) an information storage maintained by a single person or body cor­porate or unincorporate for the purposes of that person -or body only ..

The matter can easily be dealt with. I am sure that Mr. Nicol did not have the fourth estate in mind when con­sidering the provisions relating to in­formation- storages. I say this in a light-hearted way.

Information [27 OCTOB"ER, 1971.] Storages Bill. 1897

There is a question whether the fee of $5 is a little high, having regard to the type of person who may want to examine the information. Ob­viously, the person concerned will be the one who does not have much money. Otherwise, he would not be an applicant for credit to buy what­ever chattels or goods are concerned.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Is Mr. Galbally referring to goods bought on hire purchase?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Not necessarily; it could be a woman going into Myers to buy clothes for the baby on a time payment basis. She could be told that the firm would not supply her because reports about her were not too good. If she wanted to follow that up, she would have to pay $5, and that would probably be money that could be better used in another way. 1 comment to Mr. Nicol that, although 1 accept that some fee should be extracted, it should only be nominal.

Clause 9, which refers to applica­tions to the court under clause 8, is silent on who has the onus of estab­lishing the accuracy of the informa­tion. That should be put fairly and squarely on the person who conducts the information storage. 1 have diffi­culty in remembering that name. No doubt, many names were thought of, but the term "information storage" does not seem to roll easily off the tongue. 1 suggest that, if the pro­prietor of an information storage is summoned to court, he should be called upon to support the accuracy of the information. That information is what he would be supplying and, unless he agreed to withdraw it, he should be compelled to establish its accuracy.

These are minor matters and they should not obscure the fact that a great principle is at stake. Mr. Nicol has sailed his barque into unchartered waters, like Ulysses of old. I hope his journey to wherever it is he goes is successful and that it will take less than the ten years it took" Ulysses to return to Greece.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-1 first indicate the support of the Country Party, in general terms, of the Bill introduced by Mr. Nicol. My party believes that the principle of the Bill is desirable. However, my colleagues and I have a few reservations. The first relates to whether the prOVIsIons of the Bill are the best method of achiev­ing what Mr. Nicol desires. 1 suggest that, in setting out to bring in some form of control over persons or organizations which store information for gain, as Mr. Galbally put it, Mr. Nicol has embraced every person, organization, or corporation which may collect information.

Clause 2 provides for a number of exemptions. There are one or two cases, which 1 shall cite in a moment, in which it may be better to approach the problem in another way and to specify directly the type of individual or organization at which the Bill is aimed. During Mr. Nicol's second­reading speech, 1 raised the matter of records kept by Hospitals and Charities Commission officers by means of a computerized method and whether they would come under the exemption of clause 2. Mr. Nicol stated that they would, but 1 suggest that if a particular hospital collects this information and has it available for use by another hospital that in­formation may not come under the exemption.

Mr. Galbally also referred to the practices that take place in normal banking and commercial operations where information is obtained of the reliability or credit rating of particu­lar persons or organizations. 1 should like Mr. Nicol to look at this point at a later stage and inform me whether this is completely covered by clause 2.

The other reservation 1 have con­cerns Mr. Nicol's fears of the poten­tial dangers deriving from the new technology of electronic data pro­cessing. Considerable advantages are to be gained from this technique, but in the field of credit agencies, debt" collecting, and so on, there are some

1898 Wrongs (Industrial [COUNCIL.] Accidents) Bill.

obvious dangers if the procedures are carried too far. Undoubtedly this is one of the reasons why Mr. Nicol has introduced the Bill.

I shall raise one or two further pOints during the Committee stage. In general terms my party supports the Bill, but has some small reser­vations on the manner in which Mr. Nicol has approached the problem. It may have been better to have nominated the type of individual or organization that Mr. Nicol is setting out to control, rather than to pro­duce an all-embracing measure and then provide for a number of exemp­tions. I do not share the same fears that Mr. Nicol has about the over-all dangers associated with electronic data processing because in the broad picture great benefits can be derived from this procedure.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER (Monash Province) .-1 move-

That the debate be now adjourned.

I understand that next Friday there is to be a conference of Attorneys­General and that this matter may be considered at that conference.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and it was ordered that the debate be adjourned until Wednesday, Novem­ber 10.

WRONGS (INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENTS) BILL.

The Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill was read.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y (Mel­bourne North Province) .-By leave, I move-

That the Order of the Day, General Business, No.3, be postponed until later this day.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 under­stood that Mr. Galbally was not going on with this item. Would it be appropriate if it were taken off the Notice Paper?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) .-Yes, but 1 intend to proceed with it during the

next sessional period. However, I now suggest that it be postponed. until later this day.

The motion was agreed to.

VAGRANCY (AMENDMENT) BILL .. The Order of the Day for the re­

sumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill was read.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-By leavet

I wish to advise that in discussion with the Minister for Local Govern­ment I accepted the assurance the honorable gentleman gave to the House that he would not like to take this Bill to the point of forcing the Government to vote against it. The Minister would like a further period of some weeks in which to exa­mine it. I therefore suggest that this item be postponed until later this day.

The Order of the Day was post­poned until later this day.

ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL.

The debate (adjourned from Sep­tember 29) on the motion of the Hon. J. W. Galbally (Melbourne North Province) , for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER (Boronia Province) .-In reply to Mr. Gal­bally's case as submitted in his second-reading speech, 1 intend to follow two main courses. Firstly, I shall discuss the specific arguments advanced by Mr. Galbally and, secondly, 1 intend to discuss in a more general fashion the questions of capital punishment and the main­tenance of capital punishment.

In supporting the case for the abolition of capital punishment, Mr. GalbaUy referred to the history of the many inquiries which have been conducted into this question, and stated that most of these inquiries had resulted in a recommendation for abolition. 1 agree that this is so. Most of the inquiries have been set

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1899

up in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. Very few have been conducted in places out­side those two countries.

I suggest that when there is a public inquiry into a matter such as capital punishment, the matter is of more specific interest to those people who would wish to see capital punishment abolished. Some years ago when the Ryan execution was being discussed in the daily press the number of letters to the editors of Melbourne's daily newspapers ran ten to one in favour of abolition of capital punishment. It is a subject where those who are against capital punishment tend to state their case, and those who believe in its reten­tion tend to say nothing, because no one wishes to defend what he, in many ways, finds an embarrassing or difficult necessity. He does not like to see a person executed, but despite that he may believe that execution is the correct course, punishment, or deterrent for certain crimes. There are difficulties in the United Kingdom which do not apply to the State of Victoria, where the Executive Coun­cil, after a decision has been made that a person is guilty of the crime of murder, is charged with the respon­sibility of deciding whether the death penalty shall be carried out. Normally, of course, the result is a commutation of the sentence and the exception to the rule is that the Executive Council allows the pro­nounced sentence to be carried out.

Between the years 1949 and 1960, 123 executions were carried out in the United Kingdom. These execu­tions included 13 cases in which the jury had made a recommendation to mercy; 9 in which the jury had made a strong recommendation to mercy; and 1 in which the jury had made a very strong recommenda­tion to mercy. These 23 people for whom mercy had been recom­mended were all executed, so it is obvious that those who conducted the inquiry into capital punishment had this situation, which is a pretty ghastly one, in front of them. The

inquiry into capital punishment in the United Kingdom was conducted under circumstances which are much less just, much less honest, and much less fair than the situation obtaining in the State of Victoria.

In the United States of America, the aura surrounding any inquiry in that country also differs from the situation prevailing in the State of Victoria because, as honorable mem­bers know, it is the legal right of a citizen of the United States of America to bear arms. That right means that for that reason alone murder is much more prevalent in that country. If people have the legal right to bear arms, I suggest that it is axiomatic that the crime of murder is more common because of that fact alone. An inquiry into capital punishment in the United States of America would take cogni­zance of this fact.

Mr. Galbally also referred to wit­nesses of executions over the past 100 years who, after having seen an execution, changed their minds. They were retentionists who became abolitionists. He mentioned Thomas Hardy, who saw a woman being hanged, and then became an aboli­tionist. He also mentioned the case of Charles Dickens who witnessed the execution of the murderer, Curvoisier. Dickens also became an abolitionist. Mr. Galbally also men­tioned Albert Camus's work, Reflec­tions on the Guillotine, wherein the writer described how his father had been sickened after wit­nessing an execution. Mr. Galbally referred to the writer, Arthur Koestler, the author of many books on capital punishment, who himself was sentenced to death during the Spanish civil war, but who in some way avoided execution. I suggest that in this case Mr. Galbally made a strong case against public executions, and against hanging and guillotining as methods of execution, but he did not attack the subject of capital punishment itself. I should not like to be a witness to an

1900 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] " Punishment Bill.

execution and I do not believe that hanging is a good method of carrrying out an execution.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-How would you do it?

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-I shall come to that later. Mr. Galbally mentioned that public opinion has been veering towards the abolition of capital punishment. I suggest that currently it is intellectually fashion­able to be an abolitionist rather than a retentionist. At first sight it appears to be more humane to be an abolitionist than a retentionist and that is why retentionists are not so vocal in their support of capital punishment.

Mr. Galbally concluded by asking for a free vote on the Bill. He sug­gested that members of the Liberal Party should be permitted to exercise a conscience vote, and that members of the Country Party ought to be given the same right. As the abolition of capital punishment is a policy of the Australian Labor Party, members of that party will not be allowed to exercise a free vote. Other honorable members will refer to this aspect of Mr. Galbally's argument at a later stage.

As I said previously, an abolitionist tends on many occasions to be an emotional person. In many instances, he supports abolition because it is intellectually fashionable to do so. In many places, the abolitionist is completely logical when he assumes that capital punishment applies to all murders and murderers, but this is in fact not the case in Victoria. The retentionist seems to be old-fashioned and cruel. Publicity-wise, it is an unpopular view and it is argued that he is illogical when he supports capital punishment as being suitable for all murders and murderers. I believe a good case is made for the retention of capital punishment as a maximum punishment in certain cases, such as some cases of murder, aircraft-hijacking, drug-pushing and­possibly this would need to be exam-

ined-in the case of a person who has a persistent record of crimes and violence.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-What about crimes by hire-purchase com­panies which have distorted and per­haps destroyed certain people in the community?

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-I would limit capital punishment to crimes of the type to which I have referred. I believe capital punishment is a real deterrent in some cases, particularly in the case of premeditated murder and the crimes I have just enumer­ated. I agree with the person who said that the fear of death is the cruelest of all basic fears and that it has haunted mankind since the beginning of man. Ipso facto, the death penalty represents the greatest deterrent of all. That being so, I suggest that there is an argument to say that it is the great and unique deterrent to murder and the other crimes I have mentioned.

The retentionist faces the great difficulty in that it is impossible to prove that a murder has not been committed. I firmly believe that situations have occurred where murders have not been committed because of the existence of the death penalty on the Victorian statute-book. If any other honorable member be­lieves that this is so or that there is a likelihood of it being so, then he should vote against the Bill. I also feel that the death penalty is in­directly a preventive or deterrent to murder because its very retention on the statute-book can be a prevention or a deterrent to a person carrying a weapon, particularly a gun. He might carry a weapon which is less likely to kill at a moment's notice.

Concerning figures comparing coun­tries or States which have abolished capital punishment with those which have retained capital punishment, authorities all over the world freely admit that it is difficult with the statis­tics available to prove a case for aboli­tion or a case for retention. Figures

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1901

can be found to justify both argu­ments. I suggest that the number of murders that would not be committed if. capital punishment were totally abolished could be comparatively small. If this were the case, then it would not show up in statistics for possibly 100 or 200 years after the comparisons were able to be made.

Returning to my previous argument, I ask: If Mr. Galbally or one of his supporters knew that a single murder had not been committed because of the existence of capital punishment, would he vote for the Bill? If it were known that a murder had been pre­vented because capital punishment was on the statute-book, would Mr. Galbally and his supporters still vote for the abolition of capital punish­ment?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Is that question directed to me?

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-I should like an answer.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLy.-I do not know any person who could an­swer that question.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-Perhaps the question can be reversed: If it could be shown that an innocent man had been hanged, would the honor­able member therefore abolish the death sentence?

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-That is not the reverse of my question. I suggest that anybody who votes for the abolition of capital punishment could be just as guilty of murder as the person who committed the crime if it resulted because of such abolition.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLy.-Are you serious in saying that?

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-I believe this. We would have set the stage for murder as a person would have committed a murder under one set of circumstances but not under another.

I feel sorry for Mr. Ryan and murderer A, B or C who may be executed. I am also very sorry for their victims, but I cannot be sorry for the person who was not a victim of a murder that had not been committed because capital punishment is on the statute-book. We know of one case, to which I referred in a debate during the last session, where in the United Kingdom in 1968 a cripple murdered his room mate so that he could be moved from a hospital into a gaol. If capital punishment had been on the statute­book in the United Kingdom, obviously the murder would not have been committed because the murderer would have known that he would be executed if proven gUilty. He committed this murder because he knew that he could not be executed and that it would result in his being moved from the hospital to a gaol. This is one case I can find where a murder most certainly would not have been committed if capital punishment had been on the statute-book.

Then there is the case of the death wish. In the rare case of a murderer wanting to die, should we not permit him to die? Concerning the question of murder for gain, in 1970, a man appeared on an English television pro­gramme saying that he would be pre­pared to commit a murder for 5,000 pounds sterling. If capital punishment had been on the statute-book it is possible that the price asked by this man might have been much higher because his life would then have been at stake. Therefore, because the price had been increased, the murder may not have been committed because the person who wanted a victim to die could not afford the price.

I t is right and proper that a known criminal who commits a premeditated murder should be liable to the death sentence as a maximum punish­ment. For a premeditated murder for gain, the maximum punishment

1902 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] Punishment Bill.

should. be capital punishment, be­cause It may prevent a murder from being committed. I suggest that a person who murders a policeman, a warder or anybody assisting a policeman or a warder in the execution of his duty should be liable to capital punishment. Also, a person who commits a murder in the course of escaping from lawful custody should be liable to the death penalty. So should the consistent drug pusher. Possibly the pre­meditated murder committed in the course of a cruel act of a sexual or sadistic nature should be punishable by death. Times are changing and this is the day of drug pushers and drug sellers, and drugs are be­ing used to an increasing extent with significant effect on their users. Hon­orable members have read about the ghastly" kinky' cases of the Manson murders and the Moors murders, which probably occurred under the influence of drugs.

Another Question that must be con­sidered is the case of the person who is sentenced, under the existing law -let us assume that capital punish­ment has been abolished-to life im­prisonment. With a ruthless and cruel man, what will prevent him, if he wishes to escape, from murdering a warder or a policeman in trying to escape when the punishment to which he wiU be liable is only as bad as that which he is currently endur­ing? Alternatively, does Mr. Galbally suggest that he should be constrained under such inhumane circumstances that he cannot approach or cannot move to attack any person during his life imprisonment?

I suggest that this is a more inhumane punishment than capi­tal punishment is supposed to be. I believe that capital punishment is a greater deterrent to murder but that life imprisonment is, conceiv­ably, a greater punishment; however, I am more interested in the protec­tion of the community than I am in punishment.

I disagree with the following re­marks of Mr. Galbally in his second­reading speech:-

Nor am I greatly swayed by argument that by some future unascertainable date the murderer may become a useful member of society.

I belieye there are many murderers, not Insane, who could make useful members of society. There are many murderers who would not be executed because the type of murder which they committed would not call for the imposition of the death sentence-for example, mur­ders which are committed in passion during a domestic brawl, or when a wife is murdered by her husband or a husband by his wife. Such mur­ders are usually committed by per­sons who are not criminals. In many circumstances their crime could call for a short gaol sentence and they could then emerge as useful members of society.

As far as sanctity of life is con­cerned, man is the number one animal. We give ourselves the status of gods. We may kill cats, horses, dogs, game, lions, tigers, elephants and so on because they are not the number one animal. Are we not being sanctimo­nious in believing that we are free to kill what is, perhaps, the number two animal, while we make our own laws concerning ourselves? We make the rules. It is all right to kill a dumb animal, but it is not all right to kill a brutal human animal. We can incarcerate a man for life, and that is a question of great interest when one considers the crimes which were recently committed at the Attica prison in the United States of Amer­ica. There, because the question of capital punishment has been delayed because of legal technicalities nine innocent people-hostages-Iost their lives because murderers in that pri­son who had been sentenced to death had not been executed and had been detained in the prison. Many were " lifers" who, in ordinary circum­stances, would have been executed.

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1903

There are too many que,stions to be answered, there is too much emotion on the part of the aboli­tionist, there is too much thought for the murderer, and there is not enough for his victim. There is too much fashion and too much fantasy in this question for me to vote for it.

I will vote against this measure, and I hope that the majority of my fellow members will do likewise.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-This is one of a number of measures which have been introduced by Mr. Galbally seeking the abolition of capital pun­ishment. At the outset I must say that Mr. Galbally's sincerity in this matter is unquestioned and that his reason for introducing the Bill is simply that he feels it is right.

There is a wide divergence of opi­nion on capital punishment and, as one who has considered the question over the years, I believe one can be carried away by too many quotations from authorities who expound oppo­site views.

Over the years the Country Party has endeavoured to approach this question on the basis of what is the correct procedure to adopt for the criminal law of Victoria. The Crimes Act, which is the basic Act dealing with punishment, prescribes varying penalties for crimes of many different types, but in the case of murder only one penalty is pre­scribed, namely, the death sentence.

This causes a difficult situation to arise because, for example, often the distinction between murder and man­slaughter is very fine and, in the same way, many deaths which have been described as accidental could fall within either of the cate­gories I have mentioned. However, under the system which prevails in Victoria, immediately a jury finds a person guilty of murder the judge has no alternative but to pronounce the death sentence. My view is that this is a bad system because it im­poses the one mandatory sentence

irrespective of the degree of the mur­der which has been committed. It treats all murders in the same way.

When a person is convicted of murder he is committed to prison until all of his rights of appeal have expired and, when they have, and if he has been unsuccess­ful, his case is brought to the atten­tion of the Executive Council which decides whether or not the sentence shall be carried out. From my ex­perience as a member of the Execu­tive Council, I believe the judge should decide upon the penalty to be imposed, because he has heard all of the evidence and has been given the verdict of the jury. At that time I believe he should decide what the sentence is to be.

Unfortunately, that is not the posi­tion. The judge must sentence the convicted person to death. It is in this field that I think it is important that there should be an alteration of our criminal code, because immedia­tely the sentence is pronounced the man is imprisoned while he awaits a final decision. I think this is a dreadful situation. Rather than that, I think it would be preferable to adopt the Wild West system that we have read about in which the offender was hanged on the nearest cotton-· wood tree. I do not advocate that policy, but at least the matter would be over and done with. I cannot think of anything worst than being shut up for six, twelve or eighteen months awaiting a final decision by somebody outside. If the penalty is the death sentence, I do not believe a man should be shut up for such a period, with the sentence hanging over his head, only to find much later that he must pay the penalty. Pro­bably such a man would undergo more strain than a person who was sentenced to 30 years' imprisonment. That man, after awaiting for his fate to be decided, may find himself in the position in which the Executive Council says, "We have had a series of murders like this and criminals' were sentenced to periods of 25 and 30 years. We shall not impose the

1904 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] Punishment Bill.

death sentence in this case, but will sentence the convicted person to 30 years' imprisonment". What could be worse than that? I point out to the House that a former Government sentenced a man to imprisonment for the term of his natural life. I do not believe in that. If we mean to be compassionate, let us show compas­sion.

In support of Bills 'concerning punishment which he has introduced over the years, Mr. Galbally has always urged that punishment should be such that it will assist to reform the person, but in the case of murder the only alternative is imprisonment for 25 years or 30 years-or perhaps life. That is a terrible fate. A per­son who spends that period in gaol must become useless to the com­munity. He might just as well be left in prison.

I do not think this is the correct way to deal with the matter and, on occasions, my party has urged the Government to establish a committee of competent judges-there are sev­eral of them in this State, including some who have already suggested reforms-to examine the criminal law of Victoria and suggest what should be done to improve it. The Govern­ment should be taken to task for failing to adopt that suggestion.

Although Mr. Hauser opposed the Bill, the manner of his speech was such that I believe Mr. Galbally could not have a greater advocate for the abolition of capital punishment. I believe the only approach to the matter is to attempt to amend our criminal code. I believe that if the law were reformed only very few cases of murder would need to be referred to the Executive Council and that judges could deal with most of them in the courts and impose what they considered to be an appropriate penalty. Surely it is high time that the Government took note of sug­gestions which have been made in debates on capital punishment over the past . sixteen to .eighteen years.

The Hon. I. A. Swinburne.

Let us get to the stage of setting up a panel of three judges to examine the provisions of the Crimes Act.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-That did not work in the United Kingdom.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-I am not concerned with what happened in the United Kingdom. Mr. Hauser has stated that we have a unique system in Victoria to deal with this problem but no one will convince me that members of Cabinet are better equip­ped to mete out the final judgment than is the judge who conducted the trial. I like to think that a man who has a vast experience in the law and has tried many murder cases should be competent to lay down guidelines which Parliament could consider. If that were done, we would come out of this a lot better.

This is the only point on which I probably agree with Mr. Hauser; it is not possible to get immediate aboli­tion of capital punishment but I should like some progress to be made. My party and I have endeavoured to make progress along this line, but up to date the Government has not been receptive. If the Government would accept the responsibility of setting up a committee for the pur­pose of examining the problems asso­ciated with capital punishment it might be possible to reduce the number of cases in which the death penalty is applied by 75 or 80 per cent. There have been nine or ten cases dealt with by the Executive Council in the past six months and in each case the sentence has been com­muted. I am not the judge of whether or not the right decision was made.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-Does Mr. Swinburne want them executed?

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-I did not say that. If Mr. Hauser ever has the responsibility of sitting as a member of the Executive Council and considering one of these cases, I hope he will carry out his duty with human justice. I have had that opportunity, and although members of' the com­munity may not have agreed with our

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1905

decisions, we carried out our duty in a responsible manner and without hea t or rancour against persons we were judging.

Much of this responsibility should be put into the perspective of the laws of this State and these cases should be dealt with in the courts by compe­tent judges. However, I offer no ob­jection to responsible Ministers being the final arbiters in these cases, although I believe there are some cases in which this system should be varied. I am not a complete abolitionist and neither are the other members of my party. Members of the Country Party consider that the right and proper way in which to deal with this matter is to have a review of the Crimes Act and I make a final appeal to members of the Cabinet in this Chamber to take this matter up with the Government with a view to trying to make some progress in rationaliz­ing capital punishment in Victoria. If they do that they will gain the sup­port of most of the citizens of Victoria because they will be endeavouring to overcome a problem on which there is much divergence of opinion. No progress will be made unless the Executive takes the initiative.

The Country Party does not support the Bill in its present form because it believes there cannot be complete abolition. However, on behalf of the party I appeal to the Government to try to introduce reforms into the Crimes Act.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER (Monash Province) .-1 take this opportunity of dissociating myself strongly from the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Hauser, on capital punishment. It is unfor­tunate that he has adopted the ap­proach he has. He has illustrated the sort of weaknesses that the reten­tionists show in supporting capital punishment. They must rely upon sweeping generalizations and clutch at straws by saying that those who want abolition are emotional when in fact the emotion~J arguments generally com~ from the reten­tionists. They argue from the

particular to the general and back again and around in circles until no one is quite sure what they mean.

I frankly believe that when a death sentence is about to be carried out, and in the press there are ten letters against the carrying out of the death penalty and only one for it, the reason for this is that those who favour the retention of capital punish­ment are too embarrassed to put for­ward their views publicly and to sup­port their attitude by logical, unemo­tional, reasonable and civilized remarks. Perhaps I, as an aboli­tionist, approach capital punishment on an emotional basis, but it is an emotion dictated by what I believe is a true respect and appreciation for the value of human life.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-Other people have the same respect and appreciation.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I ap­preciate that my respect for human life is not unique in this Chamber and I am not suggesting that other honorable members do not have these values. I am endeavouring to suggest that capital punishment bv doing away with a life does destroy the reverence that we should have for human life. However, it is unfortunate that of all the penalties we have for crimes the infliction of the death sen­tence is a penalty which is so final but which covers a multitude of different crimes.

Mr. Swinburne suggested that there should be degrees of murder, but in Victoria the law makes no distinction between accidental death where there is a conviction for murder, an emotional argument be­tween husband and wife which unfor­tunately results in death and the bank robber who kills. All of these classes of murder are punished by the same sentence. That is not - the way in which we should approach the law. Hopefully, there is every chance that in the near future capital punishment in Victoria will be abolished. Surely it is only a matter of tIme. Mr. Galbally and other honorable

1906 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] Punishment Bill.

members who have been in this House for some time have argued this over the past seventeen years and fortunately, in that time, only one capital sentence has been carried out. Nevertheless, it has been argued from every possible viewpoint and we must be getting closer and closer to what I deem to be a civilized approach to a very real problem.

I do not want to take up the time of the House with a long argument on this sublect. I do not think one can be persuaded entirely by logic, but one should justify one's position on a matter as imoortant as this. I do not think the re-tentionists have in fact justified their stand and I do not believe that they have shown by either the statistics on deterrents or the emotions in the community requiring retribution that capital punishment should be retained.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.-How is it possible to show that?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I agree that it is a difficult matter, but I think the guiding factor in retaining capital punishment is fear and a concern that murder is such a horrible crime and that people in the community are S? afraid of crime generally and partI­cularlyof crimes of violence that t~ey react without logic and perhaps wI~h­out giving that touch of humanIty that they should to this problem. Th~y react through fear, and hope that thIS sort of penalty will be a deterrent, and no real effort is made to establish that it is a unique deterrent. They destroy their own argume~t that i~ is a unique deterrent by havIng capItal punishment only for murder. I should think the drug pedlar who kills people by introducing them to hardline drugs is as harmful, if not more harmful, to the community than the bank robber who in a moment of panic, shoots som~one dead. The bank robber will hang, but the drug pedlar will not. I should be interested to know the distinction and why one should hang and not the other. If Mr. Hauser is prepared to argue that the drug pedlar should hang, he is being consistent.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.-I sug­gested that a committee should be appointed to examine the problem.

The Han. C. A. M. ffiDER.-I would not disagree with that sugges­tion.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Mr ~ Hider should try to convince mem­bers of the Cabinet.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-That is my purpose in speaking during this debate. Perhaps the Government will be persuaded to set up a com-· mittee. If capital punishment is such a good deterrent, it should be used more frequently, but this has not been the history of capital punish­ment. It has dwindled from an in­discriminate use on those who stole a loaf of bread to murder only today. Crimes similar to stealing a loaf of bread are no longer subject to capital punishment and I do not know why capital punishment should be retained only for murder. There are other crimes which require a penalty which is also a unique deterrent.

I suspect that capital punishment is really not a unique deterrent and that those who require capital punishment to be retained are merely arguing that it is a deterrent because they are not prepared to say that it is retribution. They believe a murder should be punished by something savage pure­ly as a matter of retribution. Someone who has killed should be killed; an eye for an eye. If this argument meets with the approval of the House, that is fine; if it meets with the approval of the retentionists, that is also fine. However, they should say so. The retentionists should not hide behind the argument that it is a deterrent and when someone quotes figures to show that it is not a deterrent they should not say that those figures mean and prove nothing.

In the United States of America on an average the death penalty is not carried out until 27 months after conviction. That is far too long and it is one of the basic problems associated with crime prevention. If

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1907

capital punishment is a deterrent, it must follow that it is a form of crime prevention. But there must be a relationship between the punish­ment imposed and its enforcement. If in fact capital punishment is to be a deterrent, it ought to be carried out quickly and speedily.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-Would not the delay of 27 months in the United States of America occur be­cause of appeals?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I am not concerned with the reason for the delay; I am saying that the delay is a fact. There is no close relation­ship between the imposition of the penalty and the carrying out of the penalty. The deterrent effect is therefore clearly lo'st.

Another aspect which is ignored by the retentionists is the percentage of those murders which could not be classified as murders by criminals. Evidence given before the second United Kingdom Royal Commission in 1953 showed that approximately 80 per cent of homicides were be­tween relatives or close friends­husbands and wives, lovers, sweet­hearts and so on. Most of those homi­cides were committed in fits of pas­sion. The actual number of murders undertaken during a robbery or a profitable pursuit of crime is very small and usually they are under­taken by a criminal at the end of his career because that is the last crime he commits. He is then apprehended and is either incarcerated or suffers capital punishment. But it is no deter­rent to that person who has followed a criminal life and knows full well what the law is and carries arms nevertheless. He knows from his experience that he will be appre­hended, but that does not prevent him from using a firearm. In England, of all murders 80 per cent-four out of five-are between relatives and are not for the purpose of profit.

I do not wish to bore honorable members, but there is evidence to show logically and statistically that hanging, capital punishment, is not

a deterrent. I wish to quote Hans Mattick, who is a sociologist from Illinois and who is a lecturer in socio­logy and criminology at the Chicago University and is an Associate Director of Studies in Criminal Justice.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-The people there would have some ex­perience.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-They certainly do. I have some other interesting statistics on the killing of policemen. In an article which he wrote in 1966, when commenting on the crucifixion of Christ, Mattick pointed out that that was one example of capital punishment hardly being a deterrent. He said-

We are still executing people today, and there is still no evidence that we know what we are doing when we inflict the death penalty. Every rational inquiry into the relation between the death penalty and murder has demonstrated that capital punishment is irrelevant to the homicide rate. It is, however, a cruel, expensive and demoralizing irrelevancy to maintain. Since capital punishment is indefensible on any rational grounds, and since the only purpose it can serve is that of an irrational veng.et;lnce that i.s n~ better than the. original homICIde to WhICh It answers in kmd, it is high time that the death penalty be abolished.

Sir John Barry, who was a leading criminologist and judge in this State, put together some interesting sta­tistics on the death sentence or con­victions for homicide in Victoria I should like to indicate the general percentages shown by Sir John Barry's statistics. He endeavoured to show the interesting decisions of juries when faced with a Labor Gov­ernment under which the death sen­tence was not carried out and a conservative Government under which the death sentence may be carried out, and how under a conservative Government juries con­victed far less for murder and far more for manslaughter than under a Labor Government. For instance, under the Labor Government from December, 1952 to June, 1955, 28 persons were charged with murder· 8 of these were convicted of murde; -that is 28·6 per cent; 7, or 25

1908 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] Punishment Bill.·

per cent were acquitted of murder and found guilty of manslaughter. Under a conservative Government­if I may call it that, because it is just a general name-from June, 1955, to December, 1958, 55 persons were charged with murder, of whom only 10, or 18·2 per cent, were convicted -a drop of 10 per cent in the absolute figures, but in fact more than a one-third drop in the convic­tions for murder; and 24, or 43·6 per cent, were acquitted of murder and found guilty of manslaughter, an increase of some 16 per cent, or an increase of about 60 per cent com­pared with the number under a Labor Government. So there is a clear correlation there.

In 1961, still under a conservative Government, 44 persons were charged with murder and only five, or II· 3 per cent, were convicted of murder, while 39 were acquitted of murder and found guilty of manslaughter. In 1962, which was about the year when Tait was sentenced to death, only 28 persons were charged with murder-an interesting and signific­ant fall notwithstanding that the death penalty was not in fact carried out. These statistics show that there is in fact no real correlation between the death sentence, crime rates, con­victions of juries or otherwise, and that in fact all that happens if there is a likelihood of the death sentence being imposed is that the juries and the court perhaps do not carry out their proper function of finding people guilty of murder when in fact they should be so found.

I should like to quote a person who was at one stage a retentionist and who was involved in various inquiries in England and changed his mind. It is always interesting to listen to someone who is a convert rather than a person who has been in favour of abolition from the outset.

The Hon. V. T. HAusER.-You might change your mind.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I am always open to persuasion and am always prepared to listen to an

argument, but so far I have heard none. The person from whom I propose to quote is Henry Brooke, who was a former Tory Home Sec­retary and is now Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He said, inter alia-. . . if the unique deterrent argument were valid, there should have been a substantial fall in that percentage after the Homicide Act. Until then, the deterrent for murders which were to be non-capital and murders which were capital was the same. From March 1957 onwards, the special deterrent of the risk of death remained only for capital murders and it was removed for non-capital murders. Yet, although one would on grounds of logic, if the unique deterrent argument were sound, expect the percentage to fall materially, one finds, on examining the figures since 1957, that it has fallen hardly perceptibly. Before the Homi­cide Act, the percentages were 14·4 per cent capital and 85·6 per cent non-capital. Since the H.Qmicide Act, the percentages have been 13·5 capital and 86·5 non-capital. I do not see in those figures support, still less proof, ;, of the argument that the death penalty is a uniquely powerful deterrent.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-When capital punishment was abolished in the three years following that, the number of murders doubled.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-Such a statement is easy to make, but I do not think it is correct. I give those statistics only because it is so difficult to prove one way or the other that it is actually a deterrent. I believe capital punishment is not a deterrent, that there is no relationship between whether or not a country has capital punishment and the rate of homicide. This has been shown in Sweden where the United Kingdom Royal Commis­sion said that the homicide rate was at an irreducible minimum notwith­standing that there had been a tremendous increase in crime, and of course capital punishment had been abolished in Sweden for a number of years.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-A lot of things ha ve emana ted from Sweden.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-That is so; it is in the forefront in many matters of criminology. I do not think the unique deterrent argument can be proved. It is perhaps a matter

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1909

of prejudice that the retentionists say that it is a deterrent. They are per­fectly entitled to legislate on the basis of folk lore and to legislate on the basis of superstitution. But it is the proper function of a legislature to be concerned with what could be the situation having regard to the over­whelming value of a human life com­pared with the real dangers of an in­nocent man being hanged and the real illogicalities of a situation wherein a young boy who does not commit the crime of murder is hanged and the person who in fact carried out the crime is not; and where people are hanged because they are convicted of murder notwithstanding that there was no real intention to kill but the killing was done in the course of an escape from legal custody and there­fore is a felony murder, and the con­victed person is hanged.

Whilst there are these illogicalities, it is our duty as a legislature to be concerned that they be removed, that justice not only be done but that it be seen to be done, that there be not the risk of more cases such as the conviction of Ratten. I am not arguing whether his conviction was correct or not, but he was convicted by a jury for the murder of his eight months' pregnant wife. If this was a unique deterrent for murder I should have thought such a horrible crime would have been a case for capital punishment to have been imposed. Although Ratten was obviously not innocent, at the same time he may not have been all that guilty but somewhere in between. A second tribunal before whom it is not pos­sible to put any arguments for re-examining evidence or giving another view on whether the sentence should be carried out or not is undesirable, however fair it may be. I am delighted that so few people are in fact hanged, and I certainly hope no one else is hanged in Vic­toria.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-If a man shoots a policeman down in cold blood, would you say "no hanging "?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I say that it is as important to protect a woman walking the streets at night as it is to protect a warder or a policeman who voluntarily accepts the responsibility and risks involved in his duties. Capital punishment should not be imposed in those cir­cumstances because a policeman or a warder is not entitled to any greater protection than any other member of the community. I should certainly not wish to see capital punishment carried out in those circumstances. This highlights the fact that Victoria does not have this sort of gradation. If it had, perhaps the situation would be more satisfactory.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-Would you support that?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-As a first step, yes. That would certainly be preferable to the present blanket where everybody who is convicted of killing and is found guilty must be sentenced to death. I do not believe that is right. We know that the sentence is not carried out and that the Government does not intend it to be carried out. The facts are different from the law, and in that situation the law should be amended. That would be a step in the right direction. The Minister of Agriculture asked whether the killing of warders and policemen should attract the death penalty.

I look forward to the time when the death penalty will be abolished. There are many arguments for and against and I do not wish to go i~to the subsidiary arguments, but I pomt out to Mr. Hauser that in two or three cases someone has killed another person unknown to them purely because they wanted to be executed­a death wish. That is the answer to Mr. Hauser's comment about whether those of us who would abolish capital punishment would abolish it if we knew at least one murder would be prevented by its retention. We would abolish capital punishment if we thought there was a possibility of another death-wish killing, another

1910 Abolition of Capital [COUNCIL.] Punishment Bill.

person who wishes to die publicly by hanging and therefore kills to do so. That is a real threat and has happened.

The case of a person being released and committing another crime of murder has not happened so far as I know.

The Hon. S. E. GLEEsoN.-Yes it has.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-In the case Mr. Gleeson refers to the man was later found to be innocent.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-If the person you mentioned was found guilty why did he not hang?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-I have no idea. I am only answering Mr. Hauser's argument that if the death penalty prevents one murder it should therefore be retained.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-He must have been mentally deranged.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.­Mr. Campbell might like the Gov­ernment to do something about the definition of the law on insanity. The definitions of medical insanity and legal insanity are entirely differ­ent. The real requirement in any criminal system designed to prevent crime and protect the community is the certainty of apprehension "and conviction. I do not believe the threat of capital punishment prevents people from committing murders. Most murders are done on the spur of the moment, certainly in the course of a bank robbery but not with the premeditation that one is inclined to think. A criminal may not start out to commit robbery if he thought that he would be convicted. A person who commits murder does not believe that he will be caught and convicted.

Capital punishment is reflected by community standards and views. I do not say this offensively to reten­tionists~ but this sort of penalty will be reviewed when the community is mature enough to determine its atti­tude, and reflect its attitudes through

its members of Parliament. At that stage, capital punishment will be abolished.

This punishment is not wanted by the people; it is not politically popular despite the attitude of certain mem­bers in public life. The Government shows by the infrequency of its exercise, that it suspects that this is the situation.

Mr. Galbally posed a difficult prob­lem of conscience when he suggested that members of the Liberal Party ought to exercise their conscience on this matter and vote freely. Mem­bers of my party have the right to a conscience vote on matters affect­ing conscience-as this Bill certainly does. But this is not a Government measure, which we are asked to sup­port or not support. This matter has been fought over the past seventeen years on party lines. It is certainly Labor Party policy and it is ap­proached in the light of that policy. I should be only too glad to exercise my conscience on this matter if 1 thought that members of the Austra­lian Labor Party were exercising their conscience. While those honorable members are sincere, thev are bound by the policy of the party. Having expressed my view that capital punishment should be abolished, it is a matter on which the Government should be persuaded.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 move-

That the debate be now adjourned. 1 suggest that the period of adjourn­ment be until the next day of meeting. Mr. Swinburne has submitted a pro­posal that a committee of inquiry be established and apparently this view has found some favour with at least one member of the Government party. Perhaps in the interval before the resumotion of the debate the Government might consider this matter and establish some form of inquiry. Unfortunately~ Mr. Galbally cannot speak again to his motion, but I am author'ized on his behalf to say that my party would welcome any form of inquiry.

Abolition of Capital [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Punishment Bill. 1911

The Hon. J. W. GALBALL Y (Mel­bourne North Province) .-Mr. Presi­dent, I understand I am entitled to speak to the motion for the adjourn­ment of the debate.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-That is so.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Sub­ject to the wishes of the House, this seems to be the most sensible course. I was impressed by Mr. Swinburne's suggestion. Honorable members know the Country Party's policy on this matter. Mr Swinburne, who ex­pressed some anxiety about the pre­sent operation of the law, has been consistent in that attitude over the years. Mr. Hider made a splendid contribution to the debate and I do not disagree with one word he said in his speech-I emphasize, in his speech.

This matter has been hammered out in this Chamber for many years. It is time to take it out of the political arena. The community would wel­come some progress be-ing made and I hope the Government will heed what has been said tonight and agree to set up some form of inquiry. Members of my party do not lay down any terms of reference but ask for some inquirv to take this matter of life and death out of the political arena. I implore the Government to consider this request.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 regret that this action has been taken. In deciding what business is to come before the House, it was agreed that private members' Bills would be given consideration but that Govern­ment business was to take precedence over private members' Bills. The same arguments were put before the House on the last occasion that this Bill was debated. Much Government business remains to be dealt with now that the assurance I gave to honor­able members has been fulfilled. I do not object to the proposed period of

adjournment, but I remind Mr. Galbally that it was expected that this Bill would be dealt with and finalized.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Mel­bourne North Province) (By Zeave).­I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the House. I was not proposing to delay the House but I had hoped that the Government would consider having an inquiry. If the Leader of the House says-I hope he will not­that the Government will not consider setting up any inquiry, the debate should be continued tonight.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-That is what the honorable member ought to do.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.­Why? Surely the Government would not reject out of hand any inquiry, even by the Statute Law Revision Committee.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-The House should hear the views of other honorable members who wish to contribute to the debate.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-I do not mind. If the Government would consent to an inquiry, the House would not be delayed because the Bill would be adjourned until the result of the inquiry was forthcom­ing. If the Leader of the House wishes to consider the matter in the next hour, I will not press the ad­journment at this stage.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-I will not give any assurance that the Government will accept what is sug­gested.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-I am not asking for any assurance. If you, Mr. President, would vacate the Chair in the next few minutes, during the suspension of the sitting for din­ner the Leader of the House could put the views of honorable members

1912 Governor's Speech : [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

to the Government and the Govern­ment may say, " No, there will be no inquiry," or it may agree to hold an inquiry.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! I cannot leave the Chair at this stage. If an honorable member rises to speak, I shall call him after the suspension of the sit­ting for dinner.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province).-I sug­gested that an inquiry be set up and I regret that the Minister has flatly said that he is not prepared to do anything about it.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-He did not say that.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-I am making my own speech, and the Minister for Local Government can make his. This matter is far more serious than some honorable mem­bers are taking it. I thought Mr. Walton was endeavouring to assist the Leader of the House when he moved the adjournment of the debate. All sides of the question have been fairly and adequately put and I have asked the Government to consider the matter. The Leader of the House should take the request to Cabinet and if the honorable gentleman then informs the House that the Govern­ment is not going to hold an inquiry, the debate can proceed. The discus­sion will not take any longer, whether it is debated next week or this week. It is up to the Government and honorable members to have their say. I am disappointed at the attitude of the Leader of the House.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and it was ordered that the debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

The sitting was suspended at 6.28 p.m. until 8.4 p.m.

GOVERNOR'S SPEECH. ADDRESS-IN -REPLY.

The debate (adjourned from October 20) on the motion of the Hon. Haddon Storey (East Yarra

Province) for the adoption of an Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Mel­bourne North Province) .-1 draw the attention of the House to the reduc­tion in the road toll within the State during the past nine months. I am sure honorable members are acutely aware of this improved situation. Those of us who are members of the all-party Road Safety Committee are extremely pleased with the result. A number of reasons are responsible for this improvement in the saving of life, the reduced incidence of injuries and the loss of property, but I am sure the compulsory use of seat belts rates first importance. With Mr. Elliot and a former member of this House, Mr. Arthur Smith, I was one of those people who mentioned the use of seat belts on many occasions. We feel pleased that we mentioned this in the House on a number of occasions, that the all-party Road Safety Committee saw fit to recommend to Parliament that appropriate legislation should be enacted, and that the Government was prepared to accept that recom­mendation and bring it into effect. It has been a non-political issue and one which I am sure has made a great contribution to the reduction in the incidence of loss of life, injury and property damage resulting from motor car accidents.

The latest available figures relating to road accidents cover only the nine months preceding 30th Sep­tember. I do not expect honor­able members to absorb the signifi­cance of these figures immediately. To undersand what the figures mean, it may be necessary for honorable members to refer to Hansard. I shall quote only the important statistics on this question, comparing the figures for 1970 with those for 1971. In 1970, the total number of accidents was 26,020, compared with 25,191 in 1971. In other words, there have been fewer accidents so far this year than in

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1913

1970. No doubt, this is partly attri­butable to the wearing of seat belts, because a motorist who is wearing a seat belt has greater control over his vehicle. Because a motorist who is wearing a seat belt is held securely in the driver's position many acci­dents can be avoided. Obviously, if a driver is thrown from one side of the car to the other, he can become in­volved in an accident. In 1970, 847 people were killed in road acci­dents; in 1971, over the same period of nine months to 30th September, road deaths have totalled 698. Hence, 149 fewer lives have been lost. In 1970, the total number of injuries sustained was 19,512 as compared with 16,862 in 1971, representing a saving of 2,650 injuries. In 1970, pro­perty damage occurred in 12,061 accidents whereas in 1971, the figure is 12,972, which means that property damage has actually increased.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Perhaps the honorable member could inform the House whether the property damage relates to motor cars.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-The figures were supplied by the Police Department.

The PRESIDENT. - Property damage seems a strange term.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I agree. Property damage would not include damage to motor cars. Invariably, if a person is injured in a motor acci­dent, damage occurs to a motor car. I should think the figures relate to property damage other than to motor cars, because every car that rolls or turns, or in which someone is injured, would most likely sustain some damage. If it meant damage to motor cars, the figure for property damage would be almost the same as the total number of accidents, which would be approximately 26,000. A study of the figures reveals a significant increase in the number of car accidents, parti­cularly in the number of injuries and deaths on our road!

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON.-It is interesting that the percentage of deaths has dropped more than the percentage of injuries.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I agree. Possibly, that is because those people who, prior to the introduction of seat belts, would have been killed, are now amongst those persons who are seriously injured. Those who might have been seriously injured may still have been injured, but less badly. One thinks of the number of hospital beds which would have been occu­pied. The saving of 2,650 injuries is an incredible result. The State must provide hospital beds and the­fewer needed for accident victims, the better. The saving will be much greater by the end of the year. Par­liament itself, the Government, and members of all parties can take some credit for the reduction in the num­ber of deaths and serious injuries.

I have referred to seat belts, but there have also been other measures. One related to the consumption of alcohol by drivers. The all-party Road Safety Committee recom­mended that these measures be in­troduced. Outside Parliament, the public is becoming more aware of the incidence of road accidents and some tribute should be paid to the news media, particularly to the Sun News-Pictorial which, through its " 1034" campaign, has managed to drive home to people that driving a car is a serious matter. If a driver does not do the right thing, he can kill himself, his wife, or his children, or somebody else or his wife or children.

All three measures have con­tributed in their own way to a re­duction in the road toll. Notwith­standing all this, many people are still killed and injured on our roads and we should not stop trying to prevent these deaths and injuries.

Honorable members should con­tinue to put forward ideas to keep the Road Safety Committee busy. At

1914 Governor's Speech: (COUNOIL.J Address-in-Reply.

present the chairman of that com­mittee is preparing a report which I hope will come before Parliament soon. The Government has given serious consideration to previous re­commendations of the committee and has implemented many of them, and I am sure that it will give the same consideration to the next report.

I understand that, apart from Malawi, a central African republic, Victoria was the first place in the world to make the wearing of seat belts in motor vehicles compulsory. I understand that, in Malawi, the head of the Republic was involved in an accident but was saved from injury because he was wearing a seat belt and then decreed that they be worn in all cars. Honorable members of all parties had some doubts about mak­ing the wearing of seat belts compul­sory, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating and a great reduction in loss of life has resulted.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILToN.-We have not achieved what is possible yet.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is so, but I shall come to that later. Being the first State to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts, Victoria took some risks. Other places looked at us and said that they would never do the same thing. In fact, there was a time when the Govern­ment said it would never introduce such a measure, but it changed its thinking. Now, two of our sister States, the one to the north and the one to the west, have introduced re­gulations making the wearing of seat 'belts compulsory. Indeed, instead of our copying England, England is studying what is happening in Vic­toria. It 'is likely that in the not-too­distant future, England will have legis-lation similar to that of Victoria.

As suggestions of this type were first put forward in Parliament and were originally responsible for the Government setting up the Road Safety Committee, honorable mem­bers should continue to put forward suggestions on road safety. One mat-

ter which exercises my mind is the give-way-to-the-right rule. Often let­ters are published in the newspapers asserting whether this rule is good or bad. Having seen the regulation of traffic in England which has a system of major and minor roads, I prefer that to the give-way-to-the-right rule. Under the English system, every driver knows exactly what he must do. Every road intersection is marked so that the drivers know which is the major and which is the minor road, and drivers do stop at the line across the minor road until the traffic clears. They do not wait until there is a space of 30 or 40 yards, as an Australian driver WOUld, but until there is an in­terval of some hundreds of yards between traffic. If a car in any way impedes on the right-of-way of another, where an Australian motorist would toot his horn, in England the driver flashes his lights to let the driver crossing the point at which he should stop know that he is doing something wrong.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON.-Is the committee investigating that now?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-The Road Safety Committee is not sug­gesting that. I do not know ~hy the question was asked, but I pOInt out that I am not giving away anything which the committee is discussing at present. These statements of mine are not original; we have all thought about the situation and, as I have said from day to day, letters appear in the newspapers saying that we should get rid of our present give­way-to-the-right rule. This suggestion should be considered. I realize that the rule is uniform throughout Aus­tralia and that it would be difficult to abolish it overnight. I was a firm advocate of the give-way-to-the-right rule because I believed that, if every driver gave way to the vehicle on his right, there could never be an accident. However, it does not work out that way in practice.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-There is always the human element.

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1915

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-Would there not be the same problem if the major and minor road rules were enforced?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I do not think there would be. lt would be clear what everybody was expected to do and people like laws to be clear. I intend to refer to another matter which is not clear. Motorists are inclined to abuse laws which are not absolutely clear, but, if there is a line across a road at which a motorist knows he must stop, he will give way. The give-way-to-the-right rule is abused by aggressive drivers. Such a driver coming from a small road on to a highway may see a car approach­ing from his left at 50 miles an hour. Where a careful driver would stop and allow the other car to pass, the aggressive driver who knows that he is right in law forces his way on to the main road even though the motor­ist travelling along the main road may have difficulty in stopping. Many accidents occur because of this. Major roads encourage higher speeds than minor roads and, even though the man on the right has the right of way, it is not always possible for the other driver to stop although, if there is an accident, he is held to blame.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-Is there not also some difficulty in looking to the right?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I think that is so. In other countries which have a rule requiring motorists to give way to vehicles on their right, traffic keeps to the right-hand side of the road. If they are right, we are wrong. This rule should be examined again. Theoretically, the rule is good but, unfortunately, as Mr. Swinburne suggests, the human element enters into the situation and the aggressive, unthinking, or selfish driver causes accidents. Today, a driver of this type drove straight across the road in a flash in front of my car. He had no intention of stopping because he knew he legally had the right of way. The road on which I was travelling would be a

major road under the other system­there are tram lines along it-and the other driver came out of a minor street. I acknowledge that, accord­ing to the law, he was in the right, but I think it is time that the law was examined, and the alternative is the major and minor roads system.

Another matter which has been raised on a number of occasions is the use of reflectorized number plates. I understand that a trial,. which should have been completed by now, involving some thousands of vehicles throughout the State has been undertaken. However, I have not seen a reflectorized number plate on any vehicle.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-I have.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Per­haps they can be seen in country areas and there would be particular advantages in using them there. Something should be done quickly to make their use compulsory. In addition, it should be compulsory' for motor cars to carry reflecting material or a light on their sides. I think reflecting material would be better than a light. Recently, on a country road, a car which had been involved in an accident was standing right across the road. I was fortun­ate enough to see the car in front of me pull up as it approached this vehicle so I was able to stop also. Even if the car across the road had had its lights on, they may not have' been seen because they would have been shining across the road. not along it.

lt is in circumstances such as these that multiple deaths occur. While somebody is pulling a person out of a car which has been involved in an accident, another car may come along and hit him. Then, instead of there' being only some minor injury, two or three people may be killed. Gov­ernments must take a firm stand with car manufacturers and insist that some sort of reflecting material or" lighting is placed on the side of motor cars.

1916 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Some cars have lights on the side but if the battery goes, they go. '

The Han. J. M. WALTON.-That is why I suggest that reflecting material would be better. It should also be compuls?ry fo~ moto~ists to carry a reflectonzed tnangle In their vehicle. In case of an accident or a break­down, the red triangle could be placed on the road 50 yards away from the car so that anyone coming along would know that there was a vehicle stopped on the road. This is compulsory in some countries and when an accident occurs or a motor~ ist is. pulled up by police, the first questIon asked is whether those in­volved have their reflectorized tri­angles. If they do not, they incur a fine equivalent to $10, $15 or $20. It is compulsory in this State for heavy vehicles to have these reflec­torized triangles and, if it is right for heavy vehicles, it is right for lighter vehicles.

Like the legislation relating to seat belts, legislation on these lines would cost the Government nothing. All that is needed is a regulation or a rule saying that, from now on motor­cars must have these things.' Flash­ing red lights which work from the cigarette lighter socket in cars are available. These can be placed on top of the car or several feet away from it. Again, the battery must still be in working condition. I am sure that, over a period of time, the use of these things would mean a saving of life.

When we were speaking about saving lives on the roads last year, we were thinking of saving 10 15 or 20 lives in twelve months. 'How­,ever, as a result of our efforts hun­dreds of lives have been saved: This is a wonderful result. In addition, the community is saved the cost of 'caring for paraplegics and other people who are injured, as well as the c.ost of insurance .claims and litiga­tIon. All these thmgs which are so costly to the community should be minimized and we should not stop doing all we can to reduce the num­'ber of accidents on the road.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-Has the honorable member thought about the use of reflectorized material on the pedals of bicycles? Many deaths are caused when cyclists are run down.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I do not think there can be too much re­flectorized material used. If Mr. Ward cares to look at my car in the court­yard, he will find that it has reflector­ized material on it. Another matter has been raised on a number of occasions but, nothing has been done. ~irstly, it is costly and, secondly, it IS dangerous. Those who drive in the country must constantly be aware of what can happen with broken windscreens. It is possible whenever a car passes that a stone will be thrown up from the road through the windscreen. If this occurs when travelling at 70 miles an ho?r,. a. motorist may suddenly lose hIS VISIon and be forced to drive blind for the next 200 or 300 yards, at that time trying to avoid approach­ing vehicles or obstacles on the side of the road. Surely, a road metal can be produced that will not throw up easily or, alternatively, a wind­screen can be produced so that a stone will punch a clean hole through it. Every time a grader goes along the road I think to myself that next time I travel in that spot I shall see piles of broken windscreen glass on the roadside.

Motorists travel along the Tulla­marine Freeway at an average speed of between 50 and 70 miles an hour. Several quarries operate close to the freeway, and unfortunately, because of the manner in which the quarry. vehicles are loaded, they often spill a portion of their load along the road. This loose road metal contributes to the problem of broken windscreens. Perhaps it would be possible to have inspections of these vehicles. Recently, I followed at a safe distance for about 5 miles a vehicle from which stones were constantly drop­ping. The stones bounced from the road to about window height, but fortunately they had fallen back to the

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1917

ground before I passed them. How­ever, a driver who endeavoured to pass one of these trucks would have been in danger of having stones thrown through the windscreen of his car. This matter should be given consideration. Probably, it would cost the Government nothing if it applied itself to the problem of reducing the number of broken wind­screens.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHTON.­Safety glass can be used.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-It may be that a regulation is re­quired to govern the sort of glass used in motor cars. No doubt it will make cars more expensive, as do most of the safety devices that have been recommended. However, the cost of compulsorily fitting safety belts in cars cannot be compared with the saving of lives and property. Already the community has benefited con­siderably from this safety measure. People are always asking the Govern­ment to do something that costs money, but the suggestion I have put forward would cost very little.

Another matter related to the driving of motor cars seems to cause a great deal of confusion on our roads. I refer to dual highways which have ·two lanes of traffic travelling exclusively in the one direction. Many cars stay in the right-hand lane, notwithstanding that there is no vehicle on their left or that they are not about to pass a vehicle travelling in the left-hand lane. I am aware that under one regulation drivers are permitted to pass a vehicle on the left-hand side, but I always feel nervous when passing a vehicle in that fashion.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHToN.-That is because the honorable member is old-fashioned. Young people do not worry about it.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That may be so. However, if two cars collide, whether the drivers are young or old they both may be killed. Nevertheless, the statistics today seem to indicate that more young

Session 1971.-68

people are being killed on the roads than older people. The worst offenders on the Tullamarine Free­way are the taxi-drivers, who remain in the right-hand lane irrespective of whether other motorists want to pass them. Many taxi-drivers stay in the same lane until they reach the airport.

The Hon. W. V. HOUGHToN.-That is allowed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is the point I wish to emphasize. Regulation 501 of part 5 of the Road Traffic Regulations 1962 reads-

DRIVING ON LEFT AND OVER-TAKING.

Subject to these regulations, 'a driver should keep his vehicle as close as practic­able to the left boundary of 'the carriage­way, except where the carriageway has two or more lanes available exclusively for vehicles travelling in the direction in which he is travelling and the driver is tr.avelling at 'a speed greater than the speed of vehicles in Ithe left lane.

In other words, the driver who is passing other cars is allowed to re­main in the second lane, but accord­ing to that regulation the moment he is not in that situation he should move to the left. Regulation 502 states-

When overtaking a moving vehicle (other than a tram car), a driver shall, except as provided in sub-regulation (3) of this Regulation, pass to the right of that vehicle at a safe distance:

Provided that, where a carriageway has two or more marked lanes for vehicles travelling in the same direction, ·a driver travelling in one of those lanes may over­take ,and pass to the left ofa vehicle travelling In another of those lanes, if conditions permit him to do so with safety.

Some people believe that this regula­tion allows people to pass on the left and therefore they are entitled to travel in the right-hand lane, which is in contrast to regulation 501.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-A further regulation relates to changing lanes.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Tbat is so, but it does not affect my argu­ment. Accidents can be caused by drivers who continue to drive in the

1918 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply;

right-hand lane when they should be driving as near as possible to the left. Therefore, I am extremely nervous when passing vehicles on the left-hand side. Some confusion exists in regard to this matter. I have spo'ken to the police and other people and they are not happy about it. It may well be that where traffic is congested at an intersection and two lots of traffic are banked up, travelling in the one direction, be­cause the traffic in the left-hand lane is travelling faster than in the ·right­hand lane it must pass the vehicles on the right. That is the only condi­tion under which cars should be al­lowed to pass on the left­hand side. I point out that in the ·United Kingdom the law states that a driver must keep to the left. This is carried out to the letter because people are made aware of it. Nevertheless, accidents occur in England too.

Many aspects must be considered when we are dealing with road safety. For example, a motorist should consider whether he should drive at the same speed at night as during the day' and whe·ther he should drive at the same speed on a wet road as· on a dry road. Many countries 'lay down two separate speeds in these circumstances and differentiate between the difficulty of driving at night as compared with the difficulty of driving in daylight. However, I have not seen any differentiation made between driv­ing on wet or dry roads, although there ought to be. These matters are worthy of consideration and should be referred to the Road Safety Com­mittee. That cornmittee has a lot of work ahead of it and there is a long way to go, but honorable members should not be sa tisfied until the accident rate has been reduced to a minimum.

The Hon. S. E. GLEESON (South­Western Province).-I have so much material about me tonight that I crave the consideration of the House if I present it in a somewhat disjointed

manner. Firstly, I reaffirm the loyalty of myself and my province, as did my colleague, Mr. Jenkins, to Her Maj­esty the Queen, and I congratulate the mover and seconder of the motion for the adoption of an Address-in­Reply to the Governor's Speech. I also congratulate many of the previous speakers but record that I disagree substantially with some of them. However, I do not propose to mention the areas in which I disagree.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURy.:.-I should be interested to know.

The Hon. S. E. GLEESON.-I shall mention one or two of them. I also wish to pay tribute to the work of Sir Rohart Delacombe and his wife. All honorable members Will agree that Victoria 'could not have anyone better for the purpose-a man who has dedicated his life in this way deserves the admiration of everyone.

I propose to select from the Gov­ernor's Speech as a basis for dis­cussion, his allusion to the quality of· life and certain matters relative to the rural sector. To simplify-or complicate, I am not sure' which­what I intend to say, I shall treat the subject under three headings. The first is evolution; the second . is entropy, which I shall explain; and the third is an approach to what one might do with the situation-that is, an approach to a better life by busi­ness methods, using critical path planning, and taking a look at the whole question of m'ankind in this world. I think it was Barbara Ward who first used the term'" space ship Earth ", but she approached it in a humanitarian manner and from the point of view of an economist. Very rightly, she had her approach, which I admire greatly. However, I would rather look at the world as an area in which evolution started and continues, and I am one who thinks it was by design, not chance. It is a life flow in which we have no definite concept of where we are heading, but we all devoutly hope" it is not in the direction of the road

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-m-Reply. 191.9

paved with good intentions. It is within the capacity of man-although some of us may think we have little ability to control our environment and our destiny-to influence this to a large extent, but sometimes I wonder if we are doing so in the right way.

On the question of evolution, Mr. Grimwade might agree with me that mankind often behaves very much as if he has no brain. Sometimes all honorable members might agree with that statement. Today in the evolu­tionary concept we have moved far away from the Darwinian approach of the survival of the fittest and we are gradually getting better by the process of evolution. This theory about which Darwin had reservations has been discarded in the light of greater genital knowledge. Where there is a group the individual has little influence on the group, and the survival of the group is determined by the ability of the groups to repro­duce and survive in any 'environ­ment rather than because of a particular good quality in an individual. In fact, if that particular good quality is nQt related to an indi­vidual's ability to mate and reproduce, it is lost to subsequent generations. It turns out that evolution is very much a compromise in which the species have been accepting a certain amount of the good and at the same time a certain amount of the bad. I am not sure even at the moment if mankind has really made much progress. Some think we have, and perhaps we have, but I am not sure.

What I am trying to get at is that if we look at species behaviour, the tendency has aways been for species to specialize and increase in numbers, and mankind is doing that remarkably well now. People are multiplying to such a number that they not only threaten their food supply but also cause a lot of internal problems. I do not mean internal in the sense of the alimentary canal but in the sense of individual and social friction. The inter-relation between plenty of other

. species' has been marked by this. It

can be seen when tribes have perhaps grown too numerous for the food that is available and they have fought inside the tribe with one another and with other tribes about territories.

Other species interact in this way in that they push, the weaker species out of the area and take it over. So many of the problems arise in this evolutionary trend towards over­population before the real crunch comes in the food supply. Any­one who can look happily at our present population growth and neglect the fact that more tensions will arise as our numbers grow, even before the food problem, is neglecting the real problem. I suggest that much of our crime and many of our problems in the urban communities are brought about by this same excessive personal contact that develops and the inability of the individual to cope with the stresses of the situation.

What has emerged is that over the thousand million years when the en­vironment has been fairly constant, we have seen the rise and fall of countless species. Very few of the early species still exist-perhaps only half a dozen. The Coelacanth is one that I can think of that has survived a very long time. The species which have survived or shown a degree of continuity are those species which have not over­specialized. Examples of species that failed, the big lizards, the bron­tosaurus and so on, specialized in a particular era, but slight changes in the environment caught up with them and the species went into extinction. The difference with mankind is that where evolution is concerned we have a sentient creature who has available a certain amount of feed back of information. In other words his behaviour can be altered and conditioned by information received by the society in which he lives, 'by the various problems that arise and by certain far-seeing individuals who make guesses as to the future. Although they may be wrong, it still gives hiin a chance to change.

1920 Governor's Speech : [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

From the general study of evolu­tion, it still appears that the most desirable characteristic in the species is versatility. The most versatile ones can cope with changing situations; they are able to survive whereas the specialist does not survive. This pro­vides a very good warning that specialization, the effort to make people conform, to make people the same, to give them the same educa­tion and so on is not the way we should be going. In fact, we should be encouraging diversity, which will perhaps save mankind in the end. We then put ourselves in a position to take some action to avoid major problems caused by the rise in population. I do not think even Mr. Grimwade will disagree with that. Our resources are finite, and I will come to that in a moment.

I now turn to the subject of entropy. A suitable description for the layman is that there is a lot of heat in an iceberg but it is awfully hard to boil a kettle on it. In other words, an iceberg contains a lot of heat but it is useless for doing work. The concept of entropy is the second law of thermo dynamics, although it is actua'lly more of a gen­eralization than a law and is applic­able in many other areas. Nearly all systems tend towards the condition that we can get less work out of them, as the heat in the system spreads uniformly through the system.

I suggest that we are doing this in the world today with materials. We are extracting the energy and the minerals from the earth-it is said that we could recycle some of them­and it is difficult to reverse this process except by large inputs of energy and at great cost. We have a limited finite set of resources and the only intake we have is light, radiation, heat and so on from the sun. We have a very limited amount of material coming in as we sweep around the universe and this material can be ignored. All the energy sources and all the mineral resources are in place at present and the real

The Hon. S. E. Gleeson.

reason why we can use m·any of them is the concentrations that have taken place in the past which we win find extremely hard to replace. Weare extraordinarily lucky with the world, and the mathematical probability of there being any other like it is so remote that I have come around to believe that there is no other in the universe even to the outer extent of the galaxies.

One reason for this is the very factor that we cannot survive with­out water. Water is a most extra­ordinary material and due to its latent heat absorbed or given out dur­ing its changes of state when turn­ing into steam or being vapourized or frozen, it keeps the earth at a reasonably constant temperature. Water rises in specific gravity from 4° to 0°, so that the seas do not freeze from the bottom up. These factors are so amazingly well de­signed that if we set out to do better, to design a more suitable material for the purpose, we could not do it.

As well as this relatively finite amount of water we have a relatively limited amount of energy. These fossil fuel materials have been stored by ac­cumulated processes and the fossil fuels have resulted from sunshine and heat falling on the earth and vegetation over a long period, and they have been preserved under the ground. We have a certain amount of energy available for the un­stable elements. Although we can look at the fission and fusion processes, they have more problems associated with them and I think it is unwise to rely on them. In fact, most people think that we cannot rely on their contribution signifi­cantly before the year 2000 because the fusion process is the main one which you can rely on in the long term.

Dealing with the concentrated materials, we have substantial quan­tities of phosphatic rock particularly in the Southern Hemisphere which is the accumulation of bird droppings over millions of years over certain

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1921

Pacific islands. These birds obtain the phosphate by feeding on the fish and then roosting on the rocks. Al­though it took millions of years to accumulate, the supplies of phos­phatic rock in some areas has dwindled so remarkably that the supplies will last only another ten years the way we are going. Potas­sium nitrate is another material in the same situation. Off Chile, where there are very good fishing grounds, the birds have accumulated the material in the same way. If we tried to recycle the phosphorus out of the ocean in this way, we would need such a tremendous energy input that the costs and problems involved would not make it worth while in the foreseeable future. In other words, when one talks about answer­ing these problems of shortages and dearer and difficult materials by the use of science, I do not think one can logically expect this to happen. I do not think our planning to produce food for the many people we have been talking about-I think a popul­ation of 7,000 million by the year 2000 is a fair figure-can be done adequately in this way.

Before leaving the concept of entropy and the fact that the world is running down-we are helping it to run down even faster-I wish to deal with the question of irrigation water which is closely associated with food. I refer to a book by Dr. Colin Clark, with whom I dis­agree a great deal although he has put in a tremendous amount of work on this question. I admire his figures although sometimes I think he draws the wrong conclusion.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-He is all right while he sticks to economics, but otherwise he is a dead loss.

The Hon. S. E. GLEESON.-That is so. In his Economics of Irrigation, Colin Clark checked on the water supplies of two continents, India and the United States of America. It look­ed as though they had already dam­med and were using their cheapest sources and the limit was of the order of four to five times their present

resources, but to tap the additional resources would cost more. In other words, even in these countries which perhaps have the largest water resources of any, excluding South Africa and South America, they are still within a sight of using all their available water supplies. Given this limi t to our resources, the figures which are fairly close to the best one can get appear in a book entitled Resources and Man, which is a sym­posium prepared by the American National Academy of Science. They estimate that the maximum possible food that we can produce, excluding a situation in which every relevant part of our resources was designed to produce food rather than to oper­ate in other ways, is only about eight times. In other words, if we cannot properly feed the present population and with an ultimate availability of only eight times our current resources, how will we cope with the numbers that look like com­ing up in the foreseeable future?

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-What is the Government going to do about it?

The Hon. S. E. GLEESON.-I am going to make some suggestions on how we can look after this quality of life and do something about it. The first essential is to make the objectives quite clear and, to quote business management and so on, the whole point of any exercise such as this is to try to think where we are going and then look at the most economic and best way of getting there. I very much like Robert Townsend's approach-

If you're not in business for fun or profit what the hell are you doing here?

If we are not planning for a world in which we will at least have a pleasant life, it is no good. I sug­gest that we should look at what is wanted by man. I think most men want self-determination. People do not like being pushed around. If we wish to design a society and aim for a state of affairs in which most people are satisfied, we have to give

1922 Governor's Speech : [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

,them roughly a society in which they -can have a degree of self-fulfilment, to live a reasonable life, to earn a satisfactory wage and, in my opinion, to give them a great deal more responsibility than they have now. The Government should retreat from some of the areas into which it is moving, and move into the back .. ground and allow people to have that responsibility which I think should rightly be theirs.

I suggest that a properly designed community will enable any man who is willing to work with his skills-I think we should concentrate on developing these skills with higher education in the community and not look for more peopl~to have the opportunity of earning a satisfactory wage and then allow ,him to run his own health schemes, his own educa­tion and his own superannuation schemes with the same taxation incentives that are being given to business or large organizations. Plans of this kind would enable people to make their own decisions in a more logical and better manner with a great deal less waste of resources. If this approach were adopted, people would realize their responsibilities of looking after their families instead of expecting the Government to educate and look after them. The population problem would then be checked where it should be checked, namely, at the family level.

The decision on family size would be taken by parents themselves on the basis of their own inclinations­families may be large if they wish-·and on the basis of economic decision. In fact, the families would then have control of these things.

I now turn to the rural problem which is associated with this, be­

'cause food production is part of the picture. Farming is not quite like a business and that is why I do not 'agree that it should be shackled with . cost sheets, management techniques and so on. My reason for thinking ,that is that, there is a good deal more

The Hon. S. E. Gleeson.

to farming than producing and mak­ing profits. A farmer has a duty to the community.

The farmer's first duty is towards the environment. He should look after water run-off from his farm, the use of insecticides and fertilizers, and 'even the use of nitrogen in catch­ment areas. He must also consider flora and fauna and agree to have some of these on his property even though they do not contribute to his income, and he must take care of the environment to ensure that his pro­perty does not become an offence to the eye. '

In their relations with society far­mers should not be regarded as people who are conducting purely business ventures. A farmer should be allow­ed to make a decision not entirely on the basis of economics.

Part of the problem with wool lies with the enthusiast who thinks pro­motion is the only solution. I am an anti-promotion man, in that I do not think it is the job of a farmer to promote his products. To quote Mr. Townsend again-

You move into a new business and the first thing you do is sack your publicity department and hire an agency.

That is a good idea. I consider this to be a most important matter be­cause I do not think the farmer is a promotion man, and many promotion experts sell the farmer a promotion scheme but do not sell his product. The best approach is to try to pro­duce a product that the processor wants and leave it to the processor to do the promotion. Unless a far­mer has control over price, quantity and supply, promotion will be inef­fectual. As a recipient of funds, promotion is a bottomless pit.

Primary production can be limfted to what is required. Farmers should be closely associated with users, and because of this a degree of planning will work satisfactorily. Farmers are not dull and they will restrict prodUction to what is required by the' market, provided that the price' reflects it.

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. ' 1923

In conclusion, Mr. President, I congratulate other members who have taken part in this debate and I reaffirm my loyalty and that. of my colleague, Mr. Jenkins, to Her Majesty the Queen and our support of His Excellency, Sir Rohan Dela­combe.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province).-An old friend of mine in Richmond whose first name, strangely enough, is Dinny,. has a funny way of saying the word "democracy". He says" that there word' democrassy' -is there much of it in Australia nowadays? ". He is 85 years of age and is a man with a home-spun philosophy. I find it fascinating to listen to him because he has a great deal of common sense. I first learned to respect' persons of this type in an old show on radio which I started and which was called "50 And Over". I found that by listening to the people on the show and by say­ing as little as possible in an endea­vour to draw them out, I could get them to impart a great deal of wis­dom in a delightful manner. Dinny is a constant counsellor of mine and he has raised questions concerning democracy so· many times that I often wonder about it myself. Another man of. wisdom is Pat Kennelly, who has done such marvel­lous work with the Albert Park trust. I always remember him say­ing, in his pragmatic way "You can give them all ,the logic you like as long as I have the numbers".

I find that this Chamber has lost a lot of its fascination since there has been a small majority on the opposite side of the House because it enables a Minister to come into the Chamber and sit at the table and not worry about the logic of arguments which are advanced from this side of the Chamber. Just as the Minister for Local Govern­ment in his velvet way ensures that Bills are passed, the Minister for State Development is concerned only with the numbers. He does not care how the Bill gets through.

The Address-in-Reply debate affords honorable members an opportunity of speaking on almost any subject and I intend now to' speak of human suffering. In doing so I intend to quote from. a fine publication en-, titled The $130 Million Problem. A Guide to Melbourne's Inner Subur· ban Schools, which was issued by' the Victorian Teachers Union in August, 1971.

The Hon. ,H. R. W ARD.---Give the writer a plug.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Yes, it is a fine publication by the general secretary of the union who; was a iournalist of note. His name is Ross' Holmes.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-Pay Mr. Rimmer a· tribute;

The Hon. D. G., ELLIOT.-Who· ever was in any way connected with this publication is to be congratu­lated. There has been some criticism of it in that it does not delve deeply enough into sociological problems, the citing of' case histories, and so on, but I think the teacher's main task is carried out in the schools themselves.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-Yes, but they are. related ..

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Yes, I think almost everything in . life is re­lated in some shape or farm to the way in which what happens in a home affects a child when he gets to school. There is also the fact that the influence of a school on a child's life is sometimes greater than the influence of his home life, be­cause at home there is some irregularity in behaviour, and at school the teacher exercises an important influence. I can quote scores of examples of children who are faced with sociological problems and I am most unhappy to be able' to do so. It is a problem which exists not only in Melbourne but throughout the Commonwealth.

There is no doubt that mistreat­ment of children, whether psycho­logically or physically, early in their

1924 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

journey through their school days, which should be the best days of their lives, affects their whole out­look.

The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER.-That would be a world problem.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Yes, but the problem in Melbourne is acute. The Minister of Education says that there is no solution to the problem unless a great deal of money can be obtained from the Commonwealth. I am forced to agree with that state­ment. By the same token, however, when one has examined the problem and seen it as closely as Mr. O'Con­nell, my Leader in another place and myself in the past eleven years, one realizes that more than money alone is involved. We have been con­fronted with this problem for far too long and it is a disgrace not only to the Government but also to society as a whole.

In the book to which I referred, the Victorian Teachers Union has furnished the details of an extensive survey of schools in the inner-metro­politan areas which was carried out by that organization. The facts and figures are frightening; and, as this union generally steps carefully in any direction, in publishing these details it must have felt very deeply about the situation. One paragraph of the introduction reads-

The report does not cover staff facilities in these schools. However staff facilities are primitive. Small staffrooms, una~le to accommodate all the staff, or no staffroom at all, is not uncommon.

I have visited all of the schools in my province, both primary and secondary, and I pay tribute to the utter dedication of teachers at those schools. They suffer a great deal of discomfort. As I have said they are intensely dedicated and this spirit of dedication seems to be evident in their teaching of young people. I do not want to appear to be locali­zing, but I point out to the House that there are many bad schools in my province and this fine publication refers to them. For that reason, I should like to read some extracts from it.

In relation to the primary school at St. Kilda Park it states that-

As water from leaks in the roof has damaged the building, replacement of the roof at this school is ·an urgent require­ment.

Concerning primary school No. 1253, Dorcas Street, South Melbourne, it states-

The lack of space and playing area is a problem at this school. The educational restrictions of the building make the re­placement an ultimate necessity.

At present the building can accommodate children from Park Towers but ·any further redevelopment in the area will create pro­blems.

Referring to primary school No. 1852, Eastern Road, South Melbourne, the report states-

The site area and placing of buildings seriously restrict activities of the children.

There is room at the school for a limited increase in enrolment but there are no plans to cope with the children who may come a'S a result of the redevelopment in the area.

It is to be hoped that redevelopment -especially if it involves the con­struction of high-rise flats-will not lead to the kind of educational situa­tion which exists in Collingwood, Fitzroy and other inner suburban areas.

Concerning primary school No. 1427, Nott Street, Port Melbourne, the report states-

The small playing area is a major pro­blem.

No moves have been made at the moment to increase the area of the site.

The size of the rooms limits the educa­tional activities of the children.

I should like all honorable members to see the effect that confined spaces have upon children. They want to stretch their legs and play on earth or grass but they are confined to small areas of asphalt.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILToN.-That has been the case for 50 years.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I would not say 50 years, but it is many more than ten years. The Government has been given plenty of notice of this, but basically nothing has been done

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1925

about it. At Port Melbourne no moves have been made to increase the area of the school site and the size of the grounds limits the educa­tional activities of the children. It is not good enough. At Middle Park it is the same sorry story. At primary school No. 1181 at Albert Park the toilets are hopelessly inadequate. At the J. H. Boyd Domestic College con­ditions are a bit better because the Honorable Archie Todd, a former dis­tinguished member of this Chamber for many years, and the advisory council got things done.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-And the principal.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Yes, Grace Donnelly is a dedicated lady. The majority of teachers are dedicated. I have not met one teacher in the Melbourne Province who is not dedicated and who does not give everything he or she has to primary and secondary schools in the area. If we did not have these teachers there would be absolutely no basic educational ser­vices for the children. Primary school No. 1896 at Hornby Street, Windsor, was the first schooi I attended. Lack of building space is a major problem at this school. The department lost the opportunity of buying land on both sides of the school. Miss Bunner was a teacher when I started at the school at four years of age. She was a wonderful teacher and she tolerated the fact that I took my dog, Bill, a part kelpie, to school with me every day. She let him sit under the desk.

At the primary school at High Street, Prahran, 65 to 70 per cent of the children have non-English speaking parents and they have a big problem. Lack of space, an inadequate library, and little or no art and crafts centre also cause problems. There are ma ior restrictions at the school and the" traffic noise from High Street is deafening.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Mr. Elliot was lucky to get that booklet before he made his speech today.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-All hon­orable members were fortunate to get it because it may persuade us to have a deeper conscience about education. I am sure that the important prob­lems in the Melbourne Province are echoed in other provinces throughout Victoria. Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Bradbury have problems at Wan­garatta and Myrtleford. Every hon­orable member has these problems but they are super-acute in the inner areas of Melbourne. If any honorable member is in doubt about that and would like to satisfy his mind, I am prepared to spend a few days with him showing him the situation. If at the end of the tour he is not a little ashamed and a little crestfallen I shall be surprised. The glib Minister of Education can pluck figures out of the air on how many school class-rooms have been built and what has been done with teachers, but I have yet to see these improvements manifest themselves in a proper manner in the inner areas of Melbourne.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The booklet indicates that the blame i~ with the Federal Government.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-No, it does not. I confirmed that in a definite manner with the Victorian Teachers Union. The Minister of Pub­lic Works should have been in the Chamber when I started my speech. I said that the fault was par­tially that of the Federal Government but it was also brought about by the somewhat indifferent attitude adopted by two State Ministers of Education over the past ten years. If the Minister of Public Works comes with me to the inner metropolitan areas he will be ashamed of what he sees, and of what residents of the area have had to tolerate.

The primary school in Punt Road, South Yarra, looks good from the outside. It looks modem because a veneer job has been done on it. ~ walk-over is needed. When the child­ren try to get home from school it is a case of the quick or the dead.

1926 Governor's Speech.: . [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

No attempt has been made to connect the school to Fawkner Park so that the children could have an open playground. There is no walk-over across Punt Road and there will probably not be one in the future.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-Where could it be built?

The Hon. G. D. ELLIOT.-Opposite the school there is an old wooden building in a poor state of repair. It has been condemned by the Prahran City Council and could be acquired for this purpose.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-The Gov­ernment will subsidize the erection of a walk-over if the local municipal­ity will take an interest.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-The trouble is that I have to ward off the inane remarks of an honorable mem­ber who should know better. All that he has displayed since he has been a member of this House is com­plete bigotry on education. He is a past master at it.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-I ,I should like more money to be spent in these areas, but where would the Government get the money? Would it take it from health or social wel­fare? The Government is spending more money per child in the inner areas than it is in the outer areas.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I should like to see the breakdown of the­figures referred to by the Minister. I do not think they would prove that in all the areas to which I shall refer before I resume my seat the Govern­ment is spending more money per child for educational facilities in inner-suburban areas than it is in certain areas in the outer suburbs ..

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-How about the Collingwood Education Centre?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-It is still .a figment of the imagination. I pay due respect to the Minister of Public

"Works because he has tried to assist . in getting the project going. How­ever, the honorable gentleman does not sat~sfY.,~e :by picking ·one scho?l

out of an area when I could take him to 60 or 70 schools which are an absolute disgrace. They have been that way for 30 or 40 years and it is not good enough. For years I have been asking the Minister of Educ­ation, as tactfully as I could, to supply me with a list of outstanding main­tenance jobs at State schools in the Melbourne Province. Finally, I had to ask the Minister of Public Works a question on the subject. I wanted to know the locations of the schools and the basic jobs that needed doing. The Minister knows that I was asked to take it easy because the Govern­ment had no idea of the basic main­tenance jobs that needed doing at these schools. The Government still has no idea.

I defy the Government to tell me before the end of the sessional period what jobs are out­standing in State schools in the Mel­bourne Province. The Government is in such a hopeless mess that it has not even the slightest clue of how serious the situation is. If I asked the Minister for a similar list for all schools in Victoria he would be grovelling on his knees. The Min­ister will have a beard down to his ankles before he will have solved all of these problems.

The Hon .. MURRAY BYRNE.-Mr. Elliot knows that that is not the Government's fault. He knows that the Government is spending a maxi­mum amount of money on education. I should like more money to be spent and the Victorian Teachers Union concedes in its booklet that the Gov­ernment cannot spend more money.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Tbat is a reasonable interjection by the Min­ister. I shall put it this way: If I was going. to the races with Mr. O'Connell and we both had $50 in our pockets, whom would you· back, Mr. President, as more likely to win money-Mr. O'Connell or me?

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-N either.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I respect­fully submit to you Mr. President, that from figures and ~erforma~ces

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1927

over a long period there would be only one conclusion. Mr. O'Connell would go home with "tin in his kick" and I would go home with nothing. That is the difference be­tween the Minister and me on this subject. It depends on how the cake is alloc.ated. I realize that no matter how much State participation is accorded to the inner areas of Mel­bourne, the problem will not be solved. I want to know why some­thing more has not been done. I could show the Minister 1,000 urgent jobs which are just waiting to be done at these schools. I could take the honorable gentleman to a cooking room at a school in my electorate. We have been trying to get a paint job done there for four and a half years but paint flakes are still falling down like rain. It is an inner suburban school and it is not good enough.

Nobody knows the primary school at Burnley better than Mr. O'Connell. The size of the site is a major problem. The Richmond City Council reclaimed land from the banks of the Yarra River so that it could be allocated to the Education Depart­ment for the Richmond High School. I hope the Minister of Public Works noted that. The council provided a generous acreage of land for the school, and if it had not been for the generosity of the council the Minister would still be talking about building a high school in Richmond. The primary school at Burnley is built on a site of 1.02 acres and it is a vital school in South Richmond.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The Richmond High School is a good school. Mr. Elliot should not knock everything.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I give full marks to the Richmond City Council fo'r having the foresight to reclaim tha t wonderful area from the banks of the Yarra River, build a fine sports oval and make it available to the school. I also commend it for making a generous allocation of land so that the local children would not be deprived of a high school education.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-It is a first-class school.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-It is one of about ten which should be built 1n the inner suburban area.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Do not knock it.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I am not knocking it, but I am not going to be diverted from my argument by the glib remarks of the Minister. At the State school at Highett Street, Rich­mond, the lack of space is a major problem. There is no adequate library or craft centre and this 'is a handicap to the children. New Housing Commission flats are to be built near where the Lennox Street school is to be constructed. When will that school be built? It may affect the enrolment at the school at North Richmond. At State school No. 2798 at North Richmond the lack of building space is a major problem and there are difficulties with sporting facilities. The Minister would not tolerate conditions of this type for his children. The report states-

The lack of a library and art-craft centre handicaps the progress of children. If the proposed school in Lennox Street is not built by 1973-

I will shout a banquet for the entire Legislative Council if the school in question is built by 1973-acute accommodation problems will arise.

Richmond High School is something of which we can be proud, but the general comments are-

Availability of Burnley oval and other facilities in the area compensate for lack of sporting facilities, e.g., oval on site.

Accommodation at this school over the next few years is going to be a major problem especially on the completion of the five high rise blocks on the Lennox Street estate.

It amazes me, and it must have amazed the Minister of Public Works when he took over his port­folio, to find out how little forward

1928 Governor's Speech : [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

planning has been done over the years between the Housing Commis­sion, the Education Department and the Public Works Department.

The Hon. MURRA v BVRNE.-And local government.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I agree to a certain extent, but the main fault lies in the lack of liaison. I ask the Minister not to question me about it because there are people in the departments who have been frustrated for years-as frustrated as the Minister is now, if he is fair dinkum. The honorable gentleman knows as well as I do that there has been far too little co-operation and forward planning between the departments I have mentioned.

The Hon. MURRAY BVRNE.-And increases and changes in population create real problems.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Of course, they do. I inform the Minister that nothing could have been telegraphed more than the high rise flats in Hoddle Street. In 1960 or 1961, I went with Sir John Bloomfield to view the site and he agreed with us that something had to be done in the next two years. We are still waiting for it to be done for the children of Collingwood. At tha t stage, the land had been cleared and the concrete stumps had been put in for the high rise flats. They have been built, but nothing has been done for the school. What about Fitzroy? Fitzroy children go to what is almost a cesspool in edu­cation-Cambridge Street Primary School. There is no answer to the indifference of the Government; it cannot ducks hove the matter entirely onto the Commonwealth Government. Of course, I agree that there will have to be greater Com­monwealth assistance, and I would be a hypocrite if I said otherwise. If the Minister went round with me for a few days and saw conditions in inner suburban schools I am sure he would feel ashamed to have had anything to do with the state of the area as it is today.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-YOU could go around the country and see some other schools, too.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Maybe tha t is so, but I can see in the country where things have been done suddenly with very little justifi­cation in some cases on figures-not that I begrudge those children who are entitled to a good school in a country area if it can be obtained. Country areas need a variety of edu­cation facilities because there is little or no outlook today for those children unless they get an education which may help them get an alterna­tive job in industry.

The Hon. MURRAV BVRNE.-I should not like to embarrass Mr. Elliot by asking which particular country areas have had special pre­ference.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-George Street, Fitzroy, Primary School, No. 450, has an acute problem.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Are there no country schools on that list?

The Hon D. G. ELLIOT.-These are all in 'the inner-suburban area. This is one of the few schools in the inner suburbs where considerable progress has been made to improve the physical conditions. I admit that the staff and the head teacher are dedicated and have done a magnifi­cent job, particularly in regard to the teaching of English to migrants be­cause about 80 per cent or 90 per cent of children who attend George Street Primary School are new Aus­tralians. The comments are-

It has been estimated that the facilities in the original building and the playing area available is suitable for a maximum of 300 children.

The student list at George Street Primary School is 736.

Out of pity for the Minister, I shall not dwell on the Cromwell Street, Collingwood, Primary School, because it is a sore point right next to Collingwood High School. It is a disgrace to the whole area. The dedication of Miss Watson and the teachers at the primary and

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1929

the secondary school has meant the difference between absolute chaos and some sort of orderliness. I ask that we do not have just words in connection with the Collingwood Education Centre but that an alter­native site for the school be deter­mined as soon as possible and at the latest the building be commenced by the middle of next year. I have been assured of that by the Minister and I am looking forward to his honor­ing his promise because I am ashamed that in the province which I repre­sent there is such a glum and ugly school as the Cambridge Street, Collingwood, Primary School. Seventy-five per cent of children are from the Fitzroy Housing Commis­sion flats. They have to cross Gertrude Street, which is a busy street in which trams run. A new primary school is supposed to be built at the flats. That reminds me of the old song "Supposin'" which certainly applies to education in the inner areas of Melbourne. The general comments on this school are-

Lack of pl.aying space, condition of building and no library and art/craft centre are major problems at the school.

Charles Dickens could have written a beautiful story about this school. A new primary school in Napier Street, Fitzroy, is overdue by about eighteen months, the excuse being lack of money. In this area, small children have to cross Gertrude Street and Smith Street and to go down Cambridge Street to get an education which is not a very good one. In the whole area from Victoria Street down to Alexandra Parade to Hoddle Street and up to Smith Street, or even to Brunswick Street, there are few allotments on which children can play. In the area bounded by Smith, Hoddle and Victoria streets and Alexandra Parade, there is not one square inch of playing space apart from that surrounding the new high-rise flats, which would be a little under a mile from Victoria Parade and Alexandra Parade. This is the atmosphere in which these children have to grow up. They are

compelled to go from an established high-rise housing area down to Cambridge Street Primary School which should have been bulldozed 30 or 40 years ago. An opportunity club exists, but it can only do a cer­tain amount of work, and youth work is badly needed. The squalor of the area and the lack of incentive brought about by the disinterest in the dis­trict is such that everything is at the lowest possible ebb.

Victoria Park Primary School, No. 2957, has much the same sorry story. The total size of the area is 0·52 acres.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-How long has that been the acreage?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I do not care. Any Government with any sort of heart could plan for some sort of improvement. Even if it closed a street during the day it would help.

The accommodation provided at Fitzroy Girls Secondary School is in­adequate. The general comments in this booklet sta te-

The library has to be used every period in the week as a class-room, classes are held in the laundry. The principal's office and general office are the one room.

It is felt that when Fitzroy Special School closes the girls school could use the site for a new building.

These matters must be recorded. They are a sad and sorry story which certainly should be recorded for all time in Hansard because if ever there was an indictment against indiffer­ence this is it. Once again, the Gov­ernment alleges that it is a ques­tion of what the Commonwealth Government should have done, as it always is. The weaknesses of this Government in the past year or two have all been covered up with abuse by the Premier of the Commonwealth set-up and by Ministers stating that they cannot get enough help from their Liberal colleagues in Canberra.

But for the council reclaiming land, what a sorry state Spensely Street, Clifton Hill, Primary School, No. 3146, would be in. There is a short­age of toilet facilities for the girls. I

1930 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address ·in~ Reply.

wonder if, as a Christmas present, the Minister could see his way to provid­ing another toilet for the girls at Spensely Street Primary School. The Minister for State Development got a toilet for the Bacchus Marsh race­course. There it is, right in the mid­dle of the racecourse which has been closed because the races are now held at Werribee.

Mr. Eddy knows the position at Gold Street, Clifton Hill, Primary School, No. 1360, where 70 per cent of the children come from non­English speaking parents. Lack of playing space, and the depressing condition of the building are the major problems. The schoolrooms also limit the class-room activities of teachers.

The Hon. G. J. O'CONNELL.-It is between two major streets.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.-Would it not be easier to have this informa­tion incorporated in Hansard?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Mr. McDonald and Mr. Clarke and other honorable members have not been backward in asking about school facilities in their areas. Mr. McDonald should respect the problems of people in the inner-suburban areas of Mel­bourne whose children are getting such a bad primary and secondary education, except in isolated in­stances such as University High School, Melbourne High School where there is a controlled intake, and MacRobertson Girls High School.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-It should be recorded that these children are getting a better educa~ tion now than they were a few years ago. I should like it to be 100 per cent better, but they are getting better education facilities than ever before. I ask Mr. Elliot not to knock the schools, or the teachers and everyone else.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I take exception to the Minister's remarks and ask for a withdrawal. I have not in any way knocked any teacher

tonight. On the contrary, I have praised them, and I think the Mini­ster should admit that.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Since I have been present, Mr. Elliot has not said one commendatory thing about any of the schools he has mentioned. He has indicated that these children are getting a sub-standard education. He has used highly colorful adjectives to indicate that conditions are sub­standard. All I am asking is that he should say that the people associated with education are trying to improve the situation which is far better than it was years ago, and that things are being done which should be men­tioned if Mr. Elliot is to be fair.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-The Minister knows that not once have I said anything except of a highly commendatory nature about the teachers in the schools to which I have referred. I take violent objec­tion to the Minister suggesting that I might have said otherwise. What I say about the schools I would not re­tract under any circumstances because the particulars I am quoting in such lavish terms, as the Minister puts it, are in the main from a report of a responsible union, namely, the Victorian Teachers Union.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The union blames the Commonwealth Government.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Not only the Victorian Teachers Union. I make haste to continue with the schools and their plight. In regard to primary school No. 4177, Westgarth, the report states-

Lack of water pressure is a major health hazard during the summer months. Children have to suck the taps to obtain a drink.

Large prep grades caused by shortage of rooms is another problem.

Fitzroy Prim-ary School is a com­mon problem, and a disgrace. The buildings are shockingly over­crowded.

If it were not for the dedicated teachers, there would be chaos. The Rathdowne Street Primary School No. 2605 has 400 pupils. The' tota]

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1931

site area is . 51 acre. The children use the Melbourne City Council playground equipment in Exhibition Gardens at lunch time. A total of 33 per cent of the children have non­English speaking parents and there are no teachers of English for migrant children. Lack of playing space, lack of library and an art and crafts centre are the main educationa1 and environmental restrictions at the school. Traffic, both from the noise and safety aspects, is another prob­lem to the children.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-How would you solve this problem?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I have seen this problem solved in overseas schools on busy highways. Perspex absorbent sound barriers have proved most effective. The Minister of Public Works has asked me this question and I have told him. I refer now to West Melbourne Primary School No. 1689, which was built in 1876. It ac­commodates 180 pupils on a total site area of 1· 37 acres. A total of 40 per cent of children have non-English speaking parents. There is no tea­cher of English for migrant children. The drab appearance of the building makes it a depressing environment. The building is located on the King Street extension.

The present facilities of the Boun­dary Road Primary School at North Melbourne are totally inadequate. It is opposite extensive high-rise dwel­lings. It is one of the worst primary schools that could be seen. At the beginning of this year, a great deal of publicity was· given to the plumb­ing, the drinking water and other facilities at this school. Three grades are transported daily to Errol Street, North Melbourne. The same situa­tion exists at the Flemington Primary School. I have -discovered this from personal inspection, not· only from what· I· have been told by the teachers.

. I also quote the classic example of the Flemington High School which is a newer type school building on land

excised from the Crown grant cov­ering the Flemington racecourse. For sporting activities, the students are required to travel in buses to Royal Park. A small pathway goes from the Flemington High School to the race track car parking area. I do not know the acreage but I should say that it comprises about 20 acres. It is a large area which is not utilized by horses for track gallops. It has direct access to the Flemington High School.

Approximately two years ago I spoke to the then secretary of the Victoria Racing Club, Mr. Lachal who suggested that playing space be retained on the railway side. Mr. Tripovich would know what a busy area Epsom Road is. It is a major outlet, particularly during show time or when races are held at Flemington. The traffic is then chaotic. Approximately eighteen months ago I spoke to Mr. Rupert Steele, a member of the committee of the Victoria Racing Club, who showed some sympathy with my views about young people utili­zing this car parking space below the Flemington High School. However, I have heard nothing further about the utilization of this area. Yester­day, I again mentioned this matter to the Minister of Education. How­ever, nothing further has been done. I realize the honorable gentleman is a busy man. The children fr~m this school have to go to Royal Park for their sporting activities or be con­fined to an area of 2! acres. This is not good enough for a new high school. Once again, I accuse the Government of lack of planning. A school has to be built, but before· it is constructed it is inadequate. .

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Most of these conditions have existed for 50 years.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Not for 50 years.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Your main complaint is lack of playing space. . That has been the complaint for 50, if not 90 years.

1932 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Would that be an excuse for not providing libraries and other basic mainten­ance requirements? I have gone al­most on my hands and knees for years asking for liaison between the Public Works Department and the Education Department on State schools. Is that not common sense? The Minister has been given severa] ide3s on the subject, but he has not had the courtesy to try them.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-That is not true.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Has the Minister maintenance gangs?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Yes. Can Mr. Elliot understand any Gov­ernment that has a budgetary surplus not doing anything about schools?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I have made a close study of these schools, and I can find nothing but State Gov­ernment indifference. I acknowledge that the problem cannot be solved without massive Commonwealth help. On two or three occasions I have said that.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-Mr. Elliot is being cruel to a dedicated Minister of Education.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I am not being cruel. I have put to this House what I have seen with my own eyes. If I did not put this case, I would be betraying a trust to the teachers and the children.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-There has been no denial of the problem by the Minister of Education. Would Mr. Elliot be prepared to ask his Federal member for more funds to alleviate this problem?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Of course, I would. I have said that I realize that the problem cannot be alleviated without Commonwealth help. I have had personal contact with the former Minister of Educa­tion, Sir John Bloomfield, and the present Minister of Education. I have viewed the schools concerned.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-If you were Minister of Education could you tell me how you would solve these problems?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I would attempt to solve the problems pri­marily by appreciating where a substantial portion of the piece of cake must go. The educational standard of children in these schools is suffering, particularly those chil­dren who do not speak good English. No English teacher is available.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-If all the money required for education was spent on these problems this year, not one-third of them would be solved.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-The problem will not be solved be­tween now and 1978. Something should be done and the Government should not just yap. Educational facilities in the Flemington area covered by the high-rise flat develop­ments are completely inadequate. The MacCracken Street, Boundary Road, Errol Street and King Street schools service the high-rise areas, but they are a complete disgrace because nothing has been done even on maintenance. Money solves most problems but it does not get very far without sensible planning, as the Mini­ster of Public Works is well aware. If the honorable gentleman receives his slice of the Consolidated Fund to spend he must plan carefully how to spend it or he will not be a good Mini­ster. To say planning is not important is sheer stupidity. The Minister should not have said that because it does not become him.

The provision of new educational complexes referred to in the final paragraph, will not solve all the prob­lems of inner suburban education. In regard to staffing and teaching aides, I emphasize the importance of provid­ing teaching aides in the inner areas and ancillary staff such as psycholo­gists and social workers as many problems lie in that direction in the inner areas. The background of social problems relating to the children

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1933

who attend schools in Collingwood and Fitzroy where concentrated, studies have been carried out through the Brotherhood of St. Laurence, the Association of Day Nurseries and the Collingwood Neighbourhood Centre, would give honorable members cause for concern. Young children are lock­ed in flats for the entire day because both parents are compelled to go to work. In many cases the parents who do not speak English earn between $32 and $40 a week sweat-money. I have not much sympathy with people who lock children in rooms, but these poor demented people cannot get their children into day nurseries. There is a long waiting list for the Collingwood Neighbourhood Centre. Many children in that centre belong to one-parent families, which is another problem.

These problems in the inner sub­urban areas badly need the attention of psychologists and social workers because it is necessary to go to the genesis of the trouble to solve the educational requirements of such a child going to an inner suburban school. The ready availability of psychologists and social workers for consultation by schools is another problem which must be tackled and solved if the word-I love this word, but it is so lacking in Australian life today-equality is to have meaning in inner suburban education.

I have not agreed in every instance with the statements of the Victorian Teachers Union or the Victorian Sec­ondary Teachers Association. More important than the Victorian Teachers Union, the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Educa­tion, or any honorable member of this Chamber, is the future education of all children. In the light of the gross inequality that exists in the inner sub­urban areas of Melbourne, it is of no use attempting to be complacent by producing figures or by saying the Government is spending over $300 million on this or that. That does not satisfy me when I visit these schools and find even basic maintenance ten

and fifteen years behind the times. The type of accommodation, toilet facilities, and playground areas avail­able to these children belong to the horse and buggy days.

The problem is big, but I want to see a plan. Until a plan is produced at every opportunity we shall demand to know why it is not forthcoming.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Money is also needed.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I agree with the Minister, but at this juncture I should like a plan, because up to date one has not been produced by the present Minister of Education who has visited these schools. The honorable gentleman has been most polite and has offered us a lift in his car, which we invariably refused. That is the last we see or hear of the honorable gentleman until a deputation is ar­ranged.

Mr. O'Connell and I stand shoulder to shoulder in everything in the Mel­bourne Province. It is a privilege to be associated with the honorable member. We had about three deputa~ tions march on Parliament House, agitation in the local area, and stalls in Bridge Road in order to raise money for the children at Brighton Street Pri­mary School who were in three or four class-rooms in order to have a start made on the Richmond High School. The high school would still not have been built if the Richmond council had not discovered some reclaimed land and allocated it to the Education Department for a high school. I admit that if we want­ed a high school of the same type in Collingwood probably we could have it by now, but that does not solve the basic problem with which I have dealt tonight. I have talked to the teachers and children in these schools and their parents. Too many of the parents are indifferent, but many care for and love their children and want to see them obtain a modern secondary educa­tion. One can see the futility that exists in their minds. Look at the drop-outs!

1934 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Ad.dress-in-Reply.

With regard to tertiary education, here is a basic problem of a character that can be gargantuan in its loss of productivity in our society. I had a great respect for the former President of the United States of America, the late John F. Kennedy. I consider President Kennedy made a profound statement when he said, "The world of tomorrow is in the class-rooms of today". As an individual I do not consider any sacrifice is too big to justify first-class education for our children. As an individual, indeed I would even pay a special tax for it. This is how important it is.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The honorable member would be voting against his own party.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I said as an individual. The Minister of Public Works is a Tammany Hall politician in disguise, and he knows that as well as I do. I know the honorable gentle .. man's background at Ballarat. I pay him full marks. No one respects suc­cess more than I do. The Minister of Public Works is a young man with a fine family, but he cannot deceive me into believing that he did not come up the hard way in real Tammany Hall fashion. He is still exercising those tactics in Ballarat and beyond today. All I want is a plan. If it is not pro­duced early next year, I shall rise every week in this House and ask for it. I am willing to assist in the fair allocation of the money. All we will need is about three-quarters of it. Seriously, all we need is a reasonable slice of the cake, but we want to see that plan. We want to see a basic maintenance programme because that is extremely urgent. We are prepared to co-operate with the Minister of 'Public Works, the Minister of Educa­tion, or both, in order to facilitate as 'much as possible the implementation of a basic maintenance programme

"for a start in that area-that is, apart from the building of the Collingwood Education Centre, which is of top priority.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON (Higinbotham Province) .-1 welcome the opportunity to support the motion

for the adoption of an Address-in­Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor. Firstly, it enables me, and through me, my constituents, to express our loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen. Secondly, it enables us to pay a tribute to His Excellency and Lady Delacombe for their contribution to Victorian life. Generally the people of Victoria have been well served by a succession of Governors, but none have devoted themselves more ener­getically to the tasks of the State than has Sir Rohan Delacombe.

In his Speech, the Governor re­ferred to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of the State. Hon­orable members will recall that each year I refer to the Commonwealth Budget and to some extent relate it to the finances of Victoria. Again I shall refer to the Commonwealth finances in which the 1971-72 Budget provides for a deficit of $11 million. Once again this figure appears to be misleading. However, it is extremely difficult to analyse Budget figures as published in the papers with Com­monwealth Hansard. It is necessary to have access to much more infor­mation before the figures can be even sorted out to any extent. It appears that items totalling some hundreds of millions are not speCifically shown in the Budget Papers, or if they are, they are glossed over in an extra­ordinary fashion. Enormous amounts, equivalent almost to the total Budget, do not rate separate listing. I refer in particular to my old favourite, the Loan Consolidation and Investment Reserve Amount.

In the 1969-70 Budget, an amount of $641 million was provided to be tucked' away into this reserve. In actual fact the amount was $431

. million, and somewhere along the line approximately $210 million has been lost. This· figure surprised me, because with the increased collections from taxation and the attempts to economize in Government expendi­ture, I expected an amount of about $1,000 million to be left in the reserve last year. However, the 'ultirriate amount was $431 million. The

Governor's Speech: [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1935

current Budget provides for an amount of $700 million. The House should realize that these figures represent surplus revenues of the Commonwealth, which in terms of section 94 of the Commonwealth Constitution legally and morally belong to the States and not to the Commonwealth. It is time the legality of the Commonwealth's action in dispensing with the surplus in this way was challenged because there are good grounds to question whether the decision of 1904 applies in this case. In 1904, these reserves were being tucked away for special purposes, the provision of certain social service payments and certain defence payments. No sur.h excuse exists in this instance. Thp. moneys are simply invested as surplus funds. Although I have examined the papers in Hansard, I do not see any reference to this item although it may appear there. I should like to ask whether these figures are being deliberately hidden from public gaze. I suspect this may be so. Incidentally, in looking at these figures, it is worthy of note that the Commonwealth income from interest increases in the present Budget by the large sum of $17·5 million.

Another item of interest to the States in the Federal Budget is the item under the heading of net advances to the States. I referred to this during the debate on the measure relating to pay-roll tax, but it covers payments for works, hous­ing, and other State capital works. This item represents moneys raised by loan by the Commonwealth for the States on which the States are re­quired to pay interest.

I am not quite sure what has hap­pened, but no contra entry appears in the Federal Budget Papers pub­lished in Hansard. It could be that the amount may be lent to the States from the surplus in the Loan Consoli­dation and Investment Reserve Ac­count. In that case the same item of expenditu~e ap­pears twice in what should be the balance-sheet of the Common­wealth. This is curious accounting.

As I said earlier, it is extremely diffi­cult to analyse these figures, largely because full information is not made available.

The Commonwealth Budget has far­reaching effects on the whole nation. The economic theories which were first propounded by the late J. M. Keynes, in The General Theory of EmploYlnent, Interest and Money, have been generally accepted through­out the world, and adapted to budget­ary practices. Consequently, the Bud­gets of today bear on the whole com­munity ~nd o~ the individual. They substantIally mfluence and, in some cases, determine the level of econ­omic activity within a country. Ac­cordingly the Commonwealth Budget is vital to the welfare of the State as well as that of the Commonwealth. Once again, I believe that the judg­ment of the Treasury in Canberra is wrong and that the 1971 Budget will not achieve the results intended. I cannot believe that the results will be in the best interests of this State.

Therefore, I suggest that the Com­monwealth Budget should be framed -at least in outline and in its main policy directions-not by the Com­monwealth Treasurer alone or by the Commonwealth Government alone, but by the Commonwealth Treasurer in consultation with the State Treas­urers. The State Treasurers have a vital interest in the framing of Com­monwealth Budget policies.

. Mr. Elliot dealt at great length WIth the problems of education and spoke largely of their financial aspects. He referred to the financial expenditure necessary to raise the standard of education in Victoria. I want to refer to the other side of the coin, to what might be called the per­sonal aspect of the problems of edu­cation. Within our education system today, at both the secondary and ter­tiary levels, there appears to be an element which is bent on disrupting the .system for political purposes. For example, within the tertiary system, there is a group-fortunately very small but undeniably very vocal and

1936 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] A ddress-in-Reply.

highly publicized-which appears to be determined to bring about its destruction.

The people concerned mayor may not call themselves anarchists, but they are anarchists, and their whole object is to destroy our State, includ­ing our education system in its pre­sent form. We all know their names only too well because they feature in the press almost daily. Recently, we had the rather sorry experience of a number of fugitives from justice being sheltered in the University of Mel­bourne Union building. The same university building also provided a room to be used for an illicit radio. I felt constrained to ask myself why, if there is so much room available in the union building that space could be afforded for these illegal activities, and attempt should not be made to so'lve some of the prob­lems mentioned by Mr. Elliot by taking over part of the union build­ing for primary or secondary school use, as it is not being used for the purpo'se for which it was built. Certainly, the Education Department could make much better use of it.

Another disruptive element within our education system is the now almost completely discredited Vic­torian Secondary Teachers Associa­tion which, for political purposes, set out, to destroy secondary education.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-That is a bit heavy, and I say that even though the organization is not affiliated with the Labor Party.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-I know that the organization is not affiliated with the Labor Party.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-Some very sincere people are members of the association.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­That may be so. I know that some of those very sincere people object quite violently to the policies which the organization has been pursuing. If we read the association's published aims we find that it is intent, firstly,

on improving the quality of teachers and, with that, their status; secondly, on improving the conditions for students and a reduction of class sizes, and, thirdly, on reducing the work load on teachers. I agree that they are all laudable aims but they are not the aims which are being pursued by the organization. The aims sound plausible and, indeed, the two' main spokesmen of the organiza­tion are extremely plausible in put­ting their views to the public.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-All the secondary teachers I know in the Melbourne Province are wonderful, dedicated teachers.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-Mr. Elliot is fortunate because there are many who are not. I know many teachers who have resigned from the association because they are dedi­cated and want to get on with the job. Performance shows that the real motives of the current hierarchy of this organization are quite different from its published aims. Control of entry into the profession is not for the purpose of improving the profession but to ensure that all new teachers join the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association. All honorable members have seen adver­tisements of the association in the daily press from time to time. One advertisement, which appeared in the Age on 22nd January of this year states that all those intending to teach in Victorian secondary schools during the ensuing year are advised that they are required to' obtain regi­stration from the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association Registration Board. I thought it was the function of Parliament to determine the quali­fications of those admitted to teach in secondary schools; I did not realize that that function had been usurped by the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.-Do you think that there is a difference between the medical profession and the teaching profession?

Governor's Speech : [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Address-in-Reply. 1937

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­There is a vast difference, but it would take some time to explain it and I do not intend to be side­tracked. In one case, a teacher was brought from England to teach in secondary schools in Victoria. I happen to know the person who accompanied this teacher to the high school to which she has been posted. She was met at the door on the very first day by a young man who pointed his finger and said that she could not teach there, that she would not be admitted to teach because she was not registered by the Victorian Sec­ondary Teachers Association. That was before she set foot inside the school. The teacher was extremely distressed. As she said, she had left everything behind in England and was now not to be allowed to earn a living in Australia. She did not know what she was to do. This teacher was extremely highly quali­fied, having two degrees and eight years' teaching experience in sec­ondary schools in England. Ulti­mately, she became registered because she had no alternative but to ]Oln the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association.

If the objectives of the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association are to improve education, to improve teacher quality, and to improve the facilities available to children attend­ing secondary schc'ols, the association is going about achieving them in an extremely strange way. It is magni­fying and compounding the problems by refusing to allow highly qualified people to teach, thereby providing what we need second only to money, a reserve of skilled teachers or a sufficient number of school teachers.

Another aspect which I find curious is that the campaign of the Victorian Secondary Teachers Asso­ciation began when it appeared obvious that the number of teachers' colleges was rapidly increasing and that, within a short time, a few years,

sufficient graduates would come from these colleges to meet current needs. It was at this stage that the associa­tion launched its campaign to dis­rupt the education system in Victoria. I suggest that the people behind this campaign are no friends of the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, or the Country Party; they are disruptionists.

I suggest two possible steps which the Minister might consider taking to improve the secondary education system. The first is to return forms I. and II. to primary schools. This would have two advantages. The first is that primary teachers are more easily trained and more readily avail­able than secondary teachers. This would overcome the problem of an insufficient number of secondary teachers. Degrees and high standards of qualification are not needed to teach forms I. and II.

The second advantage concerns a matter about which a number of parents have expressed great concern to me. It is that young children in forms I. and II., about eleven and twelve years of age, are coming under the influence of some of the radicals in forms V. and VI. at high schools. These are members of an organization which called itself Students for a Democratic Society, although I think it now has a new name. Children still of an impressionable age, who are unable to sort out in their own minds what is right from what is wrong, are being sucked in-to use the colloquial expression-by these glib disruptionists. To bring eleven and twelve-year-olds back to primary school would remove them from this influence.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I am not so much concerned with that as with the practical aspects of the suggestion.

The Hon. H. M'. HAMILTON.-I agree that the practical aspects provide the greater recommendation. Another aspect is that of economy.

1938 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

Apart from staff costs, the last figure published by the Minister suggested that the recurrent expenditure in secondary schools was $491 per pupil, and in primary schools $262. Capital expenditure to establish a secondary school is approximately $1,200 per pupil, and approximately $500 for a primary school. There­fore, it would seem that there would be a great advantage in returning to the old central school idea.

Another suggestion I wish to make is one which would be resisted. by some sections and schools because they are afraid that it would affect their own status. I suggest that in­stead of every high school having form VI. there should be certain high schools where form VI. is a com­bined class of pupils from schools in a district.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIcH.-That has been tried in the senior high schools.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­I am aware that it has been mooted. It exists in some areas but is not a policy of the Education Department. It should be adopted.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-Many children are compelled to leave school because of the distance they would have to travel to reach matriculation standard.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­How far did Mr. Elliot travel to school to reach matriculation standard?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-I went from the Australian Coaching College to J. B. Were and Son where I obtained a job in 1932 from 139 applicants, and that is when I did not get my matriculation certificate.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­I walked about a mile, travelled about 5 miles in the tram, then walked another mile to reach my matriculation class. I am not sure what Mr. Elliot means when he says that some pupils have to travel too far.

The Han. D. G. ELLIoT.-Some pupils are required to travel tO'o far. At one time pupils travelled from Collingwood to Reservoir.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­The pupils were provided with buses.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Not at that time.

The Han. H. M. HAMILTON.­One of the problems in secondary teaching is the provision of sufficient mathematics and science teachers. By combining certain classes, the available talent that is offering can be spread. The recent report of the Catholic Board of Education has suggested that in the near future it may be necessary to abandon any further development in Catholic secondary education. There are now approximately 50,000 pupils attend­ing Catholic secondary schools and working on the basis of the popula­tion doubling in, say, twenty years, it means that in addition to the normal intake of pupils into our high schools over the next twenty years, they must be prepared to absorb at least a further 50,000 pupils from Catholic schools. I made a rapid calculation of the sum of money which would be involved to the State in addition to its already ex­panding demand for education, and found that in recurrent expenditure based on $491 per pupil a further annual sum of $24 million would be required. An additional $60 million would be required for capital expen­diture. This is not a small sum, even though it may be spread over the next twenty years.

I have indicated some of the prob­lems which face the Minister. These problems are related to the capital expenditure necessary for the restora­tion of existing schools to an accept­able standard and they must be dealt with. However, the recent report of Judge Southwell has outlined some measures which will take care of some of the problems thrown up by the Vic­torian Secondary Teachers Associa­tion. I understand that the greater

Governor's Speech ; [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] A ddress-in-Reply. 1939

part of Judge Southwell's recom­mendations are to be implemented either in toto, or at least substantially.

I now wish to refer briefly to another subject about which I spoke last year-the question of industrial relations-but I shall not go into this matter in detail. Probably the most outstanding feature in the indus­trial relations field during the past twelve months has been the involve­ment of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in capitalistic types of investment. Having moved into the retail trading field, the Australian Council of Trade Unions now pro­poses to enter the field of capitalistic investment in insurance, banking and similar financial enterprises.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-It is wor­ker enterprise.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-I stand corrected. It is worker capita­listic enterprise.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIoT.-Eventu­ally it will tum into public enterprise.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-The second matter to which I wish to draw attention is the increasing pres­sure from workers for a greater share of the gross national product which, combined with other pressures, is causing some of the inflationary trends occurring in the economy to­day. In this connection I noticed in a recent publication that losses due to strikes in 1970 amounted to $31 mil­lion, but during the first seven months of 1971 losses due to strikes have :r;eached the staggering figure of. $27 million. This indicates the extent of industrial agitation that is sweeping through various union organizations today.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIcH.-The major increase in strikes is due to building trades unions in Sydney.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.~The metal trades are also involved, but I have not analysed the situation in depth.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIcH.-Mr. Hamil ton is making a sweeping statement.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-I am referring to figures I saw the other day and which I take to be substan­tially accurate. I do not think Mr. Tripovich will quarrel with them. I suggest that the Australian Council of Trade Unions, when making its next investment, could well be in the field of social welfare.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-The honor­able member suggests that the Aus­tralian Council of Trade Unions should take over the job of the Gov­ernment?

The Hon. H. M'. HAMILTON.-That is a good suggestion. In recent years the State has become increasingly involved in social welfare work. A generation ago these problems were substantially shouldered by families who looked after their parents and accepted a great deal of responsi­bility for sickness, and so on. Because of the riSing cost of living it has become more difficult for a young family to accommodate ageing parents. Therefore, people have turned to the State to seek assistance, but the State cannot provide it all. The other area in the community which previously shouldered a great deal of this re­sponsibility in the past comprised organizations such as churches and various welfare bodies. These organi­zations are rapidly losing both their physical support and financial resources.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIcH.-They cater only for t~e indigent people.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-That is so, but an enormous proportion of social welfare work was undertaken by these agencies, and today more and more of it is being thrown back on the State· because no other organization has shown itself willing to accept some responsibility in this area. The State is expected to shoulder the lot, which is fair enough

1940 Governor's Speech: [COUNCIL.] Address-in-Reply.

if no other agency will accept respon­sibility. However, I suggest that this modern collossus, the Australian Council of Trade Unions, should look into this matter. I have not heard that the Australian Council of Trade Unions conducts a hospital or home for the aged, and I can see no reason why it should not do so. In F ootscray there is a medical clinic for unionists. I am not sure who finances it, but I believe the worker must still pay for the medical service.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-It is financed by the Australian Federated Butchers Union.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-I make this suggestion in all serious­ness when looking at the enormous problem of providing the social wel­fare services which the community expects to receive. A great need is evident in the fields of health, child care, and welfare generally, and this need should not be left entirely to the State.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-But the State is the people, and it uses public money.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.­That is so. When in 1964 it was proposed by the State Government to impose a tax of one penny in the pound, primarily to provide for the needs of education and social wel­fare, did the Opposition support the proposal?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVlcH.-The Liberal Party fought an election on the issue.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-The Labor Party opposed it vigorously. In fact, Mr. Cathie was elected to this House on this particular issue, but spent the next six years attacking the Government on the question of education, after having defeated his Liberal Party opponent at the election on a proposal which would have pro­vided more money for education.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-A tax would not have been valid.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-The High Court of Australia has already held that it is perfectly valid for the State to impose income tax. The only problem is the right to collect that tax.

Another matter to which I wish to refer is the question of law and order. During the past year, several violent demonstrations in this city almost got out of hand. I question the motives of many people who become involved in demonstrations. Most of the people taking part in them were motivated by high ideals, but I am not so sure about some of the organizers. The same names crop­ped up on each occasion. Some of the 'major demonstrations revolved around South Africa and the question of apartheid. It is interesting to note that South Africa is a violently anti­Communist country and most of the organizations associated with these demonstrations were known Com­munist sympathizers. If people are genuinely concerned with the ques­tion of apartheid, why do they not raise their voices about what hap­pened in Tibet; about the persecution of Jews in Russia; about apartheid in reverse as practised by numerous African States, sheikdoms, or what­ever they may be.

Finally, I wish to refer to a matter which might almost be called geno­cide. I have not heard the churches utter one word in opposition to this, although they have said a great deal about apartheid in South Africa. I have not heard the churches raise the question of the virtual extermina­tion of the Dinker tribe in the South­ern Sudan.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIcH.-We have not heard much from Mr. Hamilton about apartheid.

The Hon. H. M. HAMILTON.-I have always expressed the view that I oppose any discrimination on the ground of race, and I repeat that statement. I still believe that if those who organized the demonstrations were sincere in that matter they

Geelong Harbor Trust [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] (Amendment) Bill. 1941

would have taken action years ago concerning those countries to which I have referred and not singled out as a subject and object of their vilification, a country which is so obviously anti-communist.

Once again I reiterate on my own behalf, and on behalf of my electors, expressions of loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, and my expressions of gratitude to His Excellency the Governor and Lady Delacombe for their work within this State over the past twelve months.

On the motion of the Hon. W. G. FRY (Higinbotham Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

GEELONG HARBOR TRUST (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The House went intO' Committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion was resumed of clause 10, providing, inter alia-

For section 110 of the prinCipal Act there shall be substituted the ·following section:-

"110. (1) Where any refuse rubbish earth or other matter or any dangerous inflammable oorrosive or offensive liquid is put or is permitted to fall or flow into an'y part of the port the person who put or allowed that refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid to fall or flow into any part of the port shall be guilty of an offence against this Act and where the refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid was put or was ,allowed to flow or fall from a vessel into any part of the port the master of the vessel shall also be guilty of an offence ag'ainst this Act.

Penalty: $5,000."

and of Mr. Murray Byrne's amend­ment-

That, in sub-section (1) of proposed sec­tion 110, as contained in clause 10, the words "shall also be guilty to an offence against this Act" be omitted with the view of inserting the words cc shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence but shall not be liable for 'any penalty where the actual offender is convicted for the offence".

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-Since progress was reported, I have had the opportunity of discussing clause 10 with the Parliamentary Counsel and with certain honorable members. I have circulated a proposed amend­ment which I understand meets with the approval of those honorable members who raised problems con­cerning the clause.

1 am in the unique position of having to ask the Committee to take my word that at a later stage I shall move the new proposed amendment to the clause. However, because it is not possible for the Committee to consider any portion of clause 10 prior to line 21, the pro­cedure that must be adopted is for the Committee to pass the Bill in its present form. Then it will be neces­sary to recommit the Bill and for me to submit my proposed amendment. 1 now seek leave to withdraw the amendment which 1 have already moved and ask the Committee to pass the Bill in its present form. I am advised by the Clerk that this is the procedure which must be adopted.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-1 am not fortified with advice, but I under­stood that the Committee was con­sidering sub-section (1) of proposed section 110, as contained in clause 10, and the amendment moved by the Minister. Where the amendment fits into the clause may have some bear­ing on the matter but, when pro­gress was reported, the whole clause was under consideration and surely the Committee can now take account of the clause and is not restricted to the last line of the proposed sub­section.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-As I understand the position, the moving of the amendment at line 21 of the clause is a clear implication that the earlier portions of the clause have been dealt with. Consequently, it is not competent for the Committee to go back on what has already been

1942 Geelong Harbor Trust [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

done. Unfortunately, it appears that the suggested procedure must be gone through.

The Hon. I. A~ SWINBURNE.­When the Minister moved his amendment the Committee was dealing with the whole clause. Mr. Galbally and I raised the ,question, that proposed sub-section (1) of section 110 should be divided into two parts. Surely, as the Committee was dealing with a clause that had not yet been agreed to, the simplest method is to withdraw clause' 10 and submit a new clause.

The CHAIRMAN.-I agree that this would be a simple way out but, on the best advice available to me, the Committee is not competent to follow the procedure. 1 suggest th~t rather than argue about it, the Com­mi ttee should adopt the procedure out.lined by the Minister.

By leave, the amendment was withdrawn.

The clause was agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN.-The question is-

That I report the Bill to the House with­out amendment.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-1 have never seen anything so stupid in all my life.

The CHAIRMAN.-Mr. Swinburne, are you reflecting on a ruling from the Chair?

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-No, 1 am just making a statement.

The CHAIRMAN.-I ask Mr. Swin­burne to withdraw his remarks as 1 consider that they are a reflection on the ruling of the Chair.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE . ..--If you think it is an affront to you, Sir, 1 will withdraw.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was reported to the House with­out amendment.-

On the motion of the Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Pub­lic Works), the Bill was 'recommitted for the further consideration of clause 10.

Clause 10-For section 110 of the principal. Act there

shall be substituted the following section :-, "110. (1) Where any refuse rubbish

earth or other matter or any dangerous inflammable corrosive or offensive liquid is put or is permitted to fall or flow into any part of the port the person, who put or allowed that refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid to fall or flow into 'any part of the port shall be guilty of an offence', against this Act and when the refuse 'rubbish earth matter or liquid was put or was ~llowed to flow or fall from a vessel into any part of the port the master of the ,vessel shall also be guilty of an offence 'against this Act.

Penalty: $5,000. (2) Nothing in this section shall affect

the powers of the Commissioners to under­take reclamation work in the port or to permit reclamation work in the port in ,any place or in any manner ,approved by the Commissioners."

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 regret that it is necessary to deal with the matter in such' a round-about way. I mov~

That, in ,sub-section (1) of proposed section 110, ~s contained in clause 10, the following words, and expressions:-.. against this Act and where the refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid was put or was allowed to flow or fall from a vessel into any part of the port the master of the vessel shall also be guilty of an offence against t~is Act.

Penalty: $5,000. (2) Nothing in this section shall effect

powers of the" be omitted with the view of inserting the following :-"against this Act.

Penalty: $5,000. (2) Where any refuse rubbish earth or

other matter or any dangerous inflammable corrosive or offensive liquid is put or is permitted to fall or flow from a vessel into any part of the port either the master of the vessel or the person who put or 'allowed that refuse rubbish earth matter or liquid to fall or flow from the vessel shall be guilty of an offence.

PenaltY: $5,000.

Adjournment. [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Adjournment. 1943

(3) Nothing in this section shall 'affect the powers of the" The amendment will achieve what has been requested so that the per­son on the boat is separated from the person who is not on the boat.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

The . Bill was reported to the House with an amendment, and pass­ed through its remaining stages.

ADJOURNMENT. EDUCATION DEPARTMENT: SHORTAGE

OF' TEACHERS IN NORTHERN SUBURBS: LAND ADJACENT TO MORDIALLOC PRIMARY SCHOOL­MINISTRY OF TOURISM: TOURISM PROJECT AT ECHUCA-POLICE DE­PARTMENT: STAFF AT WHITTLESEA. The Hon. G. L. CHANDLER

(Minister of Agriculture) . I move-

That the House do now adjourn.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-1 wish to raise a matter concerning a shortage of teachers in the northern suburbs, particularly at the Glenroy Technical School. This co-educational school 'has 1,189 students of whom 477 are girls, and it has not had a female vice-principal for the whole of the . year.

I have checked this situation and Mr. Eddy has asked two questions of the Minister of Education through the Minister of Public Works about the matter. The facts are that Mrs. Stephenson was . transferred to the position of principal of the Sunshine North Technical School. The vacancy left by her departure was advertised twice, but on each occa­sion there' were no eligible appli­cants. Schools in the northern suburbs have been faced with a

. shortage of teaching staff for a long time ·and, I ask that action be taken to overcome the problem. On 10th

March, 1970, I asked the following question of the Minister of Educa­tion:-

Are schools in the northern suburbs at a disadvantage against schools in the southern suburbs, because many teachers are loath to include the northern suburbs in their list of priorities: if so, what action is proposed to ensure that the needs of the pupils in the northern suburbs are properly considered and catered for?

In reply, the Minister stated:-In their applications to the Committee

of Classifiers for transfers and promotions most teachers show a preference for schools in southern and eastern areas.

Following transfers and promotions by the classifiers, any remaining vacancies in northern suburbs are filled by ex-college students and by teachers recruited by the secondary staffing officers.

In reply to a question on this sub­ject which was asked by Mr. Eddy today, the Minister of Public Works, for the Minister fo'!" Education, stated that an acting vice-principal, a woman, would be appointed at Glenroy for 1972, and that the vacant position would need to be re­advertised in 1972. However, on the best advice I can obtain, I do not believe there will be any eligible applicants in that year. To be eligible, an applicant must have spent three years in the previous grade; and teachers are not interested in taking jobs in the northern suburbs. This is a matter which will require serious considera­tion .

Northern suburbs deserve decent teachers. I do not contend that the teachers in the schools are not decent, but many of them are ex­college students and teachers who have been out of the profession for years and have been recruited to teach again.

The Parent-Teacher Association of the Glenroy Technical School considered this position at a meeting of the association and in a letter dated 23rd October they advised me, as no doubt they advised Mr. Eddy, and Mr. Wheeler in another place, of their dismay to hear that no

1944 Adjournment. [COUNCIL.] Adjournment.

appointment had been made. They pointed out that at present a senior male teacher is acting female vice­principal, and stated-

As an expression of deep concern association members unanimously pass the following motion:

This meeting of parents and teachers deplores the fact that Glenroy Technical School faces yet another year without a female vice-principal. We feel that a co-educ,ational school of this size, 1,189 students (477 girls), needs the full quota of administration staff if it is to function properly.

We ask the Education Department to treat this matter as urgent, and to pro­vide the school with a full time senior female teacher as acting vice-principal, until a suitable appointment is made. The parents and teachers of this school

view this matter with grave concern, and ask for your assistance in helping to impress on the Education Department the vital urgency of this matter.

Because a senior master is acting as vice-principal and is looking after the girls at the school, there has been a change of positions throughout, and the bottom position is taken up by a former college student or recruited teacher. Consequently instead of getting a woman vice-principal the school has obtained a college student.

If teachers continue to lack interest in appointments to northern schools, 1 suggest that promotion arrange­ments may have to be altered. Per­haps they will have to be paid more to attract them. Our children are en­titled to an education which is equal to that of children in schools in the southern and south-eastern areas.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Mini­ster of Public Works) .-Mr. Tripo­vich has advanced his argument adequately and with force in request­ing the appointment of a female vice­principal to Glenroy Technical School. 1 appreciate the problems the honor­able member has mentioned and 1 as­sure him that 1 shall make the tran­script of everything he has said avail­able to the Minister of Education to­morrow, and 1 shall see that his re­presentations are put forward in a forceful fashion.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-1 desire to raise a matter concerning the admini­stration of the Ministry of Tourism. Has the Minister for Tourism seen a report in the Herald to­night which is headed "$500,000 Boost to Echuca" written by a Mr. Laurie Sweet which states that the Minister for Tourism is to make avail­able that sum for a tourist develop­ment project at Echuca. I bring this matter to the notice of the Minister because the normal practice is for local members to be advised when grants are being made available. For that reason I was surprised to see this article. The town clerk of Echuca has been in contact with me by tele­phone and has expressed his surprise and concern at the way in which this matter has been brought to the notice of the public. Can the Minister ad­vise whether the article is correct?

The Hon. V. O. DICKIE (Minister for Tourism) .-1 should dearly love to have that sum of money to spend on various projects throughout the State. The report is not correct. 1 have worked in close co-operation with Mr. McDonald, Mr. Michael Clarke, and Mr. Russ McDonald of another place concerning a project that has been drawn up by an architectural firm in Melbourne to re­store the old wharf area and the build­ings within the precincts of the wharf at Echuca. When the project was first brought to my attention it was to cost an amount in excess of $300,000, and when 1 met the people from Echuca 1 informed them that it would be magnificent if it could be achieved but that the sum involved was too great for them to make a reasonable contribution or for the Government to make any substantial contribution, and 1 asked them to re­assess the project and attempt in co­operation with Mr. Harkins, my Director of Tourism, to reduce it to a far more reasonable figure. That is where the matter rests.

I went to Echuca last week with Mr. Stuart McDonald, and we studied the project, but I gave the people concerned no indication what finance

Adjournment. [27 OCTOBER, 1971.] Adjournment. 1945

would be made available. 1 think everybody in Echuca understood the position, namely, that they must submit a reasonable proposal. 1 was surprised to' see the announcement in today's press.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) .-1 wish to draw the attention of the House to another problem which exists in the northern suburbs in Doutta Galla Province which is represented by Mr. Tripovich and myself. According to figures, fur­nished to me, the population of the Shire of Whittle sea at the end of December last year was 27,170. I have since learned that the present population exceeds 30,000. There are only eleven police officers in the shire to look after that large population. I believe this is a disgrace and that the Government should rectify the situation. Thomastown and Lalor are two towns within the shire and their population is 23,500. There are only six policemen to patrol those two towns. That means that there is one constable to look after 2,757 persons in the shire. People should not be left unprotected in this manner. A dangerous situation could arise in the shire.

I ask the Minister of Public Works to take this matter up with the appro­priate Minister with a view to ensuring that something is done. There is no oolice station at Lalor but the Minister informed me that land adiacent to the Lalor Technical School has been purchased as a site for a oolice station. The honorable gentleman also said that there was no indication when work on the police station was likely to start. WithIn the next twelve months there will be no police station at Lalor and very little if any addition to the strength ~ of the police staff within the shire of Whittlesea. According to the shire secretary, the population of the area is increasing by 3,000 a year and by the end of next year, with no addi~ tional police station and probably no increase in the strength of the force in the shire, there will be a population of more than 33,000 people. I ask the

Minister to have a good look at the situation in the shire and to make an endeavour to increase the strength of the force in the area.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-Mr. Eddy has indicated to the House a critical shortage of police in the Shire of Whi ttlesea. The honorable member obtained his information from an answer to a question sup­plied by the Chief Secretary. 1 do not know whether the "area is serviced by another police district, but 1 shall ensure that Mr. Eddy's complaint is brought to the attention of the Chief Secretary. The House should be pleased to know that in the past couple of months a record number of recruits has joined the Police Force and it is hooed that soon the shortage of police in Victoria will be overcome. I assure Mr. Eddy that he will get an answer to the matter which he has rais'ed.

The Hon. W. G. FRY (Higinbotham Province) .-1 wish to raise an urgent matter concerning an area of vacant land adjacent to the Mordialloc Primary School, which the Education Department is trying to acquire. However, nobody knows who owns the land or who has the title. The council does not own it and the Education Department does not own it. It is overgrown with weeds. The head teacher of the school contacted me and told me that last week-end a fire started on the vacant block which is adjacent to the school library. The local residents managed to extinguish the fire before it caused any damage to the school building. I mention this matter so that an interest can be taken in it before the school library is burnt down.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister of Public Works) .-1 am gra teful to Mr. Fry for raising this matter. 1 shall certainly ensure that an inspector from the Public Works Departm'ent examines the block of land.

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 11.19 p.m.