VIC TO :RIA · VIC TO :RIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) FORTY -FIFTH PARLIAMENT THIRD SESSION...

VIC TO :RIA

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD)

FORTY -FIFTH PARLIAMENT

THIRD SESSION (1972-73)

iJlrgtslutiur <trnuuril uub iJlrgislatiur .Assrmbln

VOL. CCCXI.

[Fro·m Dec~1nber 12, 1972, to March 27, 1973}

MELBOURNE : C. H. RIXON, GOVERNMENT PRINTER.

-4093'73

mtJt Q;nurrnnr

His Exrellency Major-General SIR ROHAN DELACOMBE, K.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., K.B.E., C.B., D.S.O., K.ST.J.

UJ4r m irutrtuutt-Q;nurrnnr The Honorable SIR HENRY ARTHUR WINNEKE, K.C.M.G., O.B.E., Q.C.

w~r 11 inistt·y Premier, Treasurer, and Minister of the The Hon. R. J. Hamer, E.D., M.P.

Arts

Minister of Education

Minister of Agriculture

Attorney-General

Chief Secretary, and Minister of Forests

Minister for Fuel and Power, and Minister of Mines

Minister of Health

Minister of Transport

Minister of Housing, and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs

Minister for Conservation, Minister of Lands, and Minister of Soldier Settlement

Minister of Labour and Industry

Minister for State Development and Decentralization, Minister for Tourism, and Minister of Immigration

*Minister for Social Welfare, and Minister for Youth and Recreation

Minister of Water Supply, and Minister of Public Works

Minister for Local Government

Minister without Portfolio

"

"

"

"

,

"

,

"

, ,

"

"

"

L. H. S. Thompson, M.P.

Sir Gilbert Chandler, K.B.E., C.M.G., M.L.C.

Sir George Reid, Q.C., M.P.

E. R. Meagher, M.B.E., E.D., M.P.

J. C. M. Balfour, M.P.

J. F. Rossiter, M.P.

V. F. Wilcox, M.P.

V. 0. Dickie, M.L.C.

W. A. Borthwick, M.P.

J. A. Rafferty, M.P.

Murray Byrne, M.L.C.

l. W. Smith, M.P.

R. C. Dunstan, D.S.O., M.P.

A. J. Hunt, M.L.C.

A. H. Scanlan, M.P.

Parliamentary Secretary of the Cabinet: The Hon. W. V. Houghton, M.L.C.

• Minister for Youth, Sport and Recreation from December 19, 1972.

illiat nf illil.emb.ers nf Jlarliam.ettt FORTY-FIFTH PARLIAMENT-THIRD SESSION (1972-73)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

MEMBER PROVINCE

Bradbury, A. K. North-Eastern Byrne, Murray . . Ballaarat Campbell, W. M. East Yarra Chandler, Sir Gilbert, Boronia

K.B.E., C.M.G. Clarke, M. A. Dickie, V. 0. Dunn, B. P. Eddy, R. J. Elliot, D. G. Fry, W. G.

Northern . . Ballaarat . . North-Western . . Doutta Galla

Galbally, J. W., Q.C ... Garrett, R. W., A.F.C.,

Melbourne Higinbotham Melbourne North Templestowe

A.E.A. Gleeson, S. E. Granter, F. J. Grimwade, F. S. Gross, K. S. Hamilton, H. M .,

South-Western . . Bendigo . . Bendigo

Western B.D. Higinbotham

MEMBER

Hauser, V. T. Hider, C. A. M. Houghton, W. V. Hunt, A. J. Jenkins, 0. G. Kent, D. E. Knight, A. W. McDonald, S. R. Mansell, A. R. May, R. W. Mitchell, C. A. Nicol, G. J. Storey, Haddon, Q.C. Swinburne, I. A. Thomas, H. A.

*Trayling, I. B. Tripovich, J. M. Walton, J. M. Ward, H. R.

• Elected, June 9, 1972.

PROVINCE

Boronia Monash Templestowe South-Eastern South-Western Gippsland Melbourne West Northern North-Western Gippsland Western Monash East Yarra North-Eastern Melbourne West Melbourne

. . Doutta Galla Melbourne North

. . South-Eastern

President: THE HoN. R. W. GARRETT, A.F.C., A.E.A.

Chairman of Committees: THE HoN. G. J. NICOL.

Temporary Chairmen of Committees : THE HoNORABLES A. K. BRADBURY, W. G. FRY, K. S. GROSS, AND A. W. KNIGHT.

MEMBER

Amos, D. G. I. •Austin, T. L. Balfour, J. C. M. Billing, N. A. W., K.ST.J. Birrell, H. W. tBolte, Sir Henry,

G.C.M.G. Bomstein, D. L. F. Borthwick, W. A. Broad, H. G. Burgin, C. W. Christie, Sir Vernon Crellin, M. L. Curnow, E. J. Dixon, B. J. Doube, V. J. Dunstan, R. C., D.S.O. Edmunds, C. T. Evans, A. T. Evans, B. J. Fell, R. W. Floyd, W. L. Fordham, R. C. Ginifer, J. J. Goble, Mrs. D. A. Guy, A. G. Hamer, R. J., E.D. Hayes, G. P. Holding, A. C. Jona, Walter Jones, B. 0 ... Kirkwood, C. W. D. Lewis, E. W. Lewis, W. J. Lind, A. A. C. Lovegrove, Denis Loxton, S. J. E. McCabe, J. E. MacDonald, J. D.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

DISTRICT

Morwell Hampden Narracan Heatherton Geelong Hampden

Brunswick East Monbulk Swan Hill Polwarth Ivanhoe Sandringham Kara Kara St. Kilda Albert Park Dromana Moonee Ponds Ballaarat North Gippsland East Greens borough Williamstown Footscray Deer Park Mitcham Gisborne Kew Scoresby Richmond Hawthorn Melbourne Preston Dundas Portland Dandenong Sunshine Prahran Low an Glen Iris

MEMBER

McDonald, R. S. L. McLaren, I. F., O.B.E. Maclellan, R. R. C.

DISTRICT

Rodney Bennetts wood Gippsland West Ringwood Manson, J. W.

Meagher, E. R., M.B.E., Frankston E.D.

Mitchell, T. W. Moss, G. C. Mutton, J. P. Rafferty, J. A. Reese, W. F. L. Reid, Sir George, Q.C. Ross-Edwards, Peter Rossiter, J. F. Scanlan, A. H. Shilton, L. V. Simmonds, J. L. Smith, Aurel Smith, I. W. Stephen, W. F. Stokes, R. N. Suggett, R. H. Tanner, Sir Edgar, C.B.E.,

E. D. Taylor, A. W., E.D. Taylor, J. A. Templeton, T. W. Thompson, L. H. S. Trethewey, R. H. Trewin, T. C. Trezise, N. B. Turnbull, Campbell Wheeler, K. H. Whiting, M. S. Wilcox, V. F. Wilkes, F. N. Wilton, J. T. Wiltshire, R. J.

Benambra Murray Valley Coburg Glenhuntlv Moorabbin Box Hill Shepparton Brighton Oakleigh Midlands Reservoir Bellarine Warrnambool Ballaarat South Evelyn Bent leigh Caulfield

Balwyn Gippsland South Mentone Malvern Bendigo Be nail a Geelong North Brunswick West Essen don Mil dura Camberwell Northcote Broadmeadows Syndal

• Elected, October 7, 1972. t Resigned, August 24, 1972.

Speaker : The Hon. SrR VERNON CHRISTIE.

Chairman of Committees : SiR EDGAR TANNER, C.B.E., E.D.

Temporary Chairmen of Committees: MR. EDMUNDS, MR. A. T. EvANS, MR. GINIFER, MR. JoNA, MR. LIND, MR. R. S. L. McDONALD, MR. McLAREN, MR. MITCHELL, MR. STOKES, MR. SUGGETT, MR. A. W. TAYLOR, MR. TREWIN, MR. WHEELER, AND MR. WILTSHIRE.

Leader of the Liberal Party: THE HoN. R. J. HAMER, E.D.

Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party : THE HoN. L. H. S. THOMPSON.

Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Leader of the Opposition : MR. A. C. HoLDING.

Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party and Deputy Leader of the Opposition: MR. F. N. WILKES.

Leader of the Country Party: MR. PETER Ross-EDWARDS.

Deputy Leader Qf the Country Party : MR. M. S. WHJTING,

HEADS OF PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS

Council-Clerk of the Parliaments and Clerk of the Legislative Council : Mr. A. R. B. McDonnell.

Assembly-Clerk of the Legislative Assembly : Mr. J. H. Campbell.

Hansard-Chief Reporter: Mr. R. G. Stuart, E.D.

Library-Librarian : Miss J. McGovern.

House -Secretary : Mr. R. M. Duguid.

Questions [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] on Notice. 3317

iitgislatint C!!nuuril. Tuesday, December 12, 1972.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett) took the chair at 4.28 p.m., and read the prayer.

LATROBE VALLEY. BROWN COAL DEPOSITS.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) asked the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, for the Minister for Fuel and Power-

How many acres of land in the Latrobe Valley area, held under title created prior to 31st March, 1892, have known brown coal deposits?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization).- The answer supplied by the Minister for Fuel and Power is-

To obtain the information requested covering the whole of the Latrobe Valley coal field would take some considerable time. However, as a guide to the honorable member, it has been calculated that in the Loy Yang field which covers some 12,160 acres, approximately 9,200 acres are held under title created prior to 31st March, 1892.

FISHING INDUSTRY. SAFE MERCURY LEVEL IN SCHOOL

SHARK. The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland

Province) asked the Minister of Housing, for the Minister of Health-

What was the finding of the World Health Organization in relation to the acceptable or safe level of mercury in school shark for use for human consumption?

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-The answer supplied by the M'inister of Health is-

To the best of the knowledge of officers of the Department of Health the World Health Organization has not recommended a safe level of mercury in any species of fish. However, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives recently established a provisional tolerable weekly intake of 0·3 mg of total mercury per adult

Session 1972.-117

person, of which no more than 0 · 2 mg should be present as methylmercury, (expressed as mercury'); these amounts are equivalent to 0·005 mg and 0·0033 mg, respectively, per kilogram body weight which in effect means that the acceptable weekly intake for children would be lower. I think that is delightfully vague.

EXPLORATORY FISHING SCHEME. The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland

Province) asked the Minister of Housing, for the Minister for Conservation-

Further to question No. 7 asked ·in this House on 6th December-(i) when is it proposed that each of the 22 boats included in the proposed exploratory fishing scheme will be engaged, and when will they commence operation; and {ii) what was the total number of boats engaged in fishing for school shark prior to the restrictions occasioned by the mercury content, and will those boats be granted licences to fish for other types or species of fish?

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing).-The answer supplied by the Minister for Conservation is-

(i) The number of vessels which are to be included in the exploratory fishing scheme has fallen to sixteen since my earlier answer to the honorable member.

Of the six boats which will not be engaged, two will now be employed in a special mid-water trawling experiment to be financed by a special Commonwealth fund and supervised by the Fisheries and Wildlife Branch, the owners of another two boats did not wish to be 'involved in the scheme, the fifth boat has been sold, while the sixth boat will not be used in the programme.

Modifications to boats and purchase of special fishing gear will be undertaken with the availability of finance. Depending on the type of fishing operation in which particular boats are employed, it is ~expected to be one to three months thereafter that fishing commences and charter fees are paid.

(ii) At least 156 Victorian licensed boats caught some school shark prior to the imposition of shark restrictions and of course the operators of all these boats hold master fishermen's licences. Generally this entitles them to fish in all Victorian marine fisheries except crayfish, scallop and abalone.

Only eighteen of these boats obtained most of their income from shark fishing and at the same time were not licensed to operate in the restricted fisheries mentioned earlier. The entry of any of these boats into the limited fisheries would, I believe, have a serious effect upon the fishermen

3318 Questions [COUNCIL.] on Notice

alr.eady operating in ·them particularly as it is considered that these fisheries are already at, or very close to, their safe limit of exploitation.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. HAMILTON HIGH SCHOOL.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (Western Province) asked the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, for the Minister of Education-

Does the Education Department intend to shift a still-needed portable class-room from Hamilton High School; if so, why?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-The answer supplied by the Minister of Education is-

No. It is not proposed to transfer the portable class-room from Hamilton High School at this time.

ROAD ACCIDENTS. COMPENSATION PAYMENTS TO

VICTIMS.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) asked the Minister for Local Government, for the Chief Secretary-

Has the scheme ·to make immediate payments to victims of road accidents been implemented in terms of the Speech of His Excellency the Governor on the opening of Parliament?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT ,(Minister for Local Government) .-The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

As the honorable member is no doubt aware, the Government has approved in principle a limited plan of " no fault " compensation for victims of road accidents. The object of the plan, as indicated by His Excellency, is to make immediate payments to victims of road accidents, irrespective of fault, so as to remove the serious hardship caused by delays in fixing liability.

A representative committee under the chairmanship of the Government Statist and Actuary was subsequently formed to suggest details of a feasible scheme and the nature of the necessary legislation.

Several interim reports from the committee have been received by the Chief Secretary and currently he is giving consideration to the preparation of appropriate legislation for presentation to Parliament.

It is hoped that this legislation will be introduced into the House during the autumn sessional period.

PRISONS DIVISION. ILLITERATE PRISONERS.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) asked the Minister for Local Government, for the Chief Secretary-

What percentage of prisoners under 21 years of age can neither read nor write?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government).-The answer supplied by the Chief Secretary is-

Matters relating to prisoners come within the administration of the Minister for Social Welfare who has advised me that precise information of this nature is not on record, but it is estimated that approximately 1 per cent of all prisoners appear to have had no education at all.

PAPERS. The following papers, pursuant to

the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid upon the table by the Clerk:-Police Service Board-Determination No.

200.

National Parks-Report of Director for the year 1971-72.

WATER SUPPLY WORKS AND SERVICES BILL.

The debate (adjourned from December 12) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-This is the annual Water Supply Works and Services Bill. It is obvious to everyone concerned that at this stage an adequate water supply for Victoria cannot be maintained. Unfortunately, when an emergency situation arises it is too late to take action. Provision to meet Victoria's water supply needs requires long and careful planning; it requires the expenditure of larger sums of money than have been made available, and it is disappointing to note that the :allocation for this financial year has been reduced by more than $500,000. This cannot be regarded as a satisfactory state of affairs.

Water Supply Works [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] and Services Bill. 3319

Essential works to provide for the growing needs of Victoria will have to be delayed and works already planned wil'l have to be curtailed. When the present emergency passes, the Government will again lapse into a state of apathy until the next major crisis arises. Water supply is essential. This has become more and more obvious as Victoria has faced the problems of a shortage of water not only for town supplies in both metropolitan and country areas but also for irrigation purposes. The effects of this shortage, particularly in relation to pollution of the environment, will become apparent. Unless an adequate water supply is provided for both domestic and industrial life, Victoria could become paralyzed and the health of the community could be jeopardized.

In some areas an acute shortage of water exists and unless the unexpected occurs in the next two or three months many industries and pastoral pursuits will be in grave difficulties. Once water has run to the sea, it is not possible to bring it back. A much more determined and long-term view should be taken in the planning of Victoria's water resources. Recently, a controversy took place over proposals to divert water from Latrobe River to meet what must be acknowledged to be the future needs of the Mornington Peninsula, which is developing into an extension of the metropolitan area. My party accepts the view that if industry is allowed to develop in an area, population grows as a result of it and therefore an obligation exists to provide an adequate water supply. However, members of my party do not accept that water should be taken from the cheapest immediately available source.

If particular areas are to be deprived of essential water supplies, they will not be able to obtain the water needed for agricultural and industrial development to service the growing population which it is now accepted is required in various regions of Victoria. One of the regions which has been generally

accepted as naturally suited to a greater increase in population and industrial development is the Latrobe Valley.

East Gippsland has been in the grip of a long and acute drought for more than a year and no relief in the foreseeable future is in sight. Water cannot be provided to alleviate the present position, but steps can be taken to store the huge volumes of water which year after year, particularly in Gippsland, run to waste.

The provision of storages will not alleviate the over-all position completely but it will certainly reduce the severity of circumstances experienced in the present drought. This is a cheap price to pay when compared with the loss of income and earning capacity of the whole community, the cost of providing drought relief and other support which is necessary for a population which has lost its ·earning capacity. I do not mean that honorable members must necessarily support water storage development on the premise that the principal use should be for irrigation; we must look at the whole area and the various ways in which water can be used economically. In certain areas, it is essential that water be used to a large degree for industrial purposes because with industrial development there will be a greater demand for domestic purposes.

The provision of water can produce a beneficial effect by ensuring a certain measure of security for a growing rural population. This is true of East Gippsland, which is particularly favourable as an area climatically-that may sound contradictive, but East Gippsland has one of the most favourable climates in Victoria. An adequate water supply is essential to the balanced development of the region which Governments have neglected in the past. However, with the new concept of a forward -looking administration and with the co-operation which is sure

3320 Water Supply Works [COUNCIL.] and Services Bill.

to be forthcoming from the new Federal Ministry, there wiU be balanced development in that ~area.

. Governments should adopt the v~ew .that the most economic proposition IS the cheapest one. In examining the over-all economic situation it is evident that decisions must b~ made concerning the location of new water storages. From time to time it is necessary to determine whether to build a small storage which will require less !nitial capital, or a large storage which, in the long term, will ~e a far more economical proposition m regard to the amount of water available for the capital involved. A decision of this type must be made with regard to the dam on the Mitchell River in East Gippsland. There is a tendency with the Government and members of Parliament who are not iJ? ~pposition ~o attribute the responsibility for this decision to Government instrumentalities such as the St.at~ Rivers and Wate; Supply Commtsston.

The Public Works Committee is to conduct an inquiry into the proposed diversion of the headwaters of the Latrobe River. Honorable members know that findings of the Public Works Committee are not binding and that the ultimate decision is made by the Government of the day. I believe this is correct, and the Government should accept and acknowledge its responsibility in this regard. What I deplore is the tremendous expense which organizations and individuals incur to provide evidence from exoerts for committees such as the Public Works Committee when in fact, the evidence which they wili submit as a statement of fact is known to officers of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission and other bodies concerned. I believe this information should be available to the public so that a body, such as the Latrobe River Water Users Association, will not feel obliged to expend a sum of $5,000 in preparing a submission to the Public Works Committee. After the relevant facts are known, information from various

The Hon. D. E. Kent.

sources should be made available to the public and it should be made clear that the ultimate decision is one not for the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission but for the Government.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.-Where is the amount of $5,000 obtained and how is it to be spent?

The Hon. D. E. KENT.-It is being spent to engage an expert to prepare a submission to the Public Works Committee. It is being raised by waters users and interested parties over a wide area in Gippsland, but particularly in the Latrobe River area. There are many aspects of water supply which concern the people of Victoria and I believe the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission has done an excellent job with the limited resources made available.

I am not critical of the Government but there are pressures from the public to have exoenditure incurred in other areas. Water is the lifeblood of any community and unless adequate storage is provided to meet an emergency situation, society could be completely disrupted.

A tremendous amount of work is done in various aspects of water supply. Investigations are carried out into water resources, both surface and underground. In recent years there has been Government appreciation of the necessity for controlling underground water supplies. I compliment the Government on its policy on underground water supplies because there is ample evidence that these sources of supply are not unlimited and there is doubt about their future, especially if there is uncontrolled use.

Another aspect of the activities of the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission is the drainage works carried out. At present that may seem unimportant to honorable members but to those of us who are aware of the tremendous problems and the amount of erosion which can


occur from flooding because of uncontrolled drainage, it is of vital necessity that extra funds be made available for the provision of drainage facilities. I should imagine that in another twelve months Victoria could be faced with a problem in raising sufficient money for the construction of water storages.

Further aspects of water supply will doubtless be raised by other honorable members during the debate. I believe the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission has done excellent work with the resources available, and I hope the Government will appreciate the necessity of giving top priority to the development and storage of Victoria's water resources.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (NorthWestern Province) .-The Country Party, as is well known in this Parliament, believes that an adequate supply of water, and the maintenance of the quality of that water, should receive high priority. Over a long period of time, probably since the inception of the Country Party this aim has been constantly purstied. I am disappointed that this year the Government has reduced the allocation of funds to the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission. This is a dangerous trend which should not be adopted; in fact, the Country Party believes there should be an increase in the amount available to the commission.

The Hon. MuRRAY BYRNE.-There will be more money spent on water supply and this will be received from the Federal Government.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Yes, but the State allocation is being reduced by $652,000 compared with last year, a~d that is the second lowest expenditure for the past five financial years. In fact, this year's allocation was exceeded in 1951-52.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-A good Government then!

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-That is what I meant. More money was spent on water supply by the Country

Party Government in 1951-52 than is being spent by the Liberal Party Government this year. Water in Victoria means population and development. If our primary and secondary industries are to receive water, money must be expended on the development of water resources in this State. An announcement should be made of the proposals of the Government to develop water resources in Victoria, outside the metropolitan area. The Country Party is concerned with the attitude of the Government in reducing the financial allocation this year, and no doubt farmers throughout Victoria will be similarly dissatisfied. Admittedly, as Mr. Kent said, the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission has done well with the resources available to it. I have maintained a good relationship with the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission and, from personal experience, I can say that I have found that the Minister has been most co-operative in meeting irrigators and other interested people.

A point which does concern me is that since the Hamer Government was sworn into office the water supply portfolio, regarded as a separate Ministry in the past, has been tacked on to the Ministry of Public Works.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Obviously the former Minister of Public Works did not have much to do.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-1 do not know which way one should look at it. In my mind, regardless of what the Minister of Public Works had to do, this step is downgrading the portfolio of Minister of Water Supply. The Country Party considers that water supply is sufficiently important to warrant the full-time attention of a Minister.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.-We can change that next year.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-That is possible, because I assure the Government that the people of Vic-

3322 Water Supply Works [COUNCIL.] and Services Bill . .

toria will not be happy with the downgrading of the portfolio of Minister of Water Supply. To me this means shifting the emphasis away from water supply and this will affect development in areas which the Government now considers important.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.Like education.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Not necessarily education. I should have thought that to decentralize Victoria it would be necessary to improve town water supplies and sewerage facilities.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.Will the honorable member name a town without a good water supply?

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.- I could name plenty of them. In the interests of decentralization it is also necessary to expand and to improve water supplies to irrigation districts. In order to achieve development our towns need new water supplies and the financial allocation should be substantially increased. There is a need continually to study expansion of water storages. From time to time it is said that water supplies in Victoria are adequate, but in certain areas if a dry season occurs problems can arise through lack of water conservation. There is a need further to develop water storages so that we can be assured that shortages such as have been experienced in Melbourne and other parts of the State will not be repeated.

I j'Oin with a number of ·my colle•agues in this House who represent substantial irrigation areas along the River 'Murray in stating that one of the g·reatest probl·ems that has faced irrigation districts in the past has come about through lack of proper consideration of drainage. It has caused the sudden realization that one cannot keep putting water on the land without providing adequate drainage to ensure that the water table does not rise too substantially. The level of salinity is also related.

The latest report of the River Murray Commission went deeply into the subject of salinity problems along the River Murray. That report should not be shelved. Its recommendations should be studied objectively and in depth by the Government. Many irrigators along the River Murray are concerned that salinity problems could be aggravated. Continual action is necessary. In irrigation areas there is also a need to develop adequate drainage facilities. I support the provision in the Bill for drainage facilities to be established in quite a few areas along the River Murray. The Wimmera and Mallee stock and domestic water supply system is rarely mentioned in detail in this House. It is the lifeblood of the Wimmera and Mallee areas and I do not think it could properly be described in any other way. But for that water supply system the people in the area could not continue. It is supplied basically from the Grampians storages with, at times, assistance from the Waranga western channel. At the end of June last the Grampians storages held 335,000 acre-feet of water. Their capacity totals 618,000 acre-feet. At the same time last year the storages held only about 180,000 acre-feet, so it is clear th'at the storages are being maintained reasonably well.

One of the probems of the Wimmera and Mallee stock and domestic water supply is the open channel system. I understand that it is one of the largest open channel water supply systems in the southern hemisphere. The State Rivers and Water Supply Commission is involved in great expenditure in clearing the channels of silt. In the Mallee region problems arise through drift. It is necessary to continue to clean the channels to permit a consistent and reasonable supply of water. I was pleased to read in its report that the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission is endeavouring to step up channel clearing each year. Last year before the water supply commenced, the commission cleared 59 per cent or 3,039 miles of channel.


This year, due to a dry season, in the first five months the commission was able to clear 59 per cent of the channel. Obviously it is coming to grips with the problem.

The Wimmera and Mallee stock and domestic water supply system involves the filling of 20,132 dams on farming properties and the provision of water supplies for many towns and communities. Probably in the future the need to pipe the supply will have to be faced. People have said that the cost of piping the system would be high but water must be provided for these areas for as long as people live there, and that will be the case for as far as we can envisage into the future. Studies should be made of the possibility of piping increasingly large sections of the system before costs get completely out of hand. Year by year the scheme will become more costly and less practicable. A start should be made on these works which would be of permanent benefit to the area.

I note in the Bill a reference to the Millewa pipeline project. It is of particular interest to both me and Mr. M:ansell. Water is to be supplied by pipeline for stock and domestic needs in the Millewa region of far north-western Victoria. In 1972-73 the Commonwealth is to make available for the scheme $600,000, and altogether it will provide $2 million. This has resulted from a broadening of the national water resources programme. I am pleased with other provisions in the Bill. I refer, for example, to the Nangiloc-Colignan drainage project which is to commence in 1973-74. The sum of $54,000 is to be expended to improve drainage in the Swan Hill river flats area. It is also proposed to replace channels and pipelines iu the Tresco, Merbein, Nyah and Red Cliffs irrigation districts. These are vitally important works to the people there. Their livelihood is based completely on the quality of the water supply.

My colleagues and I give a very high priority to the improvement of water supplies. We· are concerned

that the Government has reduced expenditure in this field and has combined the portfolios concerned. In view of its decentralization policy, we are hopeful for more than expressions of good will from the Government. We are hopeful that the necessary finance will be provided for water supply facilities to encourage development and growth in the rural areas of Victoria.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northem Province) .-As my colleague Mr. Dunn has already said, our party supports the Bill. It provides for the expenditure of $30 million by the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission in the various fields of water supply, drainage, sewerage, flood protection and river improvement. The commission has made a great contribution to the development of Victoria. I do not intend to cover the ground that has already been covered by my colleague, but I wish to make one or two comments about the availability of finance for irrigation and associated works in Victoria. In the light of the magnitude of the problems confronting us in irrigation areas it is obvious that Victoria's financial resources are inadequate successfully to solve them. Mr. Kent rather optimistically referred to what the new Federal Government may do in this field.

The Hon. S. E. GLEESON .-Did you say " euphemistically " ?

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.-No, optimistically. I suggest that we will have to wait for some time to learn what is to flow from the Canberra cornucopia for these important works. When my colleague Mr. Dunn was speaking the Minister for State Development and Decentralization interjected that finance from Federal sources is increasing. Undoubtedly that is true but I invite the Minister's attention to a breakdown of allocations to the States. In the programme to spend $100 million on water conservation Victoria tends not to receive a reasonable share. I suggest that this is because we are well advanced in the field of water conservation and


possibly because the previous Minister for National Development is a Queenslander. Far more finance for water conservation went to Queensland than to the other States. I consider that the Federal Government must continue the programme that has been initiated. If that Government is genuine about protecting the environment it will need to allocate far more money for solving salinity problems in the Murray Valley. Clearly this is the greatest pollution of the environment problem outside 1:he metropolitan area. Because it is outside the metropolitan area it does not receive the recognition to which it is entitled. The new Federal Government must make more finance available for salinity control.

Mr. Dunn correctly referred to the gradual decrease in funds made available to the appropriate State department. This in itself is a retrograde step, but, in addition to a reduction of allocations, costs of materials and labour have increased. The net result is that the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission is able to do far less in each succeeding year.

A further point is that, in recent years, I have noticed that a regular supply of finance has not been allocated by the commission to its various construction depots or branches. Recently, at the Rochester construction branch and at Tatura a large number of men were retrenched. Undoubtedly, at a later stage of the year, or early next year, the commission wi 11 be looking for those men to be re-employed. This is not a good state of affairs, from either the men's or the Government's point of view. The men involved, who are regularly retrenched and regularly re-employed some weeks or months later, consider that this matter needs serious attention.

I emphasize the point which I have made previously in this Chamber, that the situation in both the metropolitan area and the rural portions of the State points up the need for a greater programme in water conservation. One has only to drive around

'J1he Hon. S. R. McDonald.

Melbourne at present to see how the parks and gardens are being devastated by lack of water and to realize that the programme which is in train needs to be speeded up. In the wider field, in the rural areas, this current year will show two things. The first is the value of the irrigation system which exists at present, and the second is the need to proceed as quickly as possible with further conservation works.

In the debate on an adjournment motion some weeks ago, Mr. Campbell outlined the Government's water conservation programme of recent years. He made the point-correctly I believe-that this was an important factor in the decentralization and development of the State. This is a trend which must be continued. I conclude by supporting Mr. Dunn's remarks and stating, as I have on many occasions previously, that the conservation of water for use in both the metropolitan area and urban and provincial centres must continue, and so far as possible finance must be obtained from the Federal Government to help carry out these works.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-1 support the remarks of my colleague, Mr. Dunn. Although I welcome the Bill, I also express my disappointment that a diminishing amount has been allocated for water conservation over the years. This state of affairs is causing great concern, particularly in Gippsland. The drought conditions which have prevailed in that area in recent years have brought home to the people the need for water conservation. An examination of the tables contained in the Bill reveals that not sufficient is being done in certain areas.

In some irrigation areas a salt problem has arisen. I refer to the Nambrok-Denison area where pumping has been carried on to lower the water table and to contend with the associated drainage problem. The drainage water has to find its way to the sea through the normal rivers and streams. As a result of the continued drought conditions in Gippsland, the


flow of water going out has been so reduced that the salt water is reaching inland to an alarming distance. In the last day or so I have received a number of petitions from land owners whose properties are adjacent to the rivers and who are dependent entirely on that water for their stock. They point out that the sea water is flowing further inland. This is having an effect on the aquifers, and the water which is pwnped from bores has become so brackish that the stock cannot drink it. It is also playing havoc with the pumps.

The Government should examine what is being done in some of the northern States where interlocking sheet piling has been put across the lower reaches of some rivers to prevent salt water from going upstream and at the same time to hold back the fresh water on the upstream side. By this means, a reservoir is created at not very great cost. I commend this system to the Government.

Further research should be undertaken into the recharging of aquifers because a large number of people are dependent on underground water. Much water runs to waste in the winter. In the Heyfield area, where the fall of the land is 8 ft. 6 in. to the mile, water has entered the aquifers and has forced its way uphill to a height of 80 feet. The recharging of some aquifers is a field in which more research ·could be undertaken.

The problem to which I have referred exists almost throughout the total area of Gippsland except the low-lying area around the Gippsland lakes where people are still able to irrigate; on the lower reaches the water has not yet been affected to any great extent.

The Government should learn a lesson from what has been done at Broken HiU to increase the rainfall. The average annual rainfall there has been lifted from 5 to 6 inches to approximately 10 inches. If drought conditions continue, the Government should undertake additional conservation works. I realize that the Government declared its intention to

construct a dam on the Mitchell River. At one time, it was proposed to install a siphon at Sale so that water could be taken to the Woodside area; and similarly water from the Thomson River and the dam at Cowwarr could be brought round to irrigate an extensive area.

As Mr. Dunn rightly pointed out, one of the essentials of decentralization is a good and adequate water supply. If Australia is to survive as a nation it must be able to produce adequate supplies of food. The conservation of water is a safeguard and insurance for the long term.

I hope the Government will give consideration to the matters raised and that in future adequate financial provision will be made for the construction of additional water storages throughout the State.

I agree with M'r. Kent's comments on the inquiry into the use of the water of the Latrobe River. The persons concerned who gave evidence before the Public Works Committee had to provide the sum of $5,000 to engage experts to prepare their submission to the committee. In view of the drought which exists in that area, I hope they will be afforded some relief from this burden. I commend and support the Bill.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time

and committed. Clause I was agreed to. Clause 2 (Issue and application

of money from Works and Services Account for purposes specified in the tables to the sections.)

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-This is an important Bill for the obvious reason that. by its nature, the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission gives Parliament a full accounting of its works programme for water supply, irrigation, drainage, sewerage, flood protection and river improvement, not only for this year but even for a period beyond. This gives honorable


members the opportunity for the first time of analysing in depth the programme which has been ful'ly presented with appendices and explanatory memoranda. Once again, members representing their respec· tive parties have made constructive comments.

I recall, as a back-bencher, sitting through debates on similar measures and wondering whether the views expressed by honorable members meant very much. I do not know whether I have previously indicated this, but when I was Minister of Public Works I was rather surprised that, following the debate on the Public Works and Services Bill, the many hundreds of engineers, architects and draftsmen in the department minutely examined the debates. They received cuttings from the debate in the Council and in another place concerning the various projects which had been plannedsome of which had been on the drawing board for some time-and all which had taken a lot of time and hard work to bring to reality. I assure honorable members that their comments and views were taken to heart. The views expressed by honorable members in this debate will certainly be noted by the commission and by all those persons who are responsible for carrying out its programme.

I suppose I am not as qualified to answer many of the pertinent remarks as other persons may be. Mr. Dunn and Mr. Kent made some constructive suggestions. Mr. Dunn and other members indicated that there appears to be a lesser allocation this year than in other years. All honorable members agree that Commonwealth moneys which are available are not accounted for in this Bi'll. I regret that I have not the figures available to me. I understand that a record sum was involved. I could give a number of reasons but the obvious one is that for the past couple of years land development has been curtailed. Over the past 70 years Victoria has had a wonderful

T'he Hon. Murray Byrne.

record in water conservation and its irrigation works compare favourably with those undertaken in any other country.

Furthermore, primary industry has had many problems in recent years. The memories of honorable members are short because not long ago Parliament authorized a system of quotas on wheat production, and persons connected with other primary industries have been agitating for quotas on wool, beef and tobacco. Even at this moment restrictions have been placed on the planting of fruit trees. For those reasons, and in fairness to the State, there has been a reduction in expen:. diture on irrigation works. I hope this policy will change and that the fortunes of primary industry have taken a turn for the better.

Mention was also made of underground water. Again, it is pleasing to know that the Victorian Parliament has been courageous enough, for the first time in history, to place controls over the use of underground water, which is vital for the State. I thank honorable members for their constructive comments on the Bill.

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.

EGG INDUSTRY STABILIZATION BILL.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time. There has been a significant expansion of the egg industry throughout Australia since the Commonwealth hen levy scheme was introduced in 1965. Between 1965-66 and 1971-72, the number of leviable hens in Australia increased by 37 per cent from 9 · 485 million to 13 · 014 million.

The hen levy scheme was introduced to provide an Australian pool of levies for the equalization of domestic and export returns. One result of the scheme was that State

Egg Industry [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Stabilization Bill. 3327

egg-marketing authorities were able to pay attractive prices to producers, and the pricing policies adopted by these authorities, combined with technological advances in management and production, gave rise to a period of high profitability within the industry which in tum engendered the expansion to which I have referred.

This expansion persisted despite warnings given by the Australian Agricultural Council as early as 1967 and repeated on a number of subsequent occasions. The expansion of the industry led to a dramatic rise of 59 per cent in recorded production between 1965-66 and 1971-72 from 132 · 7 million dozen to 211 · 4 million dozen eggs.

The mounting surplus of egg production was processed into egg pulp, and when it became impossible to sell all of the surplus egg pulp because of the contraction of overseas markets, the State egg-marketing authorities experienced acute financial problems. Increasingly large quantities of pulp had to be held for extended periods, thus incurring considerable storage costs. To meet this situation, prices to producers had to be sharply reduced and eventually reached levels which were uneconomic for many, particularly those with small flocks and those who had borrowed heavily to expand.

These developments gave rise to strong representations from the relevant industry organizations throughout Australia for the introduction of egg production controls. Legislation to implement such controls was enacted in Western Australia in 1970, and became operative in 1971. Egg production control legislation was enacted in New South Wales at the end of last year, and is expected to come into operation next year. Subsequently the principle of controlled production in the egg industry was accepted by the Governments of South Australia and Queensland, and the necessary legislation is in the course of preparation in those States. I might add that we have

heard this for a long time and I understand that as yet no legislation has been finalized.

Representations for the introduction of controls in this State were made by various poultry industry bodies. The Government was not prepared to accede to these requests because it believes that imposition of production controls in a primary industry can have the undesirable consequences of creating a "closed" industry and encouraging inefficiencies in farm management and production practices.

However, having regard to the continued increase in egg production and the mounting costs associated with the processing and storage of the surplus, and as the other mainland States had agreed to implement production controls, and such controls could operate effectively only on an Australia-wide basis, the Government felt that it could no longer maintain its stand. Another factor that influenced the Government's approach was the decision of the Commonwealth Government to provide finance to assist in the disposal of surplus egg pulp on condition that all States agreed to implement egg production controls.

The Government decided therefore that it would introduce the necessary legislation, but on the basis that its operation would be limited to a threeyear period. The Government's announcement to that effect was made on 29th June last and at the same time it was announced that the "cut-off" date for the purpose of assessment of quotas would be 2nd March, 1972.

The Bill proposes the implementation of an egg production control scheme in this State, and follows the broad general principles adopted in the New South Wales legislation. The Bill has been prepared after consideration of submissions made by all of the relevant poultry industry bodies. Perhaps I ought to indicate that on one day I consulted five industry bodies regarding this legislation.

3328 Egg Industry [COUNCIL.] Stabilization Bill.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.-Did they all put the same point of view?

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-! suppose one could call it orderly disorder. The essential features of the Bill are a licence-quota scheme, based on a State hen quota which will be fixed annually for this and other States by the Australian Agricultural Council. Licences will be issued and individual quotas allocated by the licensing committee which consists of the members for the time being of the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board. Provision is made for appeals against decisions of the licensing committee, and these will be considered and determined by a completely independent body designated the review committee.

With regard to the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board, I should indicate that the Government is examining the composition of that board in the light of the recommendations made by Mt. H. K. Cartledge in his report on the finances and financial policies of the board. The Government will be looking also at the situation in South Australia where the composition of that State's egg board was altered by legislation enacted recently. The new composition of the South Australian board is six members, three elected by producers and three appointed by the Government, with both the chairman and deputy chairman being selected from the Government appointees.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-Who has the casting vote?

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-The casting vote is held by the chairman, who is a Government appointee and not a producer appointee. As I said, three of the members are elected by producers and three are appointed by the Government, one of whom is chairman, and he will have a casting vote. That was introduced by the Labor Government in South Australia.

Following its considerations, the Government may introduce legislation later to change the composition

of the Victorian board. For the information of honorable members, I shall now outline the principal provisions contained in the Bill.

Part I. provides for the operation of the legislation for a period of three years from the day on which the first licensing season commences. That day will be a day appointed by the Minister and notified by publication in the Governm.ent Gazette.

It is envisaged that various provisions of the Bill will be brought into operation progressively to enable the production stabilization scheme to be implemented in stages so that the necessary preliminary administrative arrangements can be completed prior to the implementation of each stage.

As well as providing the necessary interpretations for the Bill, Part I._ also gives power to the Governor in Council to declare, by order, that hens of a specified class are not broiler breeder hens for the purposes of the Act, and sets out the exemptions to the Act.

It is proposed that the provisions of the Act will not apply to a person who does not own or keep more than twenty hens, in conformity with the Commonwealth Poultry Industry Levy Act under which such persons are not required to pay levy. In addition, provision has been made whereby the Crown, a statutory body or an educational institution may apply in writing to the Minister for an exemption, and the Governor in Council may by Order publishec in the Government Gazette grant an exemption from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the Act.

Part II. of the Bill provides for the Poultry Farmers Licensing Committee to consist of the persons for the time being holding office as members of the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board, for the payment to members of such remuneration and allowances as the Governor in Council determines, and the appropriate administrative procedures for the licensing committee including the appointment of a secretary. Provision is made also for the dissolution of

Egg Industry (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Stabilization Bill. 3329

the licensing committee, the appointment of a liquidator and the termination of the legislation in the event of action being taken under the Marketing of Primary Products Act to wind up the affairs of the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board. This provision is necessary because, under that Act, a poll for dissolution of the board could be sought, and, if the required percentage of eligible producers voted in favour of dissolution, the winding up of the board's affairs, and consequently those 'Of the licensing committee, would be mandatory.

Part III. sets out the powers of inspectors who will be officers or servants of the board authorized by t!he licensing committee as inspectors for the purposes of the Act. The powers are virtually identical with those contained in the New South Wales legislation and, although wide, are considered to be essential for the effective administration of the scheme.

Part IV. deals with the licensing of poultry farmers. As in the New South Wales Act, two categories of poultry farmers are specified for licensing purposes. However, the qualifications proposed in Division 1 for classification as a group I. poultry farmer have been altered to require submission during each of the prescribed periods of at least twenty Commonwealth levy notices, and payment of all levy amounts due. These requirements are considered reasonable, as a group I. poultry farmer will be entitled to automatic allocation of a base quota in accordance with the formula, whereas the base quota of a group II. poultry farmer will be determined by the licensing committee having regard to certain specified factors.

A further requirement for classification in the group I. category has been included. This is that the average number of hens owned by the person concerned during the period of one year ending on 7th December, 1972, the levy count date nearest to the introduction of the Bill, and in respect of which he was

liable to pay the Commonwealth levy was at least 50 per cent of the average number of such hens owned by him during the year ended 2nd March, 1972. The purpose of this provision is to exclude from the group I. classification persons who have virtually left the industry, but who may be paying a minimal levy in order to secure a quota. Such persons will come within the group II. category.

Division 2 of Part IV. of the Bill makes it an offence to keep hens other than in accordance with the provisions of the Act and provides a penalty for contravention of the licensing requirements of $1,000 and $2 per 100 hens or part thereof for every day during which the offence continues. It is considered that a penalty of this order is necessary to provide a stiff deterrent, because strict compliance with the licensing requirements will be fundamental to the effective operation of the scheme.

The administrative procedures for the application and issue of a licence subject to prescribed conditions and restrictions are also contained in Division 2, including provision for the payment of a prescribed annual licence fee which is expected to be only a nominal amount. Finally, Division 2 sets out the circumstances under which the licensing committee may cancel a licence or may reduce the hen quota of a licensee, and provides that an appeal may be made to the review committee against ~any such cancellation or reduction other than a cancellation at the request of the licensee.

Division 3 of Part IV. specifies the formula for the allocation of a base quota to a group I. poultry farmer. This is based on the average of his eight highest hen levy returns during the year ended 2nd March, 1972. Provision is made for the licensing committee, in determining the base quota for a group II. poultry farmer, to take into account the average number of leviable hens owned by him during


both the period of one year immediately preceding the day on which the legislation receives the Royal assent and the period of one year prior to 2nd March, 1972. The purpose of this provision is to enable the determination to be made on a more equitable basis.

In determining a group II. base quota, the committee will have regard also to circumstances in which the ownership or lease of a place, the previous owner of which would have qualified as a group I. poultry farmer, has changed during the qualifying periods and, as a result, the present owner or lessee has been classified in the group II. category.

Other factors that the committee will take into account are the number of pullets, if any, owned during the six months ended on 2nd March, 1972, and the number of hens and pullets owned, and the capital investment in plant and equipment, in the period from 3rd March, 1972, to 29th June, 1972, that is, the date of the announcement of the Government's intention to introduce egg production controls.

Division 4 of Part IV. provides for the Governor in Council to determine the State hen quota on the recommendation of the Minister. The State hen quota for any licensing year will be as determined by the Australian Agricultural Council which will fix the Australian quota and the quota for each State. That division also specifies the formula to be applied to determine the hen quota of a poultry farmer in the first licensing season. In the determination, the first 1,000 hens are exempted, and a maximum quota of 150,000 is specified. In the case of a poultry farmer whose base quota is 1,000 or less, there will be no reduction in his hen quota.

Where, in respect of any season subsequent to the first licensing season, the State hen quota is varied, individual hen quotas will be determined by another formula. This formula is related to the individual hen quota for the preceding season

Sir Gilbert Chandler.

with certain qualifications. The first is that in no case shall the hen quota exceed 100,000 unless the base quota exceed 100,000, in which case the hen quota shall not exceed the base quota or 150,000, whichever is the least. I point out that only one or two base quotas exceeded 100,000. They are tied to what they have at the present time, but the total limit will be 150,000 in any one case. The second qualification is that the first 1,000 hens in a quota are exempt from the operation of the formula; and the third is that where the hen quota for the preceding season was 1,000 or less, the quota is not changed unless, in the event of an increase in the State hen quota, the application of the formula would give the farmer concerned a hen quota in excess of that allocated to him for the previous season. In such a case, the formula is to be applied so as to give him an increase calculated on the hen quota that would have been allocated to him in the preceding season if his base quota had not been exempted from reduction.

The purpose of the last qualification is to ensure that any increase in the State hen quota is equitably distributed and that a person whose hen quota is exempt from reduction does not thereby receive the double benefit of securing a higher proportionate share of any increase.

Division 1 of Part V. of the Bill provides for the appointment of the Poultry Farmer Licensing Review Committee which will consist of three members appointed by the Governor in Council. It is proposed that the chairman shall be a person with legal qualifications and experience, and that the other two members shall be persons who have no direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the production, sale or processing of eggs or eggproducts. Each member of the review com~mittee is to receive such remuneration and allowances as the Governor in Council determines.

As the operation of the legislation is restricted to three years, no term of office has been specified for the

Egg Industry [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Stabilization Bill. 3331

members of the review committee. Provision has been made for them to hold office during the pleasure of the Governor in Council.

Other provisions in Division I deal with the administrative procedures of the review committee and the appointment of a secretary who will be an officer of the Department of Agriculture, as is the case with the Tobacco Quota Appeals Tribunal and the Wheat Quota Review Committee.

Under Division 2 of Part V., the functions of the review committee will be to consider and determine applications for review of base quotas, applications for base quotas from persons not otherwise eligible to be issued a licence, and all appeals under the legislation. The grounds for review specified are substantially the same as in the New South Wales Act, and include fire and localized adverse seasonal conditions, disease, National Service, illness and incorrect calculation of the base quota.

A person who is not eligible to apply for a licence, but who believes there are special circumstances which warrant his being issued with a licence may apply for a base quota. The review committee is empowered to consider such applications, and, where it is of the opinion that a base quota should be allocated, to make a determination accordingly. A person who has been allocated a base quota by the review committee may then apply for a licence.

Part VI. of the Bill makes provision for the surrender and re-issue of licences. Approvals by the licensing committee for surrender and re-issue of licences will be subject to the following restrictions:-

1. Surrender and re-issue of part of a hen quota may only be made in multiples of 500.

2. No approval can be given where a quota or part of a quota would be transferred from that part of Victoria outside the area specified in the schedule

to within that area. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that as far as is possible decentralization of the industry is maintained.

3. An approval can be given only to the extent that an individual quota, or the total of the quotas of a partnership, does not exceed 100,000.

Approval may be refused where a person has been convicted of an offence against the relevant legislation or where the licensing committee has reasonable grounds for believing that the application is in furtherance of some agreement, arrangement or scheme to circumvent or take undue advantage of the requirement relating to the maximum quota. The latter provision is similar to that made in the Wheat Marketing Act.

Part VII. of the Bill provides that the licensing committee may, on application in the prescribed form and payment of the prescribed fee, grant a licensee a permit authorizing him to keep broiler breeder hens or hens other than hens used for the production of eggs for human consumption, subject to such conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed. The licensing committee may cancel a permit for a breach of a condition or restriction to which it is subject or where the licensing committee is satisfied that it has been issued on false or misleading information. The licensee may appeal to the review committee against any such cancellation.

Under Part VIII. of the Bill, provision is made for the appeals to be submitted to the review committee against decisions by the licensing committee in relation to cancellation of a licence, reduction of a hen quota, refusal of an application for surrender and re-issue of a licence, and cancellation of or refusal to grant a permit to keep hens for special purposes.

The review committee is empowered to determine any such appeals, and to direct forfeiture of the deposit lodged, if provision for this is made in the regulations, where in its


opinion the appeal was vexatious or frivolous. Where the appeal relates to the reduction of a hen quota the review committee may vary the hen quota by raising or further reducing the hen quota.

Part IX. of the Bill specifies clearly that all costs of the administration of the Act will be met from the funds of the Egg and Egg Pulp Marketing Board. A person who keeps more than twenty broiler breeder hens or owns or occupies any place on, at or in which hen eggs from more than twenty hens are hatched is required in the prescribed manner to make and keep for a period of two years records of such particulars and matters as are prescribed. The licensing committee and the review committee are empowered to refuse an application where the person concerned fails to furnish additional information within the time specified or any extended period granted.

Both the licensing committee and the review committee will be required to submit to the Minister a report on their activities and operations at the end of each licensing season, and the reports are to be laid before Parliament.

In order to cover an emergency situation, such as a widespread disease outbreak, power has been included for suspension of any or all of the provisions of the legislation by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister.

By Part X. of the Bill an amendment has been included to bring the Marketing of Primary Products Act 1958 into line with the Commonwealth levy legislation and this Bill. The latter measures are applicable to persons who own more than twenty hens, whereas the relevant provisions of the Marketing of Primary Products Act, including the vesting requirements, currently apply only to producers with more than 40 hens.

A lot of work, thought, argument and debate have gone into the compilation of the Bill. I pay a tribute

Sir Gilbert Chandler.

to the officers of the Department of Agriculture and my colleagues who have taken part in those discussions.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-And Mr. Kent.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Yes, Mr. Kent's Bill was based on the New South Wales legislation and this measure has many features of that legislation. It is entirely different from the West Australian legislation. The Bill is introduced at this stage so that the industry may know what it contains. It is the Government's intention that the Bill should stand over until the House meets in February, when it will be proceeded with.

Information available to me indicates that a similar Bill will not be introduced into the South Australian Parliament until halfway through next year. The provisions of the Queensland legislation are well known, but they have to be finalized and introduced after a poll.

I commend the Bill to the House. Most honorable members are aware that the industry has gone through difficult times, and I have given the background to the events leading up to the introduction of the Bill. All I can say at this stage is that I hope those who have confidence in legislation of this type will do their utmost to ensure that it works well. The egg producing industry is a difficult industry to police and it is easy for the legislation restricting the production and selling of eggs to be circumvented. Those who do that can only undermine the legislation and if sufficient people undertake these activities it is inevitable that the scheme proposed will break down. Therefore, the penalties to be imposed are heavy. I hope that will in some way have an influence on those whose intention it is to break the law. I 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 the next day 'Of meeting.

Consumer Protection [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3333

CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

It is a Bill to amend the Consumer Protection Act 1972, which, as honorable members will remember, was enacted during the autumn sessional period this year. Legislation administered in the Department of Labour and Industry, being essentially social in nature-that is to say, concerned with the social welfare of the people -tends to be constantly changing in response to changing social needs. So it is that each year sees two or three Acts passed to amend the Labour and Industry Act, which is the principal legislation administered in the department.

It is apparent already, from the short time that the consumer protection legislation has been administered in the Department of Labour and Industry, that it will follow a similar course. Continuous attention will need to be given to this area of law and it can reasonably be expected that amendments and new provisions will be included in Bills coming forward from time to time.

The present Bill contains both amendments and new provisions. There are ame·ndments concerning the constitution of the Consumer Affairs Council, the operations of door-todoor salesmen and various machinery provisions of the Act. There are new provisions concerning door-to-door salesmen, the price marking of goods and mock auctions.

I shall deal first with the constitution of the Consumer Affairs Council. Section 5 of the Act requires three members of the council to possess particular qualifications. One is to be "a person representing the interests of manufacturers selected after consultation with such body or bodies as the Minister thinks represents such interests ". Another is to be " a person representing the interests of retail traders in consumer goods selected after consultation with such

body or bodies as the Minister thinks represents such interests ". The third is to be " a person representing the interests of persons engaged in advertising and sales promotion activities in connection with consumer goods selected after consultation with such body or bodies as the Minister thinks represents such interests''.

It has been suggested that, although the presence on the council of people with particular experience in these fields is most useful, those people should be members of the council simply because of having that experience and not as being representatives of particular interests. There is a feeling in the council itself that this should be the case and it is therefore proposed that the qualifications for appointment of these members be amended accordingly.

The qualifications proposed are simply that the persons concerned be experienced in the respective fields. They will be appointed not to represent any particular interests, but rather to serve the community at large, by virtue of their special experience. In saying this, I do not wish to imply that the persons who are or have been members of the council appointed with these qualifications have not always acted in a proper way. I do not wish to suggest that they have put the interests of manufacturers, retail traders or advertisers above the public interest. All I am saying is that it is desirable that they should not be appointed as representatives of special interests.

I now refer to the provisions of the Bill relating to door-to-door salesmen. There is a new provision that every door-to-door salesman shall carry an identification card showing his name in full, his business address and the name of the firm or company, if any, which he is representing and shall produce it on his first approach to a potential purchaser and at any time thereafter when so requested. This provision is the subject of a recommendation made by the Consumer Affairs Council. Representations have

3334 Consumer Protection [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

also been made by the Premier, in his former capacity as Chief Secretary, and by the honorable member for Ballaarat North, on behalf of constituents. Similar suggestions have also come from other sources.

The reason for inserting this provision is that it is said to be a common practice for door-to-door salesmen to create an initial impression that they are not trying to sell something, in order to gain the confidence of the householder or even to enter the house. There is a strong public dislike of practices such as this. Of course, in order to be effective, it also requires the householder to demand to see the identification card upon the first approach.

The other provision concerning door-to-door salesmen relates to the requirement that the vendor shall give to the purchaser a copy of the credit-purchase agreement and a statement in the form of Schedule One setting out the rights of the purchaser to terminate the agreement within ten days. Section 15 of the Act provides that failure to do either of these is an offence, punishable by a fine of not more than $200, and also makes the agreement unenforceable by the vendor. However, the Consumer Affairs Council has pointed out that this may not stop the vendor

. from demanding payment, and perhaps even obtaining payment, and it therefore suggested that it should be an offence for the vendor to assert a right to payment in these circumstances. The Gover:nment accepts this view and therefore proposes that an additional sub-section to this effect be included in section 15.

The next matter to which I refer is the price marking of goods-particularly misleading marking. The Bill relates to two distinct methods of misleading marking. The first is that of simply marking on the goods, or on a ticket attached to them, the amount of the deposit required for a credit purchase, or the periodic rates of payment, or both-the essential element missing being the whole price. It is clear that with respect

The Hon. V. 0. Dickie.

to credit-purchase, it would not be possible to show the whole price as this would depend upon the terms of each individual credit-purchase agreement. However, there are certain other particulars that could be shown and it is proposed in the Bill to require that the whole cash price of the goods be indicated.

It should be noted that the Bill does not require these particulars to be shown in all cases. It is only when the amount of the required deposit is shown, or the periodic rates of payment are shown, that the full cash price is required to be shown also. This proposal was the subject of a recommendation made by the National Council of Women during 1970. It has received the support of the Home Economics Association of Victoria, and the Consumer Affairs Council believes it would be in the best interests of the consumer. The Government therefore proposes that it be made law.

The second pricing practice to which the Bill relates is that of marking goods simply " so much off ", or "save so much", or "reduced to so much ", thus suggesting that there has been a reduction in the price of the goods but not actually showing that a reduction has been made. It is proposed that where a price marking indicates that there has been a reduction, the seller must also indicate in an equally distinct manner the present price of the goods.

This measure to prevent price deception was suggested by the Box Hill branch of the Liberal Party at the 61st State Council meeting of the party earlier this year. It was referred to the Consumer Affairs Council, which has advised that, in its view, the prohibition of this practice would be of benefit to the consumer and would not put any unreasonable burden on the seller. It is to be noted that the Australian Code of Advertising Standards includes this provision-

Advertisements shall not contain exaggerated fictitious price comparisons, nonexistent discounts or savings, or employ list

. Consumer Protection [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3335

prices known to be false or not cu~ent. All prices quoted shall be accurate and mcapable of misleading by distortion or undue emphasis.

The remaining matter of substance in the Bill is the prohibition of the sales methods known as " mock auctions ", also called " pseudo auctions " and " crazy auctions ". The undesirable features of this type of merchandising, which has made its appearance in several States during recent years, are quite well-known. The vendors attract their victims by blatant forms of advertising, raise their expectations by selling trinkets at give-away prices, or actually giving them away as "sucker bait", exclude from subsequent transactions any people who appear not likely to be easy prey and then proceed to try to extract from the remainder what money they have in their pockets by means of their nefarious sales practices.

It is not easy to deal with these practices by legislation, to outlaw this kind of operation without affecting unobjectionable sales practices, whether by auction or otherwise. The South Australian Parliament pas·sed legislation earlier this year in an attempt to do so and reports from that State suggest that it has been largely successful. It has therefore been decided to include in the Consumer Protection Act the substance of the South Australian legislation. In essence, the scheme of the legislation is to make it an offence to conduct a mock auction and to define a mock auction so as to include specific practices that are characteristic of the methods used-for example, selling at a price lower than the highest bid, repaying part or the whole of the price paid, or restricting the right to bid to persons who have bought certain articles.

Earlier this year the Monash Law Students Society conducted an indepth investigation into mock auctions being held in Melbourne and presented a petition containing 800 signatures for enactment of legislation similar to that enacted in South

Australia. The Government undertook to give this matter its consideration and has now decided to introduce legislation accordingly. The Retail Traders Association recently made similar representations. It is expected that these proposals will receive wholehearted support throughout the community.

I shall now explain the several clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 contains the usual provisions, and clause 2 provides for the bringing into operation of those provisions of the principal Act that are not already in operation. When the several parts of the Act were brought into operation during July of this year, it was overlooked that the first four sections of the Act were not included in Part I. and that, therefore, they had not so far been brought into operation. However, I am advised that all the substantive parts of the Act-that is, other than sections 1 to 4 inclusivehave been in operation and that the provision contained in the Bill wil1 cure whatever deficiency remains.

Clause 3 is purely for the amendment of the table of Parts and Divisions, whereas clause 4 amends the constitution of the Consumer Affairs Council in the manner which I have described. In clause 5 will be found the provision requiring door-to-door salesmen to carry identification cards. It will be seen that failure to do so is an offence and the offender may be fined.

Clause 6 contains additional provisions relating to the price marking of goods and to mock auctions, which form the substance of two additional Divisions to be included in Part II. of the principal Act. Clause 7 contains five paragraphs. The first four of these relate simply to drafting improvements, whereas paragraph (e) contains the provision prohibiting a vendor asserting the right to payment where there has been a failure to comply with the provisions of section 15. The remaining provisions of the Bill are necessary drafting improvements or corrections. I commend the Bill to the House.

3336 The Constitution Act [COUNCIL.] Amendment (Qualifications

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

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until the next day of meeting.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of Sir Gilbert Chandler (Minister of Agriculture), for the Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization), was read a first time.

The sitting was suspended at 6.21 p.m. until 8.3 p.m.

THE CONSTITUTION ACT AMENDMENT (QUALIFICATIONS

JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE) BILL. The debate (adjourned from

December 8) on the motion of Sir Gilbert Chandler (Minister of Agriculture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-This Bill is, I regret to say, tainted in the minds of the public with the suspicion that its purpose is to save members of Parliament who might otherwise be disqualified by the provisions of the Constitution. Such a suspicion reflects upon the honour of Parliament itself and not just on that of the Government. Like Caesar's wife, the integrity of both Parliament and the Government should be above suspicion.

Every member of Parliament knows, or ought to know, at the time he enters Parliament that he is bound by the laws of the land and the Constitution of the State of Victoria. These are standards not peculiar to members of Parliament; they embrace the whole community. Ignorance of the law, judges and magistrates never cease to emphasize, is no excuse for breach of the law. Is ignorance of the law to be offered as an excuse for the very people who make the law, members of Parliament? Of course not! Is the law

to be changed or fashioned to suit the individual requirements of members of Parliament? I trust not.

The Constitution Act Amendment Act enjoins high standards of conduct on members of Parliament, just as the Local Government Act enjoins high standards on councillors engaged in municipal affairs. These standards are so high as to sometimes be unfair, just as the doctrine of Ministerial responsibility attaches blame without fault.

Noblesse oblige: these standards are rightly exacted from men in public life as being the price of the continued support of the people of Australia for Parliamentary government in Australia. Parliamentary government will wither and die without such continued support and confidence.

There has been, if I may say so, some erosion of these standards by the Government of Victoria. The holding of directorships has been a running sore on this Parliament since 1955, due to the failure of the gerontocracy to recognize the standard insisted upon by Governments in Canberra, London and Washington. They may suit the standards, for all I know, of Soviet Russia, Siam, or Manilla, but they do not fit Parliamentary government at Westminster.

In introducing this measure the Minister would have us know that the Government has been concerned with the implications of these sections of the Constitution. It is fair comment to say that seventeen years of Government did nothing to arouse the Government's attention despite frequent attempts by the Opposition to do so. What, then, prompted the attention of the Government when the Opposition had failed to do so? It was questions and probing in another place. For, in truth, the Government did not have this measure in mind when Parliament opened in September last, a mere three months ago. There was no reference to a review of the Constitution in the Governor's outline

Joint Select [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Committee) Bill. 3337

of the Government's legislative programme. There was no mention of a Select Committee or anything to do with the measure introduced into another place, or this truncated variation of it which appears in this House.

An examination by a Select Committee at this stage of the life of the Parliament would be too late for any legislative measure to be brought down during the life of the Parliament and before the State elections which will take place in May of next year or thereabouts. It is simply too late for a Select Committee to begin its task and report to Parliament, and for the Government to consider a measure to alter the Constitution ; that is just not on, and everyone knows it. What, then, is the purpose of this measure? Regrettably, one is driven to the conclusion that the Government's motives in seeking to set up this committee do not appear to be as simple as the Leader of the House makes out. This Bill is nothing more than a diversionary measure, undertaking, or pretending to undertake, a review, with the Government knowing that there is no time for legislation to be enacted, but playing for time during the life of this Parliament. It is a dummy Bill to mollify certain doubts and to lower the temperature. The motive is clear-self-preservation!

The winter of the Government's discontent over directorships has now been made glorious summer and the clouds that loured upon the Cabinet are to be buried deep in the bosom of the Select Committee. I hope not, for the end never justifies the means.

The Constitution of Victoria is a little older than 120 years. It was fashioned in Westminster which does not have a written constitution of its own. It has been changed but slightly. Is it not time, not to review these clauses for the sake of some members, but to undertake-if it is thought necessary, by ·the processes of a Select Committee-a review of

the Constitution which would embrace the functions of both Houses and the responsibilities of members of both Houses?

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-The purpose of the Bill is to set up a Joint Select Committee to inquire into and report upon the law relating to certain disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, and to amend The Constitution Act Amendment Act.

It has always been a principle of democratic Parliaments that memb~rs should not only be above suspicion but should appear to be above suspicion. Certain events have taken place over the past few months and, as Mr. Galbally has rightly said, from time to time there have been challenges relating to directorships held by members of Cabinet over that period. I could go back beyond that period and point out that similar suggestions have often been made.

This is one of the principles which people have difficulty in applying. On entering Parliament, members have to decide whether in the interests of their membership of Parliament to divest themselves of positions they hold. Some have elected to carry on in these positions, others have elected not to do so. Some have refrained from accepting these positions and others have accepted them while being members of Parliament. This has always been a matter of contention. The Bill goes far beyond that point.

My party believes there are many positions held in Victoria which are doubtful when associated with Parliamentary duties. Many honorable members have wondered whether holding certain positions is within the law or not. Parliamentary duties could extend into many avenues. Many honorable members who have been associated with public bodies in Victoria have found that assistance has been sought.


This has applied when they have served on committees working for the general community interest which may have involved some conflict. Most honorable members have found themselves in this position at some time or another when there has been conflict with The Constitution Act Amendment Act. Some of us have doubts and others who have fixed views have resigned from committees.

When I was elected a member of this House, ·I held a position on a Victorian statutory body and because I was receiving only one pound a sitting day, I had to divest myself of that position. A colleague of mine was a well-known historian of the war records of the Commonwealth and, notwithstanding that he had volunteered to do that job for nothing, he was promptly asked to divest himself of that duty because it came within the constitutional concept. These are matters of concern to honorable members. Many of us who have served on various committees throughout the State may find ourselves challenged if someone considers these duties are ultra vires the Constitution. It is possible that this situation could fall into a similar category as the case mentioned by Mr. Galbally in relation to directorships. The situation might be remote, nevertheless it is a possibility.

An honorable member may find himself on the committee of a recreation reserve in his home town and he may have played a major part in developing the reserve. He may be a representative of an agricultural society and when the society decides to obtain a grant from the fund administered by the Leader of the House for the agricultural societies of the State, the honorable member may find himself in conflict. There is some doubt in my mind. Since this matter was raised in another place, I have been giving a great deal of thought to how far this principle involves honorable members in relation to their membership of this House and another place.

'Tihe Hon. I. A. Swinburne.

Members of my party are not out to brand persons because they are involved in directorships or are members of companies which are involved in some way in trading with Government departments. This was overcome in the municipal sphere by amending the Act so that councillors had to declare themselves and leave the council chamber when debate on matters in which they had an interest were being discussed. It did not debar them from being councillors. Perhaps some councillors were partners in a firm carrying out major contracts with the Government of the day or with the council of the day. Thus they found themselves in a peculiar position. This matter should be examined.

I have examined the Constitution. I am not a legal man, as is Mr. Galbally, but I can read Acts of Parliament as well as most people. Certain conditions are laid down under the Standing Orders in relation to pecuniary interest in matters being debated before the House. Those matters ought to be examined. Mr. Galbally has probably moved in this Chamber for the setting up of more Select Committees on important matters than any other person.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-I had to advance some weighty reasons.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.That is so, and I am trying to advance weighty reasons for this Bill. These matters concern honorable members. I supported Mr. Galbally on the need for some committees and did not support him on others. Members of my party explained to the House why we supported or did not support the proposal. This Bill deals with what appears to be conflict. It is time that it was analysed and a decision was made of what is and what is not conflict. I have discussed this matter with my colleagues on a party basis, and I have discussed it privately with members of my party. We have come to the conclusion that in an

Joint Select (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] ·Committee) Bill. 3339

endeavour to assist in the functioning of this Parliament and the development of the State, we may hold positions in which conflict could arise. Some honorable members, as well as myself, could be occupying positions in the interests of the State in· _respect of which it could be argued that we were more in conflict with The Constitution Act Amendment Act than some honorable members who have been branded because they held directorships.

I will carry the matter a little further. I am chairman of the Mt. Buffalo National Park Committee of Management. That committee obtains Government grants, given not directly to the committee, but through the National Parks Service. It is the committee's function to carry out the works. I do not know whether or not there is a conflict. Other honorable members occupy similar positions. It could be said that the financial interest has nothing to do with the committee but that it concerns the National Parks Service, which gets the grant. It could be said that the committee members are only the workmen who carry out the functions. That may or may not be so. I do not know the answer. No one has ever raised the question. I have been appointed and reappointed by successive Governments over many years. I have been a member of the committee of management since 1950. At present, together with the Leader of the House, I hold a life appointment on our park committees. It may be that we are infringing the Constitution. I do not know ; nobody can tell me.

Other honorable members are on various committees throughout the State. I have been offered directorships within my province. I have had offers to buy shares in various companies but I have religiously said that I would not become associated with any company, in my province or in the State, in which I may have to take some administrative action. When

I was appointed Minister of Housing some years ago I was dealing with a most contentious building directorate. Those who were Ministers in the Liberal Government, the Labor Government, the composite Government or the Country Party Government before that time held most difficult and exacting positions.

One of my great attributes was that I could never be associated with any company. ·I was able to deliberate knowing full well that no one could accuse me of having an interest in a concern requiring a permit or having the ability to carry out work. Since I have been a member of this House, like any other member, I have related myself to the old saying concerning public persons-" If anyone has a job to be done, give it to a busy man. " Some of these jobs are given to the local members of Parliament. They are on school committees which may get grarits; they are on advisory councils which may get grants from the Government to carry out building programmes. Grants may be given for the development of school grounds. Are we exempt from the provisions of The Constitution Act Amendment Act or are we persons who may be "dragnetted" into inquiries?

It is time that the position was examined and I trust that all honorable members will join the committee and look at the problems which we, as country members, believe are important if as public men we are prepared to serve the Parliament and carry out the functions which we find ourselves trying to carry out in the community. These matters ought to be put beyond challenge. If ,I were appointed to an advisory council of the high school in my home town, would I be an exception to the rule or could a charge be laid against me as a member of .Parliament? This situation should not exist. The Constitution should be examined and legal advice should be obtained from eminent legal people called before the committee.


Charges should not be made against the integrity of members of Parliament who endeavour to assist in the development of Victoria and who serve the people in the community.

I should hate to be in the position if this Bill is not passed of someone saying, '' You cannot serve on any of these committees, you cannot serve in any sphere in which a Government grant is given or some contribution is made ". If that were so, it would be a catastrophe for Victoria. Honorable members who carry out honorary work in the development of the State should not be placed in a position in which they are liable to be challenged in regard to the services they have rendered. If a person is a director of a company and wilfully accepts contracts in some public works, he leaves himself wide open to the abuse that he may receive or the penalty he may pay. My party has thoroughly examined the provisions of this measure and the principles which are involved in it, and my colleagues and I shall be pleased to be members of the committee if the Bill is passed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province).--4 can understand the reluctance of Government members to support this Bill because, when it was introduced in another place, it was one of the most disgraceful pieces of proposed legislation ever to come before the Victorian Parliament. Whilst the Bill does not propose to do what it was intended to do in another place, it is the same Bill and it ought not to be considered by Parliament at a time when such great suspicion is in the public mind.

The Hon. H. R. WARD.-You are creating it.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-No, my party is not creating it; it is a matter of fact. Does Mr. Ward dispute that his Premier--

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! This matter concerns the setting up of a Select Committee and reference to matters pertaining to certain members of another

place, in my opinion, are out of order. The debate should be confined to the setting up of the committee.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I would agree with you, Mr. President, if the matter had not been considered in a different form in another place.

The PRESIDENT.-Order! What happens in another place is the concern of the members of that place.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-! can see it is of no use proceeding on this line in the House tonight. Members on the Government side of the Chamber do not want to discuss this matter because certain men are guilty and are offending The Constitution Act Amendment Act. After Mr. Galbally and Mr. Swinburne had spoken, I remained in my seat until you, Mr. President, proceeded to put the second-reading motion, and no member on the Government side of the Chamber rose to participate in the debate.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-There was nothing to answer.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-There is a good deal to be answered.

The PRESIDENT.-Order! Mr. Walton on the Bill.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Thank you, Mr. President. I would be quite happy to support a Bill of this nature if it had not been introduced at this time. I recall when Mr. Galbally introduced an anti-hanging Bill in this Chamber at a time which happened to coincide with the time when M·r. Ryan was about to be hanged. It was stated on that occasion that honorable members should not debate the Bill at the time when an execution was about to take place. This legislation has been introduced to clear the names of two members of another place. It has been introduced as a result of the actions of the Premier and a Minister in another House.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.-You expected to be ·called to order and had already started to sit down.


The PRESIDENT.-Order! I have already pointed out that Mr. Walton should not continue along that particular line.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-1 agree with Mr. Swinburne that this is a serious matter, in which members of all parties could be involved. Mr. Galbally has advanced the argument that this legislation is only a fa<;ade, because there is no way in which a Select Committee of this House or of both Houses of Parliament can operate effectively between now and the next State election. Any recommendations that the Select Committee made between now and the election would mean nothing. After the election, the membership of the committee would most likely be changed, so that the new committee would have to go over the same ground again. The purpose of the Bill as it was introduced in another place was to whitewash the two members named in another place. There is no answer to that.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-Will your party take part in the Select Committee?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-The Labor Party will deal with that question when the occasion arises.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-1 have just asked whether the Labor Party will take part on the Select Committee?

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! The House is debating the setting up of the committee.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-1 am getting upset about being called to order all the time when members on the Government side of the House are interjecting.

The PRESIDENT.-! am not calling Mr. Walton to order; I am pointing out to him and other honorable members who take part in the debate that the House is debating the setting up of a Select Committee.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-On a number of occasions, the Labor Party has pointed out to the Government

the obligations of Ministerial responsibility and I believe this is only another extension of that principle. All honorable members should know their responsibilities in regard to dealings outside the Parliament. M'r. Swinburne has s·~ated that he knows his responsibilities and consequently has refused to take part in the activities of companies. However, honorable members are being asked, as they have been on a number of occasions, to accept that Ministers might not have known what has gone on outside Parliament. That is what happened recently in the Legislative Council in regard to another provision in The Constitution Act Amendment Act which provision has since been wiped out.

Since I have been a member of this House a number of members have been called to boot. Some time ago, a former Leader of the House, the late Sir Arthur Warner, was involved in something which, I believe, infringed his Ministerial responsibility.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-That was never proved, of course.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is right, and if the Government has its way this case will not be proved. The Bill which was introduced in another place contained a retrospective clause which would have whitewashed the Premier and his Minister.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).----Order! Mr. Walton must adhere to the Bill.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-1 am being asked what the Bill contains. I invite this House and members of the public to examine the Bill which was introduced in another place so that they will know what the Government's intention was in producing the legislation.

The Hon. G. J. NICOL.-It has nothing to do with this.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-It has. The Hon. G. J. NICOL.-You are

attempting to drag it in. Why don't you get yourself up a little bit?

3342 The Constitution Act l COUNCIL.] Amendment (Qualifications

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Members are here, Mr. President, to make laws, and I believe we should, as much as we possibly can, endeavour to carry them out and work them out.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-And to update them.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I do not disagree with Mr. Campbell. I have already said that on another occasion a Bill of this kind would probably be acceptable to all parties of this House. However, it is disgraceful that the Bill should come forward as an urgent measure at a time when two members of another place have been named.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-Is the answer a lemon?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I am surprised that Mr. Hauser should make that interjection when he was involved in certain share dealings and the matter was brought before the House. I suppose I can expect that type of interjection from Mr. Hauser who was under suspicion for a great deal of time in this place.

The Hon. G. J. NICOL.-You are not only a liar; you are a filthy liar.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-I beg your pardon.

The Hon. G. J. NICOL.-You heard. The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W.

Garrett).-Order! Mr. Nicol has used an objectionable term, and I ask that it be withdrawn.

The Hon. G. J. NICOL (Monash Province) .-I appreciate that it must be an objectionable term to Mr. Walton and, in deference, I withdraw.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province) .-Thank you, Mr. President. I propose to look objectively at the purpose of the Bill. It has been introduced as a result of dealings by members in another place and I feel it ought to be opposed. I do not want to go into the position in another place, but it is not the type of legislation which should come forward at this time. I suggest that appropriate action

should be taken in a new Parliament, which I believe can then run its full term of three years. As Mr. Swinburne said, there should be an investigation to make it clear beyond doubt that members, not only of this House but of this Parliament, can take an interest in community affairs without being in fear of jeopardizing their seats. I indicate that members on this side of the House intend to oppose the Bill.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT {Minister for Local Government) .-Mr. President, as Mr. Swinburne has said, this Bill deals with a matter of great importance to the House, the whole Parliament, the Parliamentary system and the electors of this State. I commend the commonsense approach shown by Mr. Swinburne to the subject. It is with some regret that I take note of the rather different level at which his speech was followed. Mr. Walton has suggested that, at another time or in different circumstances, the Bill might not have been opposed and might have found favour with his party. His comment indicates that he is opposing the Bill for political reasons, here and now, which is an approach of which he accuses the Government from time to time. Mr. Walton made it clear that he is not prepared to deal with the matter on its merits and that he has other motives for opposing the Bill.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-You cannot talk about motives after what was introduced in the other House.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Mr. Galbally said that it is a matter of the integrity of this Parliament being maintained. Not one member of this House, I hope, disagrees with him. However, I would go further and say that not only must the integrity of Parliament be maintained ; it must be seen to be maintained. Where the standards are lacking, they should be rectified and where more stringent rules ar~ desirable to maintain public confidence, they should be imposed.

· Joint Select [12 P.ECEMBER, 1972.] Committee) Bill. 3343

·The gravest defect with the existing provision in the Constitution is that it relates only to contracting with the Crown. It does not deal with every case of possible abuse, nor does it deal with the question of disclosure of interest. These two matters are equally important. A stringent rule against contracting directly or indirectly with the Crown in abuse of a member's position is important, but that rule as it is now stated might touch the innocent, such as the man who had a milk board contract before he was elected to Parliament. He had not in any way abused his position but could conceivably be held to be contracting with the Crown and thus liable to the pain·s of disqualification.

Another person who could be affected by the rule would be one who had an interest in a motel, for which bookings were taken by the Victorian Tourist Bureau upon normal terms for which the Victorian Tourist Bureau received commission and from which his motel obtained business. Although he may have acted without any dishonesty and in pure innocence on the same terms as any other motel owner, he might find on a strict interpretation that his seat was affected.

The lawyer, too, who obtains from the State Motor Car Insurance Office a settlement which includes costs, might find that he has unwittingly offended. All these cases could occur under this section of the Act, and it is time that we cleaned it up. It is time for a change; time for commonsense. It is time to bring the legislation up to date and to remove these anomalies in the case of a man who acts innocently.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-You are not suggesting that a barrister deals with the State Motor Car Insurance Office?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-No, but there are other lawyers in this Chamber and other lawyer-s in this Parliament. The list of persons who could be affected is endless, and the way the section can be inter-

preted is also endless. That was the whole tenor of Mr. Swinburne's remarks, which were not clearly expressed. There is certainly a need to look at this issue. It is necessary to ensure that those who abuse their position in any way, directly or indirectly, are caught, whereas those who act with propriety and on a normal basis are safeguarded.

There are many other circumstances of actual or potential conflict of interest with which the legislation in no way deals. It would be possible for a member of any party to lobby a Minister, to lobby even within his own party to achieve a certain result and to gain a benefit from that result. There is no requirement in the legislation for disclosure in such circumstances. It may well be that the Select Committee would find that rules relating to the avoidance of actual or potential conflict of interest should be outlined much more fully. The British Parliament saw fit to appoint a Select Committee which adopted rules.

The third aspect to which I refer is disclosure. Sure'ly any member of Parliament who has a direct or indirect interest should be bound to disclose that interest whether he is speaking in the House, engaging in correspondence with Ministers, lobbying or pursuing a course in his party room. In 1969 the British Parliament appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the question of disclosure of interests. The committee found that disclosure was one of the greatest possible safeguards. These are issues beyond the simple question of contracting with the Crown which need thorough examination if, adopting the words of Mr. Galbally, the integrity of Parliament is to be maintained. I would go further and say that thorough examination of all these aspects is needed if the status of Parliament is to be safeguarded and raised.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-The purpose of this Bill is the appointment of a joint Select Committee. It meets with the qualified approval of the Country


Party. I cannot help feeling that the Government has made a mess of the whole situation. You have ruled, Mr. President, that honorable members are not allowed to refer to the Bill which was originally introduced into the Legislative Assembly and must deal with the Bill as it now stands. However, we all understand what happened originally in another place. It is that understanding which prompts my remarks that the Government has made a mess of the whole situation.

In my opinion, where doubt arises about the qualification or privilege of members, the question should go to the ,statute Law Revision Committee. It is an all-party committee of both Houses which can deal with a situation such as that which has now arisen, provided that it has not been precipitated by certain circumstances. Clause 4 of the Bill provides-

The function of the Committee shall be to inquire into and report upon the existing law relating to parliamentary disqualifications and to make such recommendations as it thinks necessary to improve and simplify such laws in relation to possible conflicts of interests.

I do not quarrel with that objective or function. However, it is unfortunate that with the time-table for the coming election the matter has not been referred to the Statute Law Revision Committee for consideration and report to the Parliament.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-I was hoping that before I entered this debate more would have been contributed by honorable members opposite. Discussions have taken place in both this House and another place about offences concerning pecuniary interest. When I was elected to the Legislative Council I had a contract with the Government in respect of the purchase of a house. I was advised-and I had to comply with the advice-that I could not take my place in this House until I had completed my contract with the Government. At short

notice, and at a time when I was in most indifferent health, I had to find money to finalize the purchase of a home from the Housing Commission before I could take my seat in this House.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-How silly that was.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.That is the point I am making. This question has not just arisen. It was discussed here and in another place in relation to amending section 181 of the Local Government Act. I believe what I said then has similar application now. I believe that a person ought to be convicted only when he is guilty of using and not simply because he ha'S interests which can be utilized to hi'S advantage. If the best types of men 1a:re to be 'attracted to ~serve as counciHors that principle ought to be applied.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-But in that event--

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-The honorable member would be well advised to be quiet. Those Geelong shares will always be settled on his head.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER {Boronia Province) .-I rise to a point of order. I ask Mr. Tripovich to withdraw his remarks regarding the Geelong gas situation. A special committee proved my innocence on that point.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Provin·ce) .-It did not prove the honorable member innocent.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-As the honorable member takes offence, I think the remark should be withdrawn.

The Hon. J. M. TRI'POVICH.-I am sorry that the honorable member has taken offence. I apologize. Because of section 181 of the Local Government Act the best types of men are not attracted to serve as councillors. They are concerned about a possible conflict between a pecuniary interest and their association with councils. In 1954 a councillor serving on the Mulgrave Shire


Council was the endorsed Liberal Party candidate for the electorate of Dandenong. He was involved in a minor contract with the council. In the ensuing case it cost that man about $20,000 to defend himself. He lost the case although he was not engaged in any way in an attempt to rob anybody.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-He was giving a benefit.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-Yes, he was offering a benefit. In New South Wales a person is obliged to reveal his interests when he is elected. If it is found that he has taken advantage of his position as a councillor materially to benefit himself or any company in which he is involved, he is subject to prosecution; if not, he is free to act.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-! agree with the principle Mr. Tripovich is enunciating but I do not agree that he has correctly described the New South Wales situation. The New South Wales situation is the same as ours.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I had thought differently. Last year two Bills were introduced into this House to alter The Constitution Act Amendment Act in respect of disquaHfication of members. The Minister for Local Government asked the Leader of the Labor Party in this place to agree to an adjournment of his Bill. In doing so the honorable gentleman stated that a letter was going to the other State Governments in relation to an agreement. At page 4 790 of volume 302 of Hansard of 20th April, 1971, the Minister sets out his principles. He went on-

In presenting this Bill, the Government has paid regard to a number of important principles, namely-

1. that membership of this Parliament is a great honour and privilege, which carries with it equally great responsibilities;

2. that those who participate in the process of law-making must bear a particular responsibility in upholding the law;

3. that Parliament should demand high standards of conduct and integrity in this regard, both of its members and of those who aspire to membership;

4. that serious offences against the law should hence debar those committing them from membership of this Parliament; Later the Minister said-

It is not the Government's desire to push this measure through. Only last week, with undue haste, Mr. Galbally's Bill was passed. The Minister went on-

If any honorable member wants time in which to consider it, I shall be happy to agree to an adjournment of the debate. As I indicated in my explanatory remarks, the only purpose in introducing the Bill is to honour an undertaking given to Mr. Galbally. In fact, as I stated, this measure forms part of the subject-matter of a much larger Bill which it is intended to introduce at the beginning of the next sessional period when a considerable period of time will be allowed to debate it.

I have seen nothing of the Bill to which the Minister referred. Mr. Walton has rightly pointed out that if a Select Committee is set up at this stage -I assume it will be comprised of six members of each House, two members of each party-it would not be able to do anything before Christmas or between Christmas and the coming election. If the Government is adamant about changing the Constitution it should bear in mind a most important conference that is to take place in Sydney in May of next year. I refer to the conference to survey the Constitution, which has been eagerly sought by the Government and by us. I shall be privileged to be a delegate to that conference, together with my Leader.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The conference was sought by this Parliament.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-That is so. Would it not be better for the Government to forget about setting up a Select Committee and consider having this matter raised before the conference in Sydney? There it could be debated by aU States and the Commonwealth.

The Hon. G. J. NICOL.-That would take years, and you know it.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-1 do not think it would take years. It is something that is necessary for all

3346 The Constitution Act [COUNCIL.J Amendment (Qualifications

Parliaments. No member of Parliament wants to breach the Constitution. What I have said about section 181 of the Local Government Act applies equally to section 23 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act. The Government, acting on advice, is taking the same attitude in relation to the interpretation of section 23 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act as was taken by the town clerk of South Melbourne in advising his council on section 181 of the Local Government Act. That was the basis of the inquiry into section 181. Each time that a relevant matter was raised in the council he would say, " Disclose interests. Do not vote. Walk out."

A remarkable situation occurred in relation to Westernport. An insufficient number of councillors remained to make a decision because of the application of section 181. I do not purport to be a legal expert. I am not a law graduate. However, I believe the statements of the many legal people who submitted evidence to the Statute Law Revision Committee that too many councillors today had been frightened out of their obligations because they did not know the real meaning of section 181 of the Local Government Act.

The Government is endeavouring to do to this House what the town clerk of South Melbourne did to his council in regard to section 181 of the Local Government Act. Trumpery issues have been raised that if a member is on a committee of management of a national park which obtains a Government grant the member might be in some trouble. The same type of situation occurred when the South Melbourne town clerk advised councillors that if they were members of a school committee any council help-financial or otherwise-approved by the council would be subject to section 181 of the Act. Of course, that was not the position, as most councillors knew. Mr. Swinburne is not really sincere when he says that, as the president of a national park

The Hon. J. M. Tripovich.

committee of management, he might be in conflict with section 23 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act. If the Government were sincere it should raise this subject as a matter of urgency with the committee established to consider the Constitution, and members of the Labor Party would back up such a move.

The Hon. V. T. HAUSER.-Mr. Tripovich is sitting on the fence with both ears to the ground.

The Hon. J. M. TR,IPOVICH.-A greater log which did not catch fire has never been a member of this House than is Mr. Hauser. The Government has displayed no sincerity in the manner in which it has introduced the Bill. As a matter of fact, when it was presented in another place the Bill was typed and it was done in such a hurry that the typing almost smudged because it was not dry on the paper.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Apart from the question of time, does Mr. Tripovich agree that the whole of his argument so far emphasizes the need for review and clarification of the situation?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-Yes, and I submit that there is a better committee to review the principle than a Select Committee from this House to whitewash certain members.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Mr. Tripovich is insulting members of Parliament.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.Honorable members must not dodge this issue. My Leader has raised the question of precedents in the Mother of Parliaments, which is the centre of British democracy. In that Parliament no Minister of the Crown ever held his position or took his position as Minister without divorcing himself from all his directorships or business connections that could embarrass his appointment.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-Section 23 does not distinguish between a Minister and a member; it deals only with a member of Parliament.


The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.----It is rather difficult to get through the wooden head of Mr. Campbell. I shall start again and use kindergarten language.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! I ask Mr. Tripovich not to be too repetitive.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I realize that the Act mentions members of Parliament, but the Mother of Parliaments in England is adamant that the right thing should not only be done but should also appear to be done. No Minister in that Parliament has ever occupied a Ministerial position without divorcing himself from all his directorships. This has been insisted upon by British Prime Ministers. Taking all of those matters into consideration, should not similar ethics apply in Victoria?

The Hon. ·MURRAY BYRNE.-Mr. Tripovich has put forward the best argument so far why the Select Committee should be established.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVIICH.Previously in this House members argued the question of directorships with the then Leader, the late Sir Arthur Warner. Mention was made of drinking fountains on railway stations, about which members of the Labor Party were rather suspicious. The honorable gentleman's defence was that the company concerned was not his but that of his son.

The Hon. C. A. M. HmER.-Does Mr. Tripovich believe directorships are the only possible conflict?

The Hon. J. M. TRoJPOVICH.-No, I realize there are other areas.

The Hon. C. A. M. HmER.-Why not mention those instead of directorships?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-If I happen to put my finger on a sore spot, that is too bad ; it does not hurt my finger. The Government is undoubtedly conscious of its own position and is embarrassed about a certain happening. It wishes to whitewash the situation with retrospective legislation. It now hoists the

flag of principle, and members of the Labor ·Party are even suspicious of that. What is the need for it? Only last year, the Minister for Local Government expressed his intention of bringing in a Bill, but twelve months have elapsed and there is no sign of his famous Bill. I think the honorable gentleman made a secondreading speech on it, and then everybody forgot about it. I cannot see any urgency in this measure. If any member of the Government has offended, he is guilty under section 23 of The Constitution Act Amendment Act.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Any member of any party.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.-What happens if a member of the Labor Party has offended?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I accept the Minister's correction-if any member has offended. I do not feel guilty ; I have no worries.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.-Some members of the Labor Party are sitting on the edges of their seats.

The Hon. J. M. TRlPOVICH.----I do not think they are. If any member has a guilty conscience, the passage of the Bill will assist him. I suppose it will be passed, because the Country Party has indicated its intention to support it. If any member of the Government is worried about it, I regret that he has a guilty conscience. Perhaps honorable members have not been informed of all the directorships and interests involved. As my Leader has indicated, members of the Labor Party are not against the principle of the Bill, but we want to expose guilty people who try to cover up their trails. If the Bill is passed and a Select Committee is established it will not have time to take any action. The proposal is just a joke, and it should be treated on this basis.

The Hon. D. E.. KENT {Gippsland Province).-This debate seems to have destroyed the unanimity in this

3348 The Constitution Act [COUN~.] Amendment (Qualifications

House over the question of the conflict of interest of certain members of Parliament. Every honorable member agrees that a clear definition must be established. If the question is not confined to directorships, every member has a growing involvement with the Government. In practically every field of activity there is a distinct possibility that, unless some clearly-defined lines are laid down, any member or any person seeking to become a member of this House could find himself subject to disqualification.

Unfortunately, an aura of suspicion has surrounded this question because of the haste with which this Bill was introduced. Honorable members had no indication earlier in the session that such a Bill was to be brought forward. To avoid any suspicion about conflict of interests this question should not be decided by members who themselves are or could be the subject of a committee of inquiry. This matter should be investigated not by a Parliamentary committee but by an independent tribunal to determine the qualifications of members of Parliament.

It is not a question of distrusting members of this House, but it would be good for democracy if this question were dealt with, as is done in other fields, and a judgment given by a tribuna11 of persons who were not involved or not likely to be involved in any respect with Parliament. Although a good deal of agreement has been expressed, members of the Labor Party consider that there could appear to be a conflict of interests because members of Parliament will constitute the Select Committee. I support my Leader in opposing the motion.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER (Monash Province).-This debate may well have strayed from the real subjectmatter. Members of the Opposition seem to have the idea that directorships are the only area in which there could be an infringement of the Constitution or a conflict of interest. Putting the argument, I hope, on a reasonably impartial level,

I suggest that this is not so and that directorship of a public companyunless there are clear and wilful negotiations-as Mr. Swinburne said-in dealing with the Government, cannot possible infringe either the Constitution or the general principles of conflict of interest. I have been concerned that in this debate and in the debate in another place too much emphasis has been placed on trivial results of an unknown contract and not enough concern has been expressed about the proper principles which this ParHament 'Should be considering-that of laying down guidelines and ground-rules for members of ParHament in regard to both conflict of interest and disclosing what their interests are so that the Parliament and the public have some idea where members stand.

I consider that, through this proposed Select Committee, we should be trying to indicate a fair basis of understanding of what potential conflict there is for a member of Parliament and his outside interests. I do not believe any of us, whether we are members of the Liberal Party, the Labor Party or the Country Party, have no outside interests. Every member in this House has either a history in the Labor movement or the trade union movement ; or has been a member of the Country Party, perhaps a farmer or associated with rural interests; or a member of the Liberal Party, probably both, and some members would have other interests including business interests. Of course, some members of the Opposition have business interests. This Select Committee is designed to lay down once and for all guidelines under which members of Parliament can operate.

I feel some disappointment that Mr. \Valton chose to make a speech based purely on an attack on two members of another place, implying by innuendo that there is something sinister.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! Mr. Hider should not go too far on that aspect.

Joint Select (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Committee) Bill. 3349

The Hon. C. A. M. H·IDER.-1 was endeavouring not to go even as far as Mr. Walton, but in view of your ruling, Mr. President, I shall go no further.

The principles of The Constitution Act Amendment Act are quite clear, namely, that if any member of the Parliament-this applies not merely to Ministers-has any direct or indirect interest in a contract with the Crown he is not eligible to be a member of Parliament. Not only does he lose his seat, but he is liable to quite heavy penalties. I wonder whether members of Parliament have realized how far this matter goes. Mr. Swinburne mentioned some possible conflicts of interest, but there are many others, particularly where farmers have arrangements with the Lands Department on sharing costs of wire netting, where compensation is paid for cattle destroyed, the spraying of locusts, and so on. All of these things, despite what Mr. Tripovich has said, could well be infringements of The Constitution Act Amendment Act. I wonder whether in fact •an arrangement for the delivery of grain to the Grain Elevators Board or wheat to the Wheat Board could be taken as, strictly speaking, a breach of the Constitution.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-Mr. Hider is going far too wide.

11he H·on. C. A. M. HIDER.-I am sorry if the f.armers feel that I am going far too wide, hut I do not believe I ·am because, technically, somebody other than the Parliament could take the ·m'atter to the Oourt of Disputed Returns and there could be an ·arguable case, even if ultimately it were not held that there was such a breach of the Constitution.

Of course, those of us who are lawyers 'have other problems. We speak here of legislation and this is allegedly the lawyer's bread and butter. I often wonder whether it is. One learns something and speaks from one's experience and I believe that in some of the oases to which I have -relferred there could be a

Session 1972.-118

conflict of interest. It is one of those questions wthirch ·a member has toresolve with his own personal integrity and honesty of approach to the prO'blem.

Lawyers and accountants have this opportunity and, as the House of Commons has ruled, one is not going to speak on a specific matter where one already has a client in that area. If members follow that principle as professional men, they are not in breach of any ethic which has been laid down by this Parliament. That is why I support the appointment of the Joint Select Committee. A member who is a trade union official or is a farmer or is in any position where he receives any income from outside employment, no matter on which side of the 'House he sits, shoU'ld support the appointment of the committee.

One wonders what would happen where a State instrumentality such as the State Electricity Commission or the Board of Works acquired land for an easem·ent for drainage purposes. This is a contract with the Crown and this is what is prohibited by the Constitution. Admittedly, there are certain excepti'Ons, hut I am not sure whether this is one of them.

The Hon. A. J. 'HUNT.-It i·s ospecifi'cally exempted.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-What really concerns me is that th·e Labor Party is so obsessed about directors. I cannot understand the attitude that directors should be held in 'Such low repute as persons who are unable to be honest. Apparently it i•s 'all ·right if a person i's employed by a large organization, whether his salary is $5,000 or $100,000 a year, but if a person is a director with perhaps a retainer of ·$500 a year and 100 sha-res as a qualification to be a director, some doubt arises in the minds of members of the Labor Party about some sort of sinister capitalist ogre who will use his position in Parliament to benefit a company.

The argument cannot withstand any logical explanation bec·ause a director is in a conflict ·of interest situation


to a lesser extent than an employee of a company. I m1ake no secret of the ~act that I am a director of a public company with 23,000 shareholders. I cannot believe my situati'on could be any better or worse than perhaps some membe~s of the Opposition with their backgrounds 1and experience in the trade union movement, both past and present. Their seats in Parliament are more directly related to thei·r position in the trade union movement thian I owe my seat to the ~odd company of which I am a director.

I should like to see the Select Oommittee ·examine not ·merely the situation which has 1arisen in another place, but the broader problem of conflict of interest of all members of Parliament in an attempt to lay down not only the conflict of interest sections which the Bill mentions but also whether there ·should be some arrangement for dis~closure of interest.

A reading of the Bill indicates that it probably means that implied in the terms of reference is the implication that the Select Committee will look at a system whereby members of Parliament could disclose any interest which may potentially conflict with legislation before the House. If this were possible, there would not be this sort of argument and suspicion about each other's respective position.

Some mention has been made of the situation in the United Kingdom and the report 10f the Select Committee on Members' Interest (Declaration) which was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 4th December, 1969. I should like to read the conclusions reached by that Select Committee. Firstly, paragraph 114, which appears on page 33, reads-

Your Committee have recommended that the House should adopt two resolutions which together would comprise a code of conduct for Members. These resolutions are:-

(i) That in any debate or proceeding of the House or its Committees or transactions or communications which a Member may have with

The Hon. C. A. M. Hider.

(ii)

other Members or with Ministers or servants of the Crown, he shall disclose any relevant pecuniary interest or benefit of whatever nature, whether direct or indirect, that he may have had, may have or may be expecting to have.

That it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that a Member should bring forward by speech or question, or advocate in this House or among his fellow Members any bill, motion, matter or cause for a fee, payment, retainer or reward, direct or indirect, which he has received, is receiving or expects to receive.

I suggest that when the Joint Select Committee looks at this matter, it should consider the full report of the Select Committee in the United Kingdom because those principles ought to govern this House. They certainly govern any consideration that I may have as a lawyer in acting for any client who may have some potential interest with the Government or any legislation which may come forward.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Not only legislation.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.Not only legislation, but in Committee or in the party room. I am sure that all honoflable members would have simHar ethics and that is why I was disappointed to hear reference to the sinister plan by the Government to whitewash two members in another place. I find it incredible to believe that the Bill could in any way be considered as a whitewash of anybody. The legislation will make it possible to define my position and that of Mr. Walton and other honorable members.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-What about the clause which the Government withdrew?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.Honorable members know so little about the clause which was withdrawn in another place that it is impossible to discuss it. However, I suggest that the action has been wilfully misunderstood and I am disappointed that the clause was not


proceeded with and that this House could not proceed with the good tempered debate that we are accustomed to hearing in this place.

The only other matter which is relevant is the final conclusion in the report. It is contained in paragraph 117 and reads-

Your Committee conclude that a code of conduct comprising these two resolutions, kept under periodic review by the Committee of Privileges and backed by •the ultimate sanction that a serious breach could be held to be a contempt of the House, is the most effective way of regulating the parliamentary activities of members where these may overlap with their personal financial interests.

The principles laid down in the report are worthy of careful consideration by the proposed Joint Select Committee. I remind Mr. Tripovich that the Standing Orders of this House include a provision regarding the pecuniary interest of members of this House. The provision appears in Standing Order No. 155, which provides-

No member shall be entitled to vote either in the Council or in any Committee thereof upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Can the honorable member define " direct pecuniary interest"?

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.I certainly think it is capable of definition but not by cross interjection. What is more important is the reference in the Constitution to " indirect interest " which is difficult to define and that is why we have a very wide ambit in the provisions of the Constitution.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-We have been raising these matters for seventeen years.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.I congratulate Mr. Galbally on his foresight. Having been a member of this House for two and a half years, I am pleased to be in agreement and to support a ·proposal that will perhaps solve Mr._ Galbally's problems. Undoubtedly, the Labor Party will

support the Bill, as Mr. Galbally has for so long been in favour of the proposal.

The references in the Constitution to indirect benefit are so vague as to require some sort of definition or explanation of where members stand. To suggest in this House that there has been an infringement by members in another place is obviously quite wrong and I will not go into it at length. On a reading of the Constitution there can be no argument that there has been no infringement. To say that is going from the sublime to the ridiculous. Therefore the committee should try to resolve the situation. I support the Bill and I believe the appointment of a Joint Select Committee is well overdue. With the Opposition in favour of the measure, I suggest that the Bill be now passed speedily.

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING (Melbourne Province) .-I wish to make one or two comments on what Mr. Hider has said. He suggests that members of the Labor Party are obsessed with directorships and that he could not understand this because he could not see why directors should be held in such low repute. I do not believe that directors generally are held in low repute.

However, if one casts one's mind back to the 1960s, which is not so long ago, many large public companies suffered disastrous happenings which caused a •ruinous financial ·loss to thous1ands of people in Victoria and other States. The control of these companies had obviously been in the hands of directors who had assumed that responsibility on accepting their positions. It is not unreasonable or an exaggeration to say that during the 1960s this country and certainly this State was rocked by the disclosed irresponsibility of directors of large public companies who before the disclosures apparently were held in high regard. It is fair to say that directors have more responsibility, and therefore we should be more concerned about directorships, than, as Mr. Hider suggested, about the responsibility applying to employees. I


do not think that is an arguable point on the evidence or what I see as the black and white issue of directors having far greater responsibilities than employees. Certainly, honorable members should have a little more concern with directorships.

I wish to make a point on what appears to me to be a direct conflict of interest about Mr. Hider's stated position and the position of some of his colleagues. The honorable member suggests that the holding of directorships by members of this Parliament should be resolved by personal honesty and integrity. I have no doubt that that is probably the case with honorable members in this place who hold directorships. Whilst Mr. Hider claims that members should be able to retain their directorships on that basis, it is clear that two of his Ministers in another place do not share that opinion because they have just resigned their directorships.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order ! What happened in another place is not under discussion.

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

Ayes Noes

24 9

Majority for the motion 15

AYES.

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Clarke Mr. Dickie Mr. Dunn Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton

Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. Mitchell Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Gleeson Mr. May.

NOES.

Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Knigh .. Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling

Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot.

The Bill was read a second time and committed.

Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 (Joint Select Committee to be appointed) .

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-This has been a good debate and although there was a division on the second reading the thoughts expressed by honorable members gave a clear indication that they universally agreed with the principle of the Bill. However, the method by which the inquiry should be conducted and the timing of it were open to a difference of opinion. Every honorable member who spoke during the debate has indicated that the integrity of Parliament and of members of Parliament should be paramount and that the stage has been reached-this was indicated by almost every speaker-when this question should be examined.

I pay a tribute to those honorable members who have contributed to the debate and I trust that when the Select Committee is appointed those honorable members who have expressed opinions in the debate and many others will make their thoughts available to the Select Committee so that this grey area which exists-it has been referred to by most honorable members tonight-can be eliminated.

The clause was agreed to, as was clause 3.

Clause 4 (Functions of the Committee).

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (M·elbourne North Province).-Clause 4 provides that the functions of the committee shall be to inquire into and report upon the existing law relating to Parliamentary disqualification. I am wondering whether the Government has in mind a consideration of a citizen's eligibility to stand for Parliament or whether it simply means what may disqualify him once he has taken his seat. Honorable members will recall the Walsh case. Are the functions of the committee


wide enough to embrace a person who has been convicted of treason or of a felony as an adult?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Yes, they are wide enough.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.Does the Government have this in mind? I have in mind the Government's conversion to our entreaties which can only be compared with the light shining on St. Paul on the road to Damascus 2,000 years ago. In his second-reading speech the Minister did not indicate that the Bill would be nearly as wide in its function as I gather members of the Ministerial bench deem it to be. What the Minister said in introducing the Bill-of course it had to be done hastily-was that certain recent events had raised questions relating to the eligibility and qualifications of members. The inquiry that is envisaged under clause 4 seems to be much wider and is of the kind that members of the Labor Party have been urging for some two years. Perhaps the Minister may enlighten the Committee on the effect of clause 4 and whether in his opinion the wider subject of eligibility to stand for Parliament is to be considered by the Select Committee.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-The final part of the clause provides that the committee shall make such recommendations as it thinks necessary to improve and simplify such laws in relation to possible conflicts of interest. There is nobody better qualified than Mr. Galbally to put an interpretation on that. Does not Mr. Galbally believe that encompasses the whole question of qualifications of members of Parliament?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-With respect, I agree with the Minister but what puzzles me is that this aspect was not adverted to in the Minister's second-reading speech.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The Minister had to leave something for Mr. Galbally to find.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-If it was left for members of the Labor Party to find I accept that.


The Bill was reported to the House without amendment, and the report was adopted.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-I move-

That this Bill be now read a third time.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-It has now been revealed by the Government that by virtue of clause 4 of the Bill the proposed Joint Select Committee will be armed with powers much wider than were mentioned by the Minister in his second-reading speech. The committee will not be empowered merely to consider the existing law relating to members who may find themselves disqualified as a result of conflict of interests or a contract or bargain with the Crown; their eligibility to stand for Parliament will be open to consideration and will involve a consideration of matters such as whether a person has been convicted of a felony. This seems to raise matters of grave importance. I can only express surprise that no indication of the wide powers contained in the measure was given by the Government when the Bill was explained by the Minister. If that indication had been given the debate might have followed a different course. The matter to which I refer was discovered by me only when I read clause 4 to the Committee. The Leader of the House agreed with the wide interpretation that I placed upon that clause.

The motion was agreed to, and the Bill was read a third time.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS BILL. The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE

(Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .- I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time. The decision which the Government has taken in relation to per capita grants to independent schools as

3354 Edu~ational Grants [COUNCIL.] Bill.

from the beginning of the 1973 school year was announced by the Treasurer in this year's Budget. The text of the Treasurer's Budget statement was-

The Government accepts the proposal of the Commonwealth Government that the Commonwealth and the State should share equally in making per capita grants to independent schools equal to 40 per cent of the assessed cost of educating a child in a Government school. One-half of the increased commitment which this involves will be paid from the start of the 1973 school year, and the balance from the beginning of 1974.

The Bill implements that decision. As from the beginning of the 1973 school year State per capita grants will be assessed by reference to the grants which the Commonwealth will provide for independent schools under the provisions of Part III. of the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972.

The present State grant to independent schools, both primary and secondary, is at the rate of $40 a ·pupil. In 1973 the State grant will be mid-way between the Commonwealth grant and $40. In 1974 and in future years the State grant will be equal to the Commonwealth grant. The Commonwealth Act provides for a grant per pupil equal to 20 per cent of the average cost of educating a pupil in Government primary and secondary schools in Australia.

The effect of the Bill is that from 1974 Commonwealth and State grants combined will be 40 per cent of the average cost of educating a child in Government schools, met in equal shares by the Commonwealth and the State. The Commonwealth has determined the estimated average cost of educating a child in Government schools throughout Australia in 1973, and the levels of Commonwealth grants for 1973 have already been announced. In the case of primary pupils the Commonwealth grant will be $62 and the State grant $51. For secondary pupils the Commonwealth grant will be $104 and the State grant $72.

The Bill adopts the definitions and expressions of the Commonwealth legislation in so far as they are

The Hon. Murray Byrne.

appropriate to the payment of the State grants. The State grants will be payable subject to the same conditions as are provided by the Commonwealth under the States Grants (Schools) Act 1972. Independent schools will be required to ensure that grants are applied towards meeting current outlays in the year in which they are paid or over a period of up to three months thereafter, and the school authorities will be required to furnish a statement by a qualified accountant to that effect. In addition the school authorities will be required to furnish an annual statement of the income derived by the school and the expenditure incurred in respect of the provision of primary and secondary education at the school.

It is proposed to c'ontinue the present practice of paying per capita grants to schools in two instalments in the months of April and October. The principle of Government financial assistance towards the recurrent expenditure of independent schools has been accepted. by all Governments-Commonwealth and State. The Victorian Government recognized the implications of the real financial problems which faced the independent school system when it introduced per capita grants in 1967. When first introduced in 1967 these grants were $10 for primary pupils and $20 for secondary pupils. Since then the level of grants has been reviewed on two occasions. In 1970 the grants were doubled and in 1972 the grant for primary pupils was doubled.

The Commonwealth Government commenced to pay per capita grants to independent schools in 1970 at the rate of $35 for primary pupils and $50 for secondary pupils. In 1972 the Commonwealth increased these grants to $50 for primary pupils and $68 for secondary pupils. The new arrangements proposed by the Commonwealth, and accepted by this Government, will provide a firm basis upon which per capita grants will be payable in the future. These arrangements are free of the disadvantages

Dental Technicians [12 DECEMBER, 1972.) Bill. 3355

inherent in past arrangements where the Commonwealth and the State acted independently. They will enable non-government schools in Victoria to plan their development with certainty. I commend the Bill to the Hous·e.

On the motion of the Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province) , the debate was adjourned.


DENTAL TECHNICIANS BILL. The debate (adjourned from

December 6) on the motion of the Hon. V. 0. Dickie (Minister of Housing) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-On behalf of the Labor Party I express some pleasure in seeing this Bill arrive in this House. The Labor Party knows of no reason why the Bill should not have been the first cab off the rank, although some might regard it as the rank off the first cab. However, the Bill is now before the House and members of the Labor Party welcome it ·with btanners flying. We hope sincerely that it wiH have a swift passage through the House.

The Bill makes provision for the training, qualifications and registration of dental technicians. Part V. of the Dentists Bill which came before the House at the end of the last session embodied the provisio·ns of this Bill, but that Part was withdrawn by the Government and the provisions have been embodied in this Bill. The Labor Party appreciates the reason for its being withdrawn and feels that it was a necessary step to be taken. Honorable members are aware of the controversy which existed over this measure.

Just as the doctors resented dentists in the conduct of their profession functioning as a separate faculty and desired to keep dentists under

their control, which they did successfully for many years, the dentists are now taking the same attitude to dental technicians. The Bill is in three parts. Part I. deals with a code of training, qualifications and registration of dental technicians. This raises the question of the ethics associated with the training of people who wish to become dental technicians. Part II. of the Bill makes provision for a dental technician to undertake an additional course of study to give him chair-side status in his profession. An advanced dental technician will be permitted to make only a full set of dentures and will not be able to fit dentures to a mouth in which natural teeth are present. Furthermore, 'a dental technician will not be permitted to extract teeth or do any of those things which are still within the province of a dentist.

Part III. of the Bill deals with the functions of a dental technician and provides penalties to ensure that the legislation is complied with. The Bill provides that only qualified people shall deal directly with the public in what is described as a chair-side status. Those people are the dentist in relation to extraction of teeth and the treatment of the mouth and the dental mechanic for the preparation of a full set of· dentures after a dentist has extracted teeth and finished treatment.

One of the main provisions of the Bill is clause 28 which provides that no dental technician shall do any operative work, such as extracting teeth or undertaking repairs to natural teeth in a patient's mouth. There is little which needs to be discussed on the Bill. Honorable members are familiar with its provisions and it was debated fully in another place where certain amendments were proposed and made. We, on this side of the Chamber, do not propose to delay the measure by pro~ posing further am.endments or by persevering with amendments which were submitted in another place but which were rejected. I sum up the Labor Party's approach to the Bill

3356 Dental Technicians [COUNCJL.] Bill.

by saying that although dentists are not happy with the measure, at least they are prepared to accept it in its present form. The dental technicians are pleased to have it in this form and I believe the public is pleased to have this legislation brought into force. The Labor Party believes the ethics associated with the manufacture and fitting of teeth will not be breached in any way by the passage of the Bill, and those who contravene its provisions will suffer the prescribed penalties. It must be ensured that the health of the people is protected. If anything does occur, as a result of the passage of this Bill, which could affect the general hea'lth of the peop1e, the Labor Party would be happy to support the Government in any action necessary to correct the position. The Labor Party supports the Bill ; it wishes it a speedy passage and will welcome its operation in this State.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-The House dealt with dental problems at some length when it discussed the Dental Bill last session. This Bill is the other half of what is now the Dentists Act, and it deals with dental technicians. I shall not again go through the statements I made, when the Dentists Bill was before the House, about the bad teeth of the Victorian and Australian community, but the figures speak for themselves.

There is an acute shortage of dentists in Victoria which, unfortunately, is not being remedied. Only a few dentists are graduating from the University of Melbourne and the Government is doing nothing about it. The dentists have made various suggestions for the improvement of dental services. They are doing much voluntary work for pensioners, aged people, and so on. The dentists have instituted a scheme of peripheral dental clinics which will take dentistry to hospitals in the country and outer suburbs. Under the Dentists Act, the Government can

now set up dental auxiliaries and Victoria could have dental nurses similar to those in New Zealand, and this is something I have advocated for many years.

The Bill will clarify the role of the dental technician in our community. For the first time he will be put on a regular legal basis and know exactly where he stands. His position has been legally doubtful up to the present and many dental mechanics have been uncomfortable about the position they occupied in the dental profession, of which they are an important part.

The Bill provides, in Part I., that there shall be a Dental Technicians Licensing Committee. I have no serious quarrel with the composition of that committee but the Government saw fit, in another place, to have an eighth m·ember added to that committee, who shall be nominated by the Minister and shall be a person who conducts classes of instruction for apprentices in dental mechanics. This is an important provision. Mr. Swinburne and I have often saidand I think it would be generally acknowledged-that the present provisions for apprenticeship and training of dental mechanics leave a great deal to be desired. It is envisaged that the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and the Royal Melbourne Dental Hospital may be able, within a short time, given adequate funds, to greatly improve the training of dental mechanic apprentices. I hope this will be done.

I have some quarrel with subclause (9) of clause 3 which gives the Governor in Council power to appoint a deputy chairman who will act in the absence of the chairman of the committee. The deputy chairman will not be a member of the committee ; he will come in from outside and act if the chairman is ill or absent for any other cause. He may come in at a time when a difficult matter has been partly resolved and not know all the circumstances. I should have preferred that the

Dental Technicians (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3357

deputy chairman be one of the members of the committee already appointed. It would not surprise me if another Bill were introduced to rectify this situation.

One of the most difficult matters which will confront the licensing committee and the board, to which I will refer later, is the transitional period during which persons presently operating as dental technicians will be licensed. There are some 400 dental mechanics in Victoria and many apprentices to be considered. The first transitional period is referred to in clause 8 and it refers to the licensing of dental technicians within a period of twelve months of the commencement of the Act. Only the other day, an amendment to the Chiropodists Act was before the House to extend by some six months the period during which examinations of practising chiropodists could be carried out.

The period of twelve months prescribed in clause 8 may be reasonable but to get the work done in that time the committee will have to operate fairly quickly. It is desirable that it should do so because as many as possible of the present dental mechanics should be licensed as dental technicians as quickly as possible. The Country Party does not quarrel seriously with the period of twelve months specified in clause 8 but it will suggest a different timetable for the board which will licence advanced dental technicians.

Clause 10 provides for an appeal to the County Court by anybody who is refused a licence or whose licence is suspended or who feels aggrieved by an action of the committee. I direct an omission, which may not be of great importance, to the attention of the Minister. There is no provision to force the committee to adopt the ruling of the judge if that ruling is contrary to the decision of the committee. From my reading of the provision, it would be possible for the judge to alter a suspension or change a ruling, and

his decision would be final. Although there is no appeal against this decision, there is no provision that the decision shall be implemented by the committee. Perhaps that need not be written into the Ac~ but, in my view, there is a lack in the provision. If I had drafted the Bill I would have provided, after the words " his decision shall be final and without appeal", for the addition of the words " and his ·decision shall be binding on the committee ".

Under Part II. of the Bill an Advanced Dental Technicians Qualifications Board consisting of six members shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. The vital question is: Who will be the chairman of the board? No qualifications are laid down for him except to say what he should not be. He shall not be a dentist and he shall not be a dental technician. Here, fair and square on the Government, is the responsibility for the correct functioning of this vital board which will license advanced dental technicians. I trust that the Government makes a wise decision.

Once again, the deputy chairman will be plucked out of the cold and placed in the position of chairman of the board. I raise the same objection to this provision as I did to the similar provision referring to the deputy chairman of the Dental Technicians Licensing Committee.

Clause 22 refers to the examinations which will be conducted by the board. Sub-clause (2) provides that the board shall require an applicant under sub-clause . ( 1) to take such examinations, whether written, oral or practical, as it sees fit. Some notice has been given by the Government that it will propose an amendment to this provision. I shall await that but my present thinking is that the provision is all right as it is. Clause 24 provides that the board may refuse to grant a licence or may cancel or suspend the licence of a person on certain conditions. I would have thought it desirable that part of the punishment provided-if there

3358 Dental Technicians [COUNCIL.] Bill.

is to be a punishment-would be that an advanced dental technician licensed under Part II. could be downgraded to a denta'l technician licensed under Part I. That is not provided in the Bill but possibly it could be done.

Both the committee and the board will have to look at the material before them, that is, the persons who are practising and who wish to be licensed as dental technicians or advanced dental technicians. I have referred to the fact that examination for advanced dental technicians will be prescribed as the board thinks fit, whether written, oral or practical. I have also referred to the fact that there are some 400 dental mechanics practising in Victoria. To examine them and have them all registered on the roll by 31st December, 1973, one year from now, would be a great accomplishment.

It must be remembered that the committee and the board must be appointed, a secretary to each must be appointed, offices must be secured, lists must be secured of those who wish to be examined, and the examinations, whatever they may be, must be carried out, and it is doubtful whether the committee or the board could carry out all that work safely by the end of 1973. The Country Party will therefore move an amendment to clause 33 to change the date to 1974. This will merely mean that the committee and the board, particularly the board, will have that longer period available to it. It is to be hoped that most of the work will be done by the end of 1973, but, if it cannot be completed or if, for example, a candidate is overseas next year and cannot take the prescribed test until the following year, the additional period will be available.

By paragraph (f) of clause 32 the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the board may make regulations on the prohibition of advertising and the use of signs by advanced dental technicians. However, the provision in paragraph (f) of clause 15 in Part I. of the

The Hon. M. A. Clarke.

Bill which refers to the licensing of dental technicians gives the Governor in Council power, on the recommendation of the licensing committee, to make regulations on the prohibition of advertising and the regulation of use of signs by dental technicians. I am not certain of the reason for the change in the wording, but the Country Party considers that the two provisions should be the same and proposes to move an amendment to that effect.

I hope this Bill will become law as quickly as possible and that the Government will lose no time in establishing the Advanced Dental Technicians Qualifications Board and the Dental Technicians Licensing Committee. In the past I have been staggered to find that the Government has failed to proclaim legislation which has been accepted by all parties. An example is the legislation which was enacted in connection with the Environment Protection Authority. Months after its passage through this House, it was found that parts •of the legislation had not been proclaimed. I hope all the provisions of this Bill will be proclaimed at the same time and as quickly as possible.


and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Interpretations) . The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister

of Housing) .-Nobody is happier than I am to see this measure passed by the Council. Honorable members will recall the debate which took place during a previous session of Parliament when an attempt was made to amend sections of the Dental Bill which referred to the licensing of dental technicians. I suggested to the Government that it should proceed with the provisions which related to dentists, and not have them mixed with provisions relating to dental technicians. I recommended that the provisions relating to dental technicians should be deleted from the Bill.

Dental Technicians [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3359

Following criticism levelled at the Government for not proceeding with the measure, I made the point that, with minor amendments, a dental technicians Bill could be introduced in the spring sessional period. However, it has taken until now for the Bill to· reach this Chamber.

After a terrific amount of parry and thrust and comings and goings-and I pay tribute to Mr. Campbell for bringing the Bill to this point-I believe this measure is one which tidies up certain loopholes associated with dental technicians, although, of course, it will not meet with the approval of everyone. The provisions it contains conc·eming control will, I am sure, be of benefit to the public.

One or two minor amendments are to be proposed by myself and Mr. Clarke. I said that this Bill would be the "first cab off the rank," but in fact it is being considered by the Council on one of the last days of the sessional period. I hope it will be passed tonight, so that it can come into operation as soon as possible.

The clause was agreed to, as w·ere clauses 3 to 15.

Clause 16 (Advanced Dental Technicians Qualifications Board).

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-Mr. Clarke commented on sub-clause (8) , which states-

The Governor in Council may appoint a deputy chairman being a person qualified to be appointed as chairman who shall in the absence of the chairman exercise all the powers and perform all the duties of the chairman. Mr. Clarke suggested that a deputy chairman should be appointed from other members of the board. However, I point out that sub-clause (1) provides, inter alia-

There shall be a board to be called the Advanced Dental Technicians Qualifications Board consisting of six members appointed by the Governor in Council of whom-

( a) one shall be a person who is not eligible for registration as a dentist under the Dentists Act 1972 or to be licensed as a dental technician or advanced dental technician under this Act who shall be chairman;

From an examination of the list of qualifications of members of the board, it is clear that there is only one who can be deputy chairman, because he must be as neutral as the chairman. For those reasons it was thought that a deputy chairman should be appointed by the Governor in Council and that he should have the same qualifications as those required by the chairman.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-Part I. of this Bill, which deals with the registration of dental technicians, provides for a representative of the Miscellaneous Workers Union of Victoria to be on the Dental Technicians Licensing Committee. There is no provision in clause 16 for a representative of that union to be a member of the Advanced Dental Technicians Qualifications Board. In another place an amendment was moved in relation to the composition of the board, but my party does not intend to move a similar amendment in this Chamber.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 17 to 21.

Clause 22, providing, inter alia( I) A person who-( a) practised as a dental technician or

dental mechanic for a period of not less than ten years and who is licensed or is eligible to be licensed as a dental technician under Part I. may at any time prior to the 31st December, 1975; or

(b) has practised as a dental technician or dental mechanic outside Victoria for a period of not less than ten years and is or is eligible to be licensed as a dental technician under Part I. may-

apply to the Board for a licence under this Part.

(2) The Board shall require an applicant under sub-section (1) to take such examinations whether written oral or practical as it thinks fit.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-The Government does not intend to alter the purpose of

3360 Dental Technicians [COUNCIL.J Bill.

sub-clause (2) of this clause in any way, but Parliamentary Counsel has expressed doubt about the meaning of the word " whether " in it. This matter was also raised in another place. Accordingly, I move-

That, in sub-clause (2), the words " examinations whether written oral or practical " be omitted with the view of inserting the words " written oral and practical examinations".

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province).-An amendment to this effect was moved by a private member in another place, and the Government has agreed to accept it. This provides for a situation in which a person who is, say, 55 years of age and who has an extensive knowledge of his trade could be examined on one aspect-perhaps the practical side-of his job. The Minister's assurance is satisfactory, and the Labor Party does not oppose the amendment.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-If the amendment proposed by the Opposition in another place was being submitted, the Country Party would strongly resist it. However, my party agrees to the amending of the wording related to examinations. The amendment which was moved in another place was quite different from this.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-! remind Mr. Clarke that we are dealing with an amendment moved by the Minister in this place, and I do not think it is of any use to discuss a hypothetical situation coneeming what ·m1ay have occurred in another place.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-! appreciate your comments, Mr. Chairman. I think it is important to explain why the Country Party is accepting this amendment in its present form, and why it would not have accepted an amendment in another form.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were clauses 23 to 31.

Clause 32, providing, inter aliaThe Governor in Council may on the

recommendation of the Board make regulations for or with respect of-

(f) The prohibition of advertising and the use of signs by advanced dental technicians; and

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-1 move-

That, in paragraph (f), before the word " use " the words " regulation of " be inserted.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

Clause 33, providing, inter alia(1) From the 31st December, 1973-

( a) a person not licensed as a dental technician . . . . . . . . . . .

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-1 move-

That, in sub-clause ( 1), the expression "1973" be omitted with the view of inserting the expression " 1974 ".

Mr. Clarke brought to the notice of the House that the date " From the 31st December, 1973 " allows only twelve months during which such a person should register. In the case of at least one Bill dealt with in this Chamber during the current sessional period, the Government has found it necessary to extend the period during which an application for registration may be made. The Government considers that in this clause the period of registration should be extended from 31st December, 1973, to 31st December, 197 4, for the reasons advanced by Mr. Clarke during the secondreading debate.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-1 have only one correction to make to some figures I gave earlier. When I was speaking on the number of dental mechanics in the industry, I thought some 400 were involved but I have been informed that about 500 dental tnechanics and some 70 apprentices

Surrender of [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Land Bill. 3361

will probably be involved. Those figures reinforce the argument I advanced.

The amendment was agreed to, and the clause, as amended, was adopted, as were the remaining clauses.

The Bill was reported to the House with amendments, and passed through its remaining stages.

SURRENDER OF LAND BILL. The debate (adjourned from Dec

ember 6) on the motion of Sir Gilbert Chandler (Minister of Agriculture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) .-For many years a Government grant has been made available for improvements to recreational grounds and public halls, particularly where those facilities were situated on Crown land. Government assistance was not made available for capital works or improvements to facilities erected on land not belonging to the Crown, even though the facility was used for public purposes. Over the years groups of citizens have purchased areas of land for the erection of bowling clubs, racecourses and golf courses and the land has become part of the area of the various clubs. Now these clubs find that they cannot receive assistance for capital works or improvements to those areas of land although it is used for general public use.

The purpose of the Bill is to create a situation whereby if such clubs or organizations decide to surrender the land to the Crown, they will be able to do so more simply and the area will be reserved permanently for the purpose for which it is used. These clubs then will be able to apply for and receive Government grants for capital works and improvements to the land o·n which sporting facilities exist for public use. The Labor Party has no opposition whatsoever to the Bill.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-I have been living with this Surrender of Land Bill and

its predecessors for the past three or four years and I am heartfully thankful that the Bill is now before Parliament and in its final stages. There are a considerable number of public halls, racing clubs and other such institutions in my province. These organizations have been trying for years to obtain a Government grant but unfortunately have not been able to do so because the land is under their control and has been vested not in the Crown but in various forms of trusteeship. The curious thing is that very few of these trusteeships have coincided one with the other so it has been a mammoth job for the Lands Department and the Law Department to sort out the various titles so that they could be included in the Bill.

Although there is a general clause in the Bill under which those institutions not mentioned can be included later, it has been necessary to specify the various halls, racing clubs and trotting clubs in detail in the schedule. I pay tribute to the co-operation I have received from the Lands Department, the Law Department and Parliamentary Counsel, Miss Reardon. The Bill is not entirely confined to institutions in the Northern Province. I should like to indicate that, with the co-operation I have received, the items in which I have a particular interest are the Ballendella public hall, Bears Lagoon public hall, Echuca Trotting Club, Gunbower soldiers memorial hall Milloo public hall, Powlett Plain~ public hall, Rochester Jockey Club and the Shepparton Trotting Club. The actual transfer of land from the Rochester Jockey Club was a very long and slow process but it was completed in the end. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to include the Torrumbarry public hall in the Bill through the inability of Parliamentary Counsel and the Law Department to finalize the difficulties in the title, but I have made representations and I hope that the Torrumbarry public hall will be able to apply to

3362 Surrender of [COUNCIL.] Land Bill.

come within the provisions of the new Act and thus obtain the benefits to be gained under its provisions.

The halls and trotting and racing clubs are most anxious to come under the various benefits available after the Bill is passed. For example, the Gunbower soldiers memorial hall is a very fine building which is sadly in need of repair. The trustees have saved a considerable sum of money but are eagerly awaiting a grant so that repairs can be carried out on the floor. That is the type of activity which will occur under the provisions of this Bill. I am delighted to see it pass through the House and hope it will be proclaimed at the earliest possible date.


and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Power to Attorney

General to authorize certain land to Her Majesty) .

The Hon. F. J. GRANTER (Bendigo Province) .-I have a query on behalf of the Bendigo Trotting Club whose land is to be surrendered to the Crown. In posing a question to me the club stated that the land and improvements to be surrendered comprised a very valuable asset, probably worth some $500,000. The club is agreeable for the land to be surrendered to the Crown but is concerned about the control to be exercised by the governing body when the land is handed over. It fears that somebody might call a public meeting at which the trotting club could be out-voted. This club has put all the effort into this enterprise. It bought the land originally and erected all the improvements on it. The club knows that it is to its advantage to transfer the land and improvements to the Crown so that it can receive grants from the Racecourses Licences Board and probably from the Trotting Control Board. The club asks the Minister to give consideration to the appointment of a committee which will give the

trotting club some authorityperhaps there could be three members representing the trotting club, a Government nominee and a nominee from the local municipality.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-That power rests with the Minister now.

. The Hon. F. J. GRANTER.-1 hope It does. I know that when a Bill relating to a certain racecourse was before Parliament some time ago the race club concerned had a number of nominees on the committee and there were two or three Government representatives. The Bendigo Trotting Club has requested me to submit to the Minister that it be given some authority to ensure that the trotting club is not out-voted, thus enabling some organization to completely control the racing and take charge of the trotting track. It is envisaged that the Bendigo Coursing Association will also be racing at the local racetrack and perhaps it would be fair that its interest in this activity should be protected by having one representative also. I ask the Minister to carefully consider this and confer with the Minister of Lands or the Attorney-General to protect the interests of the Bendigo Trotting Club.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-The proposition put forward by Mr. Granter is reasonable but at this stage I cannot give him any guarantees. I believe the Minister of Lands has power by agreem·ent with the parties concerned to specify the number of ·members who would serve on such a committee.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-It has been done. I know of two cases in my own area.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Yes. I could not imagine a situation in which the people who had done all the work and had provided the finance would find after the property was handed over to: the Crown that they were outvoted in controlling the property.

Surrender of [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Land Bill. 3363

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-That has been contemplated.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-By whom?

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-After the people have done all the work, on certain grounds they have lost control.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-When did that happen?

The Hon. R. W. MAv.-Quite recently.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Was it by an act of the Minister of Lands?

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-1 am not saying it was by the Minister; it was through the department.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-! do not want to hurry this Bill through. I believe the Minister has the appropriate power. It would be completely wrong if the people who had built up a property lost control of it when it was handed over to the Crown in order to get the benefit of grants. If I remember correctly, in respect of Crown lands, committees of management have been appointed by sporting bodies to conduct these properties. If Mr. May has doubts about the views I have expressed I will be quite happy to move that progress be reported. If Mr. Granter feels that the interests of the Bendigo Trotting Club are placed in jeopardy by this Bill, I shall propose that progress be reported.

The Hon. F. J. GRANTER (Bendigo Province) .-1 would be most grateful to the Minister if he would take that action.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE {Northern Province) .-1 am not happy about the Minister's proposal that progress be reported in this case.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Until later this day.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-My col'leagues and I are anxious to see the Bill go through and I do not believe Mr. Granter has raised a valid objection.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-! would do it for you, so there is no reason why I should not do it for Mr. Granter.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-In that case, we do not object to the M-inister's moving that progress he reported.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY (North-Eastern Province) .-A case in point is that of the Wangaratta Agricultural Society. Control was vested in the society but with the passage of time many sporting bodies gained the· use of the grounds. As the terms of use of the property stated that it was to be used for agricultural purposes only and in view of the amounts of money that some clubs had spent in developing the property in conjunction with the agricultural society, I made representations to the Minister to have the reservation changed. It was changed and today the agricultural society has six members on the grounds management committee. The three sporting clubs that also use the ground have won representation on the committee but the agricultural society has a majority interest because of the tremendous amount of .money it has spent in developing the property. That change was approved by the Minister and we were grateful to him.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 do not think there is any doubt about the posi~ tion. As I understand it, there is no doubt that the interests of the Bendigo Trotting Club will be safeguarded through a committee of management. The Minister would not be a party to the creation of a committee which would take control away from the Bendigo Trotting Club after it had built up such a tremendous asset. I can now assure Mr. Granter that that is the advice of the 'Minister of Lands. He can take it back to the Bendigo Trotting Club.

3364 Land Tax [COUN~.] Bill.

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


LAND TAX BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) , was read a first time.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER {Minister of Agriculture) .-I move-

That this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to: declare the rates of land tax for the calendar year 1973. 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 enacted annually. No change in the rates for land tax is proposed for 1973, and the Bill provides that the same rates of land tax as are in operation this year will continue for the calendar year 1973. The estimate of revenue to be received from land tax this financial year is $30 million. Allowance has been made for this in the Budget, and the Bill is properly to: be regarded as a Budget Bill.

I want to take this opportunity of saying something about the exemption provisions in the Land Tax Act. In 1970 new exemption provisions were enacted. The exemptions were redefined, but the basic change proposed was that land owned by or vested in charities and municipalities, but leased for business purposes, would cease to be exempt from land tax. These new provisions are not yet in operation. The 1970 Act provides that they will come into operation on proclamation.

When explaining the 1970 legislation the Treasurer said that it was intended that the new provisions for the taxation of leased land would not come into operation for two years. The Treasurer explained that this was to give the owners of such land

reasonable notice of their actual and potential liability. "It is fair", he said, " that they should be warned and be able to prepare for the day when they will be liable for land tax ". Subsequently the Government invited interested parties to present to the Government any information they desired to: submit on the effect of the proposed changes. An undertaking was given that if anomalies were found to exist in the proposed new exemption provisions, then any modification necessary would be the subject of amending legislation before the Act came into operation.

A good deal of information has been submitted to the Government on behalf of interested parties, particularly the churches and municipalities. This information has been referred to an inter-departmental committee whose job it will be to bring forward recommendations to the Government. The committee is not yet ready to do this, and indeed it may have to obtain additional information. In these circumstances the Government has decided that the new exemption provisions contained in the 1970 Act will not be proclaimed to operate in 1973. Furthermore, I repeat all the assurances which the Treasurer has given in the matter. I commend the Bill to the House, but I have never been happy in presenting ~his type of Bill.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I could see the pleasure on your face when you introduced the Bill.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-People like Mr. Tripovich have their money invested in shares. Their capital is not subject to tax, whereas investments in land or property attract this tax. I believe income tax is a fair tax and it ought to be increased to raise the revenue which now results from land tax. We should not be imposing this kind of taxation, granting exemptions, making restrictions, and so so. Nevertheless, I commend the Bill to the House.

Ministry for [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Conservation Bill. 3365

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


MINISTRY FOR CONSERVATION BILL.

The debate (adjourned from December 6) on the motion of the Hon. V. 0. Dickie (Minister of Housing) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province).-This Bill will bring under one Ministry the functions of nine different Government agencies. As the Minister said when explaining the measure, conservation means different things to different people. This is an age in which everyone wants to do something to improve the quality of life and the environment in which we live. I envisage that there may be a conflict of opinion with conservationists about the implementation of this Bill because I notice that the Fisheries and Wildlife Branch is to brought under th~ control of the Ministry. Living ~dJace.nt to the b.eaches in Gippsland, Incl~dmg. the Ninety Mile Beach, I can Imagine some people wanting to conserve the sharks and others wanting to conserve the people from the sharks. Therefore, there could well be a conflict of interest. Whatever is. done, I hope a balanced approach will be adopted by the Ministry and that it will take a realistic attitude to the existing situation.

I have in mind the extremes to which conservationists are inclined on occasions, although I admire them in many respects. Some of them become fanatical in their extreme desires, but they make a contribution towards the preservation of the great natural assets of the State.

Some conservationists objected to a road being constructed through a national park in East Gippsland, and consequently the road had to be

built on the other side of a hillonly. a matter of 150 yards awaybut It had to go through a solid rock formation with a consequent astronomical rise in costs compared with the original proposal through the park. That result took the conservation aspect to extremes, particularly when the national park covered many thousands of acres. I mention that as an example, although many problems have occurred elsewhere over the erection of power transmission lines. One can adopt a shortsighted policy on such matters and decisions may be taken to the ultimate detriment of the people who use the power because they have to meet the cost of transmission. In some instances, unreasonable attitudes are adopted towards certain proposals. I hope the ·Ministry will adopt a reasonable approach to such matters.

The Ministry has much work which it can fruitfully undertake. Much has been said about Port Phillip Bay and the many problems which exist in connection with the Gippsland lakes. I hope, as a result of research, it will be possible to bring about great improvements in these areas. Members of the Country Party trust that the Ministry will take a rea'listic attitude in assessing the virtue and value of all the things which the people have come to appreciate. In his second-reading speech the Minister said that the previous philosophy had been one of " Get it now and forget the future. " I hope the philosophy followed in future will be, "If you attempt to get it now, think of the consequences. " No doubt uppermost in the mind of the Ministry will be preservation balanced with progress. We trust that it will also act with understanding so that the quality of life will be improved. Members of the Country Party support the Bill.

The motion was agreed to.

The Bill was read a second time and passed through its remaining stages.

3366 ·Public Works [COUNCIL.] and Services Bill.

PUBLIC WORKS AND SERVICFS BILL.

The debate (adjourned from December 8) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province).-This is really a Budget Bill. I am always astounded that a similar measure is introduced each year in the dying stages of a sessional period.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-The department is out of money.

The Hon. J. M. TRI.POVICH.-If that is so, it is the Government's fault, because each department submits its estimate about March and it works its way through and comes forward in the Treasurer's Budget. All of these appropriations are approved by the Treasurer before he introduces his Budget. There is no reason why this Bill should not be introduced in the early stages of the sessional period.

The Bill cancels out the unexpended allocations from last year's Public Works and Services Bill and ma~es provision for works to be continued. It makes provision for the sum of $161 · 682 million, which is $35 million more than last year, or an increase of 27 per cent. However, when one compares the amounts actually spent last year with the amounts proposed to be spent this year one finds that the expenditure to 30th June, 1972, amounted to $105,091,763, and the proposed expenditure during the year ending 30th June, 1973, is $118·555 million, or an increase of only 12 per cent.

I always like to examine these Bills by making a comparison between what the allocation will buy compared with the previous year. I am indebted to a colleague in another place for some figures which he has researched. In 1961-62, in round figures, the expenditure of the department was $35·75 million. In 1971-72, it was ~$72·172 million.

In 1961-62 the strength of the staff of the Public 'Works Department was 1,029, and in 1971-72-ten years later-it was 1,169. In 1961-62 the sum paid to the staff in overtime was $198,000, and in 1971-72 it amounted to $269,000. This increase merely allows for the growth rate, as it is called today, or the inflation which has occurred in the intervening years. Without wishing to take up the time of the House, I point out that the department bought less in 1972 for the expenditure of $72 million than it did in 1962 for $35·75 million.

In 1961-62 the amount paid by the department in consultants' fees was $54,000, and in 1971-72 it had increased to $1·038 million. This payment is made to consultants because the Public Works Department has not the facilities to design and plan many of the works entrusted to it, particularly some of the more colorful and modern buildings such as Princes Hill High School. Outside consultants were employed on that project. It is sometimes said that outside consultants prepare plans cheaper than does the Public Works Department. That is not so, because the supervision of buildings and the responsibility for ensuring that they are properly constructed does not rest with the architects, as it does in normal building practice, but falls back on the Public Works Department. Therefore, an oncost charge is imposed.

On the subject of oncost charges, I wish to quote from page 85 of the report of the Auditor-General for the year ended 30th June, 1962. I com·mend the following com·ments of the Auditor-General:-

Works financed from the Works and Services Account or from trust or special funds and carried out under the supervision of the department were subject to an oncost charge, approved by the Treasury, to cover the departmental expenses involved in the design, supervision and administration of the works. The approved rate was 12·45 per cent but, in some instances, a lower rate was applied. The use of this lower rate on specific schemes or, as is also the practice, the total exclusion from the oncost calculation of certain projects subject to outside

Public Works (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] and Services Bill. 3367

consultants, tends to increase the range of fluctuation, from year to year, in the rate needed to recover, over the remaining works, the incurred costs.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-The department also undertakes a tremendous amount of work which is not paid for and not counted in 'any oncost charges. These items include gardening, supervision, administration of buildings and so on.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I welcome :t!he Minister's interjection. The Auditor-General continues-

Recoups to the Consolidated Fund on the basis of these and other charges amounted to $6,106,754. The comparable figure for 1970-71 was $5,578,563 when the rate charged for design, supervision and administration was 12·15 per cent.

I ask the Government to take cognizance 'Of this f.act. I know that the former Mini,ste~r ·of Public Works has done so. I regret that the Ministry is now an appendage to water supply; a department which contracts on behalf of ·client departments to the extent of the financial provisions under this Bill should not be ~an appendage to another Ministry, it should h'av;e ia full-time 'Minister.

The department oaters for the needs of all departments, except the railways. I do not believe th·e Government is getting value for money in the empl1oyment of outside consu1t1ants. I 1am not alleging anything against the consultants 'but the Government does 1bave a tendency to de'cry emplo~yment in the St1ate Public Service. The Public W·orks Department h!as as loyal and capable a band of officers as one could find in building construction anywhere, and it is depressing f01r them to find thems·elves c'arrying out the mundane tasks whilst t!he m'ore colourful projects are h1anded to outside consultants.

The department sihould utHize the same method of reports as that now used by the Victorian Railways, witlh a number tbr each subject and vacant numbers being left fior 1any new ~subject. If this were done, ·an item in the Bill before ParHament 'last year would have the :same item number

this year. Item 7 in the Public Works and Services Bill 1970 referred to research farms and stations, whereas in the current Bill, this subject is item 26. If the railways method of presentation were used, it would be simpler for one to find out what was allocated last year and then ascertain how much was spent.

For instance, in 1970-71 provision was made for a contribution of $225,000 to the Decentralization Fund. A similar provision does not appear this year. Apparently, the Minister of Housing, in hi1s former capacity as Minister for State Development, was successful in having provision for the Decentralization Fund deleted from the Public Works and Services Bill.

Last year, a provision of $30,000 was made to the Little Athletics Association for new centres and for competition equipment. Under item 55 on page 2 of the explanatory statement the expenditure last year is shown as $9,259 whereas the proposed expenditure for tihi's year is $39,000. Then, the expl1anatory memorandum indicates that for the current financial year the Government has approved grants totalling $28,500. So where does the $9,259 come from? As the money was provided last year without any explanation, there is no way for honorable ·m:embers to find out. In the explanatory memorandum reference is made to subsidies on a $2 for $1 basis for new centres for competition equipment, subject to a maximum subsidy of $725 per centre and to the fact that these are estimated to cost $13,000 this financial year. Then, furtlher subsidies and grants are outlined, all of which add up to $28,500. Therefore, I do not know where the $9,259 comes front.

The provision for school buildings under tlhe Bill am-ounts to $55 million, of which $49 ·1 million wiH be spent this financiial year. Last year, the expenditure totalled $44 · 3 million on this item, which means the provision is ~an increase of $4 · 8 million over expenditure 1last year. Under this

3368 Public Works [COUNCIL.] and Services Bill.

item, there is an allocation of $1·8 million towards the phasing out of composite fees, which is a fine move.

Amongst the significant projects on which expenditure will be incurred is a replacement block at Brinces Hill High School, which was destroyed by fire, and a 3-story block at Fitzroy High School, for which the Government is paying for land the equivalent reclamation costs under the urban renewal scheme of about $200,000 an acre. Therefore, although the Government is providing additional funds for building the Collingwood complex and additional buildings at Fitzroy, quite a deal of the additional allocation will be involved in high land costs. Provision is also made for a 3-story block at Flemington Girls High School.

However, the worst equipped secondary school in Victoria is the Brunswick Girls High School. During the recent Federal election campaign, the Federal Minister for Education and Science, Mr. Fraser, visited this school with the local candidate for the Liberal Party, Mr. Gray. It was the first time that we had heard of the candidate and probably it will be the last. Mr. Fraser misled the people into believing that he was going to do something for the school.

When I asked whether the Minister of Education had visited the school since the Government had been in office, the Minister replied that he had not but that he would do so. The Minister visited the school last month, walked around and saw the awful conditions. Because of the working conditions, the staff turnover last year was 100 per cent. The Minister shook hands with the principal and had a cup of tea, but probably nothing will be done to alleviate the situation at this school.

I have raised the problems of the school, year after year, but nothing has been done. The school is situated on a pocket hankerchief piece of land and the school facilities are so antiquated that soon the National Trust will grant it a class A rating so that it can be retained

The Hon. J. M. Tripovich.

as an exhibit, which is apparently what the Educatio·n Department wants it to do. While the school remains a girls school, it will suffer this disadvantage. Next year, the Frankston Girls High School will become co-educational, and will no longer suffer similar disadvantages. I ask the Government to do something about the Brunswick Girls High School because a social tragedy is as so cia ted with 50 per cent. of the students at the school. Naturally, the local members are pleased to see provision made for the construction of a new primary school at Lalor West.

Item 7 relates to Parliament House, for which the provision is $200,000. Last year, $69,000 was spent on updating this building, whereas proposed expenditure for this financial year is $76,000. This year's programme provides for further work on the improvement of toilet facilities and on electrical rewiring, together with a specific allocation of $23,000 for renovation to selected rooms throughout the building. Last year, I referred to temperatures experienced on this side of the House. Fortunately, the situation has improved because the staff have opened the windows at night and shut them during the day. The temperature in the staff dining room one day last week was at least ll5°F. Something should be done to co·ntrol the temperature. It is impossible to work in the private members' room in the Library on a hot day because the heat is too extreme. The construction of the proposed north wing should be proceeded with. On numerous occasions I have offered to swap the new Government buildings over the road and allow the public servants to work in this building, but I have had no acceptances.

Under the heading of the Police Department there will be a restructuring of the existing Bourke Police District which has been renamed the Moonee Ponds District. The restructured district will be responsible for policing the municipalities of Essendon, Brunswick, Coburg, Footscray and Williamstown, and parts of the City of Melbourne

Public Works [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] and Services Bill. 3369

and the City of Port Melbourne. As part of the reorganization of the metropolitan police districts, a further 87 members of the force will be performing duties in the new Sunshine district and the Moo·nee Ponds district.

Unfortunately, nothing can be done until the Moonee Ponds court house, which is referred to under item 15, is rebuilt. The project involves the replacement of the existing court house with a modern building providing two court rooms, a general office and records room, separate rooms for stipendiary magistrate, justices of the peace and the clerk of the court, and associated facilities. Local members are grateful that their perseverance is at last paying off and that a new court house will be established at Moonee Ponds. The new police district restructuring will also necessitate the demolition of the old police building and the construction of a new one.

Item 13 contains a report that the wire netting industry at Pentridge Gaol has been phased out and that it is proposed to substitute a taHoring industry. I do not know why thi·s i's so. Expenditure for the purchase of wire netting this year is $100,000 and under item 76 there is an allocation of $5,000 for advances to farmers to finance the supply of wire netting. Is the closing of the wire netting section at Pentridge Gaol a gesture to private enterprise? Will the tailoring industry at Pentridge make police uniforms? It would be a good idea if the Government explained this point.

My party and I are pleased that an allocation of $500,000 has been made for alcoholism and drug-dependency services. Last year alcoholism and its problems were associated with the $6 million allocated to the Mental Health Authority. This year the clinical block project at Pleasant View will be constructed and will become an integral part of the alcoholism service. An outpatients assessment service will also be provided. This provision cannot be commended

too highly, particularly as alcoholism and drug dependency are to be treated as a sickness and not as a crime.

Last year $3 million was allocated to the Victorian Arts Centre and this year the allocation is featured as item 47. Expenditure last year was $1 · 345 million and the provision this year is $3 · 5 million, with a proposed expenditure of $1·6 million. Members of the Labor Party will be happy to see the Victorian Arts Centre completed. It will be an excellent acquisition for Melbourne. The Honorable Joe Smith was Minister of Lands when the land was taken over for the Arts Centre and a Country Party Government was negotiating on the land before that. It took over the old Green Mill site which was on the corner where the Arts Centre now stands. So all parties have had an association with this project and they will be happy to see it completed.

Item 71 makes the necessary provisions for the Environment Protection Authority and its delegated agencies to be housed and for the authority to be established. I have previously commended the authority and the necessary provisions for the buildings and offices get the same commendation. Under item 96 an amount of $460,000 is to be allocated to the Aboriginal Affairs Fund. That does not mean that more money will be spent on Aborigines, but the allocation is necessary.

The advance to be made to the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board is expected to be $6 million. Last year the allocation was $3 million but there was a refund of $1 · 2 million in lieu of rebates of fares to aged people and others. I am pleased that the Government is providing money to reimburse the board for the fare concessions it gives as social services at the behest of the Government. I hope the provision will be continued and extended to the Victorian Railways. If the Government wishes these service industries to provide social services, it must subsidize their capital works and assist


the Tramways Board and the Victorian Railways to function efficiently and as prestige industries. At present these instrumentalities are criticized for being non-paying services. In the future the Government may have to give consideration to providing additional money as services are provided and extended in Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong.

With those remarks, I support the Bill, but I close on the note upon which I started. This is a Budget Bill and it could have been introduced into this House at least seven weeks ago. It is a most interesting Bill which should be thoroughly examined. Every member is interested in it and time should be given in which to examine it in detail. Honorable members had the same experience last year.

I ask the Government to examine the position and endeavour to introduce the works and services Bills with the Budget instead of introducing them into this House at the dying stages of the sessional period. The Government ought to arrange its business in such a way that the Budget Bills are introduced with the Budget.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY (North-Eastern Province) .-A similar Bill is introduced at this time of the sessional period each year. The Bill now being considered makes provision for expenditure by the Public Works Department. The amount expected to be expended this financial year is $118 · 555 million and the proposed provision in the Bill is $161·682 million. I want to add to the criticism made by Mr. Tripovich. The Public Works Department is too big to be joined with other Ministerial responsibilities. Administering the Public Works Department and the State Rivers and Water 'Supply Commission places too big a responsibility on one Minister. I am not casting a reflection on the present Minister.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Mostly on the previous Minister.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-The present Minister will do his utmost to meet his responsibilities. The Minister for State Development and Decentralization, who is momentarily having a joke, must realize that when he was Minister of Public Works his time was fully occupied in that department. Although the honorable gentleman made some improvements when he was Minister of Public Works, more improvements could be made to give proper services to the community and to other departments.

I was interested in a case this afternoon in regard to a minor request from a primary school for certain works to be carried out. The Education Department informed me that it had sent a requisition to the Public Works Department and it was waiting on the Public Works Department to take action. When I contacted the Public Works Department I was told that the requisition had not been received from the Education Department. This is an instance of what goes o·n time and again and indicates that there should be more liaison between the Education Department and the Public Works Department because a great deal of frustration is occurring.

I refer to a case at the Wodonga High School this year where the Public Works Department had been instructed to call tenders for major renovations and the Education Department informed me that it had given a requisition to the Public Works Department to call tenders for four matriculation class-rooms. Somewhere along the line the requisition from the Education Department was lost and could not be found in the Public Works Department. This is costing the Government additional money because the understanding was that tenders were to be called to carry out modifications and improvements to staff facilities at the high school and one tender was to be called to cover the two jobs. Instead, tenders were called for the first job and the successful contractor had to be asked to put in a quote for the class-rooms.


I am not aware whether the contract for the class-rooms has yet been let to that contractor.

The point I am making is that there is a need for more liaison between the two departments. The Education Department should not have to go through the red tape of providing requisitions to the Public Works Department because this causes delays and fustration.

A record sum is to be spent on education this Year but, because of increased costs, it is doubtfu'l whether the increased amount will lead to more work being undertaken. It is doubtful whether the Government is keeping up with the work required to be done. The same comments apply to many other allocations in the Bill. I should like to add my comments to what has been said about item 7 which provides for an expenditure of $76,000 on Parliament House.

Item 21 indicates that the Public Works Department has purchased a property which is nearing completion at 240 Victoria Parade, East Melbourne, for occupation by the proposed new Department of Conservation. The purchase price of this building was $2 · 385 million. Yet the provision of interview rooms at Parliament House for back-bench members from both sides of the Chamber is totally inadequate for an establishment of this nature. For a new department which is now being established the Government is prepared to bend over backwards and find $2 · 385 million for a new building. I add my support to what has been said about the need for work to begin as soon as possible on the north wing of Parliament House so that proper working conditions may be provided in Parliament House to enable honorable members to give a service to their electorates throughout the State.

Item 13 relates to the Prisons Division. The explanatory memorandum shows that the estimated expenditure of $818,000 is over 80 per cent more than last year's expenditure of $445,000. Although the expenditure

has increased to this extent, I do not think it is sufficient. I know that it is easy to ask where additional funds will be obtained, but honorable members will be aware that recently there has been much unrest in the gaols in Victoria. In view of gaol conditions, is it any wonder that there is a great deal of unrest? Pentridge Gaol was built many years ago and it is not adequate for present-day conditions. _

I believe that Pentridge Gaol should be divided into categories of offences so that hardened criminals, first offenders a·nd others will not all be confined in the one place as happens now. If the prison were divided into classifications determined by the severity of crimes that prisoners had committed there would not be the unrest that is now experienced in Victorian gaols. I should like improvements and extensions to be made to Beechworth Gaol. I visited that establishment last Sunday which was the charter day for a visit by the Jaycees Club. I was delighted to see that the young offenders have been encouraged to take an interest in the work of Jaycees. They are keen and already are paying their way as members of the Jaycees organization. I believe that if first offenders who are in the Beechworth Gaol and other gaols in country centres could be segregated from the worst type of criminal we would achieve something towards rehabilitating these unfortunate people who have gone astray.

Item 32 relates to mental hospitals and institutions. My colleague Mr. Swinburne and I have spoken on this subject many times. We have been assured in press statements by the Premier that urgent consideration will be given to updating the mental institution at Beechworth, which is known as May Day Hills. No mention is made in item 32 of any improvements to be made at Beechworth this financial year. This is rather unfortunate because promises have been given that they will be made. The Minister of Health promised nearly


two years ago that $3 million would be spent to up-date the establishment at Beechworth.

The Han. I. A. SWINBURNE.-He did not say when.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-! agree that he did not say when. I am sure that any honorable members who visited May Day Hills would have nothing but admiration for the staff at that establishment. Where people of the state of mind of those who are confined to that establishment are housed under those conditions and where the fire hazards are so great it is very fortunate that no really serious tragedy has occurred. Surely we are not to wait until there is a serious tragedy, only then to throw our hands in the air in horror and say that something must be done about the situation. We must not wait until that day arrives. I hope that in the very near future the Premier will ensure that the institution at Beechworth is improved to a better standard than exists today.

I refer finally to autistic children about whom I have spoken previously in this place. The provision for the Autistic Children's Association is $5,000. How far will that amount go in providing for two centres in the metropolitan area and giving financial assistance to the Mansfield Autistic Play School and Travelling Teacher Service which is under the control of Dr. Joan Curtis? I hope only that these unfortunate children will be given greater recognition by the State and that further recognition will be given to people who work in the interests of autistic children and who try to help them in their education.

The Country Party supports the Bill. Members of my party trust that the works proposed will meet the requirements of the people.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY (Doutta Galla Province) .-I propose to touch briefly 'on several items in this Bill with which I am concerned. Item 1 provides for an additional sum to be provided during the next financial year for expenditure on school buildings and works to be carried out throughout the State. I am con-

cemed about the construction of school buildings within the State but, more particularly, within the province which I represent. New schools under construction or on which construction is to begin in the near future include the primary schools which are mentioned in the explanatory memorandum. A few nights ago I attended a meeting in the Broadmeadows electorate where there are to be constructed, or are in the course of construction at the moment, 115 new Housing Commission homes north of the Broadmeadows town hall. The Broadmeadows West Primary School was opened this year with an intake of 25 students, but today it has a population of over 500 students. With an additional 115 new homes in the area a new school will be required. Parents and staff at the Broadmeadows West Primary School are very concerned with the situation.

At the meeting which I attended it was stated to the committee that a school was to be built adjacent to the new Housing Commission settlement, but no provision f•r that appears in the Bill. No funds have been allocated for the construction of a new school in this area in the next financial year. I am concerned at what will happen to children in this area and where they will be educated for the next year or two. The other matter that concerns me is the condition of the Brunswick Girls High School which, as I have mentioned previously in this place, is a disgrace. Quite recently the Minister, the ho·norable member for Brunswick East, Mr. Tripovich, a member of another place, and I inspected that school which obviously needs to be rebuilt. A blanket should be placed over the houses in the immediate area so that more school buildings can be erected and an increased school area made available. There is no provision for work of this kind within the next financial year.

Only a few days ago the Minister of Education received a deputation in respect of the Lalor High School at


which students from as far out as Kinglake attend. You, Mr. President, were present at that deputation. It is proposed that the Lalor High School will take some children living within close proximity of the school but that others will be sent to Merrilands, which is 2 or 3 miles away. There is a need for a new high school to be erected within the Lalor or Epping areas, but no provision has been made for this work to begin within the next twelve months. In areas such as Broadmeadows and Epping where new houses are being completed every day no provision is made for children to attend school.

I refer next to item 9 which relates to the Police Department. Two new police districts are to be established, one in Sunshine, to serve the municipalities of Altona, Broadmeadows, Keilor, Sunshine, Buller, Melton and Werribee, and the other at Moonee Ponds to be responsible for policing the municipalities of Essendon, Brunswick, Coburg, Northcote, Footscray, Williamstown and parts of the City of Melbourne and the City of Port Melbourne. I believe too much responsibility will be placed on these police districts and that to cover all those municipalities the number of officers stationed in the districts will need to be increased.

I notice that the Shire of Whittlesea is not included in the municipalities mentioned in the Bill. I have pointed out previously in this place that there is a police station at Thomastown, a house that is used as a station at Epping and another station at Whittlesea. A new station is proposed for Lalor, but no provision is made for the construction of a police station to begin there within the next financial year. Yet a station is necessary. I have already informed the House that only seven policemen are available to patrol the whole area of Thomastown, Lalor, Epping and as far out as Whittlesea which has a population of 30,000 and, within the next twelve months, is expected to have a population of 35,000 people. This situation is not good enough. I ask the Minister to endeavour to do

something about the construction of a police station at Lalor to protect the great majority of people who are moving out into this area, or into the Shire of Whittlesea, as it is better known.

Item 13 relates to the Prisons Division. A redevelopment pl1an has been developed for Fairlea Women's Prison and $100,000 has been provided to complete the first stage during 1972-73. The conditions at Fairlie Women's Prison are appalling. I cannot understand how women and girls there can be expected to rehabilitate themselves and be decent citizens on their release. The two new modern cottages will each accommodate six women but there are some 50 prisoners at Fairlie, so the cottages will not help a great proportion of the prisoners in the next twelve months. More finance should be made available to improve the conditions. I do not suggest that the prisoners should be pampered but the existing provisions are a disgrace.

Further improvements are to be made at the trial and remand divisions at Pentridge. I have visited this section of Pentridge Gaol on a number of occasions and the conditions here, too, are disgraceful. I commend the Government for making an effort to improve them. Unfortunately, no money is being provided to improve the conditions at C Division during the financial year. This is one of the oldest divisions of the prison. I have on previous occasions told the House that I considered the conditions were shocking and I reiterate that I cannot understand how prisoners who suffer these conditions can be expected to become decent citizens. The cells are about 9 feet long by 2 feet wide, and the Government should see what can be done to improve the conditions in that section of the prison as well as in other sections.

Under item 15, a new court house is to be constructed at Moonee Ponds. I commend the Government for taking this action, but it is long overdue. The new court house will be of great benefit to the clerks of


court, the stipendiary magistrates, and also the justices of the peace. I know from experience that justices of the peace carry out much work at court houses and those who work at the Moonee Ponds court house will appreciate the separate rooms which are now being provided for them. Only this morning, I sat as a justice at a court which a stipendiary magistrate visits only twice a week. All honorable members appreciate the work of justices and it is essential that they be properly accommodated. The Minister is we'll aware of the large number of court houses which should be reconstructed and I shall not labour the point. However, I direct attention to the watch house at Northcote which should be rebuilt, and I urge the Minister to take action in that regard.

Item 33 refers to alcoholism and drug dependency services and I congratulate the Government for doing something to help people who cannot help themselves. Gresswell, a former sanatorium, is being remodelled as a rehabilitation centre for alcoholic and drug dependent persons and this is something else which is long overdue. Day after day, alcoholics are sentenced to terms of imprisonment because there is nowhere but gaol to send them. However, it is of no use sending alcoholics to Pentridge because that does not help them to overcome their problem. Once these people start to drink, they keep on drinking until they are finally sent back to gaol from which they were probably released only the day before. I commend the Government for starting work on assessment clinics and rehabilitation centres.

Hospitals are dealt with under item 88, and I am glad that money is being provided for work in the inner metropolitan area where all the public hospitals are located. However, I regret that no money has been provided for the construction of hospitals in the northern suburbs. There is a hospital at Preston, but for the people at Craigieburn, for example, the nearest hospital is at Kilmore or

The Hon. R. J. Eddy.

the Royal Melbourne Hospital. This is a disgraceful state of affairs. Money should be provided as soon as possible for the construction of a hospital between Broadmeadows and Craigieburn. There is a rapidly in-creasing population in these areas. Broadmeadows has developed rapidly in the past few years and now Craigieburn is growing just as fast. Construction of a hospital in the northern suburbs is a most important requirement.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (NorthWestern Province) .-This Bill provides money for many purposes including the improvement of Government offices. When one visits the various Government departments one gains an appreciation of the appalling conditions under which many public servants work. Some Government departments have been in existence for so long that they are taken for granted and a fresh look should be taken at the working conditions provided for their staffs. I pay a tribute to Mr. Allen and his staff at the Titles Office for the work they do under bad conditions. Although they assure us that they are not worried about fire. the Title Offices constitutes a great fire hazard and, quite apart from considerations of the safety of the staff, there is a danger of valuable documents being lost. The staff are entitled to better conditions and facilities. Instead of documents being kept in canvas bags, many records could be kept on micro film. I should like to know whether the Government has any plans for improving the facilities at the Titles Office and the conditions under which the staff work.

A great improvement has been made in many of the old buildings in Treasury Place but the draughting division of the Lands Department is still located in what might be called the dungeons. Here, again, the working conditions of the staff are disgraceful. The maps and plans are of tremendous value and so is the information provided to the public. I particularly commend the work of Mr.· Bob Spreadborough who knows


where everything is; what will happen when he retires, I do not know. The conditions there are archaic. In the mapping room itself, there is much valuable equipment but the working conditions are still extremely bad. Still in the back-blocks but on the next story, fine work is being done by the cartographic section in compiling photographic maps. A surprising number of people visit this section to buy maps, and photographic maps with information up to 1972 can be provided within a couple of hours. The Minister should tell us what is being done to improve the conditions in this section of the Lands Department.

I hope I am in order in referring to water supply, sewerage and drainage under item 82, which relates to municipal subsidies. As a member who represents an irrigation area, on behalf of irrigators generally I pay a tribute to the services rendered to the community by a former commissio·ner, Mr. Horsfall. Mr. Horsfall, who recently retired, served Victoria extremely well and I should like him to know that all irrigators appreciate his services and wish him well in the future.


and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Issue and application of

money from Works and Services Account for public works) .

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-It certainly behoves me to comment on subjects raised in the debate on this important Bill. I thank all honorable members, and particularly Mr. Tripovich for their contributions and I also thank them for their co-operation during the period that I was Minister of Public Works. In all ways, the Public Works Department is a nonpolitical department and I endeavoured to see that it had a close association, firstly, with members of Parliament, and, secondly, with members of the public. On all major pro-

jects, particularly school projects, I felt it important and desirable that the departm·ent should take the wishes and views of the community into consideration. The community is entitled to know how its taxes are spent.

Mr. Tripovich was and is shadow Minister of Public Works and I pay him sincere tribute for his co-operation with me. I appreciated my relationship with him. All I can say publicly is that I agree with everything he said tonight. Mr. Tripovich raised some interesting points. ·He 'referred to the question of consult~ants' fees, to which I referred in debate last year. It is a pity that very large sums of money have to be paid outside the Public Works Department. After I had been a Minister for a few weeks it became abundantly clear to me that the officers of the department were hard-working men who were prepared to give their time and services to the State. Because of the category of their positions, they were not entitled to receive overtime although, at the same time, large sums of money were being paid to people outside the Public Service.

I discussed the matter with the Public Service Board but, unfortunately, it was during the period in which there was a clamp down in every State in relation to the employment of radditiona'l pubHc ~servants. Anyone can prove that paying consultants' fees instead of paying the department's officers, architects and engineers is an uneconomic way of spending money which is allocated to the department. On the other hand, often the department is suddenly given approval to spend 'large sums of money. On one occasion that I can recaH, the department was instructed to spend something like $15 million, and, as ne·cessa·ry preparation for the projects concerned had to be carried out within a matter of months, it was imperative to get outside help.

On many occasions when I was Minister of Public Works, I wished that Mr. M·errifield was still a member of the House because of his wide knowledge of the department. The


department has been unfairly criticized about oncost charges, but when one compares the cost of obtaining the services of various consultants and paying their fees and the work done by the Public Works Department for ·the Govem,ment, which is added to oncost charges, one cannot deny that the Government receives value for its money.

All honorable members who have taken part in the debate asked whether the State is receiving value for the money it is expending. I had a survey conducted one yea~ and found . that costs had increased by more than 12 per cent. No industry reflects inflation more than the building industry, and wages are one of the major costs involved. They also reflect the effect of inflation. I hope Victoria will be able to obtain its fair share of finance from the Commonwealth Government, so that increased building costs will not erode the work carried out by the Public Works Department.

All honorable members have complained that not enough money is being spent, but I point out to the Committee that there are 93 items listed in this measure and that, for that reason, no one could suggest that we could not be spending more in respect of particular items.

The Government agrees that not enough money is being spent, but one of the difficulties with which Victoria and the other States are faced is that the money the Government receives is a lump sum from the Commonwealth. There is only a small area in which the Government can raise money, and that is in the form of indirect taxation. I think there is common agreement that indirect taxation is unfair taxation. The State is in an unfortunate position, in that it has limited sources for ra1smg money. The Government spends every dollar it receives; indeed, it spends more than it gets.

Mr. Bradbury referred to a matter which has been raised previously, namely, the need for co-operation between the Public Works Department

~he Hon. Murray Byrne.

and the Education Department, and he spoke of delays that occur. When I was Minister of Public Works, I had a survey undertaken in re~ation to some fourteen or fifteen building projects whi·ch were undertaken on behalf of the Education Department. This survey was conducted by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. I know that there is frustration in connection with building and that delays are involved, even if one is merely building his own home, but the survey to which I have referred, and which dealt with projects selected at random, indicated that delays were less than those in outside industry.

I do not know of the particular matter to which Mr. Bradbury referred, but, in defence of the department-and I can only speak of the period during which I was Ministercontinuous consultation with the Education Department was encouraged. There would not have been one day on which the officers of the two departments did not meet and confer. The departments appreciated the degree of co-operation which existed.

I thank honorable members for their contribution to the debate and assure them that matters which have been raised and which fall within the jurisdiction of other Ministers will be referred to the honorable gentlemen concerned and given consideration by the Public Works Department.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE (Northern Province) .-Mr. Chairman, is it in order to discuss particular items at this stage?

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol}.-There is nothing to prevent Mr. Clarke from doing so.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-! refer to item 7, which relates to expenditure on Parliament House. Included in that item is an allocation from the Works and Services Account of $76,000, and under this item the explanatory memorandum states-

This year's programme provides for further work on the improvement of toilet facilities and on electrical rewiring 1together


with a specific allocation of $23,000 for renovations to selected rooms throughout the building.

It is some years since improvement of toilet facilities in this building began and many years since rewiring was commenced. I believe there are more toilets in this House than in any other building in the city of Melbourne, and they have all been renovated. Most of the building has been rewired, and marks where rewiring has taken place are visible on the walls. I ask the Minister when those marks are to be painted over. The toilet near the Legislative Council Chamber has been rewired. When will it be painted? When will the painting on the staircase leading from the first floor of the Legislative Assembly be completed? The electrical rewiring has been finished for years but no paint has been applied where the work was carried out.

Provision is made for other itemsthey are not large items-such as the shelter-sheds at the Royal Botanic Gardens for which the allocation is $73,000, which is about the sum we are expending on the whole of Parliament House this year. I direct the attention of honorable members to the provision for the Zoological Gardens where the works planned for this year include four moated ape enclosures and ten kangaroo and wallaby enclosures surrounding a water fowl lake. The estimated cost of the two projects is $250,000.

The Minister invited honorable members to point out where money could be saved. The hour is late and I know you are impatient, Mr. Chairman, as we want to finish, but I could go through the Bill and indicate to the Minister many places where the honorable gentleman could save money. An allocation of $250,000 for the provision of enclosures at the zoo-and I do not know how many honorable members. are in favour of keeping animals in zoos; I am notis ridiculous when compared with the paltry sum provided for works in Parliament House.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-1 take it that the honorable member is not becoming confused between the two places!

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-Sometimes one could become confused between the two places. In two rooms in this House-l refer to the north and south rooms of the Library -the electrical wiring has been done for years. The strengthening of the library ceiling was completed six years ago, but since that time there has been a naked globe hanging from the ceiling of the south room. It is a disgrace that there should be such lighting arrangements in the Library of this Parliament. The Library Committee is continually referring this matter to the House Committee and is quite optimistic that its representations might be successful, but I shall be surprised if the House Committee has met once during the current session. I understand that it has not met this session.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-You are not going to blame me for that are you? Who is your representative on the House Committee?

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-1 imagine that the House Committee makes the request to the Public Works Department to carry out the work that is required in Parliament House. If I am wrong, the Minister can correct me, but I understand that the liaison between the Parliament and the Public Works Department is through the House Committee, which is not doing its job by not requesting that this work be performed.

I am disappointed that the House Committee meets only rarely. How the Public Works Department carries out construction projects in Parliament House, I do not know. I ask the Minister to provide me, at least, and the House if possible, with a programme of the work which it is envisaged will be carried out in Parliament House during the next twelve months. I would welcome an itemised account of the work that is to be undertaken so that I will know what action is proposed by way of

3378 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

Library fittings. If honorable members had an itemised account for the next twelve months, they would know where they stood concerning the representations to the House Committee from the Library Committee.

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


LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (AMENDMENT) 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.

ADJOURNMENT. Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minis

ter of Agriculture) .-By leave, I move-

That the House, at its rising, adjourn until this day, at Eleven o'clock.

The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 12.32 a.m.

(Wednesday).

ID:egislatiu:e 1\ss:embly. Tuesday, December 12, 1972.

'Dhe SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie) took the chair at 2.7 p.m., and read the prayer.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE.

The following answers to questions on notice were circulated:-

·FAUNA RESERVES. SWAMPS IN SEAFORD-CARRUM AREA.

(Question No. 740) Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows)

asked the Minister for Conservation-Whether he will take the necessary steps

to have Edithvale Road, Seaford, and McLeod Road swamps proclaimed fauna reserves for the purposes of the Game Act 1958?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation) .-The answer is-

The reservation of fauna reserves is made under the provisions of the Land Act whereby areas of Crown land are reserved for wildlife conservation and placed under the control of the Fisheries and Wildlife Branch for management purposes.

The Edithvale Road and 'Seaford swamps are owned by the Dandenong Valley Authority which also has control over the McLeod Road swamps for drainage and flood abatement purposes.

At my direction, the Fisheries and Wildlife Branch !is conferring with the authority with the view of maintaining the swamps in a condition suitable for wildlife.

MUNICIPALITIES. SUBDIVISIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF

LAND AT WALLAN.

(Question No. 791)

Mr. MUTTON (Coburg) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

If he will ascertain and inform the House--

l. Whether a large land subdivision is being developed at Wallan, in the Shire of Kilmore, by a company known as GroupColor Pty. Ltd.?

2. What agreement was made between the Shire of Kilmore and the developers with regard to water and sewerage services for the subdivision?

3. Whether septic tank systems are to be used; if so-(a) what type; (b) to what point of discharge effluent is to be directed; and (c) whether the shire sought information from the Environment Protection Authority regarding the proposed system?

4. What are the names of the waterways that flow through the Wall an district and connect to the Yarra system?

5. Whether as there are many farmers established in this area who draw water from thes.e streams the Minister will take immediate steps to see that no effluent from this subdivision will be directed to these waterways?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is

In relation to parts 1 to 4 of the question, the Shire of Kilmore has provided the following information:-

1. Council has approved of a residential subdivision of land owned by Group Color Pty. Ltd., comprising 136 lots in the township of Wallan.


2. Council has required that the subdivider lay water mains along all lots fronting internal roads in the subdivision and has required that the subdivider lay water mains to the subdivision at a cost of $9,103.

No requirements have been made ·in respect of sewerage services.

3. It is proposed that septic systems will be used and that-

(a) these will be of the subsoil absorption type and will comply with Health Act Regulations;

(b) effluent from these septic tanks will be discharged into absorption drains;

(c) the advice of the Environment Protection Authority was not sought. Negotiations took place with the subdivider during October, 1971.

4. Waterways in the Wallan district connecting to the Yarra system are unnamed tributaries of the Merri Creek.

5. I will refer the matter immediately to the Minister for Conservation, as Minister responsible for the ·Environment Protection Authority.

REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

(Question No. 909)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

!. What financial assistance is available to municipalities prepared to assist in the regional development of Victoria?

2. Whether any legal impediments exist which prevent or hamper joint action by municipalities towards the regional development of their areas; if so, what is the nature of such impediments?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is-

Municipalities can and do co-operate on a regional basis in many different ways and for many different purposes for their mutual benefit. It is requested that the question be clarified to relate to the precise aspects of regional co-operation and development concerning which the honorable member desires information.

WELFARE OFFICERS AND SOCIAL WORKERS.

(Question No. 919)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

!. Which municipalities were employing -(a) welfare officers; and (b) qualified social workers, as at 30th September, 1972?

2. Which municipalities currently employ welfare officers as home-help supervisors in order to receive subsidies?


The question falls within ,the responsibility of the Minister of Health and should be redirected to him.

PRISONERS. ESCAPES FROM POLICE CUSTODY AND

PRISONS.

(Question No. 814)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Chief Secretary-

!. How many persons have escaped from -(a) police custody; and (b) gaols in each of the past ten years; indicating-(i) how many escapees are still at large; (ii) the offences alleged or proven against each escapee; (iii) the dates of each escape; (iv) the names of the escapees; (v) the locations from which the escapes were made; and (vi) in the case of escapees from gaols, the respective terms of imprisonment and how much of their sentences each escapee had served?

2. How many escapees have not been recaptured in the past twenty years?

Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary). -The answer is-

1 and 2. I regret that I am unable to advise the honorable member of the number of persons who have escaped from police custody as these figures are not individually kept but are incorporated in the over-all statistics of escapes from all forms of legal custody reported to police.

Statistics of such escapes reported as from 1968 are available together with the number of escapees reported as apprehended and these are as follows:-

Number of Number of Year escapees escapes apprehended

1968 339 194 1969 340 229 1970 434 278 1971 550 390 1972 (to. date) 456 348

As far as escapes from gaols are concerned, I am advised by my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, that in the period 1962 to 1972, there have been a total of 337 escapes from these institutions of which 27 escapees currently remain at large.

3380 Questions (ASSEMBLY.] on Notice.

Full details of each escape and the offences committed by the individual escapee are not readily available and would take some time to obtain from departmental records. However, the following details may be of assistance to the honorable member:-

1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

Year Total escapes

27 32 45 22 23 21 29 27 30 49 59

364

Escapees still at large

1 1 1

6 15

27

These escapes were made from the following locations:-

Year

1962

1963

1964

1965

Location

Ballarat Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Fairlea Geelong Langi Kat Kal McLeod Morwell River Pentridge Sale ..

Total

Ballara Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Fairlea Geelong Langi Kal Kal McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale ..

Total

Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Fairlea Geelong Langi Kal Kal McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Hospital

Total

Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile ..

Number of Still at escapees large

3 6

1 5 2 3 2 4 l

27

2 8

1 2 2

8 6

'j

32

6 5 1

7

14 7 4

. i

45

4

4 1

Nil

Year Location

1966

1967

1968

1969

1970

Fairlea Gee long Langi Kal Kal McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale ..

Total

Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile Fairlea Geelong McLeod .. Morwell River Sale .. Van ..

Total

Ararat Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile Fairlea Geelong McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Won Wron

Total

Ararat Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooreimungle Dhurringile Fairlea Gee long McLeod Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Won Wron

Total

Ararat Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile Fairlea Geelong McLeod Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Won Wron Courts Hospital

Total

Ararat Beech worth Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile Fairlea Geelong McLeod Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Won Wron Courts Hospitals

Total

Number of Still at escapees large

3 3 1 I 2 3

22

6 2

4 1 1

3 3 1 2

23

1 8

2

1

21

5 2 5

2 4

3 3 1

'4 29

5 I 4 . i 1

·; 1 2

27

2 1 5 1 1 3 3 3 3 1

'j 2 1 1

30

Nil

Nil


Year Location Number of Still at escapees large

1971 . . Ararat ..

1972 (to 6th December, 1972)

Bcechworth .. Bendigo .. Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile .. Fairlea Geelong McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale .. Won Wron .. Courts Hospital

Total ..

Ararat Beechworth .. Bendigo Castlemaine .. Cooriemungle Dhurringile .. Fairlea Gee long McLeod .. Morwell River Pentridge Sale.. . . Won Wron .. Temporary leave Court Hospital Van ..

Total •.

s 9

2

"2 11

"8 2

2 2 2 4

49

7 4

12

5 2 8 4 2 6 2

2

"2 3

59

FORESTS COMMISSION. GRAZING RIGHTS FOR " THE

GRANITES " FOREST RESERVE. (Question No. 850)

2

. i

6

3 1 2

1 2 2

3

15

Mr. CURNOW (Kara Kara) asked the Minister of Forests-

1. Why tenders were not called for the grazing rights to an area of 500 acres of reserved forest known as "The Granites", near Korong Vale?

2. What is the duration of the present licence?

Mr. MEAGHER (Minister of Forests) .-The answer is-

1. The application lodged by the present licensee for grazing rights on reserved forest in the " The Granites " area was the first received for some years, indicating that there had been no general interest in this area.

2. Twelve months.

COUNTRY ROADS BOARD. SHORTAGE OF FUNDS: CURTAILMENT

OF ROAD WORKS. (Question No. 851)

Mr. WILKES (Northcote) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

!. Whether the Country Roads Board has been required to curtail certain important road construction or reconstruction works

Session 1972.-119

because of lack of funds; if so, where ·these works are located and for how long ·they are to be curtailed?

2. What was the reduction in funds •to the board to carry out its works in this financial year and what resultant delay has occurred in these works?


In common with many departments and instrumentalities, the board's finances are insufficient to enable all desirable work to be undertaken. As a result many desirable projects both major and minor throughout Victoria must necessarily be deferred pending availability of funds.

The board's financial problems have been caused primarily by the general problem of rising costs and wages, and the increasing demand for the improvement of roads to meet the needs of modern transport and increasing traffic volumes.

There has been no reduction of funds available to the board. The board's revenue in 1972-73 will be greater than that received in 1971-72, but will not keep pace with rising costs. This will result m less actual roadwork being done.

FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS TO METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITIES.

(Question No. 860)

Mr. GINIF'ER (Deer Park) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

What funds the Country Roads Board has made available to each municipal council within the Melbourne metropolitan area for new works during each of the past five financial years and in this financial year to date?


The information is being collated and will be forwarded to the honorable member as soon as it is available.

COUNTRY FIRE AUTHORITY. FIRE OUTBREAKS ON CROWN LANDS.

(Question No. 855) Mr. W. J. LEWIS (Portland) asked

the Chief Secretary-!. How many fire outbreaks have occurred

on Crown lands this year to date? 2. What was the approximate area burnt

by these fires? 3. How many acres of pine forests and

natural forest timber such as red gum, messmate and ash were burnt?

3382 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] on- Notice.

. . 4. How many Country Fire Authority units were directed to these fires?

Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary). -The answer is- ·

· 1. I assume by " Crown lands " the honorable member is referring to protected forest (Crown land), reserved forest and national park. On this basis, the outbreaks of fire which have occurred between 1st January, 1972, and 6th December, 1972, are as follows:-

Protected forest (Crown land) 149 Reserved forest 143 National park 11

303

2. Approximately 86,400 acres. 3. Ten acres of pine plantation were burnt

and the remainder was native forest. 4. To 6th December, 1972, 55 Country

Fire Authority vehicles attended a total of eleven fires of 200 acres or more which occurred on Crown land. I regret that statistics of attendances at fires of a lesser magnitude on Crown land are not readily available.

CITY OF MELBOURNE. PARKING FINES.

(Question No. 861) Mr. JONA (Hawthorn) asked the

Chief Secretary-!. What amount was received in fines

resulting from parking infringements prosecuted by the Victoria police in that part of police district " A " covered by the City of Melbourne and what proportion this amount represented in total parking fines levied in that area?

2. Whether the total moneys derived from these fines were paid into the consolidated fund; if not, into what funds these amounts were paid and for what purpose?


1. The information requested is not readily available as fines in respect to parking infringements detected by police may be paid at any police station in the State. To obtain this information would necessitate a physical search through the hundreds of parking infrigement notice books used by police in the City of Melbourne area during the periods specified.

2. Under the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1958 any money recovered by way of a fine for a parking infrigement is required to be paid-

( a) where the information is laid by a member of the Police Force-into the Consolidated Fund;

(b) where the information is laid by any officer appOinted by a council-into·- the municipal· fund of that council.

CAR PARKING SPACES. (Question No. 862)

Mr. JONA (Hawthorn) asked the Minister of Transport- ·

What is the number of car parking spaces required within the boundaries of the City of Melbourne to meet the predictions of the metropolitan transportation study ,and what is the number of spaces currently available?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport).- The answer is-

Within the City of Melbourne the Metropolitan Transportation Committee has predicted that 55,600 spaces would be needed in the area bounded by the Yarra River, Jolimont railway yards, Jolimont Road Wellington Parade, Landsdowne Street: Victoria Parade, Rathdowne Street, Queensberry Street, Peel Street, Rosslyn Street, Adderley Street and Spencer Street.

This figure will be reviewed- as part of the current review of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

I am informed that the present number of spaces within this area is approximately 43,000.

FIBROUS PLASTERERS WAGES BOARD. MEETING.

(Question No. 864) Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine).

asked the Minister of Labour and Industry-

Whether he has had an opportunity to examine the delay in convening a meeting of the Fibrous Plasterers Wages Board; if so, what is the cause of the delay and when the board will meet?

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

The delay in convening a meeting of the Fibrous Plasterers Wages Board is due to the fact that the members of the board have not been reappointed following the expiry of their term of appointment at the end of September.

Section 25 of the Labour and Industry Act 1958 provides for automatic reappointment unless an objection is lodged. In the case of the Fibrous Plasterers Wages Board, an objection was lodged with respect to the reappointment of employer representatives and this matter is now under consideration.

I can assure the honorable member that the board will be . appointed as soon as possible.


POLICE DEPARTMENT. POLICING OF GEELONG AREA IN

HOLIDAY SEASON. (Question No. 865)

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North) asked the Chief Secretary-

What action is contemplated to provide additional police personnel, facilities and traffic patrols to cater for the Geelong area over the Christmas holiday period?


The Barwon police district will be provided wi:th eighteen additional uniform members and nine additional Mobile Traffic Section members during the ChristmasNew Year holiday period to supplement ·the members of certain local police stations decided upon by the officer in charge of the district. Three of the Mobile Traffic Section members using ·a courtesy car and a solo motor cycle will be stationed at Geelong from 21st December, 1972, to 31st January, 1973.

Arrangements have also been made for other mobile units from the Mobile Traffic Section, Dawson Street, Brunswick, to patrol daily from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., or later if required, from 22nd December, 1972, to 31st January, 1973, as follows:-

( a) One car plus one motor cycle from Foo'tscray to Corio.

(b) One car from Werribee to Warncoor:t.

(c) One car from Melbourne to Warnooort.

In addition, qualified breath analysing instrument operators with the necessary equipment will· provide a 24-hour cover daily at Geelong and will also be available for the ·whole district. Personnel from the special groups, Operations Department, Melbourne, will also be vi.siting Geelong, Lorne and other local stations, as required by the officer in charge of :the Barwon police district.

Recreational leave will not be granted to members stationed in the Barwon police district during ·the Christmas-New Year holiday period.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.

INQUIRIES: COST: MEMBERS: REPORTS.

(Question No. 867) Mr. MUTTON {Coburg) asked the

Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

!. What was the total cost of 1the preparation of the reports of the Commission of Inquiry into Local Government in 1962 and the Board of Inquiry into Local Gove~ent · Finance in 1972, respectively?

2. Who were the members of ·the commission and the board, respectively?

3. What time was involved in the preparation of each of the reports?

4. What action the Government intends taking to implement the recommendations of the 1972 report?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is-Commission of Board of inquiry, 1962 inquiry, 1972

1. £2050-8-4 ($4,101·83) $8,301·21 2. Mr. R. H. Mohr Mr. L. Voumard,

Mr. L. E. Stringer Q.C. Mr. J. Reilly Mr. A. K. Lines,

O.B.E. Mr. D. M. Purdie

3. Twelve months Eight months (approx).

4. A Cabinet sub-committee is evaluating all :aspects of the report and studying the implications, practicability, extent and timing of its implementation.

HISTORICAL PROJECTS. GOVERNMENT GRANTS.

(Question No. 869)

Mr. CRELLIN (Sandringham) asked the Treasurer-

!. What moneys have been made available by the State for .the establishment of historical museums at Swan Hill, Jeparit, Warracknabeal, Echuca, and Sovereign Hill, Ballarat, r:espectively?

2. What total gran:ts have been made by the State to historical societies throughout Victoria since 1965?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The answer is-

1. The following grants have been approved by the Government towards the cost of the nominated historical projects:-

$ Swan Hill . . 300,000 Jeparit 44,000 Warracknabeal 120,000 Echuca 228,qoo Sovereign Hill, Ballarat 300,000. 2. Since the beginning of the financial

y.ear 1965-66 grants totalling $1,515,167 have been approved by' the State for municipal councils towards the cost of historical projects.


In addition, grants totalling $440,000 have been approved to assist historical projects being carried out by 1the National Trust of Australia (Victoria).

TRANSPORT. PRIVATE Bus SERVICES IN KEILOR

AREA.

(Question No. 872)

Mr. GINIFER (Deer Park) asked the Minister of Transport-

Whether a private bus service operates between the Keilor township ~and the St. Albans railway station; if so, whether 1this bus connects with bus services operating in the vicinity of the St. Albans technical school and, in that event, whether the timetables of these services allow for 1the transport of students to ·and from Keilor township to Kealba High School ·and St. Albans Technical School, respectively?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-The answer is-

Yes. The Transport Regulation Board informs me that each morning a bus from Keilor travels via Kealba High School to St. Albans railway station from where another service operates to St. Albans Technical School.

In the afternoon there is a direct service from St. Albans Technical School via St. Albans railway station and Kealba High School to Keilor.

It may be possible to improve the service for children and I have asked ·the board to examine the matter again for the new school year.

COMMONWEALTH COMMISSION OF INQUIRY INTO POVERTY.

SUBMISSION BY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

(Question No. 877)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister of Health-

Whether the Department of Health intends to make any submission to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty; if so, what officers, if any, have been specially assigned to assist ·in the preparation and presentation of material relating to health as a factor affecting the incidence of poverty?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-The answer is-

No, but officers of the Department of Health will be authorized to answer any reasonable requests for information relating to health.

SUBMISSION BY DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS.

(Question No. 879)

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

Whether the Department of Aboriginal Affairs intends to make any submission to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty; if so, what officers, if any, have been specially assigned to assist in the preparation and presentation of material relating to Aboriginal affairs as a factor affecting the incidence of poverty?

Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary). -The answer supplied by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is-

Yes. On 14th November, 1972, the Ministry notified the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty that it would be making a: submission. The Senior Research Officer, the Supervising Social Worker, and a social worker allocated to work in the metropolitan area have already commenced preparation of material for inclusion in the submission.

SUBMISSION BY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

(Question No. 880) Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East)

asked the Minister for Conservation, for the Minister of Agriculture-

Whether the Department of Agriculture intends to make any submission to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty; if so, what officers, if any, have been specially assigned to assist in the preparation and presentation of material relating to rural conditions as a factor affecting the incidence of poverty?

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister for Conservation) .-The answer supplied by the Minister of Agriculture is-

The Department of Agriculture does not have in mind making a submission to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty.

SUBMISSION BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.


asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

Whether the Local Government Department intends to make any submission to the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty; if so, what officers, if any, have


been specially assigned to assist in the preparation and presentation of maJterial relating to local government as a factor affecting the incidence of poverty?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-The answer supplied by the Minister for Local Government is

No; this does not appear to be an appropriate task for the Local Government Department.

MENTAL HEALTH. HOSPITALS AND INSTITUTIONS:

BED ACCOMMODATION: DOCTORS.

(Question No. 888)

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

1. How many beds for psychiatric patients are provided at Royal Melbourne, Prince Henry's, Alfred, and Austin hospitals, respectively?

2. What is the total number of beds in institutions under the control of the Mental Health Authority?

3. How many doctors are in training for post-graduate qualifications ·at each of these hospitals and in the authority?


1. Royal Melbourne Hospital Prince Henry's Hospital Alfred Hospital Austin Hospital

2. 8,888.

25 beds 12 beds 11 beds 12 beds

3. The number of doctors in training for post-graduate psychiatric qualifications at the hospitals named and in Mental Health Authority institutions is as follows:-

Royal Melbourne Hospital 3 Prince Henry's Hospital 8 Alfred Hospital 2 Austin Hospital 1 Mental Health Authority institutions 68

MENTAL HEALTH AUTHORITY. ROYAL PARK AND LARUNDEL Hos-

PITALS: IN-PATIENTS AWAITING PLACEMENT.

(Question No. 889)


How many in-patients at Royal Park Hospital, and Larundel Hospital, respectively, are awaiting placement at-(a) ·training centres; and (b) day training centres?


( a) Two. (b) Nil.

RESEARCH INTO EFFECTS OF BOXING.

(Question No. 891)


What research has been conducted by the Mental Health Authority into the effects of boxing and whether the authority has now abandoned this research?


The Mental Health Authority has never conducted any research into the effects of boxing.

USERS OF ILLEGAL DRUGS.

(Question No. 892)


Whether doctors in the Mental Health Authority are required to supply the names of persons using illegal drugs to the Chief Clinical Officer; if so-( a) when this requirement came into force; and (b) whether the list so compiled is made available to the Police Department?


The names of persons using illegal drugs are not supplied to the Chief Clinical Officer. The Chief Medical Officer in the course of his functions under the Mental Health Act receives information. The " list " is not made available to the Police Department.

RADIOLOGICAL TREATMENT FOR PATIENTS AT ROYAL PARK HOSPITAL.

(Question No. 897)


1. How many patients at Royal Park Hospital have been transported to other locations during the period that this hospital has been without radiological services?

2. Whether these patients have been accompanied by an escort from the nursing staff; if so-( a) how many nurses have been required to •carry out escort duties, and on how many occasions each nurse has escorted such patients; and (b) what provision is made to staff wards when nurses are on escort duty?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health).-The answer is-

1. Patients were transported to other locations as follows :-

Mont Park 48 R10yal Melbourne Hospital 18 Alfred Hospital . . 1 Queen Victoria Hospital 1

68


2. All patients were escor:ted by members of the nursing staff.

(a) The number of staff involved was 66, but as the names were not detailed, it it not possible to state how many occasions each nurse escorted patients.

(b) Escort duty for patients attending specialist services and patients on transfer to other hospitals is a normal part of the rostered duty of the nursing staff.

PATIENTS IN "J" WARD AT ARARAT.

(Question No. 917)


1. How many security patients were transferred from Victorian prisons to .. J " ward at Ararat in each of the years 1967 to 1971 and in this year to date?

2. How many patients from all sources were ,admitted to 1this ward in each of those years?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister Health).-The answer is-

1. Security patients fmm prisons 1967 14 1968 10 1969 11 1970 11 1971 13 1972 13

2. Total pa;tients from all sources 1967 39 1968 32 1969 27 1970 37 1971 34 1972 31

CRIME. INCIDENCE IN SANDRINGHAM ELECTORATE: PROSECUTIONS.

(Question No. 893)

of

Mr. CRELLIN (Sandringham) asked the Chief Secretary-

!. What are the crime statistics for Beaumarls, Black Rock, Cheltenham, Hampton and Sandringham, respectively, for this year to date?

2. How many of these crimes have been solved?

3. How many successful prosecutions have resulted?


1, 2 and 3. The crime statistics for these localities for the period lst January, 1972, to 9th December, 1972, were as follows:-

Number of Number of Number of Locality offences offences successful

reported cleared prosecutions

Beaumaris 260 59 59 Black Rock 134 24 24 Cheltenham 897 310 310 Hampton 329 76 76 Sandringham 298 44 44

Total 1,918 513 513

STATE RIVERS AND WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION.

RURAL UNEMPLOYMENT GRANTS FOR ERICA WATERWORKS TRUST.

(Question No. 894) Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the

Minister of Water Supply-Whether the Erica Waterworks Trust has

applied through :the State Rivers and Water Supply Commission for a grant under the rural unemployment grants scheme; if so(a) when the application was made; (b) for what purpose and for what amount; and (c) whether an officer of the commission indicated Ito the trust that 'the application was approved in October and, in that event-(i) why the grant has not been made; ,and (ii) when it is expected to be made?

Mr. DUNSTAN (Minister of Water Supply).-The answer is-

( a) 6th June, 1972. (b) Clearing of scrub and undergrowth

from main water pipeline to Erica township ---4 x 8 man-weeks, $1,800.

(c) No approval given. The trust was advised on 13,th June, 1972,

and again on 27th November, 1972, that the fund was fully committed but the application would be reviewed monthly. All present funds are committed until the end of March, 1973.

HOUSING COMMISSION. PROVISION OF ACCOMMODATION IN

LATROBE VALLEY. (Question No. 896)

Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the Chief Secretary, for the Minister of Housing-

Further to the deputation the Minister received from the Mirboo Shire Council-

1. Whether the Housing Commission will canvass the views of applicants for elderly citizen units in Morwell, Moe and Traralgon,

Questions·· (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] on Notice. 3387

respectively, to ascertain whether such applicants would accept tenancy in the proposed new units at Mirboo North?

2. Whether the commission will co-operate to the fu1lest extent possible to provide homes in Mirboo North for industrial personnel who work in other Latrobe Valley towns and who desire to live at Mirboo North? . Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary). -The answer supplied by the Minister of Housing is-

· I. Yes, when the 1973-74 building programme is being formulated.

2. Any proposed programme for additional houses in Mirboo North will be based on demand represented by applications lodged by people wishing to live in Mirboo North.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT. USE OF FACILITIES FOR SOCIAL

WELFARE PURPOSES.


asked the Minister of Education-What steps have been taken to initiate

d•scu.ssions with the Social Welfare Department for the purpose of encouraging the use of Education Department facilities as provided for under section 91 of the Social Welfare Act 1970?

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

The department has not received any formal request from the Social Welfare Department but schools have been approached by many clubs for use of school buildings.

USE OF FACILITIES OUTSIDE SCHOOL HOURS.


asked the Minister of Education-Whether groups or organizations have

applied since 1st January, 1970, to use school facilities for week-day after-hours and weekend activities; if so, which bodies, and whether their applications were successful in each case?


Many community groups and organizations apply locally to use school facilities after school hours and at week-ends, and most applications would be successful.

Heads of schools acting conjointly with their school committees or councils have the authority to grant or refuse this type of application. No records are kept in the Education Department of the kind needed to give details of each application.

CONJOINT UsE OF FACILITIES.

(Question No. 904)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister of Education-

Whether he has received representations to the effect that regulations concerning the conjoint use of Education Department facilities require revision; if so-(a) from whom; and (b) what action is contemplated?


( a) No representations have been received to the effect that regulations concerning the conjoint use of Education Department facilities require revision; however, the department did seek and receive advice in this regard from the Crown Solicitor.

(b) Legislative action.

COMMUNITY USE OF SCHOOL FACILITIES.

(Question No. 905)


!. ·With which municipalities agreement has been reached in respect of community use of school sports grounds and facilities?

2. If he will lay on the table of the Library copies of agreements reached with municipalities concerning the conjoint use and development of Education Department grounds and facilities?

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

1. Formal agreements have been entered into in respect of the use of sports grounds at Waverley High School and Geelong West, Oakleigh and Moorabbin technical schools. In addition I have delegated to principals of schools, subject to the concurrence of the committee/council, the authority to make school grounds ava'ilable for recreation and sport outside of school hours.

The department has also made arrangements with the municipalities in the list which follows regarding the use of municipal grounds by pupils during school hours. Grants towards the cost of capital improvements on these grounds were made by the department.

City of Box Hill City of Chelsea City of Caulfield City of Knox City of Northcote City of Preston City of Prahran City of Ringwood City of Sale


Shire of Seymour Town of Stawell City of Sunshine Shire of Werribee Borough of Wonthaggi City of Warrnambool. 2. Yes.

SCHOOL ASSEMBLY HALLS AND LIBRARIES: PRIORITIES.

'(Question No. 906)


Whether any schools have had their priorities lowered for provision of-( a) School assembly halls; and (b) Commonwealth-financed secondary school libraries, as a result of the school's willingness to seek conjoint use with the community of these facilities; if so, which schools are affected?


(a) No. (b) No.

SECONDARY SCHOOL LIBRARIES AND AssEMBLY HALLs: CoNJOINT UsE.

(Question No. 910)


!. Whether it is the intention of the Education Department to agree to the conjoint use of Commonwealth financed secondary school libraries with municipalities; tif not, why?

2. Whether it is the intention of the department to agree to the conjoint use of school assembly halls with representatives of the community; if so, what action has been or is being taken to implement this policy?


1. Yes. 2. This practice has been established

policy for a number of years.

SOCIAL WORKERS.

(Question No. 920)


!. How many qualified social workers are employed by the Education Department, specifying the total employed in a permanent and temporary capacity, respectively?

2. How many social workers are required to bring the current permanent staff to full capacity'?


1. Social workers currently employed(a) Permanently employed:

Professional roll 4 Classified roll 4

(b) Temporarily employed: Full-time Part-time

9 9

Total 26

2. Eleven vacancies on the professional roll are now advertised; there tis no fixed establishment in other categories.

EDUCATION AND SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENTS.

CO-ORDINATION AND INTEGRATION OF SERVICES.

(Question No. 907)

l\1r. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister of Education-

Whether discussions have been held between the regional directors of the Education Department and the Social Welfare Department's Director of Regional Services to facilitate the co-ordination ·and integration of the services of both departments; if not, whether such discussions are contemplated?


No formal discussions have yet been held between regional directors of the Education Department and the Social Welfare Department. As the services provided by regional directors of education will continue to expand progressively, so will consultation and discussion with other departments ·and statutory bodies become increasingly important. In this context it is most likely that such discussions will be sought with appropriate officers in the Social Welfare Department.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT. REPORT OF BOARD OF INQUIRY INTO

FINANCE.

(Question No. 908)


In view of ·the recommendations contained in the report of the Board of Inquiry into Local Government Finance, what steps the Minister has taken to facilitate ·the implementation of those recommendations relating to welfare?

. Questions [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] on Notice. 3389


A Cabinet sub-committee is evaluating all aspects of the report and studying the implications, practicability, extent ·and timing of its implementation. Implementation of any recommendations specifically relating to welfare is a matter in the first instance for the Government as a whole, and secondly for Treasury and the Minister for Social Welfare.

MIGRANTS. CONCENTRATION IN MELBOURNE:

INTEGRATION.

(Question No. 911)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister without Portfolio, for the Minister of Immigration-

!. In which areas of Melbourne the concentration of foreign-born residents exceeds one-fifth of the population?

2. What special provisions exist in these areas to assist the integration of such foreign-born residents with the rest of the community?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio) .-The answer supplied by the Minister of Immigration is-

1. The information requested by the honorable member is not available from the Division of Immigration. Inquiries made from the Commonwealth Bureau of Census and Statistics reveal ·that the 1971 census figures have not yet been released.

2. The Melbourne branch office of the Commonwealth Department of Immigration through its integration staff (comprising social workers, trained welfare officers, interpreters and a translation unit) provides a direct service to migrants in Victoria to assist in their integration. Special attention is given to areas of high migrant density. The department's Survey Section undertakes research studies in the settlement experiences of various national migrants to assist policy formulation directed to their successful integration.

In Victoria the Good Neighbour Council has established two community relations units at Footscray and Preston to promote information services and integration activities in those and surrounding suburbs. These supplement existing networks in other suburbs and the Central Migrant Advisory Bureau maintained by the Good Neighbour Council in Victoria in the city of Melbourne.

The department helps indirectly through its financial support of the Good Neighbour Movement in its liaison with national group organizations and in encouraging community involvement and participation in migrant integration generally.

Through its grants to the community agencies scheme, the department finances the salaries and related costs of trained social workers working in voluntary agencies in areas where migrants form a significant part of the community. Ten community agencies located in the Dandenong, Springvale, Sunshine, Carlton, Fitzroy, South Yarra, Richmond and inner Melbourne areas currently are in receipt of grants which provide for the employment of fourteen professionally qualified social workers. Their services are available also to migrants residing in ·areas outside the direct ambit of the agency operations. Two further agencies in Fitzroy and Melbourne have been approved to receive a grant but have yet to appoint social workers. A further two agencies are under consideration for approval for a grant.

INFORMATION FACILITIES.

(Question No. 912)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister without Portfolio, for the Minister of Immigration-Whether discussions have been held since 1st January, 1970, between Commonwealth and State immigration officials to consider the provision of improved information facilities for migrants; if so--( a) when such discussions were held; (b) what proposals were considered; (c) what decisions were reached; and (d) what is the nature of any subsequent action involving Victoria?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio).-The answer supplied by the Minister of Immigration is-

No.

INTEGRATION OF ETHNIC COMMUNITIES.

(Question No. 913)

Mr. BORNSTEIN (Brunswick East) asked the Minister without Portfolio, for the Minister of Immigration-

What steps have been taken by the Director of Immigration to employ representatives of significant ethnic communities to assist the integration of such communities with the rest of the Victorian community?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio).-The answer supplied by the Minister of Immigration is-

No steps have been taken by the State Director of Immigration in this connection as the matter is one which comes within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth Department of Immigration.

3390 Questions [ASSEMBLY.] without Notice.

RURAL UNEMPLOYMENT SCHEME.

APPLICATIONS BY YARRAGON AND ERICA WATERWORKS TRUSTS.

(Question No. 914)

Mr. AMOS (Morwell) asked the Minister of Transport, for the Minister for Local Government-

!. What rural unemployment funds have been made available to the Yarragon Waterworks Trust, indicating when such funds were sought and when funds were granted?

2. What application has been received from the Erica Waterworks Trust seeking a grant, indicating when the grant was sought and when a grant will be made?


1. (a) No funds have been made available to the Yarragon Waterworks Trust.

(b) Funds were sought on 5th July, 1972, and again on 24th November, 1972.

(c) The trust was advised on each occasion that because of the limited funds available the request was not approved but that it would continue to be reviewed monthly.

2. (a) No funds have been made available to the Erica Waterworks Trust.

(b) Funds were sought on 6th June, 1972, and again on 24th November, 1972.

(c) The trust was advised on each occasion that because of the limited funds available the request was not approved but that it would continue to be reviewed monthly.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Can

the Premier give the House any indication of the Government's intentions in respect of its business? Has the honorable gentleman ordered Christmas dinner for members of the House? If he has not, can he clearly outline the policy and programme of the Government for the end of this sessional period?

Mr. HAMER {Premier and Treasurer) .-The policy of the Government is as follows: -It will proceed with Government business with all due dispatch and get it through as quickly as possible.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION CHARGES •

. Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray).-Can the Minister for Fuel and Power confirm that· there will be an increase in the price of electricity in Victoria of the order of 7 per cent? If so, on what date will it take effect?

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Fuel and Power) .-Yes, it is proposed that from 1st July, 1973, there will be an increase in electricity charges. The other day, when I was asked by reporters what the increase would be, I indicated that it would be approximately 7 per ·cent. That is a round figure. The actual tariffs have not yet been worked out.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-I

address a further question to the Premier. By saying that the Government intends to get its legislation through as quickly as possible, does the honorable gentleman suggest that the Government intends to use the guillotine at this late stage of the session?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-That will depend on the cooperation that the Government receives from the Opposition.

METROPOLITAN FREEWAYS. Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the

Opposition) .-In view of the statem·ent by the new Prime Minister concerning the allocati'On of funds ~or f,reeways, and a laxge public meeting in Melbourne last night at which Melbourne citizens indicart:ed their ooncern about the Gove,rnment's freeway proposals, will the Premier place the item concerning freeways on the Notice Paper in such a position as to enable t:he honorable gentleman to make a statem,eTllt indioa;ting the Government's policy on freeways?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .- I give no undertaking about any matter on the Notice Paper. I have already indicated the pol·icy of the Government. There is proposed

Questions [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] without Notice. 3391

legislaltion ·s!till to be sent ~to anolther these matters? If the ·Minister will place for consider.ation and the Gov- not malre them av,aHable, ·can the ernment will order the programme honorable genitleman ·explain why? according to the progress made.

ROAD ACCIDENTS. Mr. EDMUNDS {Moonee Ponds).

In view of the number of road accidents that will p~obably occuT over the holiday period, does the Ohief SecreJta,ry intend to make any announeementJs Tequesibing the public <to co-opera/te with the police in lessening the incidence of Toad ·acddeillts over the Chritsmas pe~iod?

Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary) .-Dast Sunday I made 'a public st:aJtem·ent rtJo this effeot which was 'reporlted in the newspapeT~s. I pointed out rthat, however sophisticated our l:aws might be, thek ultimate success 1in reducing rthe road ooll was dependent on rtJhis !type of oo-opet1ati'On fi:rrom the pubHc, and I soughtt tha~t oo--oper.aJtion.

METROPOUTAN FIRE BRIGADES BOARD.

Mr. FELL {Greensborough).---JI ask the Chief Secretary wherther •any investigation has been m1ade ~ecent·ly into the p~opos,al to reduce municipal ·contributions lbo the Mewopoliltan Fire Brig,ades Board in line wilth the New · South Wales situati'On, whe1re the municipal contributions amounts to one-eighth. If so, what is proposed to be done?

Mr. MEAGHER (Chief Secretary) .-The 'answer is, " No ".

REPORTS ON NATURAL GAS. Mr. FORDHAM {Footscray).-Will

the M-ini·ster fioT Fuel and Power make available to tJhe Opposoi1tion on a c·on;tinuing basis, fi,rstly, a oopy of the Balttene report of 1968 on " Natural Gas in the EneTgy MaTket of V'ictoda " which was commissioned by the Ministry and. secondly, the repo~t of rthe Gas and Fuel OorpOTaltion of Augusrt:, 1966, on the development of natural gas in Victoria to ~enable rthe Oppos·iltion to gain a meaningful understanding of

Mr. BALFOUR (Minister for Fuel and ·P.ower) .-This is ralther a swrprising question be-cause I :thought it had already been answe·red.

M'l'. WILKES.-Like that clangeT the Minister dropped about increased charges.

M:r. BALFOUR.-It was not a clanger. The 'Governmellit ·has always g·iven 'a good deal of !Il!Otioe before any 'inoreas·es have been ·made and :the announce-ment was in ke·eping with the Govemmenlt',s normal policy.

I am surpr.ised at rthe question ·asked by the honorable member for Footscray because I know 'he asked both rthe S!tate Elecwidty 'Commission ·and the Gas and Fuel Coo-pOTation for the repo~tJs. Unfiortunaitely I was not :able :to be contadted yesterday, but I have given permission for both the reports lbo be rele-ased to the honorabl·e membe'l'.

I believe the BatJtelle report is somewhat outdated, as is also the ~ep.ort which the Gas 'and Fuel Oorpor.at1on prepared prior lbo the recommendations and report by Dr. Hetherington. Whalteve'r in£ormation the honorabl.e m:ember ·i'S able Ito obtain fnom the ·reports, I trust it will be helpful to him.

TOURIST GRANTS. Mr. SHILTON (Midlands).--can

rthe Premier and Treasu~er advi·se the House whether. the amount refe:rred •to in ·the srtJaitemenrt: in the Bendigo Advertiser and the Mcivor Press that the Premie'r has made av.ailable $32,000 f.or tourist development in the Shire of Mcivor is an addit·ional amount f·rom the r,ou:risrt Fund or the Treasury, or whethe'r it is 'in fact dual amounts of $16,000 from the Rural Unemployment Fund ~that have already been received by the shire?


Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 have not seen the statem·ents ; U lthe honomble membe:r will puJt the question on nOitice, I sh:aH ~ovide an ·answe:r.

PSYCHOLOGY AND GUIDANCE BRANCH.

Mr. TREWIN {Benalla).--JCan the Assistant Minister of Education inform the House what action he has taken to obtain more psychology and guidance officers from the Special Services Division of the Education Department?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio) .-The Government has viewed with some concern the shortages that have been experienced in this field from time to time and from place to place. With a view to strengthening the department, the Special Services Division and the Psychology and Guidance Branch, it is proposed to recruit overseas psychology and guidance officers. At present a memorandum is being drafted within the department to be forwarded to our overseas representatives who have helped so much in the successful overseas recruiting campaign.

Recently an application has been forwarded to the Teachers Tribunal for the creation of fourteen other top positions within the Special Services Division and the Psychology and Guidance Branch. This application will be considered by the tribunal in due course. As a corollary to that application, and bearing in mind the large number of representations that have been made, immediately following the application for the top appointments within the Special Services Division, which include that of the Assistant Director of Special Services Division, the attention of the Teachers Tribunal has been directed to a further submission which seeks to restructure certain positions in the Special Services Division itself. I believe this is warranted at present, and I hope the tribunal will consider it. It is interesting to note that the tribunal has already

granted an application by the Education Department for further assistant psychologists to departmental psychologists in recent weeks and these will also be beneficial, I hope, in overcoming some of the problems that are faced at present.

UNOFFICIAL MONEY MARKET. Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the

Opposition) .-Has the Treasurer seen the supplementary report of the Auditor-General in which he indicated that certain State authorities were making use of money on the unofficial money market and that there may be some doubt about the legality of those transactions? Can the Treasurer inform the House what authorities have been involved, what sums of money are involved and whether he is satisfied about the legality of the transactions that have been made?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The supplementary report of the Auditor-General drew attention to certain transactions on the short-term money market and advocated that consideration be given to two aspects. One is the legal backing of certain investments and the other is the security and the degree of risk involved. These matters are under consideration by the Treasury. I should say that the Treasury does not share the full feeling of the Audito·r-General in this matter. Nevertheless, because he has drawn attention to it in his report it is being investigated. It is a complicated matter because there is an official market in short-term securities which is backed by and based on the Reserve Bank of Australia.

Mr. WILKEs.-And used by local government.

Mr. 'HAMER.-Yes, by a wide variety of authorities in this State. There is also an unofficial money market and various other forms of security. From the investigations made-so far they are not complete -it would appear that the investments in the unofficial money market

Questions (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] without Notice. 3393

are backed by Commonwealth securities, by semi-Government securities or by irrevocable bank letters of credit. The investigation 1is p·r.oceeding, and there is some difference of legal opinion on rthe legality of these investments ; at least one :of the authoritti'es has a legal opin·ion which says that it is p·erfeotly justified under its Act. Generally, the Treasury does not share the deep concern of the Auditor-General, but, because the matter has been ~ai'sed in his ·repont, it i,s being investigaJted in an effort 'to straighten irt out.

IMPROVEMENT OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT.

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).Does ~the M·ini,ster of Tr.ansport suppont the new F1ederal Gove,rnment's policy of dive[lbing finance from fireew,ay ·Oonst'ruo'tion to the imp•rovement of public ibranspont in Melbourne?

Mr. WILCOX {Minister of Transport) .-Yes, I ~suppo1'1t ·that 1as a general P'l'loposiHron, although rthe working out of 1Lt :is, like m1any other things, mo['e difficult than m·&ely saying ilt.

M1r. GINIFER.-It is a good •Sit:anting poinlt.

Mr. WILCOX.-! agree that it is a good S'tart:ing point. I have taken the view for 'a long time thalt the public tr.anspolit side of the ·Met·ropoHJt:an T'ransportJaJt:ion Plan •should be tackled ; indeed, it has been tackled, so fiar as our mea~e resources will P'ermit, by the commencement of the ·Melbourne underground rra'il loop, the inrtnoduotion of new trains and rt:he 10Tde[' for new ltJr.ams. I agree wilth 'the thoughts behind the honorable m·ember's question 'and with the attiJtude of the new Federal Governm.ent ~in this matter. As a ·m'a1tlter rof faclt, I am :taking ·steps to ensure that the fullest co-operation is given 1Jo the new Federal Government tto ensure t'hat something is done ~and Ito enable the CommonweaH:h Gov.ernm·enrt to live up to :~ts _promises.

INSURANCE OF TRAMWAY ~PASSENGERS.

Mr. FLOYD (Williamstown).-As the ·Melbourne and M·etropolirtan 'f!I!amways Board ~apparently ·cannot insure its passengers 'ag,ainst acciden~s under thiJrd-parrty dnsurance, can ;the ·Minister of T111anspo11t inform the .House what ·steps were taken by rt:he Bendigo Trust ito insure its passengers under thirdparty insur.ance? Can tt:he ·Ministe'r in{iorm lthe House which company rthe Bendigo Trust is deaNng with 1in insuring passengers under its 1t1ounist pl~ans ; also, if the trust has been successful in insul!ing pa·ssengers, will the Minister ttake steps to 'have tlhe Melbourne 1and M·ooropoHtan 11ramways Board insure its passenge'rs?

Mr. WILCOX {Minister of Transporrt) .-InsuToance of p~assenge['s and other ,r.oad use~rs who 'are 'injured as a ·result of negligence on the part of the Melbourne ~and MetT~opoli1:'an 'llramways Board 0[' its employees is ;the 'S'ame ~as that which 1applies :to people who ·are injured by motor cars. The only difference is that, virtually, rthe board carries ~~s own insurance. If any person 'tS injured as ·a ·result of the negNgence of the board, as either 'a passenger or othe·r rroad user, ~and he ~substantiates a claim, the T1r.amways Board follows the ordinary procedures of law. The board carries its own insurance. So far as I know the position, the Government has informed the Bendigo City Council that the operation of the trams in that city by the Bendigo Trust would be a matter for which the council would be responsible so far as any claims were concerned. If the council makes some arrangement with an insurance companyor the Bendigo Trust does so-it is a matter for them.

COMMONWEALTH LffiRARY GRAN.TS.

Mr. HAYES (Scoresby).-Will the Minister of Education inform the House concerning the situation which obtains in relation to the draft agreement between the Knox


City Council and the Boronia High School Advisory Council concerning the further development of a Commonwealth library project? · I hope that this agreement will be the precedent of many to follow.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member is making a statement.

Mr. THOMPSON {Minister of Education) .-For a number of years the Education Department has been making use of the provisions of section 800A of the Local Government Act which enables the Education Department to enter into agreements with local councils for the use of school grounds and municipal grounds for sport and recreational purposes. This provision ensures the joint and full use of costly recreational facilities and is in the interests of both the school and the municipality with which the agreement has been reached. The department has been endeavouring to develop a similar type of agreement with the City of Knox for the use of a library to be constructed at Boronia High School. The objective was that the municipality would contribute part of the cost of a library which would be larger than the standard Commonwealth library. In the course of making the agreement advice was received from the Crown Solicitor that it might be necessary to amend the Education Act to place this type of agreement beyond all doubt. The Law Department draftsman has been so advised and is in the course of preparing such legislation.

DECENTRALIZATION. Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland

East) .-In view of his request to the Prime Minister to consider the application of concessional telephone rates to approved decentralized industries, will the Premier advise the House whether it is the policy of the Government that incentives for decentralization shall only be applied to approved decentralized industries excluding professional or commercial interests in the country areas?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-I regr.et that I did not hear the first part of the question and did not realize that it was being directed to me. Will the honorable member repeat the question?

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East) .-I shall repeat the first part of the question. I asked the Premier whether, in view of his request to the Prime Minister to consider granting concessional telephone rates to approved decentralized industries, it was Government policy that incentives to decentralization shall apply only to approved decentralized secondary industries to: the exclusion of commercial and professional interests in the country?

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-My request was directed towards an incentive. to approved decentralized industries which have gone to the country, in some cases against their own financial interest. I have asked that they should not be further penalized by having to: pay telex and telephone charges on a decentralized basis in competition with other firms in the metropolitan area which are on a metropolitan basis. The basis of my request was that they should be on the same basis so that they could compete on equal terms.

LIQUID TRADE WASTES DISPOSAL PLANT.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-Can the Minister representing the Minister for Local Government inform the House what further negotiations have taken place between private enterprise and the Government to have a liquid trade wastes disposal plant erected and opera ted on Board of W arks property? Can the Minister further advise whether Brambles have received approval from the Govern1nent to operate this plant, and, if not, what stage negotiations have reached now?

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-I am not able to give the honorable member the present position in this matter but I shall· most

Questions .. (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] without Notice. 3395

certainly draw it to the attention of the Minister for Local Government and ask him to supply an answer.

COMMONWEALTH SUBSIDY FOR PENSIONER HOSPITALIZATION. Mr. A. T. EVANS {Ballaarat

North) .-In view of the fact that the new Federal Government is not going to honour its promise of paying $100 to each pensioner before Christmas, can the Minister of Health inform the House whether he will approach the Commonwealth Government and ask that the money that it had promised be provided towards the subsidy paid to the State Government in hospital payments for beds for pensioners, which is only $5 at present whereas the cost to the State Government is $35?

Mr. ROSSITER (Minister of Health) .-I, in common with the rest of the members of the Government of Victoria, am awaiting with bated breath for another announcement from the benign dictatorship.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! I remind the Minister that a Minister of the Crown in the Victorian Parliament should not reflect upon the Commonwealth Government and its Ministers.

Mr. ROSSITER.-! regret it exceedingly if I have offended against the forms of this House in referring to the present Federal Government. However, Sir, for 23 years there was another Government in the Commonwealth Parliament. I am leading up to the answer to the question. The present Federal Government is making a spate of announcements but there has not yet been an announcement regarding the health proposals put forward by the Federal Labor Party in its election campaign. For years the Victorian Government, in common with other State Governments, has been seeking an increase in payments by the Federal Government for pensioner beds in State hospitals, but its efforts have been unsuccessful. The next conference

of Commonwealth and State Ministers of Health will be held early next year. The Victorian Government, in conjunction with other State Governments, will be making very strong representations to the Federal Government about the $5 a day for each pensioner hospital bed, which leaves the States to find between $29 and $30 a day.

SPEECH THERAPY AND REMEDIAL CLASSES AT

TRARALGON. Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-Is the

Assistant Minister of Education aware that the speech therapy class at Traralgon will dose because of the transfer of the special teacher to other services in the Education Department? Is he further aware that the remedial class at Traralgon will also close because of the transfer of the remedial teacher from that class to another section of the Education Department? What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the two classes to which I have referred are kept open and operating in Gippsland next year?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio) .-I remind the honorable member that about 2,200 personnel are employed in the Special Services Division of the Education Department. I would not be aware of individual transfers or requests for promotion amongst those 2,200 officers. Therefore, I must admit that I was not aware of the transfers referred to by the honorable member until he mentioned them. I shall certainly raise the matter with my departmental officers and take every action possible to ensure that the positions to which he referred will be filled.

NEWMARKET SALE-YARDS. Mr. JONES {Melbourne).-Is the

Minister representing the Minister for Local Government aware that the Melbourne City Council is currently negotiating with Protean (Holdings) Ltd. for the long-term expansion of the Newmarket cattleyards and abattoirs at Kensington? Will he inquire as to what the length


of the term will be? Will he inform the House whether the Government's attitude about decentralization of cattle-yards and abattoirs remains the same as it was when Sir Henry Bolte was Premier? Will the Minister .make a statement to the House on the matter?

Mr. WILCOX {Minister of Transport).-! am not able to supply an answer to the honorable member's question, so I shall direct his inquiry to the Minister for Local Government.

HOUSING COMMISSION. Mr: E.. W. LEWI~ ~(Dundas).___;My

questiOn IS to the M1mster representing the Minister of Housing. Is it a fact that the Minister of Housing has committed the Housing Commission to an expenditure of $6·5 million al~h?ugh the commission has only $4 m1lhon to spend? Does this mean that the remainder of the money will have to come from the 1973-7 4 allocation? If so, how can the commission fulfil its ten-point plan for decentralization, which calls for the erection of about 240 houses in country areas?

Mr. MEAGHER {Chief Secretary).-As that is a complicated question I ask the honorable member to put it on notice.

PSYCHOLOGY AND GUIDANCE BRANCH.

Mr. FELL {Greensborough).-Is the Assistant Minister of Education able to say whether primary and secondary school teachers have applied to the Psychology and Guidance Branch for training as psychologists but have been refused on the ground that they do not have the two years' practical experience to enable them to be registered with the Victorian Psychological Council? What action does the Assistant Minister propose to take so that trained teachers who are now with the Education Department may take up this role with the Psychology and Guidance Branch without first having to leave the department to get the two years' practical experience?

Mr. SCANLAN "(Minister without Portfolio).-The honorable member is under a misapprehension. I am not aware of teachers having to leave the department before being able to fill vacancies in the Psychology and Guidance Branch. The important question is the requirements of an Act which is not administered by the Minister of Education or by myself but by the Minister of Health. I refer to the Psychological Practices Act, the requirements of which are quite specific. The department can obtain primary or secondary teachers who have a major in psychology, but the important thing is to fulfil the requirements of the Act. It is necessary for them to undertake in-service training to meet the requirements of the Act before they can be registered and become psychology and guidance officers in their own right. The department provides every incentive for in-service training and is expanding opportunities for this training. The question whether persons have been refused admission would be dependent on their qualifications. I am not aware of the qualifications of all those who have applied for this type of training. However, the important thing is that their qualifications would have to be determined and be in accordance with an Act which is administered by the Minister of Health.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition).-! ask the Assistant Minister of Education a supplementary question relating to the answer which he has just given and to an earlier answer about the recruitment from overseas of persons to fill positions in the Psychology and Guidance Branch. Is the Minister able to give the House an assurance that any such person recruited from overseas will be, by training and qualification, in a situation where he complies with the requirements of the Psychological Practices Act and that there will be no lowering of standards?

Mr. SCANLAN (Minister without Portfolio).-! am very pleased and happy to give the Leader of the

Contingent Notice [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] of Motion. 3397

Opposition that assurance. The qualifications required of these overseas personnel whom we hope to recruit will be thoroughly discussed with my advisers and will be in complete conformity with the Psychological Practices Act. One question remains, and I am certain that the honorable member is well aware of it : If we do obtain personnel who are highly qualified and skilled, with degrees and majors in psychology, it will still be necessary for them to have some in-service training to bring them up to the requirements and standards that we expect in Victoria. We shall ensure that they are aware of the structure and operation of our Psychology and Guidance Branch and the referral procedures that we have in Victoria.

CONTINGENT NOTICE OF MOTION.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-1 desire to give notice that tomorrow I will move-

That, contingent upon the enactment this session, of legislation to constitute a Joint Select Committee to inquire and report into the law relating to certain disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Holding, Mr. Maclellan, Sir George Reid, Mr. RossEdwards, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Wilkes be appointed members of the committee; that the ·committee have power to move from place to place in Victoria or elsewhere, and sit on days on which the House does not meet; five to be the quorum.

In nominating two members of the Labor Party-the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-! appreciate that their names have not been--

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! Notice of motion is only being given, and there cannot be any debate on the matter.

Mr. HOLDING {Leader of the Opposition) .-I wish to raise a point of order on the appropriateness of the procedure in this House which presupposes actions of another place. It seems to me that as a matter of due process it is contrary to the bicameral system that this House should, by notice of motion, proceed

in a way which virtually involves anticipating the actions of another place. If the Minister wishes to create some sort of committee, I should have thought the proper course of action would be to wait in the normal way to see what occurs, and then, on being informed, this House could move in accordance with its own forms and procedures. I am not aware of any precedent which exists in these circumstances, but it seems to me to be a procedure which involves grave difficulties for this House. If the rule of anticipation prevents an honorable member, in the course of debate, from referring to a matter which stands on the Notice Paper, it seems to me, by understanding the logic of that proposition, that the Government is going a long way when the Minister gives notice of a motion which presupposes the actions and decisions of another place, although it has been the long-established practice that this House takes no cognizance of those actions. I ask you to rule upon this, Mr. Speaker, because it is extremely difficult. It is a novel procedure and one which raises the gravest constitutional niceties, given the relationship which ought to exist between this House and another place.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The Leader of the Opposition has addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, an argument based on some constitutional point, but I think I should remind you, Sir, and him for that matter, that there is ample precedent for this sort of contingent motion. In fact, the Meat Industry Committee-a Joint Select Committee-and the Road Safety Committee -also a Joint Select Committeewere both appointed following a contingent motion moved in this House which depended upon the ultimate passing of an Act of Parliament setting them up. It would be rather an odd result if that could not happen, if this House had passed a certain Bill setting up a Joint Select Committee and it could not act contingently upon another House passing

3398 Contingent Notice [ASSEMBLY.] of Mo.tion. ·

it and the Bill receiving the Royal assent. If that could not occur, the matter would be delayed indefinitely. I suggest that this is a perfectly proper notice of motion to be given by the Deputy Premier and it has ample precedent to support it.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-I have two objections to the point raised by the Premier. Firstly, the contingent notice of motion moved by the Deputy Premier nominates only six members when the Bill stipulates twelve members. Secondly, the Government has no right to anticipate what developments might occur. When the Meat Industry Committee and other committees have been proposed, the Government was preadvised of the Opposition's intentions and informed whether the Opposition supported the establishment of the committee. On this occasion the Government was advised only this morning that the Opposition and the Labor Party had not made a decision whether or not to support the proposed committee. Therefore, the Government has no right to anticipate the extent to which the Opposition will support the committee.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie ).-Order! I remind honorable members that a point of order is being discussed; it is not a question of which party will do one thing or the other but purely a question of the forms and procedures of this House, whether in fact the notice of motion is in order or not.

Mr. WILKES.-How can the Government give notice of motion without first asking the Leader of the Opposition and myself whether we are prepared to be nominated in this way? We have some rights in this Parliament. A committee might be proposed for a different purpose and we may not want to have anything to do with it. If the Government is allowed to act in this manner we could be associated with such a committee.

The SPEAKER.-Order! I point out to the honorable member and the House that this is purely and simply a notice of motion. There is no substantive motion before the Chairjust a notice of motion, and a point of order has been taken.

Mr. WILKES.-We take the strongest objection to our names being used in a notice of motion without our first having made a decision on the matter in the usual way in which parties make decisions in matters of this kind. The Government is abrogating the rights of Parliament by moving a notice of motion in this way.

Sir GEORGE REID {AttorneyGeneral) .-I wish to speak on the point of order from which two matters arise. Firstly, the question of precedents for the moving of a contingent notice of motion has already been fully dealt with by the Premier, and I consider that there is ample precedent in this House for such a motion. The second point arising from the remarks of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is whether the Opposition has expressed agreement or disagreement to the nomination of members to the committee at what is usually the appropriate time.

The SPEAKER.-Order! There is no point of order on that subject.

Sir GEORGE REID.-I respectfully agree. This is not the time to raise this matter as a point of order.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! I thank the Attorney-General, the Premier, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, and the Leader of the Opposition, who raised the point of order. I find that this House has previously acted in this fashion. If one looks at the Votes and Proceedings of 17th June, 1970, items 27 and 28 relate to the Meat Industry Committee and the Road Safety Committee. This House did, by leave, pass substantive motions of which previous notice had been given and which were contingent upon enactments in that session. Therefore, contingent

Business of [12 DECEMBER,- 1972.] the House. 3399

upon the The Constitution Act Amendment (Qualifications Joint Select Committee) Bill receiving the Royal assent, I find the notice of motion quite in order.


the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid upon the table by the Clerk:-Education Act 1958-Resumption of land at

Noble Park North-Certificate of the Minister of Education.

Police Regulation Act 1958-Determination No. 200 of the Police Service Board.

Public Service Act 1958-Public Service (Public Service Board) Regulations-Regulations amended-No. 330.

Statutory Rules under the following Acts:Country Fire Authority Act 1958-No. 311 Health Act 1958-Nos. 310, 316. Legal Profession Practice Act 1958-No. 314. Mildura Irrigation and Water Trust Act 1958-No. 315. Opticians Registration Act 1958-No. 313. Posions Act 1962-No. 317. Police Regulation Act 1958-No. 312.

Town :and Country Planning Act 1961--City of Croydon Planning Scheme, Amendment No. 37, 1970.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. ORDER OF BUSINESS.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-I move-

That the consideration of Notices of Motion be postponed until after Orders of the Day, Government Business. By way of explanation I point out that Standing Order No. 32 provides-

Notices of motion shall, except on days appointed by the House for Government business taking precedence, take precedence of Orders of the Day, unless the House shall direct otherwise. At this late stage of the sessional period four important Bills have not been considered by another place. The House has been sitting for long hours and it has had long weeks of sitting, so long that members of the Opposition have from time to time complained about the heavy burden being imposed on the staff of the

House, the Hansard staff, and those working in the refreshment rooms. The House has sat on 32 separate days and the average sitting time has been 8 hours 17 minutes. The particular measures to which I refer are Bills of some significance. They were introduced several weeks ago and the period for the adjournment of the debate ·On them expired a week or two ago in each instance. It is for the purpose of allowing these Bills to be considered that I have moved this motion.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).___;I oppose the motion. When notice was given last Thursday of the intention of the honorable member for Moonee Ponds and of my intention to move the motions standing in our names, it was done, in the first instance, because the Premier would not give the House an assurance that the debate on freeways would resume. I do not know what the Premier or the Government has to hide, but the Premier was determined not to give the House an assurance that time would be allowed for the continuation of the freeway debate. So the Opposition was forced to refer to the report of the Country Roads Board, which is not entirely specific to freeways.

Mr. SUGGETT.-Mr. Whitlam does not believe in freeways.

Mr. WILKES.-The Opposition would like to have an opportunity of answering that stupid statement, but of course it will not. The honorable member for Bentleigh is very boring. The Opposition wants to debate the report of the Country Roads Board in lieu of continuing the debate on freeways, which was very interesting, although obviously the Government did not consider it to be. The Opposition was forced to try to use the report as a vehicle to discuss freeways. The House has not heard the Premier talk about freewaysobviously he knows nothing about them. The Government can use the guillotine and limit that debate to two hours, just as it can use it to

3400 Business of [ASSEMBLY.] the House.

limit debate on the Housing Commission report to two hours. In normal circumstances, that would confine the debates on those two subjects, at the behest of the Government, to twO' hours apiece.

Now, the Leader of the House says that it regards these four Bills as being more important than those matters. The Opposition does not. Although the Opposition regards the Land Tax Bill, the Labour and Industry (Amendment) Bill, the Educational Grants Bill, and the Decentralized Industry Incentives (Payroll Tax Rebates) Bill as important Bills, it believes they should have been introduced at the beginning of the sessional period and not at its end. The importance of the Bills can be judged only by the laziness and ineptitude of the Government and its failure to put measures before Parliament in a reasonable time tO' have them debated.

Honorable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! There are far too many interjections. The question is purely one of precedence, whether one item shall go before another.

Mr. WILKES.-The Government has failed to have these Bills debated when they should have been debated. If they had been introduced earlier, there would have been ample debate on them. Now the Notice Paper is crammed with Bills at the end of the sessional period. The next step will be for the Minister in charge of the House to move the guillotine and to allow only restricted debate on them. The Opposition regards that as unsatisfactory. I do not want to suggest what might happen any further than that ; suffice it to say the debate on the Country Roads Board report and the Housing Commission report are, in the opinion of the Opposition, of equal importance to the debates on these four Bills.

If debate on these Bills is to be restricted in any way, the Government ought to concede that the Country Roads Board report and

the Housing Commission report are at least of equal importance to the Bills. But the Government is not willing to do that. The Opposition strenuously resists any attempt to postpone or avoid these two debates.

Notice of motion was given in both cases long before the Government fixed today's Notice Paper. It was given on Thursday morning and the Notice Paper was not arranged until well after dinner on Thursday evening. Given that situation, it is a reasonable view that the debates on these two motions are of equal importance to the debates on the Government Bills and ought to· be proceeded with without interference. What the Government is attempting to do is to stifle the rights of members of this Parliament and restrict them because of its own incompetence. It will force on the debates on these Bills and, at its own behest, will limit them to whatever time it regards as sufficient. The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Bills are important enough to take precedence over the motions of which the Opposition gave notice, they are important enough to be debated at length.

It will be interesting to see whether the Government, by its numbers, forces the House to adopt this motion and how it will treat these four Bills. The Opposition resists the proposal of the Government and continues to support the proposal that there should be debate on the motions of which notice has been given.

Mr. EDMUNDS (Moonee Ponds).! oppose this motion particularly because I gave notice of one of the .motions on which it is proposed to postpone the debate. The use of Standing Orders in this way and at this time is a device to prevent debate on a subject which I consider to be a matter of urgent public importance. The purpose of giving notice of a motion to discuss the Housing Commission report was to

Business of [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] the House. 3401

allow the House to undertake a broad survey of all the ramifications of the Government's housing policy.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member may not discuss the subjectmatter of the notice of motion.

Mr. EDMUNDS.-! appreciate that, but by using the Standing Order the Government is preventing a broad debate on an important topic of interest to the general community. The Government is showing an unwillingness to allow the Opposition what is considered to be its basic right concerning annual reports which are presented to 'Parliament. Admittedly this right has been used quite infrequently. No prior negotiations have been held at the normal level concerning the order of items listed on the Notice Paper.

Notice of the motions was given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and myself to enable the Parliament extensively to canvass the subjects. In desperation at rthis stage of the sessional period, the Government is prepared to use its numbers to prevent honorable members and particularly members of the Opposition who have certain responsibilities from raising what they consider to be failures in Government policy.

Accordingly, I oppose the motion. At this early stage of today's proceedings, the Deputy Premier is attempting to force through legislation. Certain matters before the House seem to be very important and the Government could, as it has the right to do, stand them over until the autumn sessional period and allow the rights of honorable members to take precedence.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The simple issue in this matter is which items on the Notice Paper ought to be dealt with first. It is a straight-out question of precedence and it is entirely in accordance with the Standing Orders and the practices and procedures that

this House should determine the order in which these items ought to be taken.

A very good reason for the motion being .moved by the Deputy Premier is .that four Bills still have to go to another place for consideration and therefore they should be dealt with first. That is the effect of the motion and other matters are quite extraneous to this issue. It is also relevant that these four Bills have been on the Notice Paper for varying periods of time whereas the notices of motion, which it is proposed to postpone, appear for the first time on the Notice Paper today. There is a very good reason why the House should decide that it wants to deal with those four Bills first. I suggest that it would save a good deal of time if the House were to accept the motion and allow these Bills to be debated for the maximum time that could be allowed.

Mr. HOLDING '(Leader of the Opposition) .-No one would be prepared to disagree with the basic proposition submitted by the Premier. If the Government were simply saying that it was concerned to take these four Bills and expedite them through the House, that is the prerogative of the Government and it would be considered by the Opposition. The real problem is the somewhat glib assertion by the Deputy Premier that this is all that is implied in the motion moved by the Deputy Premier.

The Opposition is concerned that the Government is not prepared to say that it is simply a question of dealing with the first four Bills first. By its intention and its actions the Govern.ment has also indicated that it is not just a question of priority. The Government is concerned to ensure that no debate ensues on the other items which members of the Opposition regard as quite pressing. I do not want to take up the time of the House in arguing matters of precedence. It is all very well for the Premier and his Ministers to say that these BiJls have been on the

3402 Business of . ·[ASSEMBLY.] the House.

Notice Paper for some time. I remind the Premier that the item relating to metropolition freeways has been on the Notice Paper for some ~considerable time, that since the matter was first raised the Premier has made two public statements indicating changes in policy, that there has been a statement by the Commonwealth, and that up to date the House has received no undertaking from the Premier as to when that debate will be resumed. I have been a member of this House long enough to know that if the Premier wants to avoid arguing a particular matter, the honourable gentleman will do just that.

The Government p~oposes to use its numbers not merely to give priority to the four Bills because there can be no argument about that. The concern felt by the Opposition could be resolved quickly by the Premier, on behalf of the Govenment, giving certain undertakings here and now. I invite the Premier to indicate that satisfactory ·arrangements will be made ;to allow the item on the Notice Paper concerning freeways ·to be debated and for the other matters which have been raised by the honorable member for Moonee Ponds and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be debated. If this is done, there can be no ·argument by any honorable member about the order of priority. The failure of the Premier and the Government to give such undertakings has created a problem which honorable members now face.

I invite the Premier now, by leave, to indicate that time will be allowed for the debate on freeways, which is an important issue. I would be happy to confer with the honorable gentleman to make any relevant arrangements because no honorable member wants to be here on Christmas Eve.

I concede, and I agree that it ought to be conceded, that certain items on the Notice Paper should

Mr. Holding.

take priority, but this should not occur to the exclusion of debates ~on other important matters. If the Government will give an .undertaking there is no reason why the business of the House cannot be properly facilitated and why proper and necessary debates on important aspects of Government policy on a whole range of matters should not take place.

I invite the Premier to give the undertaking and so demonstrate that he is acting in good faith. If the honorable gentleman will not accept my invitation, the references about wanting to give the four Bills priority are only glib utterances which I think bode HI for the future good conduct and expedition .of ite.ms on the Notice Paper.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).I was slow in seeking the call

because I expected the Premier to take advantage of the invitation that was extended to him by the ·Leader of the Opposition, who indicated that leave would be granted if the Premier wished to clarify the position and to indicate the authentic and real purpose of the motion m;oved by the Deputy ·Premier. In view of the honourable gentleman's silence, I can only assume that what the Leader of the Opposition has said is true. I draw the attention of the House ·to item No. 16 which has stood on the Notice Paper £or some time.

The SPEAK'ER (Sir Vernon Christie).---Order! That item is not being postponed; the motion relates to notices of motion being postponed, or Orders of the Day-Government Business to take precedence.

Mr. WILTON.-In other words, it is a procedural motion, and the argument advanced by the Government on why the motion should be agreed to is that the Government has now decided that four Bills on

Business .of (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] the House. 3403

the Notice Paper are of paramount importance and have to be dealt with expeditiously by the House. To refute the argument I draw attention to the fact that also under Orders of the Day, Government Business is item No. 16 which, when the matter was brought before the House the Attorney-General indicated would be resolved.

The SPEAKER.-Order! I think the honorable member is now on an entirely different subject.

Mr. WILTON.-I thought we were dealing with the question that Government business take precedence over other business.

The SPEAKER.-Order! It is purely a question of Government business taking precedence over three notices of motion on the Notice Paper. It is not a question of what is going to happen within the list of Orders of the Day, Government Business. Item No. 16 should not be debated.

Mr. WILTON.-! am trying to refute the argument of the Deputy Premier that he has to move this motion to expedite Government business, when the Government is not honouring its undertaking.

The SPEAKER.-Order! I have ruled that discussion on separate items under Government business is out of order.

Mr. WILTON.---:1 am not discussing the items. T am attempting to establish that the Government is not sincere in moving this motion. I do not want to discuss the subjectmatter of item No. 16 ; I am merely pointing out that the Government has not honoured an undertaking that it gave to the House previously. I believe what the Leader of the Opposition has said is correct, the Government is merely using its procedural motion for the purpose of stifling debate on matters which the Opposition considers should be debated.

Mr. HAMER.-It is not stifling debate.

Mr. WILTON.-! take the view that the Premier is attempting to stifle debate. If he were not attempting to do so, he would have accepted the invitation extended to him by the Leader of the Opposition to inform the House what was the Government's intention. Further evidence of the Government's intention to stifle the debate was the notice of motion on Grievance Day given earlier today by the Deputy Premier.

The SPEAKER.-It is entirely out of order ; it is another subject.

Mr. WILTON.-! know it is another subject but it is another example of the Government's insincerity. Notices of motion were given which, if dealt with by the House at the next day of sitting, would deprive the Opposition of certain rights. Then the Deputy Premier has given notice on the basis that the Government has decided that Orders of the Day, Government Business, take precedence over all other items of business. When the Leader of the Opposition tried to extract from the Premier some clear indication of what the Government is going to do, the Premier sat mute. It is purely a tactic by the Government to stifle debate on the matters referred to.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).-This is an extraordinary situation towards which the Government is pushing the House. As the honorable member for Broadmeadows pointed out, the Government has not given any reason why members of the Opposition should agree to the proposal. It is not as though Ministers are inexperienced in arranging the Notice Paper and organizing business so that the House can properly go about its affairs. They do not seem to be able to utilize that experience. Now, within a few days of Christmas, they find that they have a jammed Notice Paper and they expect members of the Opposition to get them out of this jam.

3404 Business of [ASSEMBLY.] the House.

Agreement to this will only encourage the Government to go on the bumbling, inept way which it has demonstrated in the past six or seven weeks. If the Government is unable to order its business, it should resign. The Government should get out before it is thrown out. It proposes to ride roughshod over three items, one Notice of Motion, Government Business, and two Notices of Motion, General Business. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposes to move that this House take note of the report of the Country Roads Board for the year 1971-72, and the honorable member for Moonee Ponds proposes to move that this 1House take note of the report of the Housing Commission for the year 1971-72. The Government is asking members of the Opposition to throw these two matters aside. It has failed to give any convincing explanation why we should do so.

I could not take the responsibility of encouraging the Government to go on its bumbling way by accepting this motion. I suggest that the Government ought to learn a lesson because year after year it has pushed the House to the point of attempting at short notice to pass a large amount of proposed legislation on the Notice Paper. The House is trying to get through a large amount of work which ought to have been introduced earlier. The Government is unable to organize itself properly. I know of no reason why members of the Opposition should assist it to do this, and consequently they propose to vote against the motion.

Mr. FLOYD {Williamstown).-Unlike the honorable member for Albert Park I do not want the Government to resign at this stage; I should like it to govern, although members of the Opposition have not seen any evidence of that over the past six or seven weeks. It has been obvious to back-bench members on both sides of the House that this situation

would develop and that the Government would move this motion. For example, more time is taken on argument that Grievance Day should not be held than the actual Grievance Day debate itself. That shows how naive is the philosophy of this Government.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).----Order! That is not the question.

Mr. FLOYD.-! know. The Government is now worried about procedure. Members of the Opposition accept that they cannot take control of the House. When the people give us a mandate to take control, we will be expected to do it. In the interim we are sporting enough to know and to accept the fact that this Government can control the House, fairly or unfairly-that is up to its conscience. In this case it has moved that Government business take precedence. Ever since I have been a member of this House, Government business has taken precedence. At no time were members of the Opposition allowed to take private members' 'Bills from the ruck and put them where they could be debated. Numbers took that privilege away and we accepted it-sometimes with bad grace, but at least we accepted it.

What are we doing today? Procedurely the Government has moved a motion that Government business take precedence. That has been done ever since I have been a member. I could see this sticking out three or four weeks ago. If the Government wants any evidence of my pessimism, I made bookings to bring parties in to this place three or four weeks ago and I have another one tonight. Honorable members should be attending some of the Christmas functions, some of the elderly citizens' shows and some of the kindergarten parties, but they will not be doing any of that now. My attitude on this matter is that the Government has to take control of the House.

Business of [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] the House. 3405

Last week I had charge of the Water Supply Works and Services Bill, and because honorable members on the Government side of the House took no interest in the debate I spent four hours pleading for them not to be parochial in considering my remarks.

In the old days, during the regime from which we have just emerged, Sir Arthur Rylah, the former Chief Secretary, would not have put up with listening to subjects such as the provision of drain pipes on pavilions at Bellarine. He would have ensured that the business of the House was carried out. This Government has allowed its back-benchers to stonewall and spend all their time praising themselves.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-! think the honorable member is straying from the subject.

Mr. FLOYD.-The Government is confounded by benefits that have been offered from Canberra, and is at a loss to decide whether to accept them or not.

The SPEAKER.-Order! The honorable member is very wide of the subject.

Mr. FLOYD.-Yes, Mr. Speaker. The Government should run the House in the correct way, and should not have to resort to a motion such as that which is now before the House.

Mr. JONES (Melbourne).-When I first sat in this Chamber, I was perplexed by the fact that the House seemed to be sitting for short hours and had a threadbare Notice Paper. By Wednesday of each week, all business was concluded.

Nearing the end of the sessional period the House is sitting for longer hours-certainly long hours. This is my first session, and also the Premier's first session, as such, in this House, but many honorable members on the Government side have been in the Parliament for many years ; in view of that it ought to be possible

for the Government to regulate the session so that there is a balanced work load throughout.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-O'rder! If the debate gets on the general question of running the House and work load, it is completely out of order. This is purely a question of Government business taking precedence over general business.

·Mr. JONES.-I bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker. I will more precisely rephrase what I have said. The question of why Government Business must take precedence is a consequence of the fact that the ·Government has not divided the time available in an equitable way. What is suggested is that, by pressure and by use ef the guillotine, the Government will force legislation through by weight of numbers-legislation that we are prepared to talk about having regard to the welfare of our constituents. Surely members of the Opposition are entitled to do that. We regard the reports of the Country Roads Board and the Housing Commission, and their implications, as being of importance to the people for whom we speak.

The reports are of tremendous importance. Even if it means that Parliament will have to sit until next week, it would be better to do so than to have items dropped simply to allow the Government to go through the Bills on the Notice Paper. In our submission, many of those items are of far more significance in both the long and short terms than are the Bills on the Notice Paper. In deference to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I intend to say nothing critical of the Government's failure to regularize the work of the House, but I ask the Government to allow the House to observe reasonable hours despite the risk of Parliament having to meet next week. The Opposition wishes to have the opportunity of dealing with matters which are important to the constituents of its members.

3406 Business· of [ASSEMBLY.] the House.

Mr. ·ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-The four matters of Government business to which reference has been made must be transmitted to another place quickly. For that reason the Country Pa,rty supports the motion. At the sarne time my party thinks it is desirable that the other two matters of general business to which reference has been made by the Opposition should be debated, and I suggest that the sooner items of Government business are dealt with the sooner those matters will be debated.

Mr. GINIFER (Deer Park).-I move-

That all the words after the word "that" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words " the consideration of the Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day Nos. 1 to 15 be postponded until after Order of the Day No. 16"

The SPE~ER (Sir Vernon Christie).-! should like to see that motion, please. ·

Having had no notice of this whatever, I rule firmly that it is out of order. The next item of business on the Notice Paper was to be notices of motion. Then, under Standing Order No. 32, it was moved that Government Business take precedence over General Business. In my view, that motion, which is a procedural one, was called on before Orders of the Day, Government Business, were called and for that reason any amendment which deals purely with Government Business would be out of order.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity of examining the amendment, but surely it suggests an amendment to the present motion.

The SPEAKER.-1 have given my ruling quite firmly, and if the Deputy Leader of the Opposition does not like it, he is free to give Notice of Motion of his dissent.

· Mr. GINIFER (Deer Park).-! accept your ruling,. ·Mr. Speaker. The reason for the Government's wishing to amend the order of business· on the Notice .Paper so that items Nos. 1 to 4, Orders of the Day, Government Business, can be dealt with first, is that the Government has failed to conduct the business of this House in a proper and regular way. We are dealing not only with honorable members whose political experience has been gained in another place, but also with many members on the Government side of the House who cannot determine the way in which the order of business should be arranged and dealt with.

The SPE~ER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! I think a comparison of that type on a matter purely of precedence is out of order. I invite the honorable member to direct his contribution to the matter before the Chair.

Mr. GINIFER.-What I was alluding to was that, inept as this Government might be, men of goodwill ·at this time of season might be prepared to look at the Notice Paper and take appropriate action. It is the Premier's wish that items Nos. 1 to 4, Government Business, be dealt with. An offer has been made by the Leader of the Opposition to the effect that if the Opposition could have an undertaking from the Premier that Orders of the Day, General Business, items Nos. 1 and 2 would then be proceeded with, the Opposition would accede to the request that the House deal with those four items. An opportunity has been given to the Premier to indicate, by leave, his thoughts on the matter, but unfortunately the honorable gentleman has not indicated to the House whether or not he accepts the offer of the Leader of the Opposition. Accordingly, members of the Opposition must gauge his silence as indicating that he opposes wholeheartedly the offer made and therefore the undertaking is not given.

Busines_s of (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] the House. 3407

A .danger is seen by members of the Opposition to the procedure that the House is now debating. In the past when members of the Opposition have given notice that on the following day they will move that the House take note of a report of a Government department the matter has been debated. Opposition members consider that the action which the Government has now taken means that members of the Opposition will not have the opportunity of discussing various reports.

Opposition members have indicated that we will not stand in the way of the four i terns being discussed but we should like an undertaking to be given by the Government that, in accordance with past practice, Opposition members will have the opportunity of discussing the items in General Business. What the Opposition is seeing tonight is an inroad into the privileges and prerogatives of private members of Parliament, and on that basis I oppose the proposition.

Sir GEORGE REID (AttorneyG~neral) .-I move-

That the question be now put.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! I find that having listened intently, with eleven members having spoken and very much the

AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Rafferty Mr. Balfour Mr. Reese Mr. Billing Sir George Reid Mr. Birrell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Borthwick Mr. Rossiter Mr. Broad Mr. Scanlan Mr. Burgin Mr. Smith Mr. Crellin (Warrnambool) Mr. Dixon Mr. Stephen Mr. Dunstan Mr. Stokes Mr. Evans Mr. Suggett

(Ballaarat North) Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Evans Mr. Taylor

(Gippsland East) (Balwyn) Mrs. Goble Mr. Taylor Mr. Guy (Gippsland South) Mr. Hamer Mr. Templeton Mr. Hayes Mr. Tretheway Mr. Joria Mr. Trewin Mr. Loxton Mr. Wheeler Mr. MacDonald Mr. Whiting

(Glen Iris) Mr. Wilcox Mr. McDonald Mr. Wiltshire.

(Rodney) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher

Tellers: Mr. McCabe Mr. Smith.

(Bellarine)

NoES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Curnow Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd

Mr. Lewis (Portland)

Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.

Tellers:

Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis Mr. Jones

(Dundas)Mr. Shilton.

PAIR. same matter being spoken about, I am Mr. Thompson disposed to accept this motion under

Mr. Holding.

Standing Order No. 78c.

The House divided on Sir George Reid's motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes

Noes

. Majority . for the

motion ..

46

21

25

The House divided on Mr. Thompson's motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes

Noes

Majority

motion

for the

47

21

26

3408 Educational [ASSEMBLY.] Grants Biil.

AYES. Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Broad Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McDonald

(Rodney) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty

Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Rossiter Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

( Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stokes Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn)

Mr. Taylor (Gippsland South)

Mr. Templeton Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Trewin Mr. Wheeler Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.

Tellers: Mr. McCabe IMr. Smith.

(Bellarine)

NOES. Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Curnow Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.

(Dundas) Tellers: Mr. Lewis Mr. Jones

(Portland) Mr. Shilton.

EDUCATIONAL GRANTS BILL. The Order of the Day for the

resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill was read.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-1 declare this Bill to be an urgent Bill, and I move-

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill. Approval of the m'otion being put was indicated by the required number of members rising in their places, as specified in Standing Order No. 78F.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-It is most unusual, even by this Government's standards--

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! Under Standing Orders there can be no debate on the basic question.

The House divided on the motion (Sir Vern'On Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 40 Noes 28

Majority for motion

the 12

AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese

Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

( Warmambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stokes Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor (Gippsland South)

Mr. Templeton Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wheeler Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.


(Bellarine)

NOES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Broad Mr. Curnow Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis

(Portland)

Mr. Hamer

Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove Mr. McDonald

(I«>dney) Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.

Tellers: Mr. Jones Mr. Shilton.

PAIR. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-1 move-

That the time allotted in connection with the Bill be as follows:-

( a) For the second-reading stage of the Bill, until 5.20 p.m. this day;

(b) For the remaining stages of the Bill. until 5.50 p.m. this day.

Educational [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Grants Bill. 3409

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).--It is hard to believe that the Minister of Education is serious in putting this proposition before the House. When presenting his second-reading speech the Minister said that the Bill was important. Honorable members have had since 16th November to consider this measure, but it is now proposed that they shall not be allowed to speak to it. This seems to be an extraordinary situation. The Minister was very generous in saying that a measure like this would need time for consideration. Because it is so far-reaching honorable members were given time to consider the Bill, but now that the matter has come on for debate it is proposed that the House should have one-and-a-half hours in which to debate it. It is important that the House should have time to debate the Bill because by this measure it is proposed to remove entirely the old provisions relating to educational grants.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! The Bill must not be debated at this time.

Mr. DOUBE.-I shall make no attempt to debate the Bill ; I say merely that by this measure it is proposed to throw out the existing provisions and to tie Victoria to the wording and definitions of a Commonwealth Act. This is a most unusual situation. It is proposed that our legislation shall have none of the descriptive terms that the House has adopted in the past. The Minister proposes that within the next couple of hours this House will move the emphasis now given to Victoria's attitude to primary and secondary school pupils to accord with the Commonwealth's view. Even from the aspect of sovereignty of this State it is important--

The SPEAKER.-Order! I think the honorable member is now discussing the Bill.

Mr. DOUBE.-I have not gone to any lengths in doing so, Sir, arid I propose to obey your ruling. How-

ever, I .mention those points because one needs time to explore the propositions contained in the Bill. I have merely mentioned those two points without going into detail. The Opposition is to be denied an opportunity of putting forward its view on this Bill, of discussing the constitutionality of the proposition, the worth and merit of the measure, or its lack of worth and merit, of indicating how things have changed in the Australian society or of proposing that a different view should be taken. Honorable members will have no opportunity of doing those things in the miserable amount of time which the Minister proposes to allow the House to debate the Bill.

I am absolutely appalled to think that an important subject such as education, or even a facet of it, should be treated in such a peremptory fashion as is proposed by the Minister. The time for debate on this measure will allow one speaker from this side of the House ; all other honorable members on this side of the Chamber will be denied an opportunity of stating their case. How can anyone say that a Parliament is functioning properly if only one .member of the Opposition is given an opportunity of speaking to a Bill? That is probably the key to the situation. Therefore, I hope that all honorable members, including those who support the Government at the moment, will reject this proposition to limit the debate when there is no need for a limitation.

Mr. WILKES {Northcote).-Earlier this afternoon the Government rejected two propositions by the Opposition in respect of debates that normally would have taken place. The argument offered by the Government was that important Bills which were to be debated were more urgent. In advancing this argument the Government spokesmen named four Bills which were regarded as being more important than the motions proposed by the Opposition. How can the Government apply these double stan-

3410 Educational [ASSEMBLY.] Grants Bill.

dards? If a Bill is more important than a motion proposed by the Opposition, surely · it is important enough to be debated fully. If it is proposed to restrict the debate in the manner in which the Government now proposes to restrict it, the measure cannot be important. The Government cannot have it both ways.

In all propositions that the Government has put to the House this afternoon it has applied double standards. If a debate is so important that it should be brought to the top of the Notice Paper for consideration ahead of other matters which normally would have been considered before it, it is proper for the House to be given reasonable time in which to debate the matter. I remind honorable members of the proposition that has been put by the Government. It has said that the House may debate the Bill for an hour on the second reading and for an hour to cover the remaining stages of the Bill. The Government cannot possibly regard the legislation as important if it proposes to restrict the house to a two-hour debate.

I suggested earlier that the Government would use the guillotine at this stage of the session, not because of the importance of legislation, not because it wanted to bring the legislation before another place, where no doubt the same restriction will be applied, but merely because it is tired of having to spend time in the Parliament. It is so tired that now it wants to use its numbers and the guillotine to force four important pieces of legislation through this Chamber some time this evening so that Government supporters may meet their social commitments outside the Parliament. If the Deputy Premier has so many social engagements to keep and the social engagements of his Ministers and lazy back-benchers are so important that it is necessary to restrict the debate in this Chamber so that they can fulfil those engagements, it is time that the Parliament put a stop to the Government.

Mr. Wilkes.

Mr. THOMPSON .-1 have not seen the invitations~

Mr. WILKES.-The Minister may deny that this is the reason for wanting to restrict the debate, in the same way as he proposes to restrict three other debates after this one, but honorable members can put no other construction on the Government'·s action. It must be that he and the Attorney General have so many social engagements that they are not prepared to allow the Parliament to consider fully what they, less than an hour ago, described as important measures.

Suddenly, they have become less important to the extent that the Government intends to allow one hour for the second-reading debate and one hour for the committee stage. The Government is operating on a set of double standards, particularly since its two leaders in this House came down from another place. They do not understand the fundamental running of this Chamber. They were forced to come to this House because no other member in this Chamber could take over the leadership. The Government party in this House is saddled with these leaders. The first thing they do, because they cannot accustom themselves to the prerogatives and decent running of this Chamber, is to use their power and weight of numbers in the use of the guillotine.

The Government cannot have it both ways. If the Bill is not important, by all means let the debate be restricted, but if it is important enough to be at the top of the Notice :Paper the debate should run its full course. The Government should not adopt a set of double standards.

Mr. SUGGETT .-This is tedious repetition.

Mr. WILKES.-Whether or not it is tedious repetition is a question for the Deputy Speaker to decide. It is certainly no more tedious than the

Educational [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Grarits Bill. 34if

use of the guillotine by the Government. It is proposed to use the guillotine on three other measures today.

Mr. AUREL SMITH.-A jolly good show!

Mr. WILKES.-That is the honorable member's opinion. U I were a member of the community affected by this · Bill :J should have second thoughts about this Government in the next election. As the Government intends to restrict the debate on this Bill, it obviously no longer regards it as being important, although it took that view for a specific purpose earlier this afternoon. The restrictions pla'ced on this debate will not allow the views of persons who have contacted members of the Opposition to be expressed. If I were affected in that way, I should take a definite stand against the Government at the appr~priate time. Members of the Opposition reject the Minister's proposal which has been moved so that he may keep his social engagements; we want Parliament to function as it should and for measures such as this to be debated at length, regardless of time.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East).--Once again I find myself in an invidious position similar to that which I was in twelve months ago when the same procedure was adopted on a measure of this kind. On that occasion I was denied the right to express my view because of the Government's action; I was denied the opportunity of putting before the House the effects which an education policy of this kind has on the isolated areas of the State which I represent. I rise now, not to delay honorable members who will get the opportunity of expressing their views on the Bill, but simply because this is the only opportunity I will have of expressing the view that I am unable to support the Bill and I bitterly resent any action by the Government which prevents me from stating the reasons. If this is

the ·-sort of approach which is· to be followed in this House, it will be the death of democracy in Victoria.

Mr. HOLDING '(Leader of the Opposition).-! do not suppose there is any other issue which is of more concern to many sections of the community than the education of their children. It would be improper for me to canvass the issues which are dealt with in this :Bill, but there is much argument and concern at many levels in the community about financing the private sector of edu~ation and the amount of money which ought to be spent in that area. No honorable member can give proper consideration to these important and pressing problems in the time allotted by the Minister. The spokesman for the Opposition will be able to speak for perhaps half an hour or 40 minutes, which will leave the spokesman for the Country Party less than twenty minutes. This will mean that no back-bencher on the Government side of the Chamber, irrespective of the plight of private schools in his area, or indeed of State schools, will be able to make any contribution to the debate. So the once great Liberal .Party has got itself into such a mess, led by these two incompetent gentlemen from another place, that it is going to discipline its back-bench members.

The honorable member for Gippsland South, who is interjecting, has nothing to say for himself on any matter. It is more important to the honorable members who want to join the cocktail hour at the various Christmas functions around the town to slurp cocktails and sup savouries than to spend some time in this House dealing with the important subject of education.

The honorable member for Bentleigh, who is also interjecting, should be thoroughly ashamed of himself because he is casting his vote to deny himself and his constituents a voice about the problems of education in his electorate. The honorable member is denying the


people of his electorate any say or any representation. The Assistant Minister of Education ought to stick his nose back into Hansard; he is a political joke and, as everybody knows, is used by the Minister of Education to run messages and sharpen pencils.

The function of this Parliament is to debate the important issues which confront the community. The honorable member for Bentleigh has been prepared to draw his Parliamentary salary for years, to sit on a back bench and to do no more than interject-unintelligently. The honorable member should go to his electorate and explain to the people whose children are attending parish schools and State schools that in his view it is more important to socialize than to debate important issues of education.

As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition correctly pointed out, the Minister of Education cannot have it both ways. The honorable gentleman cannot say that these matters are of such grave importance that they should take precedence over all other matters and then move that the debate should be less than two hours for all stages. That is palpable nonsense. The spokesman for the Country .Party will probably have less than twenty minutes in which to make his contribution, and backbench members of the Government party will have no rights at all. I understand that the honorable member for Bentleigh does not want the right to speak ; he prefers to sit and say nothing.

Mr. SCANLAN.-The Leader of the Opposition does not know what the Bill is about.

Mr. HOLDING.-The problem of the Assistant Minister of Education is that he never knows what any Bill is about, and is never likely to know. As I have said previously in this House, honorable members ought to take themselves in hand, but the honorable member for Bentleigh ought to let himself go occasionally.

The attitude adopted by the Government is an absolute denial of the whole process of Parliament, and the Opposition rejects it, as I have no doubt the people of Victoria will reject it, because the issues of education are amongst the most important which confront the community. There is no way in which this Bill can be fully or adequately debated in the time allotted by the Minister. Members of the Opposition have no more desire than any other honorable members to remain here till Christmas, but we are concerned to ensure that issues are properly debated. The method adopted by this Government is to legislate in haste and repeal at leisure. Bills are rushed through, and months afterwards have to be repealed. As an amendment, I move-

That •all the wo~ds and expressions after "follows" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof-

" (a) for the remainder of the second~ reading stage of the Bill, until 9 p.m. this day;

(b) for the remaining stages of the Bill, until 11 p.m. this day."

That is a curtailment which even I am unhappy about, but it would give honorable members who are concerned with educational issues the opportunity of speaking, and I am certain honorable members who do speak will have some regard for the rights of other members.

Mr. EDMUNDS (Moonee ·Ponds).I wish to speak to the amendment and the motion. The Government is dead-scared of this issue reaching the public. Because it has seen its national colleagues go down in one of the worst defeats in political history on the same subject, the Government is now dead-scared that this issue, if given the prominence that it deserves in the community, will again see the inept leadership in this 1House, which has been injected from another place, lead the Government party into the political wilderness. That is why a time limit and the use of the guillotine is proposed on this debate. Never has a


Government been so embarrassed by the fact that members of the Opposition and of the Country Party are prepared to argue the issue of time for a debate such as this.

What has the Government done? It proposes to allow the Opposition one hour and 50 minutes in which to discuss the ramifications of this Bill. The honorable member for Bentleigh is adopting his usual device of interjecting to get his name in Hansard, but he is not prepared to take part in the debate.

Members of the Opposition desire more time in which to debate this Bill. tJf in the public arena a question as controversial as financial assistance to private schools brings about a direct swing against the national Government, why is it not just as important in this House for members of the Opposition and of the corner party to be given an opportunity of putting their views to the Government? Instead of a ham-·fisted attempt to restrict the debate, a wide and penetrating debate should be allowed. In the past the Government has been elected on a restricted mandate, but on this issue which is of wide public importance the Government is attempting to restrict the rights of all honorable membersnot only members of the Opposition, but also members of the Government party-to contribute to the debate, particularly in view of the election results on 2nd December.

There is a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government on the issue of aid to independent schools. I, for one, should like the Minister to explain certain issues in this debate. I direct your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that in clause 3 there appears a formula-

A+ 40B $---

2 and I should like the Minister to explain how that works. That is the formula to be adopted for the year 1973.

Session 1972.-120

Mr. SUGGETT (Bentleigh).-I take a point of order. The honorable member is not debating the question of time ; he is debating the Bill.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Mr. EDMUNDS {Moonee Ponds).One of the things I admire about your rulings, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that they are so precise. ·On this question, about which there is such a fundamental difference between the Opposition and the Government, an attempt is being made to restrict the expressions of opinion because the leadership of the Government in this House is in such difficulties. The Deputy Premier is finding himself in a great deal of difficulty in attempting to jam legislation through in what obviously is to be the last week of this sessional period. Although the Opposition has produced logic and the Country Party has made a request that time be granted, the debate on this controversial subject will be restricted.

I want to know whether the Deputy Premier will accept the amendment moved by the Opposition. If he does so the Deputy Premier will show some degree of leadership. Will the honorable gentleman squib it as he has time and again? Admittedly, the former Deputy Premier, Sir Arthur Rylah, adopted a direct and blunt approach in dealing with similar matters. The office of Deputy Premier is being denigrated by the present occupant. I want to know whether the Deputy Premier is prepared to accept the proposition submitted by the Opposition to allow a far-ranging debate on this issue of fundamental importance to the electorate. The results in the Federal election on 2nd December clearly show that the e'lectors consider that there is a need for the expenditure of public money on poorer schools.

Mr. FORDHAM (Footscray).-It is a long time since this House has seen a ·Government running scared


but_ it is doing that today. The Government is refusing to face up to what was supposedly one of the important planks in its electoral policy -one on which it said the Labor Party would be defeated, and about which the people would attack the Labor Party. The people have spoken on the issue and the Government is hiding. Instead of allowing a reasonable and proper debate on this important issue, the Minister of Education is trying to impinge on the ~igJ:ts of honorable members by restncting members of the Opposition in placing their views on this important public issue.

It has been mentioned in many quarters that the Government does not seem to be able to decide which are the important issues which members of Parliament should be allowed a reasonable time to consider. This sessional period has been winding up for a long time and now, following the results in the Federa] election of 2nd December, the Government is endeavouring to wind it down as quickly as possible without allowing for the rights of members of the Opposition. The Government is being hypocritical in its approach.

If Parliament is to work as an institution, members on . this side who represent 42 ·3 per cent of the electors ought to be given the right to state the views of their constituents on this and other issues. It is disgraceful that the Government proposes not to allow members of the Opposition to put forward their views.

As the Minister said in his secondreading speech, educational grants are an important linchpin of the Government's social attitudes. Therefore, honorable members should be allowed to debate the issue fully in this Parliament. I know that seven or eight members of the Opposition have spent a great deal of time in preparing their submissions on this Bill and are now ready to put forward the views of their constituents. We concede that the Minister has given us weeks to prepare

Mr. Fordham.

and I acknowledge the sincerity of members of the Opposition who wish to debate this important matter. The Labor Party has considered the subject at length and now members of tha~ party wish to have the opportunity of expressing their views.

. The Government has changed its VIews because it realizes that the needs policy of the Opposition has met with the accord and acclaim of the public. It will now be the policy of the Federal Government and therefore this legislation will be redundant wit~in a fortnight anyway. I am surpnsed that the Government wants to proceed with the measure or that it should proceed with it in the manner it is doing.

As an individual member of this House and as a member of the Opposition I protest at the action of the Govern.ment. I hope the Government Will reconsider its ridiculous time limit and agree to the amendment which has been put for~ard by the Leader of the Opposition and allow a reasonably wideranging debate to take place.

Mr. TREZISE {Geelong North).As a mere back-bencher I also record my ob.iection to the Government's attitude. Year in and year out memb.ers of the Go~ernment party, particularly at electiOn time have stated the importance of policies on the needs of education. As State elections will be held next year the subject assumes even greater importance, and the Government by applying ~he guillotine, &as gor{e to water. It IS not prepared to give members of th.e Oppositi~n the opportunity of .speakmg on their party's policy, which ~as been shown by election results In recent weeks to be superior to that of the Government.

I have spent many hours research on this Bill and I have conferred with both State and private schools within my electorate so that I could explain to the House the views of the State and private schools in my electorate. Because I will be fourth or fifth cab


off the rank on the Opposition side of the House, I will probably not have the opportunity of exercising my responsibility in presenting the views of the electors of Geelong North on this important subject, or of outlining the problems of the particular schools.

Honorable members thought that the former Premier was a Ned Kelly and that the new leadership coming from another place would bring about a new and better kind of tolerance in this Chamber. However, the former Premier was Father Christmas when compared with this new leadership which proposes that honorable members should have something like one-and-a-half hours in which to debate this important measure. The attitude of the Goverment shows up the colours of the present leadership and its attitude towards the concept of Parliament. It is no wonder that the Liberal Party is losing the confidence of the Victorian people when the leaders of that party in this House are prepared to treat the Opposition in this way.

The Government must realize that in the Geelong area alone within the next three or four months the seats at present held by the Liberal Party will move to the Labor camp simply because Labor Party members in this House are prepared if possible to put forward the policies and views of the people of Geelong instead of remaining silent on these matters. If the Government will not allow honorable members to place their views on record, it will live in shame.

The Labor Party believes that grants to schools should be allocated on a needs basis. The public has clearly shown that the Liberal Party's per capita system has reached its doom. Honorable members should be able to debate tonight whether grants should be made on the basis of a toilet or a library for a poorer school rather than the present system of giving a rowing boat to a richly-endowed school

which, comparatively, does not need the finance. The present per capita system fails to take needs into consideration.

Mr. JONA (Hawthorn).-Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order, the honorable member is now debating the merits and demerits of the Bill and is not debating the question of time.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! I ask the honorable member to keep to the question of time.

Mr. TREZISE {Geelong North).Because of the intention of the Government to restrict the debate on the Bill, I shall be unable to place on record my views about the two different systems of education. For too long education has been used by the Government as a political football. When an honorable member raises a matter which does not fit in with the Government's philosophy the gag is applied. I record my objection to being silenced because I am not one of the foremost speakers on education on the Opposition side of the House. However, I wish to record that I am being silenced by the action of the Government in introducing the guillotine on this important measure ; as a result I am unable to put forward the views of the electors of Geelong North and Gee long generally on the subject of education.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).Apparently the Minister of Education is becoming a creature of habit because on a similar measure on 1st December last year the honorable gentleman moved the same motion. As has been pointed out, the subject of the legislation was widely canvassed in the recent Federal election campaign and the policies of the Federal Liberal Party, which are identical with the policies enunciated in the measure, were rejected by the electors of Victoria and the rest of

3416 Educational [ASSEMBLY.] Gra!Jts Bill.

Australia. Now the Minister of Edu·cation is running for cover and using the Government's numbers to ensure that a wide and extensive debate will not take place. Therefore, members of the Opposition will not be able to go into this question in detail. The 'Minister is anxious to prevent members from expressing their views and those of organizations who have an interest in the matter.

The number of members of the Liberal Party and Ministers who are absent is surprising. It is strange that the honorable member for St. Kilda, who usually has a lot to say on education, is not prepared to raise his voice on behalf of the schools in his district. One would have expected the honorable member for Hawthorn to speak on this question. That honorable member is always ready to direct attention to the Standing Orders and to preserve what he considers to be the rights of members of this Parliament, but on this occasion he is absent. Moreover, the honorable member for Ballaarat South, who is a great democrat from one of our major provincial cities is apparently quite satisfied with the situation.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir E.dgar Tanner).-Order! We are discussing a motion before the Chair.

Mr. WILTON.-Honorable members are discussing the motion and an amendment. I understand that the purpose of the motion is to limit the time of the debate and the Opposition is trying to have that time extended. An amendment has been moved by the Opposition, and the Premier has been invited to indicate whether he will accept the amendment, which I believe is reasonable. There should be a compromise because many members have indicated that they are eager to participate in the debate. For that reason the Government should accept the amendment. Apparently, however, the Deputy Premier intends to reject it and to demand that every

member on the Government side . of the House should accept the motion and reject the amendment. If so, the Opposition is entitled to conclude that the reason why Government supporters are prepared to go along with the Minister is that they are afraid of a debate-they are jibbing it-for the simple reason that the people of Victoria have clearly demonstrated that the policy and philosophy on which the legislation has been drafted have been rejected out of hand.

As the honorable !member for Footscray has said, as a result of the proclaimed policy of the Federal Government this legislation will become redundant in a matter of weeks ; but it is quite obvious that the Minister, with his ineptitude, lack of capacity and lack of statesmanship, is unable to grasp the situation even now.

Reference has been made to the previous Deputy Premier. When that honorable gentleman entered the House he immediately grasped the situation and made a decision on the spot concerning the conduct of the House. The Opposition did not always agree with his decisions, but the House knew where it stood. He was always prepared to adopt a fairminded attitude.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-Oh!

Mr. WILTON.-The Leader of the Country Party may not agree.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-The passage of time tends to dim one's memory.

Mr. WILTON.-Perhaps so, but the former Deputy Premier was always prepared to listen to a fair proposition and to give the Opposition a fair go. That is more than can be said of the present Deputy Premier, who is bewildered and out of touch with the situation. To put it ·crudely, the honorable gentleman is " running scared ", and politicians who are "running scared" make mistakes, fumble and drop the ball.

Educational [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Grants Bill. 341.7

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The honorable member for Broadmeadows should not be discussing the Deputy Premier. He should discuss the matter before the House.

Mr. WILTON.-! was about to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the honorable gentleman still has an opportunity of indicating whether he will accept the Opposition's amendment.

Mr. THOMPSON.-The answer is, "No".

Mr. WILTON.-! am thankful to the honorable gentleman for that indication. We have finally obtained a reaction from him. As previous speakers have said, the Government is so scared of its own legislation that it is not prepared to discuss it, and for that reason it is using the subterfuge of pleading that it is an urgent matter which must be passed quickly.

The Opposition completely rejects the suggestion that the Government must use the guillotine, and we accuse the Government and its backbench supporters of running away from this question. One would have thought that at least the honorable member for St. Kilda would have put up some sort of fight to protect the rights of back-bench members, but apparently even he has succumbed to the pressures which have been exerted.

The Opposition rejects the motion and calls upon members of the Government party to accept the amendment in the interests of maintaining the dignity of the Parliament. If the Government forces the motion through, the people of the State will have every right to reject the Government. I assure honorable members on the opposite side of the House that, when facing the people, they will not be able to say that they did not contribute to this debate because of lack of time. I assure them that the Opposition will make certain that the people know why there was

not enough time, and that the electors will know the names of honorable members who, as will be indicated in Hansard, voted against this amendment.

Mr. FE.LL (Greensborough).-1 strongly object to the Government's proposal that this debate should be completed in less than three quarters of an hour. That time limit will prevent many honorable members from participating in the debate, because only two speakers will be able to discuss this measure. It is reprehensible of the Government to act in this manner.

The manner in which the Government has conducted the business of the House is disgusting. At the commencement of this sessional period, the House sat for only a few hours on two days a week, at a time when, if the House had sat for a longer period on three days a week, there would have been ample opportunity of fully discussing important proposed legislation. I agree that the Government has the right to direct the business of the House, but I disagree with its present action which, as a result of the Government's own disorganization, will prevent honorable members, including myself, from participating in this debate which is being conducted in the dying hours of the sessional period. During the session the House has dealt with many hum-drum matters, and it is ridiculous that when an important matter arises the Government insists on using the guillotine. The Government stands indicted. I object to the attitude which the Government has adopted.

Mr. TURNBULL {Brunswick West) .-The Government's attitude is unfair. To some extent, the passage of this Bill could result in constitutional problems arising. The new Commonwealth Government believes in financial aid based on need, whereas the previous Government believed that financial aid should be given to prestige schools. It is to be

3418 Educational \ [ASSEMBLY.] Grants Bill.

expected that when the Federal Government grants assistance to schools it will insist that it should be based on need, for that was one of the most important questions put to the electorate by the Labor Party in the last election campaign.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! The honorable member should not discuss matters which are behind the Bill.

Mr. TURNBULL.- Yes, Mr. Speaker. It was clear from what took place on television that it was not a question of 40 per cent--

The SPEAKER.-Order! The honorable member is discussing a matter behind the Bill. This is purely a question of time.

Mr. TURNBULL.-Yes. "It's time"! I .wished to take part in this debate, because I was attempting to achieve for a State school in my electorate something which has been promised by the Minister of Education on three occasions.

The SPEAKER.-Order! The honorable member is discussing a matter behind the Bill.

Mr. TURNBULL.-I think the debate should be conducted until--

Honorable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER.----Order! There is far too much interjection. The interjections are away from the honorable member who is speaking, which is most reprehensible.

Mr. TURNBULL.-I think the debate should be conducted until at least 9 p.m. to enable a reasonable contribution to be made to it by honorable members.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-On the question of time, Mr. Speaker, I should like to place on record my belief that, if the amendment is not accepted, the House will have observed the greatest exercise in political hypo·crisy ever to be conducted in the history of this Parliament. ·

Without. casting one's eye too far, one can see that Government supporters are thinly represented in the House at this time. That illustrates the lack of concern of members of the Government party that the House will be denied the opportunity of thoroughly debating this measure. That is what this debate on the question of time is about. The use of the guillotine denies all honorable members the right to express their views.

I do not want to transgress the previous rulings that you have given, Mr. Speaker, on the ambit of the debate, but honorable members ought to be reminded that the guillotine is being applied to the debate on a Bill which makes provision for financial aid to certain schools. Any Bill on State aid in any Parliament in any State of Australia ought now to be the subject of fine and deep debate because of the policy of the new Federal Government. It is ludicrous to expect this Parliament to pass well-reasoned legislation when the guillotine is applied to debates on Bills of this kind. Back-bench members of the Government party have deep thoughts on State aid to independent schools.

Mr. STEPHEN.-Who told the honorable member that?

Mr. AMOS.-One would imagine that even the honorable member for Ballaarat South would like to join in the debate. One can only assume that apart from denying members of the Opposition the opportunity of debating the principles of the Bill, the Government is protecting its back-bench members who will be afraid to go into their electorates and say how they voted and what they said on the principles involved in the Bill. If the House does not accept the amendment under which honorable members would have the opportunity of debating the principles of the Bill, the House will witness the worst political hypocrisy ever seen. The time has arrived when members of this House have to outline their views on State aid, irrespective of

Educational [12 DECEM~ER, 1972.] Grants Bill. 3419

the Government's desire to bulldoze its legislative programme through the Parliament.

The Opposition cannot be blamed for the mess in which the Government now finds itself. The Government is responsible for that mess. Important legislation has been introduced into the Parliament at the end of the spring sessional period instead of at the beginning of it. If the Government is sincere in wishing to debate new principles contained in Bills introduced into this Parliament, it will have to do better than it has. I urge honorable members to vote on the principles and not according to party lines, as the Minister of Education hopes they will.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-The Government has only itself to blame for getting in~o this stupid, diabolical position. It was given the opportunity this afternoon before the House met of arriving at a compromise. The Opposition was prepared to withdraw two notices of motion until tomorrow if the Government would give an assurance that the Opposition could have a debate of two hours on freeways. The debate on the present Bill would have been half over by now if the Government had accepted the proposal put forward by the Opposition. Because of the Government's incompetence no legislation has been passed this afternoon. This is because the Government is attempting to limit the debate on this Bill to two hours. It should be made abundantly clear on the record that this is of the Government's own volition. The Government is responsible for what has happened. An alternative was offered to it today, but it would not accept it. The Government had the stupid idea at its party meeting that it would get tough. The Government does not know how to get tough. When the Government had the opportunity of resolving this matter in a proper and dignified way, it rejected the offer and now it finds itself in this stupid position. The fault is entirely that of the Government.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! The question is that the expression proposed to be left out stand part of the motion.

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-Mr. Speaker, would you mind clarifying that point for honorable members?

The SPEAKER.-! am sure honor-able members understa·nd the position.

The House divided on the question that the expressions proposed by Mr. Holding to be omitted stand part of the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 38 Noes 25

Majority against the amendment 13

AYES.


(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland E~t) Mr. Fell Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Lind

Mr. McCabe

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter Mr. Sc·anlan Mr. Smith

( Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Templeton Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wheeler Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.

Tellers: Mr. Smith

(Bellarine) Mr. Taylor. (Gippsland South)

NOES.

Mr. Lovegrove Mr. McDonald

(Rodney) Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Shilton Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.

Tellers: Mr. Amos Mr. Jones.

PAIR.

Mr. Broad.


The House divided on Mr. Thompson's motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 40 Noes 26

Majority for motion

the 14



(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Broad Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Fordham Mr. Holding Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove

Mr. Stokes

AYES.

Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter Mr. Sc-anlan Mr. Smith

( Warmambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor (Gippsland South) Mr. Templeton Mr. 'Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wheeler Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.


(Bellarine)

NOES.

Mr. McDonald (Rodney)

Mr. Moss Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Shilton Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.


PAIR.

Mr. Ginifer.

The debate (adjourned from November 16) on the motion of Mr. Thompson (Minister of Education) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. DOUBE {Albert Park).-This is a Bill without morality, sensitivity and consideration for the educational needs of the children of this State. But not only that, it is a Bill without authority because it results from discussions and negotiations with a Government which no longer exists, a Government which was swept out of office less than ten days ago. The Bill proposes a continuation farther along the road of educational inequality, which at present mars the educational system of Victoria. No doubt the new Government at Canberra will have something to say about that. The Bill continues to give to aU schools in the private sector, irrespective of their need.

Although the Government in Victoria has been in office for more than seventeen years, it has never really attempted to find out what are the needs of Victorian schools. I challenge the Government to appoint a committee of inquiry like the famous Committee of Inquiry into Education in South Australia, known as the Karmel committee, to investigate education so that we will know where Victoria is going in this field. If a committee were appointed I think honorable members would find that Bills of this nature would not come before the House. The Karmel report commented on the question of aid, and at page 169 stated-

Aid could have the purpose of ensuring that the conditions in which any child is educated do not fall below a certain minimum standard. The ensuring of minimum levels is accepted as a basis of policy in many areas of life in the welfare State. In the case of schools the argument may be stated from the point of view of the community, which is poorer to the extent that the talents of its members are under-developed, or from the point of view of the human rights of the individual. If the purpose of aid is to ensure minimum standards, most forms of ·assistance per pupil in Australia are an expensive way of achieving it, since they apply aid equally to all schools, whether their standards are high or low.


At page 171 three recommendations of this impartial expert committee were set out in these terms-

(a) Non-government schools should be registered.

(b) Conditions of registration should require ~at certa.in. standards be ?bserved in relation to bUildmgs and class sizes, and that, in due course, only registered teachers be employed.

(c) Except for purposes of raising schools to levels necessary for registration, government financial assistance should be confined to registered schools.

It will be obvious to honorable members that in Victoria the Government takes no notice of a proposition of that kind. It is not concerned with need, nor is it concerned with minimal standards. At present $7 · 6 million is to be given in aid to schools, irrespective of whether they have a need for assistance, and in 1972-73 the sum of $9·7 million will be given in aid to schools. Under this Bill for 1973-74 in Victoria $13 ·4 million will be given as aid, and in 197 4-75 an amount of $15·2 million will be provided. The Minister of Education made no mention of this latter sum in his remarks. Perhaps he was a little coy and did not want to indicate to the people of this State precisely how much money was involved.

It is reliably estimated that the figures I have stated are correct. The figures are based on the assumption that the average national cost per pupil in Government schools will remain at $308 for children in primary schools and $519 for pupils in secondary schools. We know that those costs will increase and that the $15 million will probably escalate to about $17 million or $18 million by 1974-75.

In 1973-7 4 the Commonwealth grant for secondary pupils will be $105 and the State will be contributing $72. Thereafter, as a result of this Bill, the State will be under a contract to pay on behalf of

primary and secondary children at registered schools, one-fifth of the average cost of maintaining children at State primary and secondary schools. In this event Victoria will be contributing a maximum of $62 for each child attending non-Government primary school and $104 for each pupil attending a non-Government secondary school.

It is proposed by this Bill to discontinue the 1967 Education Grants Act and the amending Acts of 1970 and 1971, except for winding up purposes. From the time this Bill is passed Victor~a will accept th~ d~scriptive wordmg for schools which IS laid down in the Commonwealth Act and the State will have no descriptive terms or definitions of its own. This Bill will perpetuate inequality. The Minister has asserted that the reason for this is that it would be so difficult to work out a needs basis that it would take a great deal of effort and time to do so. Opposition members suggest that that is no reason for not doing so. We suggest that the Minister should study how Great Britain differentiates in its grants for recurrent costs according to the needs of schools.

Honorable members will recall that after the Plowden report had commented on poverty in the educational field, the Inner London Educational Authority set out to find who were the people in need. It did not baulk at the problem in the way that our 'Minister has done. I commend to the Minister the report of the Plowden committee and the action of the Inner London Educational Authority which set out criteria for this purpose. For instance the Inner London Educational Authority laid down that before it would give grants it would give consideration to social class composition, large families, overcrowding, housing stress, absenteeism, the number of immigrants at schools, the number of handicapped pupils, teacher turnover and pupil turnover.

342.2 Educational [ASSEMBLY.] Grants· Bill. · ·

The Inner London Educational Authority realized that it was children in circumstances such as those that I have mentioned who were the ones requiring extra assistance. The Victorian Government is either uninterested or is just too lazy. For this reason it makes grants available to rich and poor alike, ignoring the destruction of the personality and future potential that educational poverty brings to any child. I ask the Minister : What do the wealthy schools of this State need? What is their problem? Why are they being given this money? If those schools have a problem, the Minister has never mentioned it to the House. We can be explicit about the problems of the poorer schools. We can talk about the lack of playing space in both the State and priyate schools in some areas, the lack of equipment, the lack of remedial teachers, the lack of class-room space, decrepid and worn-out buildings and the depressing and demeaning atmospheres around these buildings.

How many schools which are to benefit from this handout have conditions anything like those that I have mentioned? The Minister remains silent. The Opposition suggests that a number of schools in the private sector should receive assistance. That is our policy and I propose to compare the assistance given to some schools at the moment. St Brigid's Primary School at North Fitzroy, which conducts also secondary school classes for 172 children, will receive at total of $106,000 a year by 197 4-75 when this legislation will come into full effect. I invite honorable members to compare that with the $173,000 which Wesley College will receive.

Mr. THOMPSON.-Make a valid comparison.

Mr. DOUBE.-I am making a comparison on the basis of need. Surely that is the criterion. If the honorable gentleman would like to tell us that needs are not a reasonable and proper basis for comparison I should

be pleased to hear him. Wesley College will have no real need-it has never ·demonstrated need-yet it will receive nearly twice as much as another school in an area where there is an obvious need for assistance.

Consider the position at St. Margaret Mary's School in Brunswick. In 1974-75, from the combined grants of the Commonwealth and the States under the new legislation, that school, which is in a povertystricken area, will receive $58,000, whereas the Methodist Ladies College will receive $411,000 in that one year. As a further example, . I mention St. Christopher's Primary School at Airport West which in 1974-75 will receive $89,000. In that year Haileybury College will receive $259,000.

Mr. DIXON.-How many pupils have those schools? ·

Mr. DOUBE.-If the honorable member thinks that is relevant to my argument he is entitled to say so, but on the basis of need, a policy which was accepted by the people of Australia only ten days ago, or on any simple Christian basis, one cannot condone the giving of that amount of money to those schools. The Minister has never demonstrated in this House whether Wesley College, Haileybury College or the Methodist Ladies College has a problem of any kind, whereas the other schools that I have mentioned have a problem which is obvious to anyone who considers their plight.

The House is being asked to perpetuate this monstrous inequality. It seems to me that educationally the Government treats the children of the poor as though they are lepers. Why does it shy away from the problem of helping the poorer children? Why does it run to help the rich children, the children who are not in need? It seems that the Government is always ready to help

Ed~catio~al [12 DECEMBE.R, 1972.] Grants Bill. 3423

the well-nutured child, the wellloved child, the socially well-endowed child, but it turns its back on other children. That concept is inherent in the Bill. If the money were given only to those who need it, not one child in the well-endowed. schools would suffer any deprivation. If the Government established a needs commission, such as the one which will operate federally, those who really needed assistance would receive twice as much as is now proposed.

In the financial year 1973-74, instead of the combined State and Commonwealth grant for primary schools being $113, it would be $226 for the needy schools. The wellendowed schools would not suffer in any way. Instead of the State and Commonwealth grants for secondary school children being $117, it would be $354 for children at the schools which could prove need. One could give many such examples. The attitude of the Labor Party--

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS.-Your attitude is to stop anyone else from speaking. You should sit down and give me a chance.

Mr. DOUBE.-I thought I was indicating that I was about to terminate my speech. The Leader of the Country Party seems to be very annoyed, but I have not spoken at length.

Mr. Ross-EowARDs.-There are only four minutes left.

Mr. DOUBE.-The honorable member should address his remarks on lack of time to the Government. There is very much more which has to be said on this matter.

Mr. DIXON.-You always did believe in quantity instead of quality.

Mr. DOUBE.-What I do not believe in, what the Opposition does not believe in, and what the people of Australia do not believe in is a continuation of this monstrous inequality in education. If honorable

members on the Government side of the House looked at some of the schools, at the homes that children come from, at some of the problems of migrant children, and at the multitude of problems that face the poorer children of this community, they could not in conscience vote for a measure which gives to those who are not in need.

That is the crucial point. That is what this wretched Bill does. It assists people who have no need and turns its back on the child who has no hope in life unless some sort of compensatory education is brought into being. But after seventeen years the Government's DirectorGeneral of Education can still say, "We have never even looked at compensatory education". The Government has never attempted to help the child who com.es from a drunken home, a home where a beating-up takes place regularly, a home where there are no books, or a home where there is no possibility of a child getting on in life.

The Opposition strongly holds to che attitude that this sort of legislation must stop. It is killing the chance of the child in the poor, depressed areas and denying him the right to live on equal terms with his wealthier neighbours. For those reasons, I move-That all the words after " That " be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words-

" this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the establishment of a needs commission to examine and determine the needs of schools and students in Government and non-Government education and to recommend to the Government of Victoria on a continuous public basis, the level of expenditure necessary to meet the requirements of Victoria's school children on the basis of needs and priorities, educational experimentation and regionalization ".

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-This is a sorry state of affairs. The Government has set out a quite unrealistic time-tab'le

3424 Educational

:for the debate on this Bill, and the •Country Party is denied any opportunity of putting its case. The Opposition must take its fair share of the blame for aborting this debate over the past hour and a half. It is a poor situation when both the Government and the Opposition deny the Country Party its right to take part in the debate.

The Country Party has consistently urged that there should be two provisos to the granting of State aid. One is that there should be an intensive inquiry into State aid. The second is that a financial report should be made on how schools spend money allotted to them. I am glad that, for the first time, this latter provision is included in a Bill dealing with State aid. A statement must be made on how the money is spent in a twelve-month period within three months thereafter.

State aid has been a political football for years and it is an issue from which the Government party has received untold advantage. I am delighted that this measure will take State aid out of hurly-burly of politics. The principle has been agreed upon by six State Governments and the Commonwealth Government, and for the first time it will no longer be a matter of bidding for votes at election time. State aid is to be granted on the basis of providing 40 per cent of the cost of educating a child in a Government school, and, to have that changed, all the States and the Commonwealth must agree.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Doube to be omitted stand part of the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 46 Noes 18

Majority against .the amendment 28

Mr. Ross-Edwards.

Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour 'Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Broad Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton 'Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McDonald

(Rodney) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Manson Mr. Meagher Mr. Moss

Grants Bill.

AYES.

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Rossiter Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

( W arrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stokes Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor


Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Trewin Mr. Wheeler Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.


( Bellarine) .

NOES.

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds 'Mr. Fell Mr. Fordham Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Lind

Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Shilton Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trezise Mr. Turnbull Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.



and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Interpretation).

Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Education) .-In view ·of the fact that the time for the second-reading debate was monopolized by the Opposition, with something like seven speakers, and the speech of the Leader of the Country Party was curtailed to one minute, I sha'll waive my right to speak on clause 2 to allow the honorable member . to continue his. statement.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-I thank the Minister of Education for giving me this opportunity. It is no use saying


that all the educational problems will be solved because there has been a change of Government in Canberra. One hopes that they will be, but until a proper Cabinet is formed and until Parliament meets it is a little premature to say what will happen. It is alJ very well to suggest that this measure may not be necessary in a few weeks' tim·e. That may be true, but Federal Parliament first must meet. Until it does this measure will have the effect of bringing the whole of Australia into line, and it should prevent State aid from being a political football. In effect, a cost-of-living increase will be granted, as the amount payable will be reviewed every year. If there is to be a percentage increase it will have to be agreed upon right across Australia, by the Federal Government and the six State Governments. The Country Party supports the Bill, although it appreciates its shortcomings.

There is one point I should make and I shall make it briefly because I want to allow other members to speak. I refer to the continuing talk about granting aid on the basis of need. In theory the needs argument is sound, but if aid were granted on the basis of need it would be extremely difficult to decide where to draw the line. I have said before -and perhaps it is a courageous state-ment to make-that if legislation provided for aid on the basis of need, as the Labor Party suggests it should, the effect would be to bar every nonCatholic school in Victoria from receiving State aid. Let us recognize the fact that we do not want to cause divisions between people of different religions. That is the last thing we should do. Let us put those divisions behind us, get away from arguing about religion, and do away ·with talk about a needs commis.sion.

Another point to be remembered is the tremendous number of children who attend private schools and who .are sons and daughters of people ~f very restricted means.

Particularly in country areas, people make tremendous sacrifices. I ask any honorable member to name the so-called well-endowed schools of Victoria. To my knowledge there are none. I am a Geelong Grammar man, father and son. That is not a wellendowed school.

Mr. FELL.-Why did you go there? The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar

Tanner).-Order! The Leader of the Country Party should be heard without interjection.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-The needs principle is sound, but in practice it will not work. I should like a needs basis to be adopted if it could be worked properly. All honorable members would like to support the poorer schools, but where does one draw the line, particularly with Catholic schools? One thinks of the little school at Numurkah and then of the schools at Shepparton and Kilmore, St. Kevin's College, Xavier College, St. Patrick's at Ballarat and the college at Bendigo. Where is the line to be drawn? It is an impossible exercise. If it is tried, every Protestant school will be prevented from getting State aid.

It is a step forward to take the matter away from politics. My party supports it because of that major objective. For the first time a necessary balance-sheet will be provided to show where the money is spent. That will eliminate all the nonsense about the swimming pools, mentioned by members of the Opposition, and about which they know nothing. This will be a tremendous challenge to the new Federal Government.

Mr. JONES {Melbourne).-The Bill provides equality of grants but one has to remember that the needs of the children to whom these equal grants are given are themselves inherently unequal. Honorable members on the Government side and the Leader of the Country Party should read Dr. Ian Hansen's recent book, Nor Secular, Nor Free, in which he examines the situation of six major public schools in Victoria.

3426 Educational [ASSEMBLY.] Grants Bi(l.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The honorable member should address his remarks to clause 2.

Mr. JONES.-I am addressing the Chair on the same clause as did the Leader of the Country Party.

The CHAIRMAN.-It is customary for the first speaker of each party to have a certain indulgence when speaking to clause 2. This indulgence was granted. The remaining speakers must speak to the clause.

Mr. DOUBE {Albert Park).-I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, and direct your attention to subclause (2) of clause 2, which provides-

In this Act, unless inconsistent with the context or subject matter, other words and expressions have the same respective meanings as they have, in relation to Victoria, in the Commonwealth Act.

I suggest that, unless one has the Commonwealth Act, it would be impossible to rule in the manner that you have. The whole essence of the Bill is that the old Victorian Act disappears and instead the Commonwealth terminology and expressions replace it. Having looked at the Commonwealth Act, I suggest that the honorable member is in order.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-I rise to a further point of order. You ruled, Mr. Chairman, that the first speaker was entitled to speak in general to the clause. The honorable member for Melbourne is the first speaker for the Opposition.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! As honorable members know, clause 2 is the definition clause. The honorable member for Melbourne should speak to clause 2.

Mr. JONES (Melbourne).-Clause 2 is related closely to the Commonwealth Act. The CommonwealthState Grants (Schools) Act provided for grants to schools on an equal basis but what was added to the base was not even. The operations of that Act provide for the situation at Geelong Grammar School.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! Clause 2 is a definitions clause. The honorable member for Melbourne will have an opp.ortunity to speak on this subject on another clause.

·Mr. JONES.-In that case, I will speak to clause 3.

The clause was agreed to. Clause 3 (Power to Minister to

make grants) .

Mr. JONES {Melbourne).-As Dr. Ian Hansen pointed out, Geelong Grammar School has a private hospital of its own, a flying club, a yacht squadron and an eighteen-hole golf course.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-Rubbish; it does not. Why don't you go down and have a look at the place?

Mr. JONES.-I suggest that the Leader of the Country Party should read Dr. Hansen's lengthy and detailed book.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDs.-Go down and have a look.

Mr. JONES.-! have driven past it often enough.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-Big deal!

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The honorable member for Melbourne should be heard without interjection.

Mr. JONES.-I regret that the Leader of the Country Party who regards himself as well-informed on Geelong Grammar School is possibly not so well informed about Kensington Primary School. The school does not have a golf course of its own ; in fact one could fit the Kensington Primary School with its 950 pupils in an area that would cover one hole on a golf course. The school does not have a hospital or a dental clinic. The Leader of the Country Party will be staggered to know that it does not have a yacht squadron! It will require many years under the Whitlam Government and some more under a Holding Government in this State to effect much

Educational (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Grants Bill. 3427

improvement. Many schools are dying of social malnut·rition. The physical plant is breaking down and teachers are demoralized.

There is a 50 per cent turnover of staff at the Flemington Girls' High School every year. That does not happen at Geelong Grammar School. Graziers' sons, not only from all over the State but from all over the Commonwealth, not to mention princes of the realm, attend the school. The Geelong Grammar School says, " We need State aid; if we do not get it, we will have to charge the students green fees on the golf course. If we do not get State aid, we will not be able to put new sails on the yachts. If we do not get State aid, we will not be able to afford to service the planes in the flying squadron". That is the reality of the situation. The principals of the State schools in the inner-metropolitan areas are saying, " Why cannot a little more money be afforded to increase the site areas "? The reply is, " We are terribly sorry but money is needed at Geelong Grammar and Scotch College ". This situation is intolerable to the poor.

The Leader of the Country Party suggested that if this rule is applied it will have a socially divisive effect because the Protestant schools will be cut out and only the Catholic schools will be concerned. I do not believe that is the intention. It is absurd to say that it is the intention of the Liberal Party or the Labor Party to cut out Protestant schools as such. It is an economic test, a reasonable test between the rich and the poor, the advantaged and the disadvantaged. I should have thought that the test could be easily applied both in the Melbourne area and in the country. Many people who live in rural areas are much disadvantaged and they need "inverse discrimination ". They need more assistance than others. The idea of applying a similar arithmetical formula to the rich child in the rich colleges and to the poor children in the poorer parochial schools is palpably absurd.

The same applies to grants for transport costs for pupils. There again the richest schools get the most. As Mr. Gordon Bryant, the Federal member for Wills says, what is given is "tyres for the Jaguars and petrol for the Rolls ". That is how it works. The school whi·ch gains the most is . Methodist Ladies College.

" Equality " is a term capable of many us.es. We are interested not so much in equality in spending but in the end result, and also equality at the beginning when chifdren ought to have equal chances in life. The difference in the Liberal view of equality is that it does not look at the cake but at the icing, so that so long as the icing is equal it does not matter what the surface of the cake is like. The surface of the icing is relatively unimportant to the Labor Party. I hope this Bill will be the last of its nature and that henceforth moneys will be al'located on the basis of need. Back in the seventeenth century John Locke argued that society ought to apply the test of " from each according to his capacity and to each according to his need ". It is the social philosophy supported by members on this side of the Chamber. We regard it as essential. We rejoice that in the next few years there will be a chance for the princip•le to be carried out.

Mr. DIXON (St. Kilda).-One of the interesting tests of the needs policy put forward by the Opposition is to consider how the people who would receive the most from the policy react. The representatives of the Catholic schools in this community reject the needs policy. The reason for the rejection is along the lines of the argument advanced by the Leader of the Country Party that to discriminate in terms of need vis-avis these schools is extremely difficult. There are all sorts of problems involved in attempting to cover schools on a purely economic basis. It is necessary to have the needs policy where it belongs, namely, . in the


Income Tax Assessment Act. The way to equalize opportunities between the people in the community is with progressive income tax laws. The policy which the Government is pursuing-that of making per capita grants throughout the State to children attending independent schools -is the correct policy.

The only aspect with which I disagree is the figure of 40 per cent. I believe the percentage ought to be increased considerably. In my view, whether children attend State schools or independent schools, they deserve the same financial support for education. I believe the question of making a grant of only 40 per cent, which is based on the cost of educating a child attending a State school, is discriminatory against independent schools. I look forward to the day when the figure of 40 per cent will be substantially increased as a percentage.

It would be possible to institute a system which would be far superior to that which the Government has adopted. That would be to make payments direct to families, or to parents, in the form of vouchers. Instead of making a payment to the school on behalf of the children attending the school, vouchers could be forwarded to parents who would then have the opportunity to decide for themselves whether to cash the vouchers at State schools or independent schools.

Mr. DOUBE (Albert Park).! rise to a point of order. As a limited time is allowed for this debate, the honorable member for St. Kilda, in pursuing his present line, is in no way dealing with the subject-matter of clause 3. As only five minutes remain, I ask that he desist.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The point of order is not upheld.

Mr. DIXON (St. Kilda).-The vouchers to which I refer could be made subject to tax. Every person

who received a voucher would be required to include the value of the voucher with his income tax return. The adoption of this system would be more in line with equality than what is proposed in the Bill.

I shall now comment on the points raised by the honorable members for Albert Park and Melbourne. The honorable member for Albert Park, I suggest, did no more than draw red herrings across the path. For example, he dealt with schools which have different numbers of children and schools which are drawn from the primary and the secondary sectors, and endeavoured to put forward as a logical argument that honorable members should accept a comparison based on the total amount spent on those schools. The honorable member for Melbourne, in his usual flamboyant style, chose two schools-Geelong Grammar School and Kensington Primary School. The point he so blithely neglected is that approximately 90 per cent of the moneys provided under this legislation will be provided for the poorer schools, which happen to be in the Catholic sector. I suggest that the honorable member was incorrect in trying to make a comparison between Geelong Grammar School and Kensington Primary School.

The CHAIRMAN (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The time allowed for the remaining stages of the Bill has expired.



LAND TAX BILL. The Order of the Day for the

resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill was read.

Land Tax [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3429

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 declare this Bill to be an urgent Bill, and I move-

That the Bill be considered an urgent Bill.

Approval of the motion being put was indicated by the required number of members rising in their places, as specified in Standing Order No. 78F.

The House divided ·on the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 40 Noes 26

Majority motion

for the 14

AYES. Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans



Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith


(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor

(Gippsland South) Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wheeler Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.


(Bellarine)

NOES.


(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis


Mr. Templeton



Tellers: Mr. Amos Mr. Broad.

PAIR.

Mr. Holding.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 move-


(a) for the remainder of the second-reading stage of the Bill, until 10 p.m. this day;

(b) for the remaining stages of the Bill, until 10.30 p.m. this day.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-Whilst there is som·e slight improvement in the Government's generosity in terms of time allow·ed fior the debate on this Bill's second reading, the fact that the s·econd-reading debate will continue until 10 p.m. and the rem·aining ·stages untH 10.30 p.m. illustrates that it is an important measure. Honorable members should be allowed to debate important measures of this nature. Although the Government ·may have relented a little-because of the mauling it took over the time limits on the previous Bill-the fact remains that if it wants to continue with this double standard on the unnecess'ary importance of legislation--

Mr. BILLING.-You said all this before.

Mr. WI'LKES.-For the honorable member's benefit, I intend to say it again, because he was too stupid to listen when I previous,ly 'addressed the House. We accept that this is important legislation. We have never varied in our attitude towards land tax legislation. It is always important. The honorable member for Sunshine will debate its merits. Suffice for me to say that debate on it should not be restricted. The Government has decided to extend debate at the second-reading stage until 10 p.m. Obviously the coalition is working better now. Members of the Country Party usually have a lot to say about land tax and the Government did not have the courage to restrict debate on this Bill in the same way that it restricted debate on the Educational Grants Bill. Members of the Country Party were not much interested in arguments about State aid for education, but land tax is different.

3430 Land "Tax [ASSEMBLY.] BilL ·

The Government is subject to pressures from all sorts of groups. It has been pushed into a corner. It has had to accede to pressure from one group and the end result is that this panic-stricken Government must apply the guillotine on no fewer than four occasions to get its legislation through the Parliament. There is no real reason why ·debate on this Bill should be completed this evening. The Premier will say that he must get it to another place, but another week is available for the Parliament to sit. If this Bill were debated to the full extent and went to another place on Thursday it could easily be debated there on Friday or next week. There is really no urgency on the ground that time is not available to Parliament to consider these measures. The urgency springs from the desire of Ministers and backbenchers of the Liberal Party to get away from the Parliament and to close it down as quickly as possible. Never mind about the legislation! It does not matter that it is important.

Mr. I. W. SMITH.---:-Why do you not be honest about this matter?

Mr. WILKES.-The Minister ·is a liar.

Mr. I. W. SMITH.-! object to that remark by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! Is the Minister taking a point of order? No point of order was taken by the Minister. The Chair will ask that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition retract that statement.

Mr. WILKES.-! withdraw it.

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-I rise to a point of order. The Minister for Youth and Recreation informed the House that he objected to the word used by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and asked that it be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER.-It has been with-drawn. ·

Mr. WILKES (Northcote).-The Government is bludgeoning this Bill through this House not because it has any real interest in Parliament. The opposite is the case. Honorable members opposite want to get away from Parliament as quickly as possible. They have been unable to conduct the affairs of this House properly since the session commenced. Hansard will pro.vide ample evidence of that. The incompetence of honorable members opposite has caught up with them and they now find themselves jammed because they have so many other engagements. The first things to be pushed aside are the proper prerogatives of Parliament. Today democratic Parliaments are under attack in most other countries. One would have thought this Government would be the first to attempt to preserve the democratic rights of a Parliament, particularly this Parliament.

From time to time members of the Government party have belly-ached about what ought to be done. A very important debate is being restricted by the Government. It is a disgrace. The debate on the Address-in-Reply to the Governor's Speech is listed at the bottom of the Notice Paper. If honorable members opposite want to adhere to the principles about which they have spoken they have to acknowledge that this is the only place in which these questions can be fully debated. It is not the fault of the Opposition that this debate has come on today. The Opposition asked for a normal adjournment but its request was not acceded to because of the incompetence of the Government. If the Premier cannot control his supporters more efficiently he should not attempt to deprive honorable members of the Opposition of the right to express their views in a debate on land tax that can affect not one but hundreds of constituents. Honorable members opposite should be honest with their constituents and should tell them that this lazy G;_ov~rt}me:r:tt would not allow them to discuss

Land Tax [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] -Bill. 343l

these i~portant measures that affect their pockets. Back-benchers of the Liberal Party could not care less about these issues.

Mr. DouBE.-Half of them will not be here in the near future.

Mr. WILKES.-! am not referring to that point. I am merely saying that it is high time that the Government ceased stifling proper debate in this Chamber. If it continues this practice the importance in the community not only of honorable members opposite but of Parliament will diminish. That is the real tragedy. Opposition members are not concerned about what happens to the Liberal Party. We are concerned about Parliament. If we are to be deprived of the right freely to debate these measures it will be a retrograde step and the Government must accept full responsibility for its actions.

The House divided on the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 40 Noes

Majority

motion

for

26

the

14

AYES.




Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter r 1~. Scanlan Mr. Smith


(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor



(Bellarine)


(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lewis


Mr. Templeton

NOES.




PAIR. Mr. Holding.

The debate (adjourned from November 22) on the motion of Mr. Hamer (Premier and Treasurer) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine).The Opposition proposes an amendment to this Bill. I move-

That all the words after "That" be omitted with the view of inserting-

"this Bill be withdrawn and a new Bill introduced with a view to declaring the rates of land tax and exempting land from the payment of land tax where-

(a) such land is owned and is used or is incidental to the use of other land by an approved decentralized industry within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958;

(b) such land-(i) is owned and is used for primary production by a natural person; or (ii) is owned by an exempt proprietary company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1961 that is incorporated in Victoria all the members of which are related by blood or marriage-and is used for primary production by a member of the company. Provided that the income of the person or company is derived to the extent of at least 80 per centum from carrying on the business of primary production on the land. And providing further that in determining the income of a person or company for such purposes any income earned as a result of employment undertaken by the pei"Son or any member of the company on behalf of the company because of a material reduction in the income of the person or company due to temporary economic seasonal or other. factors shall be disregarded.

3432 Land Tax [ASSEMBLY.] Bill.

I apologize to the Treasurer and the House for the lack of copies of the Opposition's amendment. This is not the responsibility of the Clerk but the Opposition.

The reasons for the amendment are to be found originally in the policy speech of the then Premier and Treasurer, Sir Henry Bolte, in 1970. On 12th May, 1970, on the subject of land tax, the former Treasurer stated-

We are aware that revaluation will come into effect throughout the metropolitan area within the next twelve months.

So we will substantially increase the present exemption to prevent, as far as possible, people who are not paying land tax becoming involved.

At th-e same time we will 'amend the land Tax scale so that present assessments are not unduly affected.

The Treasurer carried his promise forward to his Budget, and on 19th November, 1970, and repeated it in his second-reading speech on the Land Tax Bill. I shall quote as briefly as possible because of the time restrictions on the debate and merely to give the background of the Opposition's point of view. At page 2202 of volume 300 of Hansard, the Treasurer is reported to have said-

The main purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the Budget promise to review the level of exemption from land tax.

For 1970, land tax was assessed upon the unimproved capital value made by the commissioner unless the new municipal valuation was lower.

The honorable gentleman also said-

Examination of the new municipal valuations disclose that there are considerable variations in the differences between the commissioner's valuations and municipal valuations. It is therefore impossible to ensure that all owners will not have their liability to land tax affected by the use of municipal valuations. However it is in every way desirable that municipal valuations should now be adopted for land tax purposes to avoid anomalies and misunderstandings that arise from separate and different valuations.

The Treasurer further stated-So that the greatest number of owners

practicable should not . have their tax increased and so that at the same time there

Mr. Lovegrove.

should be no serious loss of revenue, it has been determined that the exemption level should be increased from $6,000 to $9,000. This increase will result in the exemption from land tax for 1971 of 60,000 property owners, who would have otherwise been liable. The number is considerable and in-· eludes those who would have been brought in and those who were in and will now be exempted. By tapering the ceiling to $13,500 approximately another 20,000 owners will receive some concession.

The Treasurer's remarks referred specifically to sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Land Tax Act which deals with land or lands not used for primary production. Again, in the interests of brevity, I shall not read the provision qut merely refer honourable members to it.

The Treasurer made one other point, as follows:-

It is intended that the provisions of the Bill, which relate to the taxation of leased land of otherwise exempt owners and to the· special land tax, will not come into operation for two years, in order that the owners of such land will have reasonable notice of their actual or potential liability. It is fair that they should be warned and be able to prepare for the day when they will be liable for land tax. The relevant provisions will come into operation upon proclamation by the Governor in Council.

The next observation I wish to make as representing the Opposition's point of view-in addition to the view expressed in the amend.ment which I have moved-is that the figures in sub-section (2) of section 7 which were altered by the 1970 amendment should be further altered by the Government and that cogent reasons exist for amending the present amounts in that subsection from $9,000 to $13,500 and from $13,500 to $20,250, a 50 per cent increase. In the Land Tax Bill 1970 the amounts were increased from $6,000 to $9,000 and from $9,000 to $13,500-a 50 per cent increase. To protect the interests of the proprie-. tors of land not used for primary pro-· duction, because of the mounting inflation in the community and for much the same reasons as in 1970 and certain other reasons, the Opposition suggests to the Government that the figure of $9,000 should be increased by 50 per cent to $13,500 and that the


figure of $13,500 should be raised to $20,250. In view of the circumstances of the debate, it is not proposed to seek a message from the Governor but to make that suggestion to the Government in the second-reading debate and to support it with a minimum of evidence.

Firstly, in regard not to the amendment, to which I shall refer later, but to the proposal to increase the figures in sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act in pursuance of the principle adopted by the former Treasurer in 1970, I refer to the fact that land tax receipts over the past five years have progressively increased and, having regard to the Estimates for the current financial year there will have been over the past six years a 50 per cent increase in land tax receipts, despite the altered rates in 1970. The Estimates of the Receipts and Payments of the Consolidated Fund for the years 1966-67 to 1972-73 reveal that the receipts from land tax were as follows: -

1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70 1970-71 1971-72 1972-73

$ 21,132,065 20,976,256 21,838,970 22,436,374 28,442,372 29,105,376 30,000,000 (estimated)

If one includes the estimate for the current financial year, in the past five years there has been a 50 per cent increase from $20 million to $30 million in land tax receipts. This increase reflects almost in its entirety the increase in land prices and the increase in valuations.

To illustrate the increase in land prices, I point out that in the Age of 21st June, 1972, the president of the Land Development Conference, Mr. A. Williams, forecast that land values would increase by up to 25 per cent during the next two years. I quote this opinion in support of the Opposition's suggestion that the figures contained in sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act should be upgraded by 50 per cent. Mr. Williams predicted that by 1974 the minimum prices for

a medium sized block of land in metropolitan Melbourne would be about $6,000. He said-

An average medium priced lot on a new subdivision will increase from about $5,055 this year to about $8,000 by the end of 1974.


Mr. LOVEGROVE.-Before the suspension of the sitting I suggested that sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Land Tax Act should be amended to bring the figures into line with the principles enunciated by the former Premier in his policy speech in 1970 and in the second-reading speech on the Land Tax Bill of that year. To support the suggestion put forward by the Opposition, I supplied evidence of increases in land prices and values. In the Age of 21st June, 1972, Mr. Williams, the president of the Land Development Conference, predicted that by 1974 "medium priced " sewered lots of land would cost: In Deer Park and St. Albans, $6,200; in Tuliamarine, $6,500; in Lalor and Epping, about $6,250; in Bundoora, $7,750; in Greensborough, Eltham, Frankston, Mulgrave and Dandenong, $8,250; and in Doncaster, $10,750.

I quote those predicted prices for land within the next two years in support of the suggestion that subsection (2) of section 7 of the Land Tax Act should be amended to alter the figure of "$9,000 " to "$13,500 " and the figure of "$13,500" to " $20,250 ". This is a 50 per cent increase based upon the same anticipations this year which the former Premier used in support of the previous alteration of the figures in the Land Tax Bill 1970. One further quote is from the acting chairman of the Victorian Housing Commission, who is reported in the Age of 26th July, 1972, as having stated, "We are now paying nearly double the price of two years ago for land ".

In further support of the suggestion to which I have just referred, and also the general proposition embodied in the amendment which I have moved, I refer to the fact that in the past ten years there has been an enormous increase in property valuations in the


metropolitan area. I take as a sample the years from 1962 to 1972 and I quote the valuations for houses in line with the fact that there have been revaluations under the Land Valuation Act in 1963-64, in 1967-68 and in 1972-73, the last valuation of which will be the reason for alterations in rates during this financial year. I ask the Leader of the House for leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which I have prepared after I have read it. Is leave granted?

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-! do not think it is a very good practice for much incorporation in Hansard. I should like to see the table.

Mr. LOVEGROVE.-! will read it, Sir.

The SPEAKER.-Having seen the table, in the circumstances I think it is quite acceptable.

Leave was granted and the table was as follows:-

TABLE SHOWING VALUATION INCREASES 1962-1972 IN CITY OF SUNSHINE.

Property Year u.c.v. C.I.V. N.A.V.

$ $ $ 24 Martin Street, brick veneer, 18·7 squares, built 1940 1962 3,000 13,120 656*

1964 4,400 13,120 656 1968. 6,280 17,580 879 1972 8,150 17,850 893

25 Middle Road, weatherboard, 12 squares, built 1939 1962 2,320 7,520 376 1964 3,900 7,520 376 1968 5,500 10,180 509 1972 7,200 12,700 635

31 Middle Road, brick veneer, 12 squares, built 1962 1962 2,200 1964 3,800 11,220 566 1968 5,300 14,700 735 1972 6,800 16,360 818

• As approved by the Valuer-General.

Mr. LOVEGROVE.-The properties listed in the table are within my electorate and are situated in the City of Sunshine. The table shows the valuation increases from 1962 to 1972, for unimproved capital value, capital improved value and net annual value for the three properties listed. Honorable members will note that the unimproved capital value of the first property jumped in ten years from $3,000 to $8,150; that the unimproved capital value of the second property jumped in ten years from $2,320 to $7,200; and that the unimproved capital value of the third property increased from $2,200 to $6,800. For the third property, I have been unable to provide figures for capital improved value and net annual value for 1962, the year in which the house was erected. Similar increases are occurring in Footscray and Altona within my electorate.

To quote an additional example, I refer to the Footscray Mail of 29th November of this year in relation to a recent revaluation of all properties in the City of Footscray. It states-

A brick veneer home worth $12,000 before the revaluation was paying about $102. Assuming that the property's value went up to $14,000, the new rate bill would be about $119-a rise of $17 (almost 17 per cent).

I thank the House for permitting me to include in Hansard the table of valuation increases in the City of Sunshine, because it broadly represents the increases in valuation which are taking place in every part of the metropolitan area.

I desire to make two further observations. Firstly, I refer to a statement made by the former Premier, Sir Henry Bolte, in 1970, to which reference has subsequently been made by the present Premier.

Land Tax (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. ·, 3435

· In discussing the Land Tax Bill, on 19th November, 1970, Sir Henry said, and · I quote from page 2203 of Hansard- ·

It is intended that the provisions of the Bill, which relate to the taxation of leased land of otherwise exempt owners and to the special land tax, will not come into operation for two years, in order that the owners of such land will have reasonable notice of their actual or potential liability. It is fair that they should be warned and be able to prepare for the day when they will be liable for land tax. The relevant provisions will come into operation upon proclamation by the Governor in Council.

I now refer to a statement made by the present Premier concerning land tax which appears at page 2365 of Hansard of 22nd November, 1972. The Premier referred to the statement of Sir Henry Bolte which I have quoted, and added-

Subsequently, the Government invited interested parties to present to it any information they desired to submit on the effect of the proposed changes. An undertaking was given that, if anomalies were found to exist in the proposed new exemption provisions, any modification necessary would be the subject of a·mending legislation before the Act came into operation.

The Premier also said-A good deal of information has been sub

mitted to the Government on behalf of interested parties, particularly the churches and municipalities. This information has been referred to an inter-departmental committee whose job it will be to bring forward recommendations to the Government.

The Premier said that, in the meantime, nothing would be done in regard to taxing farmers' properties.

The Opposition is not opposed to what the Government has done about an investigation into church and other properties which were previously exempted from tax and which now, when the inter-departmental inquiry has been completed, will be taxed ; but I direct the Government's attention to the fact that on 28th November, 1967, the Statute Law Revision Committee presented a report concerning property exempt from municipal rating and submitted minutes of evidence. On page 6 of the report the committee listed the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the or-

ganizations which owned the properties concerned. On page 16, it dealt with the question of public worship in relation to those properties; on page 17, it dealt with church halls ; on page 18, it dealt with residences and places of training for ministers of religion. On page 19 it dealt at considerable length, and with precision and detail, with the interpretations made by courts of the words " charitable purposes", and it pointed out that in a number of cases-and I shall not quote them-the interpretations so widened the definition and scope of those words that there could be no doubt that the meaning given to them far exceeded the expectation of the Parliament which originally inserted them in the Local Government Act. At page 20, the committee pointed out that the Parliament had not perceived the effect of these court decisions.

Finally, the report pointed outand I say this with respect to my Parliamentary colleagues on the Statute Law Revision Committee-that any decisions in this matter were a question of Government policy. For that reason, the Statute Law Revision Committee made no recommendations.

In concluding my remarks concerning the Premier's second-reading speech and Sir Henry Bolte's intentions, I suggest that the deliberations and the minutes of the Statute Law Revision Committee which are in the possession of the Govern.ment should be made available to the inter-departmental committee. They will help that body to reach a reasoned decision.

I now refer to the amendment which has been proposed by the Opposition and which I recited to the House at the beginning of my speech. An amendment, partly similar, was proposed by · the Leader of the Opposition when the Land Tax Bill was debated in 1971 The measure was debated at some length and contributions were made to the debate by all parties and, without quoting the Opposition's case, I refer to the statement which was

3436 Land Tax [A~SEMBLY.] Bill.

made by the Leader of the Opposition on 21st October, 1971, which appears at page 1731 of Hansard.

I point out that, in its simplified form, as submitted by the Opposition, the amendment represents an endeavour not only to provide reasonable incentives for certain classes of the rural population, but also to give security to sections of the rural population which may be suffering deprivation as a result of an economic crisis in rural areas and general conditions of deprivation caused by the Commonwealth Liberal Government. It is designed to conserve for sections of the rural population which are genuinely interested in primary production and which derive the bulk of their income from it the same rights as those which are conserved for other sections of the community.

The Premier and Treasurer in his Budget speech referred optimistically to the improvement which had taken place in rural areas and, before the last Federal election, the Commonwealth Government painted a glowing picture of the rural scene. It was said that miracles had taken place in the recovery of export markets and in the rural economy, and it was suggested that there would be no reason for proposals of the nature contained in the Opposition's proposed amendment to this Bill.

Since then, economists of various descriptions analysed the rural economy, and a good deal of optimism was engendered. I do not know whether that is justified, but, after allowing for the possibilities that I have enumerated, and after making subtractions from the great expectations which have been expressed on behalf of farmers who have suffered as a result of a crisis in the rural economy and from droughts and floods in the past two years, the Opposition is of the view that the acceptance of the amendment it proposes is the best way in which to secure for country people that share of our national security which we regard as being their birthright and their just due.

Mr. Lovegrove.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-The Country Party is in sympathy with the amendment moved by the Opposition, but, for various reasons, it considers that it is impractical. In view of that, I move-

That the amendment be amended by the omission of all the words and expressions after the word " land ", where second occurring, and the insertion of the expression " (other than land in the Port Phillip Area as defined in the Electoral Provinces and Districts Act 1965) from the payment of land tax".

This is a simple amendment which the Country Party has proposed in previous years. It has the effect of excluding from the payment of land tax all land outside the Port Phillip district. It is better than the amendment pr·oposed by the Opposition, because it is straightforward and will be easy to administer. The Government will know where it is going.

If the Opposition were in Government and had to administer the conditions created by its own amendment, it would find it impracticable for the Commissioner of Land Tax to do it. He would have to investigate the affairs of every primary producer and decide whether he was having a bad run on his farm. Often, a primary producer could be doing quite well but earning nothing from his property in a particular year. It is not my concern to criticize the amendment proposed by the Opposition. If the Country Party's amendment is defeated, its .members will vote for the Opposition's amendment, because it represents an over-all improvement on the present position. I am dis·appointed that members of the Opposition cannot see their way clear to support the Country Party's amendment. They indicated on a previous occasion that if they had been given notice they would have been sympathetic towards a similar amendment.

The Government has made great play about and .many statements on how keen it is to help decentralization. It has become the " in " policy


and the Government has indicated in other ways, such as by pay-roll tax concessions, how it is interested in helping country industries. If the Government is sincere and wants to foster decentralization, and if it wants more people to live and work outside the Melbourne metropolitan area, it has the opportunity of assisting that movement of population by agreeing to the amendment that I have moved. Whether a person lives in the country depends to a large extent on the monetary incentives that are available. That is one aspect that the Government has under its control. It is purely in the hands of the Victorian Government whether land tax will be levied and the rate at which it will be levied. If the Government does not give relief from land tax to residents of country Victoria the Government must answer to the people in due course because it means that the Government is not prepared to give an incentive to those industries which are eager to move to the country.

Fundamentally, land tax is a bad tax, it is unfair because it is not equitably shared by the community. Those who have to use land to earn an income have to pay a special tax and those who for various reasons do not have to own land to earn their income escape the tax completely. A comparison could be made between land tax and municipal rates which are paid by those unfortunate enough to own land. People who own land pay both land tax and municipal rates, but the people who do not own land, such as the young, receive benefits for which they do not contribute.

Another unfair thing about land tax is that it is based on municipal valuations which are often subject to sharp increases. In Shepparton they have increased by as much as 300 to 500 per cent in one year. The increases are not noticed at the time by the person paying his municipal rates because the rate in the $1 is reduced and the actual municipal rate acc'Ount is only mar-

ginally higher than in the previous year. However, the la·ndowner gets a shock when his land tax assessment arrives and the amount he has to pay is perhaps four times higher than it was the previous year.

I have made the point on a previous occasion that ratepayers should be warned when they get their municipal rate notices that their land valuation has been increased and that unless they appeal within a certain time they will lose their right of appeal. By the time they get their land tax assessment the damage has been done and they have to wait for another year before they can appeal.

Mr. WILKES.-There are not m·any successful appeals.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-That is another matter. But a person who, through ignorance, does not appeal is placed at ·a disadvantage. I have brought this matter to the attention of the previous Treasurer and I now bring it to the attention of the present Treasurer.

Mr. KIRKWOOD.-Did the Leader of the Country Party support the legislation which provided for revaluations every three years?

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-There has to be a revaluation from time to time, whether it be three years or five years. Some areas progress and others do not. When there has been a revaluation the person receiving the rate notice should be warned there and then that his land tax assessment will be based on that valuation, even though he will not receive his land tax assessment f.or some months. Although his rates increase only marginally he will get a tremendous shock when he receives his land tax assessment. If I can impress upon the Treasurer the need to take steps to correct this situation I shall have achieved something tonight. Surely a person should be warned that his land tax assessment will increase considerably.

I support the sentiments expressed by the honorable member for Sunshine that the minimum amount on

3438 Land Tax [ASSEMBLY.] . Bill.

which land tax is assessed should be reconsidered, because in these days of inflationary tendencies it is all very well to put up wages and to pass on costs, but at the same time concessions should be considered. Under the circumstances the $9,000 exemption becomes unrealistic. It was never the intention in the early years that land tax should be assessed on every block of land on which a home was erected. If a person owned a block of land with a normal home on it, he was exempted from land tax. He had to own two blocks of land before he was assessed for land tax. Now one home on an ordinary suburban block is assessed for land tax because of the lower exemption level. This should be reviewed because it is completely unrealistic.

The Government will have to provide more incentives if it is to foster decentralization. If the Government rejects my amendment, and I expect that it will, I ask it to undertake a survey in Victoria to ascertain how much land tax is collected outside the Port Phillip area, who bears the burden of that land tax and whether the Government could go part of the way ~awards exempting a certain type of mdustry. The policy of the Country Party has always been that a line should be drawn somewhere. Once ?ne type of industry is exempted all mdustry must be exempted. Perhaps the Government does not accept this philosophy, and I can understand th~t, but surely it does not adopt the philosophy that no concessions should be ~ranted. A review of land tax m country Victoria should be n:tade with a view to making concesSl?ns .and giving incentives to industnes. m country areas. Perhaps conc~sswns could be given to new industnes for ~ specific period, or they could be given to decentralized industries. This is a matter for argument.

Land tax is a bad tax but it is one of the few methods of taxation that is available to the State Government to enable it to collect revenue. Members of the Country Party ask that the Government gives consideration

Mr. Ross-Edwards.

to the amendment with a. view to encouraging decentralization in- . Vic· tori a.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Op· position) .-I have listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Country Party on his amendment. There is a difference between the amendment moved by the Leader of the Country Party and the amendment moved by the honorable member for Sunshine. Land tax, like any other tax, could be a viable, fiscal method not only for collecting revenue but also f.or accelerating growth and development of certain areas of the country. To the extent to which exemptions are granted, it could provide a fiscal stimulus to those sections of the economy which, as a matter of Government philoso· phy and economic policy, ought to receive that stimulus and that encouragement. The difference that exists between the Opposition and the Country Party on this is that members of the Opposition are not prepared to draw the line at the Port Phillip area. Members of the Opposition say that certain groups in the community, as economic units, are more entitled to receive the benefit of exemption from land tax than are other groups. Therefore, our amendment is not based on a geographic limit, as is the amendment moved by the Leader of the Country Party.

It is all very well f.or the Leader of the Country Party to say that if a Labor Government were in office it may have some difficulty in interpreting the amendment. I do not agree with that statement. The Labor Party is concerned to provide a genuine ~xemption and genuine assistance to the primary producer. There are many primary producers in the Port Phillip area and it seems fundamentally unjust that a primary producer in the area should pay land tax and a primary producer outside that area should not. I appreciate the problems that . exist in the Port Phillip area and the problem of where to draw the line when exemptions are granted.

Land Tax (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3439

The Labor Party faced up to the problem by deciding that exemption should be granted to an economic group rather than according to a geographic limit because in the long term a more just result is obtained. Therefore, members of the Labor Party say that the first people who ought to be granted exemptions are genuine primary producers. It is also our philosophy that the time has arrived in Victoria when an assessment should be made between the primary producer whose sole source of income is primary production and what is generally known as the Collins Street farmer. The Leader of the Country Party and others who live in country areas know that there are many sections of the community who regard farming and primary production as a hobby, as a sideline and as an excellent taxation dodge.

If one goes to Mildura one is always received by a deputation of farmers engaged in citrus production who are deeply concerned about the future of their industry because large companies with considerable financial backing are moving into citrus production and there is no effective control over the future of the industry. A small farmer whose prime source of income is primary production becomes concerned because the market is being inundated by large corporate structures which by sheer size, productive capacity and economic strength can lower the cost of primary production and jeopardize the whole structure of the industry.

Therefore, it is the policy of the Labor Party that if land tax is to be used as an incentive to primary production the incentive must first go to those farmers within the community who are legitimate farmers. There is an overwhelming case for this, given the problems that confront and bedevil small farmers. Wherever one goes throughout Victoria one finds that small farmers are in .considerable economic difficulties.

Mr. BoRTHWICK.-They are not paying land tax now.

Mr~ HOLDING.-! realize that. The Opposition is concerned to see that the benefit which flows to the genuine primary producer does not flow to the lawyer, the doctor, or the family company structure engaged in farming as an exercise in tax dodging.

Mr. BURGIN .-It is a pity that the Opposition's amendment did not say so.

Mr. HOLDING.-If the honorable member could read-! realize his difficulties in that regard-he would-

Mr. BuRGIN .-1 shall put on my glasses.

Mr. HOLDING.-! suggest that the honorable gentleman should put on his glasses and read slowly so that he may understand that the amendment proposes exactly what I have said. Consideration must be given to the various groups. The first aspect of the amendment is that it proposes that decentralized industry should be exempt. If the Government is serious about providing incentives for decentralized industry, clearly this is one section which should be entitled to an exemption.

Mr. HAYES.-But Mr. Whitlam intends to reimpo·se land tax.

Mr. HOLDING.-The honorable member is in confusion. Because he has not the latest directive from Bob Santamaria he does not know whether he is Arthur or Martha. It is terrible for an honorable member to be hanging on news broadcasts from Mr. Santamaria to know what policy he is supporting. I suggest that the honorable member should go away and entertain himself with some of the pornography that Senator Little " flogs " about the place-pornography which has been criticized by Senator Gair.

Mr. SCANLAN .-I hope all that is in Hansard.

Mr. HOLDING.-! make no apology for what I . have said.

The . DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The honorable member will address the Chair.


Mr. HOLDING.-! am happy to repeat my remark so that it will be enshrined in Hansard. Sen a tor Little has been clearly exposed as the political hypocrite that he is. He has lied to his own supporters.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands) .-I raise a point of order. I suggest that the honorable member should be directed to confine his remarks to the measure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER.-The point of order is upheld. The honorable member will address the Chair and will confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-I accept that it was perfectly proper to take the point of order. I shall be happy to deal with Senator Little's aberrations at some other time. If one looks at the amendment proposed by the honorable .member for Sunshine one sees that it proposes the complete exemption of land used by an approved decentralized industry. That should commend itself to the Treasurer if he is concerned, as he says he is, to promote and accelerate the growth of decentralized industry.

The second aspect is more complex and is designed primarily to deal with primary production by the single-unit farmer. There are many farmers who, for reasons which are prudent and proper in their arrangements, become companies for the purpose of handling problems related to probate and for other reasons. Thev also are exempt because of the fam'ily company structure. On the last occasion when the Opposition proposed an amendment of this kind it was subject to this perfectly legitimate criticism: What occurs to the farmer who is establishing his farm, or who as a young man has gone on the land and, while improving the property, has to take all sorts of other jobs to supplement his income? That is the third group envisaged in this amendment. It is proposed that he also should benefit.

As the honorable member for _Portland will be aware, during the period when sheep sales had fallen, if one went to the Portland meat works one found it full of farmers who were earning an income while their wives helped to maintain the farm on which they worked at the weekend. That group also is envisaged in the amendment and is completely protected.

It seems to Opposition members that what the amendment attempts to achieve is a very important and proper differentiation which sooner or later will have to be made in the interests of all primary producers. I refer to the difference between what might be described as a legitimate farmer, whether on a large or small scale, who finds himself in a situation where, increasingly, he is involved in competition with corporate structures or individuals to whom farming is just a sideline. It does not make any difference how much backing one has once the quota has been established, but it makes a difference to the small farmer.

Therefore, the amendment is de~ signed to benefit decentralized industry, the individual farmer, the small farmer, the large farmer, the farmer with a company structure and those genuine sections of primary production which we believe should be the recipients of an exemption of this kind. I know of no logical reason why a large company based in Melbourne which decides to involve itself in primary production in certain parts of the State should be entitled to receive the same deductions and the same benefits as the ordinary primary producer.

For those reasons we believe, as a matter of philosophy, that the amendment proposed by the honorable .member for Sunshine has much more to: commend it than the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Country Party. However, we do not feel so churlish about the amendment proposed by the Country Party that we would vote against it. We


believe that although it does not express the philosophy that we would be concerned to express, and although it has its limitations, if we had to make a choice between it and no amendment, clearly we would support it. I hope, in turn, that the Leader of the Country Party will find that his amendment is unacceptable, and that for precisely the same kind of reason the Country Party will support our amendment.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-I propose to indicate the attitude of the Government to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Sunshine and the amendment to the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Country Party. I remind the House that this is a Bill to fix land tax rates for the calendar year 1973. For this reason it is impracticable, even if it were otherwise desirable, to withdraw it and at this stage to substitute another Bill with vastly different provisions. The Government does not propo·se to do that.

However, it is possible to be more than sympathetic with some of the statements, claims and remarks made by honorable members in the course of this debate. I refer particularly to the concern expressed by the honorable member for Sunshine about the increasing valuations which threaten to bring into the land tax field people who were exempted under raised exemptions of several years ago or who have never been in that field. The Government is examining this rise in valuations to see where justice lies. In due course the Government will be bringing to Parliament proposals to correct that position.

The proposals with which I am now dealing, and which are enshrined in the amendment, are impracticable as they stand. The amendment moved by the Opposition does two things. The first part seeks to exempt land used by an approved decentralized industry. I do not believe that the House will under-estimate the desire of the

Government to encourage decentralized industry. However, it is important to use the weapons of taxation to the very best advantage. What I undertake to the House-indeed, it is under way already-is a survey of land tax paid by approved decentralized industry to find out precisely what part it plays in the cost structure, how much is involved and what contribution could be made if there were any modification to the obligation. I consider this to be an important element, but I do not believe that any member of this House at present knows what the situation is, how much is paid or what effect it might have.

Mr. Ross-EowARDs.-The House should have that information.

Mr. HAMER.-It is being coUected and I believe it to be a necessary part of a scheme to find out how best to assist decentralization. The second part of the amendment is utterly impracticable. As I understand it, it seeks to bring back into the tax field a number of people and companies engaged in primary production who were exempted under the amendments to the Land Tax Act brought in by this Government several years ago. It seeks to bring them back into the field under what could be described as a variable formula, one which varies from year to year and which, as the Leader of the Country Party indicated, requires the Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax to investigate the affairs of private companies or private people to determine whether they are in the category of earning 80 per cent or more of their income from primary production.

The amendment moved by the Leader of the Country Party at least has the virtue of simplicity. The amendment moved by the Opposition has every kind of complication. It means that land would attract land tax one year but not the next. It would involve a vast bureaucratic machine, equivalent to something like the income tax branch, to investigate the financial situation of primary

3442 Land·-Tax [ASSEMBLY.] · Bill.

producers and to determine whether they were liable to land tax. There are other objections which the Minister of Lands may care to elaborate. I do not believe we should incorporate into this Land Tax Bill anything so complicated as this proposed formula. There may be other ways of penalizing the Collins Street farmer or of compensating the genuine primary producer against inroads from people whose main interest is otherwise than in primary production, but I do not believe this amendment would perform this task. I consider that it would be an immense complication. For those reasons the Government will reject the amendment, although it has some sympathy with some of the ideas behind it.

The amendment moved by the Leader of the Country Party has the virtue of simplicity, but it also suffers from the defect that it imposes a discrimination between people living within a certain boundary, namely, the Port Phillip area, and those outside it.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDS.-It is hard to get away from that.

Mr. HAMER.-I agree with the honorable member, but it has this disability: I believe the amendment attracts the solid objection that people living on one side of the line will pay land tax and people on the other side will not pay it, although they may be engaged in similar occupations and may be putting their land to a similar use.

By and large I believe that taxation should be levied uniformly. If exemptions are to be granted they should be in accordance with policies which are acceptable to the Parliament and are designed to achieve certain results. The exemptions which already apply to land tax are directed to primary production. There is a complete exemption of land tax on land used for primary production. The whole purpose of that exemption was to encourage people to retain their land by making

it of advantage to them to engage in primary production, to compensate to some extent for the fact that land values are so high and returns from the land so low. For these reasons and because of other burdens borne by primary producers it was decided that they should not be required to pay land tax.

These were the bases of the exemptions which I believe were directed to a social and economic objective. That could not be said of the amendment proposed by the Country Party on this occasion. It is discriminatory. It simply exempts all land outside a certain area from any form of land tax-no matter how wealthy the occupant of that land, no matter whether it is operated by a big or small company, by a private person or by a firm. The proposition is discriminatory and is not directed towards any objective, any public policy or any Government policy, of which anyone can approve.

To most people land tax is objectionable. It is a tax on capital and it bears no relationship to ability to pay. The tragedy is that most of the taxes available to State Governments, such as probate duty, land tax and stamp duty, are in that category. They have no regard to the profitability of an enterprise. Land tax is worth about $30 million to the State Budget and until someone suggests an alternative source of income or a means of cutting down on Government expenditure to that extent, the State must retain land tax. Blanket exemptions which bear no relationship to the objectives of the Government should not be granted. That is the objection to the amendment moved by the Leader of the Country Party. I know that he. moved a similar amendment lasf year and the year before.

Mr. Ross-Enw ARDs.-And will do so again next year.

Mr. HAMER.-That does not improve its quality or logic, and it will be consistently rejected, not because

lAnd Tax [12 DECE.MBER, ~972.] Bill. 3443

the Government is not anxious to benefit people-especially th?se engaged in primary production or decentralized industry-but because it is discriminatory in its nature. It is simply a blanket exempt!on .bY area which is unjust in its application and unjustifiable in its objective. For those reasons the Government rejects the two amendments.

I finish as I began by saying that there are certain aspects of land tax which require investigation. They relate to exemptions and levels of valuation and to any possible means of further encouraging decentralization of industry. The Government proposes that a survey on this subject will be carried out in the near future.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-One is amused at the way in which the Premier and Treasurer uses the word " logic ". If one were to look for the logic in the honorable gentleman's argument, one would have to look very deeply indeed. The very fact that the Government has already announced certain proposals to reduce the population growth of the metropolitan area alone would lead the Committee to believe that the Government would use some of its fiscal powers to bring about a more even distribution of population within Victoria.

Over a period of many years expert committees have argued that the best way to bring about decentralization is for Governments, both Federal and State, to use their fiscal powers and perhaps methods of taxation whereby industries and taxpayers in overcrowded metropolitan areas were taxed, and industries and taxpayers in country or regional areas were not taxed as much or not taxed at all. In fact, a Bill, providing for pay-roll tax rebates, which will be debated later today, applies that principle.

The two amendments before the House are in very much the same terms. As has already been explained by the Leader of the Opposition, the amendment moved by the

honorable member for Sunshine is in conformity with the over-~11 philosophy of the Labor Party . In its approach to primary produ~ti~n and those primary. produc~rs . within Victoria who denve their Income from that source. The amendment refers to decentralized industry within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. That section is itself discriminatory. The Leader of the Country Party suggested, in relation ~o. his amendment, that persons living on _o~e side of the road in the Port Phillip area would not be subject to I3:nd tax and persons on the . other si.de would be. The same principle applies under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. There must be a dividing line somewhere ; that cannot be avoided.

The Government stands condemned. It is no excuse ~or. th.e Treasurer to state that he IS mstituting a survey to determine how much land tax is paid by approved decentralized industries. On t~e honorable gentleman's own admission, similar amendments have been placed before the House for the past three years. With all the ballyhoo about decentralization one could be excused for believing that the survey should have been conducted much earlier.

When we speak of decentralized industries, we are not speaking of thousands of industries throughout Victoria · at the most we are speaking of 5oo industries which have been approved by the Minister . for State Development and Decentralization to obtain certain benefits under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act and others which relate to incentives and concessions that the Government gives and makes. It is not a mammoth task. U is not too late for the Government to withdraw the Bill and examine the proposals put forward by the honorable member for Sunshine and the Leader of the Country Party, and to determine very quickly how much land tax is already being paid by approved dencentralized industries.


If the Government is sincere let it show its sincerity now. Peopie in the country are sick and tired of promises from the Government during election campaigning when members of the Government party go through the countryside saying that the Government will adopt decentralization measures because when it has an opportunity of doing something it does not take those measures. I urge the Premier to re-examine his remarks and to accept the amendment of the honorable member for Sunshine which will ultimately lead to a better distribution of population in the State.

Until the survey is undertaken one will not know just how much money is involved, but in speaking of the future growth of the metropolitan area, one is speaking not of millions of dollars but of thousands of millions of dollars. It has already been estimated by experts and regional planners that the cost of settling each additional resident in country Victoria is only 75 per cent of the cost of settling a resident in the metropolis. The saving which would be effected by doing that over a period of years would more than compensate the Government for any loss of revenue which resulted from granting concessions to approved decentralized industries, or the concessions suggested by the Leader of the Country Party. I urge the Government to reconsider its decision.

Mr. BORTHWICK (Minister of Lands).-The last time the Opposition put forward an amendment along these lines dealing with rural land I had something to say.

Mr. DouBE.-It was stupid, too. Mr. BORTHWICK.-The honorable

member for Albert Park is so stupid that he does not realize the obvious variation made to the amendment on this occasion. On the last occasion the Opposition got such a trouncing, as the Leader of the Opposition realized, that it has now put forward a variation of the amendment it previously sponsored to overcome the powerful arguments

of the Government on that occasion. The honorable member for Albert Park is one member of the Opposition-and there are many of them -who would be lost beyond the tramlines and would know nothing about this subject.

I shall comment on a number of matters in the second part of the amendment, which is one of the most ambiguous I have ever seen. The fundamental reasoning behind the amendment is to subject to land tax people who are now exempted. The Opposition speaks of Collins Street farmers but it does not know what it is doing. The first part of the amendment refers to income, but the Opposition has not stated whether it means taxable or gross income. That is a pertinent point for the Commissioner of Land Tax to decide. The amendment refers to the income of persons or companies and to a fixed percentage of 80 per cent of income.

But, of course, incomes can vary enormously and if the 80 per cent related to the taxable income of a farmer-perhaps it does; the amendment does not say-one who might have a minimal outside income in any one year could find that his outside income from all kinds of pursuits could weH be in excess of 20 per cent of his taxable income, and he would have to pay land tax.

I intended to talk about woolly thinking, but that would not be fair to the Labor Party; it would not know what " woolly " was. The mixed-up thinking of this city-based party is demonstrated in this amendment. I repeat that the Opposition has not said whether the reference to income means taxable income or gross income. Anybody with experience of rural affairs knows that large numbers of people engaged in rural industries today earn substantial income in rural pursuits which are not directly connected with their own land.

Mr. DouBE.-What are the figures?


Mr. BOR~HWICK.-The honorable member for Albert .Park can find out for himself. I was referring to rural contractors of many kinds, including hay balers, fencers, shearers, and fruit pickers. The honorable member for Mildura will know only too well that in this poor season many people in his electorate who own land will be picking fruit to earn an income apart from that which they earn from their land. The amendment provides that if these people earn more than 20 per cent of their income from such rural pursuits they will be subject to land tax.

This is one of the most ridiculous amendments ever put before this House. The Opposition has tried to give itself a way out by referring to " other factors ". How does any Deputy Commissioner of Land Tax, any lawyer, or any man like the Leader of the Opposition determine what other factors are? The amendment refers to " other fac-tors " and leaves it to the Deputy Comissioner of Land Tax to define what they are. Another inanity of the amendment is that it refers to temporary economic seasonal conditions. I remind the House that the former Premier more than eighteen months ago predicted what the future of the wool industry would be. That industry was in a parlous condition at that time, and it took a man of vision and courage to forecast the situation in five or ten years' time. There has been a dramatic change in that industry in the past eighteen months.

What will be the future of our rural industries when Britain enters the European Economic Community? What will be the future of the canning industry in the Goulburn Valley? Are these "temporary seasonal conditions"? The terms of the amendment are so indescribably vague and inane that no Government could accept it. The Opposition's amendment demonstrates to the rural population of this State that the Opposition knows nothing about the

Session 1972.-121

industry. What the Opposition IS In fact doing is confirming the statement of the honorable member for Kara Kara in a recent debate in this House that if a certain gentleman were to become Minister for Primary Industry in the Commonwealth Government he would dictate to the farming community.

This amendment is so much out of focus that it will bring back into the land tax arena many genuine farmers who, of necessity, are substantially involved in outside work. Not the least of them are soldier settlers, of whom there are 8,000 and to whom the Government has given the right to retain a 2 per cent interest investment in their properties. They are permitted to work anywhere they like and to enter into any form of lease or contract. Many of these arrangements can be family concerns. Many farmers who are involved in outside work may have arranged for their sons to operate the farm, and if the Opposition's amendment were accepted it would mean that they would be liable to pay land tax. In the interests of the man on the land, the Government has no alternative but to reject this clumsy amendment.

Mr. E. W. LEWIS (Dundas).I support the amendment moved by the honorable member for Sunshine because of the humanity involved in it. The Minister of Lands has made the best speech in defence of Collins Street farmers that has ever been heard in this place.

This Bill does nothing to assist the rural economy. The Government expects to raise approximately $30 1nillion in land tax. I do not know what amount is to be derived from country industries, and the Minister of Lands and the Premier also do not know. The matter should be inquired into, because it is the crux of the argument. The Premier has said that he will seek the information which has been requested by the Opposition, but in doing so he is

3446 Land Tax [ASSEMBLY.]· Bill.

like a broken-down record-the same thing has been said many times.

As I have pointed out previously in this House, the population of rural areas has declined by 6,000 in ten years, and it is still declining at the same rate. The Government has introduced a ten-point plan for decentralization which, apart from being an exercise in public relations by a Minister in another place, does nothing to assist the situation.

The Country Party has expressed its sympathy with the amendment moved by the Opposition, and has said that it will support it. The Opposition will support the Country Party's amendment if its own fails.

If it accepts the amendment the Government will do more to assist decentralized industries than any steps which have been taken since the amendment of the pay-roll tax legislation. It will enable families to be kept together in country areas. That is one reason why the Opposition's amendment is important. There is no way in the world in which land tax as it is at present will keep families together. It will simply support the policy of the former Premier of " ·Melbourne unlimited".

There is not an immense amount of money involved in this matter, but the Opposition's amendment will assist decentralized industry. The Premier went to extreme lengths to defend the Bill and said that nothing in the amendment would assist the rural economy. The Minister of Lands went to extreme lengths to support Collins Street farmers. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. WHEELER (Essendon).-In this debate emphasis has been placed on the primary producer, and I agree with that. Emphasis has also been placed on proposals to encoura_ge decentralized industries, and I also agree with that. However, I remind the House that members of the Opposition have not referred to

the situation of metropolitan homeowners who will find themselves being dragged into the net of State land tax. Every year in which land values are increased many thousands of people are dragged into the net.

Mr. GINIFER.-The honorable member for Sunshine is not here. It is a pity.

Mr. WHEELER.-The honorable member for Deer Park should be sticking up for people in the city. This is an iniquitious tax which discriminates against the city dweller. If there are other means by which it is possible to collect this sum of $30 million, this tax should be scrapped altogether.

In his second-reading speech the Treasurer stated that the estimate of revenue to be recovered from land tax this financial year was $30 million. He also said that there would be no alterations in the rate of tax this year. However, as I have said, increasing land values bring many more owners into the net.

A farmer or a decentralized industry has an opportunity of obtaining a return from property in respect of which they are exempted from paying land tax, but the city dweller, who pays land tax, has no opportunity of obtaining a return from his property.

Mr. WHITING.----He has a good job. Mr. WHEELER.-Is he not entitled

to that? I remind the honorable member that prices for wool, butter, milk and other commodities have increased, but the person who derives an increased income from his property because of that does not pay land tax. He is completely exempt.

·Mr. WHITING.-Does the drought reduce income?

Mr. WHEELER.-It does. I was pleased to hear the Treasurer say that the Government would review the rate of land tax. That is pleasing to me and I am sure to other honorable members who represent metropolitan electorates.


Mr. GINIFER.-Is there any chance of that being done by May?

Mr. WHEELER.-! have already defended city dwellers who are in the unfortunate position of being required to contribute practically all the land tax which is collected in Victoria every year and have no opportunity of obtaining any return from their properties. Rates are increasing every year, and a person who occupies a property worth, say $20,000-that would be the value of an ordinary home now-finds that he has to pay from $100 to $120 in municipal rates and approximately the same amount in Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works rates. He has to pay $5 or $6 out of his wages each week before he sits down at the breakfast table. On top of that, with the proposed extension of the limit of $17,000, such a person will have to pay land tax, expenditure that he has not provided for. I hope that when land tax is being reviewed the Treasurer will examine the position of city dwellers.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).Crocodile tears have been shed by the honorable member for Essendon. It is obvious that he could not have been listening when the honorable member for Sunshine presented the case for the Opposition. My colleague dealt with the subject of private home-owners and made it clear-just as it has been made clear on previous occasions by my partythat it has never been accepted by the Opposition that private homeowners should be subject to the payment of land tax. When the Land Tax Act was passed, it was never envisaged that it would apply to a private home dweller in the metropolis or in provincial centres.

Mr. A. T. EVANS.-Your shadow Minister does not agree. What is Labor Party policy?

Mr. WILTON.-1 suggest that the honorable member for Ballaarat North should put his vote where his mouth is when it

comes to the provision of an incentive for decentralization. Since the honorable member has been in this Parliament he has sat in his seat and consistently ignored the plight of industries in the area he is supposed to represent. He has shown his ignorance on rail freights, natural gas and electricity charges. He has been consistent at turning a deaf ear to the needs of the community which he purports to represent.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! I ask the honorable member for Ballaarat North not to ignore me, and the honorable member for Broadmeadows to return to the Bill.

Mr. WILTON.-The Minister of Lands attempted to demonstrate to the House that he had some understanding of the rural industry by delivering what I regard as one of the most lamentable performances I have seen. In his argument he used the example of soldier settlers and the action that the Government took to enable them t:o engage in outside employment or to derive income from interests outside their properties. The amendment specifically deals with people in similar circumstances. What the Minister of Lands omitted to consider, for obvious reasons and because of the disgraceful handling by the Government and the department under his Ministry of the administration o.f the Soldier Settlem·ent Act, was the problem involved in the capitalization of their properties. It is because of t~e inflationary problem that the soldier settller is in such a bad plight today.

At the time these people went on to their properties, they were assessed as providing a livable income for a family. As a result of the complete failure by past Liberal Party Governments and the policies of the present Government, the situation was reached where the soldier settlement scheme was in danger of collapsing because of economic cir-cumstances. The Minister of Lands completely ignored that point;


The Premier presented his argument why the Government could not accept the amendment moved by the honorable member for Sunshine in a rather philosophical way by stating that revenue from taxation has to be attuned to the needs of the Government. The honorable gentleman even referred to land tax and the ability of the taxpayer to pay. What the Oppositi'On is attempting to do with this amendment is to help decentralized industries. The Opposition puts the proposition to the Treasurer that this is another incentive to attract industry away from the metropolis. The Treasurer has already conceded that there is merit in the Opposition's argument that incentives have to be offered to industry to get it into regional centres.

The honorable gentleman has demonstrated that by introducing legislation providing for the exemption from pay-roll tax, a proposal which the Opposition submitted twelve months ago. The Government has already acknowledged the merit of that argument but is rejecting the amendment because it is not prepared to concede that the argument advanced by the Opposition is a valid one or on the basis that as the Government did not think of it, it is no good. Is the Parliament to be faced with the situation that in the short space of time before it goes out of office, the Government will ende'avour to retain power by introducing further legislation which will concede the point the Opposition is advancing tonight? Members of the Opposition await with interest the reaction of the Treasurer to propositions which will be advanced by the Opposition when the House is considering the pay-roll tax legislation.

The amendment moved by the honorable member for Sunshine is reasonable and the Opposition makes no apology for aiming at the individuals who have done more harm to the rural industry than any other

Mr. Wilton.

section of the community. I refer to the speculators. They have amassed large fortunes by manipulating various types of businesses and using the attractive exemptions available under the Commonwealth taxation laws. Speculators have engaged in rural undertakings and in many cases these undertakings have been detrimental to the interest of the genuine farmer, whether he is a wheat grower, a wool grower, a dairy farmer, or a citrus grower. All those people have suffered at the hands of the speculators who have poured large sums of money into rural undertakings for the sole purpose of availing themselves of the attractive loopholes in the Commonwealth taxation laws.

The Opposition makes no apology for going after that person because it believes the law should make it difficult for those people to enter the rural industry and upset the equilibrium of that industry to the detriment of the genuine farmer. The honorable member for Geelong, who has just interjected, shows he has no interest in the problems of that class of people in the community. He is satisfied to sit in his place and act like a puppet-put up his hand when the front bench pulls the strings. It is about time he exercised his own thoughts and had more thought for his political future.

The Opposition's amendment is reasonable and I 'submit that it is consistent with the view previously adopted by the Opposition, despite the distorted claims and arguments advanced by the Minister of Lands, who has some novel idea that he has a full grasp of the problems in rural industry. I regard as mischievous the statement he made that a member of the present Federal Government is dictating to farmers. I remind the honorable gentleman that three years ago this person scored a record swing in votes to capture the seat from the Country Party and he has continued to receive the support of


the electorate of Riverina, of one of the most heavily rural-influenced Federal electorates. Whether that gentleman will be Minister for Primary Industry is another matter which will be determined in another place.

The Labor Party's record on the policies it has brought forward on behalf of the rural industries of this State and this Commonwealth stands unchallenged, and the record is there for anyone to examine. The Opposition has always adopted the attitude that the man on the land is entitled to protection and to receive every encouragement that the Government is capable of extending. He is entitled to be protected from the exploitation which has been allowed to go on unchecked by Liberal .Party Governments, both State and ·Federal, at the hands of the manipulators, whether it is through a marketing system or a taxation system. It is about time the Government of Victoria accepted that our rural industry needs protection from the exploiters-the people who see in rural undertakings a means of furthering their own financial ambitions, the greedy people who have no regard for the genuine farmer or the welfare of the industry, but who are concerned only to protect their own interests.

This has happened time and again and the amendment is attempting to correct that situation and to provide a genuine incentive for industry to become established in the regional centres of Victoria. Why does the Treasurer want to wait until a survey is taken to determine the percentage of land tax paid by industries outside the metropolitan area? The important argument that the Opposition advances is that the proposed amendment is to be used as an incentive, just as the Treasurer now proposes to use pay-roll tax exemptions as an incentive. The Opposition cannot understand why the Treasurer rejects this amendment but

accepts the principle in another taxing measure. It seems that the Premier and T-reasurer is adopting a double set of ·standards when dealing with taxation. It does not matter whether it is pay-roll tax, land tax or land rates, it is a taxation, so why is the Treasurer using this double set of standards when he is talking about one type of t·axation? The honorable gentleman believes incentives ought to be given to industry and he is legislating to that effect with pay-roll tax, but when the Opposition puts forward the same principle by an amendment to the land tax legislation, he rejects it. It seems to me to be a double standard.

In the second part of the amendment, the Opposition deals with land owned and used for primary production by a natural person or ~wn~d by a proprietary company which IS

incorporated in Victoria within the meaning of the Companies Act 1961, in which all the members are related by blood or marriage and which is used for primary production. H~re again the Opposition is e~deav~unng to recognize that the genuine pnmary producer should be exemp~ from paying land tax. The Oppositi?n ~as no argument against that prinCiple because in its amendment, it provides that at least 80 per cent of the income of the person or company should be derived from carrying on primary production on the Ian~. ~he Opposition believes it is estabhshmg its bona fides in that it is prepared to give protection and exemption to the genuine primary producer and it has chosen this means of doing this.

The amendment further provides that in determining the income of a person or company for such purposes, any income which is earned as a result of employment undertaken by the person or by any member of the company on behalf of the company because of a material reduction in the income of the person

3450 Land' tax [ASSEMBLY.]. ·. 'Bi/i:. : ·.

o~ company due to temporary econormc, seasonal or other factors · shall ·be ~isregarded. The Opposition is making that a statutory obligation:

Mr. HAMER.-What does it mean?

Mr. ·WILTON.-! cannot understand · why the Premier has some difficulty in understanding that because .the . same pri~ciple is already embodied In the pnncipal Act. To my knowledge the Land Tax Act has always contained a provision that where a person is in necessitous c.ircumstances, he can make application to the deputy commissioner who has power to grant an exemption. Matters which are considered when determining whether necessitous ~ircumstances exist include marketIng and seasonal conditions and th?se are factors which can put a pnmary producer in necessitous circumstances for a particular year. ~o, the principle is already embodied In the Act and the Opposition is at a loss to understand why the Premier on the one hand is prepared to accept the principle already in the Act but, on the other hand when the Opposition wants to foll~w the same principle in its amendment it is rejected. '

Mr. HAMER.-It is a different principle.

Mr. W~ILTON.-The Minister of Lands was attempting to justify the rejection of the amendment by some airy-fairy argument that he could not understand the wording of it. We do not find it strange that the Minister of Lands finds the wording hard to understand. The honorable gentleman finds many things hard to understand. At least he is consistently dull. I do not believe that the Treasurer has advanced a reasonable argument for rejecting the amendment that the honorable member for Sunshine has proposed. He is acting purely on political grounds. He is demonstrating to the House and to the community at large doubt about his own capacity to grasp the situation. The Government is continually dragging along behind

and coming in like Brown's cows. It is unable to get on top of the situation and fully to comprehend what the Opposition is trying to do. 'It is regrettable that the Treasurer will demand from members of the Government party the numbe·r of votes necessary to reject our proposed amendment.

Mr. A. T. EVANS (Ballaarat North) .-The honorable member for Broadmeadows referred to double values. He should be the last person to speak of double values. We have just heard from him the greatest lot of hypocritical verbiage that honorable members have had to suffer for quite some time. He said that he must protect the farmers. What does he mean by that? Opposition members try to convince us that they are interested in protecting the farmers. How do they reconcile their statements with that made by Mr. Clyde Cameron, the shadow Minister for Labour?

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The Victorian Parliament does not recognize the term " shadow Minister ".

Mr. A. T. EVANS.-! abide by your ruling, Sir. I direct the attention of honorable members to the October, 1972, issue of Progress, the official publication of the Henry George League. In reporting on the historic opening ceremony of the league's new headquarters it said-

The first speaker was Clyde Cameron, M.H.R., a Georgist of long standing. He referred to the possibility of the reintroduction of Federal land tax.

Apparently honorable members opposite have not done any homework and are simply playing politics. I remind them that the Federal Government abolished Federal land tax about six years ago. Subsequently the then Premier and Treasurer of Victoria abolished land tax on lands used for primary production. Yet the honorable member for Broadmeadows is enough of a hypocrite to claim that he is here to protect


the farmers. What utter rot! I will illustrate how inconsistent are honorable members opposite. They are the same people who would introduce a 35-hour week and price Australian farmers out of the markets. At present they are advocating in another place one vote one value. In that event farmers would not have any representation. There is no substance in the statements of honorable members opposite and the House cannot be swayed by the insincere arguments advanced by the honorable member for Broadmeadows.

Mr. TREWIN {Benalla).-This Bill relates to the formula behind the operation of the Land Tax Act. The Leader of my party has moved an amendment to the amendment moved by the honorable member for Sunshine. I wish to deal particularly with the way that the proposed amendments would affect country people. Much has been made this evening of the fact that in the past land tax and primary producers have gone hand in hand, but today that principle is being challenged. !Ever since I have been a member of this House each year the Country Party has moved an amendment to the predecessors· of this Bill with the view of having rural land excluded from the imposition of land tax. I consider that land tax is an imposition on people who own land, especially rural land, in the same way that death duties are an imposition on the beneficiaries of people who have built up an estate.

The amendments that we are considering can be fairly evenly divided. The amendment proposed by the Country Party relates to land outside the Port Phillip area. Following the drought in 1967-68 the then Minister of Lands impressed upon the Premier and Treasurer that it was necessary to grant relief to primary industries. As a result land tax was lifted from lands used for primary production, a move for which the Country Party

had pressed for some years. I have always considered that people living outside the metropolitan area should be granted exemption from land tax irrespective of whether the land they own is used for industrial purposes, housing or primary production. People living in rural areas suffer many impositions. They pay freight backwards and forwards; that is, they pay freight on the raw material that they send to be processed and they pay freight on the processed materials which come back to them. That in itself is a good enough argument for exemption from land tax for people in rural areas.

We have been told previously that the major part of land tax is paid in the Golden Mile, or close by. I remind honorable members who represent city electorates that business interests in the Golden ·Mile pass on the land tax to the consumers. That is true of Myer's, insurance companies or other businesses in the Golden Mile. I support the argument of the honorable member for Sunshine that exemption should be granted to people in respect of land on which their residences are built. Exemption should also be granted to business people and industrialists in country areas. Some of these industries for many years have been the backbone of rural towns and cities. They have carried the burden of paying land tax. Businessmen operating in the main streets of Benalla, Ballarat and Wangaratta would be able to pass on the tax, but to whom? They could pass it on only to country dwellers. That is why the Country Party has proposed an amendment to allow exemption in respect of lands other than land in the Port Phillip area.

The honorable member for Deer Park may indicate that there are some rural lands in his electorate but they will soon become housing areas. The honorable member for Gippsland East has reminded me that ·they are


already exempt from land tax. We have been consistent in our attitude. The Country Party alone represents the cause of the farmers as is evidenced by Hansard and other historical records of this Parliament. The party will continue to fight for the farmers in this Parliament.

Mr. BIRRELL (Geelong).-Of the 80 words in the second-reading speech of the Treasurer, about 60 are devoted to the vexed problem of the municipalities and charitable organizations. I hope the delay of one year in implementing a review of those organizations will enable a fair and equitable system to be adopted. It is a difficult question in which the Geelong City Council is deeply involved. I am sympathetic with the problems of the Treasurer in this respect. When the matter comes up for review I hope that a reasonable answer can be found to this vexed problem. Under the Geelong Markets Act 20 per cent of all rentals are taxed already and allowance must be made for that factor. The second-reading debate has taken up about three-quarters of the time allotted.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The time allotted for the second-reading stage has expired.

The motion before the Chair is, " That the Bill be now read a second time ", to which the honorable member for Sunshine moved an amendment to omit all the words after " That " with the view of inserting other words. The Leader of the Country Party moved an amendment to the proposed amendment to omit all the words after "land", where second occurring, with the view of inserting other words.

In pursuance of Standing Order No. 70, the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Country Party will have

to be disposed of prior to the amendment proposed by the honorable member for Sunshine.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. RossEdwards to be omitted from Mr. Lovegrove's amendment stand part of the amendment (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 36 Noes 25

Majority against Mr. Ross-Edwards's amendment 1 i

AYES.



(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher

Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

( Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stckes Mr. Suggett Sit· Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor


Tellers: Mr. McCabe Mr. Smith

(Bellarine).

NOES.


Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Shilton Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.


PAIRS.

Mr. Manson Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter

Mr. Templeton

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Moss Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Curnow.

Land Tax [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 345J

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Lovegrove to be omitted stand part of the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 36 Noes 25


AYES.



(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith


(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor


Tellers: Mr. McCabe Mr. Smith

( Bellarine) . NOES.


(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas) Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove

Mr. Manson Mr. Reese Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter




PAIRS.

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Moss Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Templeton Mr. Curnow.

The motion for the second reading was agreed to.


Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Rate of land tax for

1973).

Mr. LOVEGROVE (Sunshine).! thank the Treasurer for his courtesy in replying to submissions made by the Opposition on sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act. As I understood the honorable gentleman, he said that in view of the circumstances related by the Opposition, resulting from the sharply increased prices accruing from recent and preceding revaluations, the Government would give earnest consideration to the Opposition's submission. However, I did not properly understand the significance of the statement by the Minister of Lands about the amendment moved by the Opposition, although I assume that in his explanation of the word " income " he would be guided by the existing provisions of the Act. During the second-reading debate, the honorable member for Broadmeadows referred to the provisions in section 91A of the principal Act relating to taxpayers in necessitous circumstances. Under that section, a person is deemed to be in necessitous circumstances if he receives a service or other pension. The words " total income " appear in various paragraphs of sub-section (2) of the section.

When paragraph (c) of sub-section (2) was amended by the 1968 Land Tax Bill, the words " total income " were retained as being an adequate description for the purposes of the section of a person in necessitous ·circumstances. Again, in sub-section (3) resides the definition of how total income shall be assessed.

The same procedure has been followed by the Opposition in moving the amendment to the Bill, and very briefly I refer honorable members to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition. When one looks at the answers provided by the Minister without Portfolio to questions from the honorable member for Gippsland East on decentralized industries. firstly. requesting a list of approved decentralized industries employing more than ten persons. which was answered on 31st October, 1972,

3454 Land Tax [ASSEMBLY.]. Bill.

and appears on page 1585 of Hansard and, secondly, as to the towns in which decentralized industries had been declared, the answer to which appears on 25th October, 1972, at pages 134 7-50 of Hansard, one finds some cause for astonishment at the relatively off-hand manner in which the Minister of Lands seemingly dismissed the proposal by the Opposition that decentralized industries should be given some preferential treatment in the payment of land tax.

The Minister of Lands contended that, in paragraph (b) of the amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Bill, the word " income " was used ambiguously, as were the words "temporary economic seasonal ", and " or other factors ". The Minister contended that none of these words were capable of any precise legal definition. In view of the manner in which " total income " is defined in section 91A of the Land Tax Act, this seems to: be a peculiar attitude for the Minister to adopt.

The amendment proposed that an exemption from the payment of land tax should apply where the income of a person or company was derived to the extent of 80 per cent from carrying on the business of primary production on the land, and on being assured that " any income earned as a result of employment undertaken by the person or any member of the company on behalf of the company because of a material reduction in the income of the person or company due to temporary economic seasonal or other factors shall be disregarded. " Obviously, the import of the definition resided, firstly, in the fact that at least 80 per cent of the income had to be derived from the business of carrying on primary production on the land and, secondly, that the secondary income which was to be exempted and disregarded was any income earned by the person or member of the company concerned to supplement the losse.s they had

Mr. Lovegrove.

sustained owing to temporary economic, · seasonal or other factors. I make that definition clear because of the criticism of the Minister of Lands.

More surprising still to the Opposition was the honorable gentleman's assertion that he failed to understand how any legal significance could be given to the words " temporary economic seasonal or other factors ".

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Jona).-Order! I think the honorable member is now in fact debating the amendment which was put to the House during the second-reading debate and which was rejected. The clause now being considered in Committee is the original clause 2 of the Bill. The honorable member is out of order in debating the amendment which he moved during the secondreading debate.

Mr. LOVEGROVE.-! am grateful for your advice, Mr. Acting Chairman, and shall obey it implicitly. I am sure you will permit me to relate my remarks to the provisions of the Bill. The reason for the Opposition's amendment resided in the fact that the provisions of the Bill were inadequate for the temporary economic, seasonal or other factors which affect farmers and other rural workers. To support this contention, I refer to: the Treasurer's Budget speech at page 184 of Hansard of 12th September where the Treasurer said-

The farming community faces many problems. Some of these, like the drought situation, hopefully are of a relatively short-term nature while others go to the very root of the economics of farming operations in the longer term. With the entry of the United Kingdom into the European Economic Community, export markets in some commodities will be affected, and some adjustments will be inevitable. The Government is alive both to the short-term difficulties and the longerterm problems of the man on the land, and is ready to help solve them.

In the case of East Gippsland, which has been suffering its worst drought on record, and those areas in the north of the State which also have been declared drought areas, the Government is providing special assistE}nce. This includes relief lending at concessional rates of interest, and freight subsidies on fodder and livestock.

·lAnd Tax (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3455

Then . the honorable gentleman expressed hope for improved conditions in rural areas.

In clear contra-distinction to the recognition by the Premier and Treasurer of the difficulties facing the rural community is a statement made by the Minister of Lands which appeared in the Herald of lOth April, 1972, under the heading " Better loan deal for the farmer". The Minister made these considered statements after attending the third meeting of review of State Ministers involved with the Commonwealth in the debt reconstruction scheme and the farm build-up scheme, and it is incredible that this evening the Minister should make the comments he did after what the Premier and Treasurer said in his Budget speech.

I refer also to the supreme optimism expressed by the Minister of Lands when he made his statement which was published in the Herald. I shall not quote a'll of it, but the Minister deals at length with statistics on the amount of finance made available by the Commonwealth Government to the various States and notably Victoria for both debt reconstruction and farm buildup. The article states-

Mr Borthwick said the Rural Finance and Settlement Commission was still receiving applications from Victoria's farmers, at a steady but lower rate than initially.

He said it was " difficult to say " whether the money available to Victoria for -reconstruction in the next two years would be enough.

" But it may be, given the upsurge in the rural climate, the better prices being paid ·to farmers and the confidence that was missing only six to nine months ago."

The optimism expressed by the Minister in April last and the completely indifferent and intransigent attitude which the Minister displayed tonight in his attempt to discredit the proposition submitted by the Country Party and the Opposition contrast clearly with the picture of rural conditions as painted by the Treasurer in his Budget speech. I strongly advise the Premier, before he faces another election, to reconstruct the

Ministry. If he desires to win any more country seats or even .to retain those he has, he should appoint a new Minister of Lands.

The clause was agreed to.



The Order of the Day for resumption of the debate on the motion for the second reading of this Bill was read.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-I declare this Bill to be an urgent Bill, and I move-


Approval of the motion being put was indicated by the required number of members rising in their places, as specified in Standing Order No. 78F.


Ayes 37 Noes 25


AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Reese Mr. Balfour Mr. Scanlan Mr. Billing Mr. Smith Mr. Birrell (Warrnambool) Mr. Borthwick Mr. Stephen Mr. Burgin Mr. Stokes Mr. Crellin Mr. Suggett Mr. Dixon Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Dunstan Mr. Taylor Mr. Evans (Balwyn)

(Ballaarat North)Mr. Taylor Mrs. Goble (Gippsland South) Mr. Guy Mr. Thompson Mr. Hamer Mr. Trethewey Mr. Hayes Mr. Wheeler Mr. Jona Mr. Wilcox Mr. Loxton Mr. Wiltshire. Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McLa~-en Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty

Tellers:

Mr. McCabe Mr. Smith

(Bellarine).

3456 Labour and Industry [ASSEMBLY.] (Amendment) Bill.


(Gippsland Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

NOES.


Mr. Mitchell East) Mr. Ross-Edwards

Mr. Shilton Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilkes Mr. Wilton.

(Dundas) Tellers: Mr. Lind Mr. Amos Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Broad.

Mr. Manson Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter

PAIRS.

Mr. Bornstein Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Templeton Mr. Curnow.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-1 move


(a) For the remainder of the secondreading stage of the Bill, until 11.35 p.m.;

(b) for the remaining stages of the Bill, until 12.5 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. STEPHEN (Ballaarat South).-1 second the motion.

Mr. SIMMONDS (Reservoir).-This Bill deals with a most significant section of the Labour and Industry Act, and to allow a second-reading debate of one hour on a Bill which deals with such a wide diversity of subjects is ridiculous. In his secondreading speech the Minister gave an indication of the scope of the Bill, which has been on the Notice Paper for a number of weeks and which at various stages has been listed as low as No. 23. The House could have debated the Bill at any time during the past three weeks. Therefore, the motion moved by the Minister is simply a device to get him off the hook and to allow him to reverse everything he said in the House about the Bill.

Throughout the Bill there are references to the fact that the Minister is denying everything he has said· on previous occasions on the subjects referred to. For this reason the Government has decided to limit the

debate on the Bill in the hope that the House will not have the opportunity of discussing particular aspects of it. The Bill deals with trading hours of chemists' shops, service stations and pet shops, baking hours in the bread industry and roll bars on tractors. In fact, it reverses the policy of the Government on roll bars on tractors.

The SPEAKER (Sir Vernon Christie).-Order! I do not think the honorable member should go through the ramifications of the Bill.

Mr. SIMMONDS.-! am ·endeavouring to give an indication of the scope of the Bill and suggesting that it is absurd to try to debate it in less than an hour. It would take most of that time for honorable members to get an understanding of the detail of the Bill. The Bill deals with industrial safety, international standards, tractor accidents, appeals against industrial awards and virtually the who1e ambit of the Labour and Industry Act. During the debate m·embers of the Opposition will want to put to the House that the concept in the Bill is that of the Minister walking away from the provisions of the principal Act. That means that honorable members will have to debate the effect that the amendments will have on the principal Act.

The Labour and Industry Act covers all aspects of work in the community and to expect honorable members to deal with a Bill to amend it in the time allotted is a condemnation not only of the Minister but also of the Government.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-The Minister of Labour and Industry took a considerable time to read his second-reading speech and I cannot understand how he or the Government can have the gall to suggest that the topics dealt with in the measure can be examined properly in less than an hour at the second-reading stage. The Bill covers a wide variety of topics and raises matters on which members

Labour and Industry [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3457

from all sides of the House will want to make contributions. In the normal course of events one would expect the member handling the Bill for the Opposition to debate it for 30 or 40 minutes during the secondreading debate, which will leave the spokesman for the Country Party less than ten minutes in which to make a contribution. Other members of the House will be excluded from participating in the debate, and that includes Government supporters. It is no secret that some members have done a great deal of research on the Bill and they want to put forward the views of their electorate. They are being forced into having to vote on a motion the effect of which will be to ensure that they remain silent. The views of their constituents will not be heard because of the attitude of the Government. In addition, the Bill has been as low as No. 23 on the Notice Paper and it seems that the Minister of Labour and Industry is expecting the House to show the same lack of diligence and lack of regard to important items as he has shown to some of the companies of which he was a director.

Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-The time limits proposed for the debate on this measure are in the reverse order to what they should be. Largely, this is a Committee Bill. It contains sixteen clauses, which are virtually unrelated. Although it is not unreasonable to accept a time limit of one hour for the second-reading debate, at least two hours should be allowed for the Committee stage. This is the difficulty with which members of the Country Party are faced in debating the Bill. The clauses are unrelated but they are important to legislation enacted in this State. The parent legislation is most important to the Department of Labour and Industry and to many other departments. I suggest that the Minister should withdraw his motion and fix times which will give twice as much time for the Committee stage as is proposed for the second-reading stage.

Mr. WILKES (Northcote). - I move-

That all the words and expressions after the word " follows " be omitted with the view of inserting in lieu thereof the fol~ lowing words and expressions:-

" (a) For the remainder of the secondreading stage of the Bill, until 2.35 a.m. tomorrow;

(b) for the remaining stages of the BiH, until 3.45 a.m. tomorrow."

I support the view expressed by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party that a Bill containing sixteen unrelated clauses should be debated at length. It took the Minister nearly one hour to read his second-reading speech but he has the audacity to suggest that the Bill can be debated in one hour. The Bill was listed at one stage as No. 23 on the Notice Paper. That is not the Minister's fault because he has no control over the Notice Paper.

Now the Government is in a panic and is endeavouring to get its legislation through the House with indecent haste at the expense of proper debate in this Chamber. Honorable members are to be given one hour for the second-reading debate on the Bill and approximately half an hour for the Committee stages. As the Bill contains sixteen clauses that means that honorable members will have less than two minutes in which to debate each clause. If the Government thinks the people of Victoria and the Victorian Parliament will accept a situation in which sixteen unrelated clauses in a Bill have to be debated in less than two minutes each, it is sadly mistaken and is exposing its hypocrisy.

It is well known that the honorable member for Lowan has undertaken a lot of research on certain aspects of the Bill. He will be denied the opportunity by his own party of speaking on those aspects. Even if he were permitted to speak he would be allowed at the most two minutes in which to debate a clause in which he is particularly interested. That is the clause which deals with the important subject of the fitting of roll bars to tractors. That is a


ridiculous state of affairs. There is no way in which the Government can justify granting less than two minutes in which to debate each clause. The Gov.ernment's hypocrisy ought to be exposed. It is ridiculous to suggest that Parliament can be treated in this cavalier way in an important debate on a Bill to amend the Labour and Industry Act. The Minister who suggested that from now until 11.35 p.m. would give sufficient time f.or a debate on this Bill should hide his head in shame. That time would not be sufficient to enable a debate on the principles of the Bill, notwithstanding what the Deputy Leader of the Country Party has said and quite apart from a discussion of the unrelated clauses. Honorable members have experienced the use of the guillotine by the Government on previous occasions, but never have they seen a Government use the guillotine so frequently and consistently as this Government has used it this evening, to the detriment of Parliament and for the purpose of stifling debate so that its supporters may attend social functions.

Mr. RAFFERTY.-Oh!

Mr. WILKES.-It is of no use the honorable gentleman mumbling or groaning. There is no other reason for stifling debate on this Bill. It should be noted also that no Government supporter has risen to defend the Government's action or to justify this attitude of urgency. Honorable members opposite will not say why the Bill is urgent or why it is necessary to transmit this Bill to the other place tonight. There is only one reason for this haste-the reason which I have mentioned twice already today. It is to suit members of the Government party as individuals who, in their private capacities, have other engagements to fulfil. They are not accepting their responsibility to the public. At the next election those honorable members should be judged by their performance today. It is shameful and

disgraceful to expect the Opposition and members of the Country Party to debate the Bill in the time proposed.

Mr. EDMUNDS (Moonee Ponds). -I support the amendment because it is proposed to use the guillotine to restrict the time allowed f.or debate on the Labour and Industry (Amend~ ment) Bill. This will have the effect of restricting the rights of Opposition members in presenting their views, particularly on behalf of people whom they represent. It is significant that the Minister of Labour and Industry moved a motion to hamstring the Opposition and to prevent it from presenting its views. It is proposed that one hour and 35 minutes should be allowed to debate sixteen clauses by which it is proposed to amend the principal Act. Honorable members will be aware that some of these clauses propose changes to p~ovisions that have been part of the Act since 1885.

What rights have the Opposition in having these matters explained by the Minister? He did not go into these aspects in his second-reading speech. Obviously he does not want to explain them to the House, and he is restricting the rights of the Opposition to use the conventional method of the Committee stage in which to question aspects of the Bill. This is a denial of the Opposition's rights at this late hour of the sessional period. The situation arises from a party meeting this morning at which it was decided to stiffen the leadership of the Liberal Party and to put forward motions which, by use of the guillotine, would deny members of the Opposition and of the Country Party their right to penetrate the armour of the Government and to discover the reasons for some of the amendments proposed in the Bills. Yet this is a measure which is vital to the people we represent.

It is significant that the M'inister of Labour and Industry wants to be rid of this measure as quickly as possible. There would have to be some reason,

Labour and Industry [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) .Bill. 3459

other than the reasons that have been stated during the day, why Government supporters should treat this matter with such urgency. Surely it is not that they want to attend social functions. I am sure that there is some other reason. Members of the Opposition may wish to argue this matter at length, but we have difficulty in presenting our case beeause we are to be restricted by the forms of the House which are being used by the Govem.ment in a way which denies to us an opportunity of presenting our views.

Mr. WILTON (Broadmeadows).The Minister of Labour and Industry would know better than any other Minister why a Bill to amend the Labour and Industry Act is important to the Opposition-it is because of the effect that amendments may have on that section of the community which honorable members on this side of the Chamber represent in this Parliament. It is no secret that what has happened concerning this Bill has bordered on the scandalous. On a previous occasion the Minister of Labour and Industry made public announcements and gave assurances to other States that Victoria would take certain actio·n on legislation affecting some aspects of trading and commerce which in this State are controlled by the Labour and Industry Act.

The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has pointed out that it took the Minister about one hour to deliver his second-reading speech. The honorable member for M-oonee Ponds has mentioned that one is aware of .many gaps in the Minister's speech when one considers the Bill in· detail and bears in mind various unrelated clauses and the effects they could have on some trading houses in this State. The objection that I have to the use of the guillotine and the manner in which the Minister has used it is that I helieve the honorable gentleman is attempting to use the current· situation to cover up his own shortcomings and

lack of capacity to deal with the arguments that could be put forward· by the Opposition. The honorable gentleman is running way from this situation. He is not prepared to allow his own Bill to be subjected to close scrutiny and detailed examination by members of the Opposition who want to raise certain issues with him and pose questions to him.

Apparently the Minister considers that he has not the capacity to cope with the situation. Consequently he is putting forward this rather feeble argument that because of the time factor it is necessary for him to curtail the debate. This is the disgraceful situation that has arisen. There is being acted out in this Parliament a situation which, when one considers what has been said by other Ministers of the Government, leaves much to be desired. The honorable member for Lowan has gone to the public press to make claims that it was due largely to his actions that the Government is now running away from ·an undertaking which it gave on another occasion.

One clause of the Bill relates to protective bars on tractors. The Minister did not go into great detail on why the Government found it necessary to include that clause in the Bill. Members of the Opposition would like to put questions of this kind to the Minister, but it is obvious that he does not have arguments to refute the points that we should like to bring forward, and he is using this limitation of the debate to cover up his shortcomings. If the Minister is going to welsh on the undertaking that he has given to the other States and is prepared to cave in under pressure brought to bear by people outside the Parliament he should at least have the guts to stand up in Parliament and defend his position instead of hiding behind the subterfuge that he has adopted tonight.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -How any member of the Government ... party ··can: go out from


this place to the public and uphold the importance of this institution as part of the public life of the State I am unable to understand, in view of tonight's exhibition. Often we hear honorable members claiming how important a role the State Parliament plays in the life of the people of this country, yet the very purpose for which we are gathered in this place is being completely negated by the attitude of the Government in cutting short the debate on the very important matters which are now before us. Not the least of these is this very important Labour and Industry (Amend-ment) Bill. The honorable member for Moonee Ponds mentioned that some of the provisions which the Bill proposes to amend date back to 1885, but it should be remembered also that other provisions were inserted by amending legislation which was rushed through this place and messed up by the Government in recent times. I have suggested that if the Government does not take time to have the Bill debated properly there will be a further need for amendments in the very near future to straighten out the mess the Government has made of the provisions. I should be very interested in what the honorable member for Lowan thinks about this proposition. As has been mentioned, he has had much to say.

Mr. WILKES.-In the press.

Mr. B. J. EVANS.-Yes, in the press, but not in the House. I should like to know whether he will deny himself a further voice on this Bill tonight. I challenge him to stand up now and state his views on the proposal relating to roll bars on tractors. If he votes for the Government's limitation of the debate obviously he will deny himself an opportunity of expressing his views on that provision. If he does that I suggest that his whole attitude to this proposition will be shown to be utterly insincere.

Mr. McCABE.-I do not have to express my views ; they are well known.

Mr. B. J. EVANS.-The honorable member says that his views are well known, but I should be surprised if they were as well known as he thinks. If the honorable member were to state his views in the .Parliament, where he would be open to criticism and would be challenged to substantiate what he says, instead of rushing into print in his electorate, others would have an opportunity of presenting the other side of the story and putting the record straight. The situation may then be entirely different. If the honorable member votes for the proposition which has been put to the House by the Government tonight he will be admitting that he does not want his views subjected to argument and discussion in this place.

For these reasons the Country Party opposes the motion. When the Bill was before the House on 19th October the Minister moved that the debate be adjourned until Wednesday, 1st November. Consequently, the matter has been on the Notice Paper and could have been brought on at any time during the past six weeks. But the Government has chosen to impose an impossible task on honorable members. If the Parliament fails to debate the Bill fairly and reasonably, honorable members will not be carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to them by the people of Victoria.

Mr. GINIFER (Deer Park).-! lodge my protest at the way in which the business of the House is being dealt with. I refer particularly to this Bill. The Minister indicated in his second-reading speech that the ramifications of the Bill do not bind the House to one principle only. It is fair to say that at least four principles are involved and that the House is fully entitled to canvass them. In opposing the motion I draw to the attention of honorable members that by this measure it is proposed to reverse all principles which have been espoused by the Minister regarding tractor safety and roll bars.


Another aspect is that honorable members will not have an opportunity of discussing the attitude which has been taken by the honorable member for Lowan on the Labour and Industry Act. The honorable member should be given every opportunity of stating his views. Are honorable members to learn what he has to say from articles which appear in his local newspaper? Why does he want the legislation to be in the form proposed? Is it so that he may justify the annual death rate from tractor accidents remaining at its present level and that he is unable to substantiate his arguments for allowing these grave risks to continue? Every honorable member should have the opportunity of expressing his views. Unless he is given that opportunity, it must be concluded that Government party members representing country electorates are more concerned with political advantage than with the safety of tractor operators. It is well known that, in introducing this Bill, the Minister went against the best advice available in the State, including that of his own department. It was because he had been stood up in the party room that he introduced the Bill.

Mr. JONES (Melbourne).-! am less concerned with some of the sections mentioned by other honorable members than they are, but I am particularly concerned with the proposal to repeal sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act. This can hardly be thought to be a light matter because it relates to the working hours of young people. The provisions are simply to be struck out, and the proposal is something on which considerable time could be spent. Whether young people need special protection in relation to working hours is an important philosophical question and is not something that can be dealt with by a few hasty words during either the second-reading stage or the Committee stage. It is bound up with what sort of society we have and where

that society is going. No doubt, other honorable members can speak fluently to other parts of the Bill, but I should certainly like to have some time available to me to speak about the repeal of these two sections. The question of working hours runs right through the Bill.

It can hardly be said that the Bill makes good reading. It is an odd collection of sixteen or so different matters but, if their relevance is examined in the context of the Labour and Industry Act, it will be realized that each makes an alteration of real importance. Some are more impor .. tant in principle than in actuality, but they set significant precedents and honorable members should have an opportunity of talking about them.

Another point which concerns me is that the Bill was read a first time on 27th September and the Minister made his explanatory second-reading speech three weeks later on 19th October. F.rom then, until next Thursday, eight full weeks will have passed. On last Thursday's Notice Paper the Bill was item No. 23; today, it had jumped to item No. 3. It is now such an urgent Bill that it must be passed tonight, within one hour. It was not urgent last week. If. last week, the Opposition had said that it was an urgent Bill because it regarded many of its provisions as significant, the natural reply of the Government would have been to say that it had been on the Notice Paper for seven weeks, that it did not consider it to be urgent and that its proper place was No. 23 on the Notice Paper. Now that the other two urgent Bills have been disposed of, this is the " first cab off the rank ".

I understood that it was commonplace in the Federal Parliament for the guillotine to be used with monotonous regularity but that it was not the custom in the Victorian Parliament. Now the guillotine has been wheeled out and it has been used often tonight. and one might assume that it will be used often in

3462 Labour and Industry [ASSEMBLY.] (Amendment)· Bill.

the early morning. It is no fault of the Opposition that the Government has adopted these tactics. Because of its numbers, the Government has had control of the House right throughout the session. It has been in no danger of being overthrown. Even if there is a camarilla within the Government party ranks, it has not expressed itself by crossing the floor of the House.

It is nothing short of hypocrisy to say that what was No. 23 last week is now the most important Bill on the Notice Paper and that it must be passed by 11.35 p.m. It seems to be a contradiction in terms to find people protesting about time using time. I concede that, but in the whole legislative programme there has been nothing more absurd than the waste of time at the beginning of the session and the extreme pressure being placed on honorable members now. This is an important Bill. The Government may not regard its own measure seriously, but the Opposition regards it very seriously.

Mr. FELL (Greensborough) .-I am at a loss to understand how the Minister of Labour and Industry can take an hour to explain his Bill of some sixteen clauses and expect honorable members of the non-Government parties to express their views and make constructive suggestions in the half hour remaining for the second-reading debate and to discuss properly t!he sixteen unrelated clauses in the half hour allotted for the supposed Committee stage. That would allow about two minutes for each clause.

One is astounded that the Minister was so darn lazy that, in introducing the Bill, he did not realize that clause 12 introduces into Victoria a 40-yearold provision from the New South Wales Act. Surely the House should be allowed time to discuss that and the fact that the Minister has completely ignored the 1963 recommendations of the International Labour Organization. I remind honnrable member's that· New South

Wales is in the process of reorganizing its legislation relating to labour and industry. If that is good planning, I am a Dutchman.

This clause, one of sixteen, deals with safety requirements for dangerous machinery. The Government must agree that this warrants consideration, or is it completely oblivious to the need to protect people who work on dangerous machinery? The Government is taking away the rights of honorable members to discuss the sixteen different amendments. For the Minister to introduce a Bill, as he did eight weeks ago, allow it to remain at the bottom of the Notice Paper and to be item No. 23 last Thursday, and then to say that it is an urgent legislative measure which must be passed within one hour, is sheer hypocrisy and it cannot be tolerated.

This practice will invite a great deal of industrial unrest within the trade union movement and within secondary industry generally. It shows the attitude of the Government to dangers to life and limb of workers in industry when the best it can do is to adopt a 40-year old provision from another State. If any industrial action results from this, the Minister of Labour and Industry, who has not had the mentality to listen to the debate on the limitation of time, must bear the full responsibility.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-I have waited with some patience in the hope that the Minister of Labour and Industry, or one of his colleagues, would have the decency to endeavour to justify to the House the basis on which they now regard this Bill as urgent.

Mr. WILCOX (Minister of Transport) .-Mr. Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on whether the Leader of the ·Opposition is allowed to speak twice.

Labour and Industry [12 DECEMBER, I972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3463

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-The honorable member is permitted to speak to the amendment.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-1 make this point because it shows the farce which this House has become. The Minister of Transport walks into the House, not knowing anything about what is going on--

Mr. WILcox.-1 was here when you spoke before.

Mr. HOLDING.-The Minister does not know what is going on. This Government is using the guillotine with less than half a dozen of its own members in the House and half of them asleep. Let us have done with this farce. The Government is making a joke of this Parliament. It is making this Parliament as big a joke as its own Ministers. Let us have the vote and then the Government can have the whole lot because at that stage the Opposition proposes to exercise its own protest by withdrawing from the Parliament to show the people of Victoria that it is impossible to have any proper discussion on a Bill with less than twenty minutes for a second-reading debate and less than two minutes for the Committee to deal with each clause. You can run it like the Kremlin or the way you run your own rotten Liberal Party, but we will not be a party to this procedure.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The Leader of the Opposition will address the Chair.

Mr. HOLDING.-All I want to say is that with the rot that is going on in the Liberal Party, with all the back-biting and the backstabbing, it can have it, but it is not going to bring this sort of practice into the Victorian Parliament and expect the Opposition to sit here and play a role in this charade. This is not a Parliament. A bunch of incompetent, lazy, inefficient Ministers

are robbing the Parliament of any significance, and they can have it. Let us have the vote and the Liberal Party can do what it likes with its legislative measures and its incompetent Ministers.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Wilkes to be omitted stand part of the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 37 Noes 26

Majority against the amendment II

AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. McCabe Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. McLaren Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty

Mr. Reese Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

(Bellarine) Mr. Smith



Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wheeler Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.

Tellers: Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin.

NOES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bornstein Mr. Broad Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove



Tellers: Mr. Fell Mr. Lewis

(Dundas).

PAIRS.


Mr. Templeton

Mr. Moss Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis



The House divided on Mr. Rafferty's motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 37 Noes 26






(Gippsland East) Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lind Mr. Lovegrove

AYES.



( Warmambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stokes Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn) Mr. Taylor



NOES.




(Drmdas).

PAIRS.


Mr. Templeton

Mr. Moss Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis


The debate (adjourned from Octo-ber 17) on the motion of Mr. Rafferty (Minister of Labour and Industry) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. Holding.

Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-The principles involved in this Bill are most important. Its provisions are varied, and cover a wide range of subjects. Probably it should be regarded as a Committee Bill. I shall content myself with commenting on the various clauses of the proposed legislation.

One of the important principles contained in the measure relates to the change which it proposes to make to allow the unrestricted baking of bread. This has been a vexed question for many years, largely as a result of the actions of persons engaged in the baking trade who have come to this country from overseas. They have been used to having bread products available at any time of the day on any day of the week. The Department of Labour and Industry has gone to considerable lengths over several years to prevent a breakdown in wages and conditions in the bread industry, but as a result of pressure from the general public and the availability of what have come to be known as "hot bread kitchens", it appears that any person who wishes to buy bread over the week-end or at night will have the opportunity of doing so.

This is the result of the Government's adoption of a different attitude. Formerly, the Government espoused the principle that good conditions should be provided for those in the business of baking bread and that those conditions should be maintained under all circumstances.

Many prosecutions have been launched over the years against baking outside the permitted breadbaking hours, but the Government has now decided to open the doors completely, just as it did when it altered the shop trading hours. It could well be said that the Government's decision on shops has not caused any problems-particularly in the metropolitan area, where late night shopping is the order of the day and appears to be a very popular innovation. However, one wonders about the baking trade and whether


the situation that the Government wishes to establish will come about. One can envisage the setting up of any number of small bake-houses or hot-bread kitchens which could cause difficulties for traditional, large bakeries. Only the future will tell what the outcome will be.

The Country Party is worried whether the present restriction on the cartage of bread products beyond the 30-mile radius of the area in which the bread is baked will still apply even though there will be a wateringdown of the baking hours provisions. Will the provisions relating to cartage also be amended? This matter concerns the Country Party, because it considers that many bakers who now operate successfully could be placed in jeopardy if the cartage provisions were altered.

The Country Party is interested in clause 13 which relates to the provision of protective frames on tractors. Machinery for this was debated at approximately this time two years ago when the Government made great play of the fact that the provision was to apply to all tractors throughout the State. The relevant Bill provided that every tractor should be fitted with a frame, except those used in orchard work or where it was impracticable for the tractors to work in proximity to trees and other crops by having the frame fitted. The Bill embodies a complete reversal of Government policy as compared with the policy it adopted two years ago. It is difficult for members of the Country Party to find a reason for the complete somersault performed by the Government.

Because of my party's serious concern, I foreshadow that in Committee I will move an amendment which will have the effect of making provision for protective frames to be fitted to tractors in all municipalities with the exception of those which are exempted following successful application to the Minister for an exemption. The Country Party believes the amendment will cover the

situation. Although members of the Country Party spoke strongly against the initial protective frame legislation, they believe it is practicable in certain areas of the State. In some areas the need for protective frames is great and in other areas it is not as great.

The Country Party considers that municipalities which believe they do not need the compulsory fitting of protective frames on tractors should have the right to apply for an exemption. If the provisions in the Bill are implemented, I am certain that most municipalities will not apply to be included under the protective frame legislation, and the situation will be as farcical as the debate on this Bill.

Honorable members supporting the Government have claimed in the press and elsewhere that they favour the policy of exemptions being granted on a municipality basis. A perusal of Hansard of last year would reveal that reference to this aspect was made by the honorable member for Swan Hill and, in another place by the Honorable B. P. Dunn, who also submitted the proposal that exemptions should be granted on a municipality basis. I hope I have set the record straight on that point.

As I mentioned earlier, I will have more to say during the Committee stage. Members of the Country Party believe their amendment is more positive and will make people realize that in certain geographical locations it should be necessary under legislation to fit protective frames to tractors unless the municipal council applies for an exemption.

The Country Party strongly supports the work done by the tractor testing station at Werribee and other projects which I shall not mention at this stage.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-The honorable member has one minute in which to conclude hi~ remarks.


Mr. WHITING.-The Gason family of Ararat produces some of the best tractor cabins and safety cabins in Australia and, indeed, sends them to most parts of Australia. The company will be placed in an invidious position if the amendment proposed in clause 13 is approved. The company will not know whether to go ahead with the fitting of positions for protective frames to be fitted to tractors or to proceed with the manufacture of the protective frames. The company will be placed in considerable jeopardy. If the Government is as sincere as it claims in its desire to help decentralized industries, it will accept the amendment that I have foreshadowed. By doing so, it can indicate its sincerity to decentralize industries throughout the State.

The Country Party strongly supports the amendment I have foreshadowed. Perhaps the Government will also see its way clear to accept the amendment.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second . time

and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2 (Amendment of No.

6283S.3 (2) and (3) repealed) . Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of

Labour and Industry) .-I thank the Deputy Leader of the Country Party for his observations. At the same time I express regret that members of the Opposition have not seen fit to debate the Bill. Ample time for that purpose was made available to them, but they spent their time debating the question of the amount of time that had been allotted for the debate. I consider that the Bill will be of considerable value to the community.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 3 to 6.

Clause 7, repealing sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act.

Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-Clause 7, which was referred to during the second reading, is interesting because

probably it could be construed as part of Victoria's progress. I am not sure whether it is a women's liberation type of progress but it is a fact that simply by deleting sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act, the Government is removing all reference to the employment of females and young persons. I believe the relevant provisions are old. From a perusal of sections 70 and 71, one can see the wisdom of having the two provisions in the Act. I presume that the reason for their deletion from the Act arises from wages board determinations and the improvements in other working conditions which have led to the Minister to decide that the provisions are no longer required. Section 70 provides, inter alia-

(1) No person shall employ in a factory any male under sixteen or female under eighteen years of age-

(a) for more than forty-eight hours in any week; or

(b) for more than ten hours on any day; or

(c) between the hours of nine o'clock (or, in the case of a female under sixteen years of age, six o'clock) in the evening and seven o'clock in the morning.

Section 71 provides, inter alia-< 1) In a part of a factory in which there

is carried on-

( a) the process of mercurial silvering of mirrors; or

(b) the process of making white leadno person shall employ any person under eighteen years of age.

(2) In a part of a factory in which the process of melting or annealing glass is carried on no person shall employ any female under eighteen years of age.

(3) In a factory in which there is carried on-

( a) the making or finishing of bricks or tiles not being ornamental tiles; or

(b) the making or finishing of salt-no person shall employ any female under sixteen years of age.

( 4) In a part of a factory in which there is carried on-

( a) any dry grinding in the metal trade; or

(b) dipping of lucifer matches-

no person shall employ any person under sixteen years of age.

Labour and Industry [12 DECEMBER, 1972.l (Amendment) 'Bill. 3461

Obviously the provision is obsolete, but I should like the Minister to explain what has happened, particularly in the case of the reference to dry grinding in the metal trade. I believe it is possible that persons under the age of sixteen years could be employed at this stage unless there is some other provision to make sure that this does not occur. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments if he can find his notes relating to the two provisions.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-The Deputy Leader of the Country Party was right in his suggestion that the provisions as they stand at the moment have become obsolete because of the activities of wages boards and because of various improvements which have been made over the years in the working conditions, hours of work, and so on for childrenapprenticeship is an illustration of what I have in mind. In general, I am satisfied that the provisions which were previously in the Act and which will now be repealed have been used so infrequently over a long period that they have become obsolete, and there is no danger in the matters raised by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party. I am satisfied that the conditions which are now provided in the various awards are satisfactory for the types of people to whom the provisions applied.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 8 and 9.

Clause 10, repealing paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1) of section 82 of the principal Act.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East) .-This clause deletes the provision which presently applies relating to the sale of petrol on Good Friday. As a representative of an area which is interested in the development of the tourist industry, I know that this provision is welcomed, particularly because. there will be a six-day break over· the forthcomiJig Easter

period. The first day of the holiday is Good Friday. People who will be travelling long distances to resorts in the east will be able to obtain petrol supplies on Good Friday, and therefore it is a worth-while move. It may be interesting to remind the Committee of a serious shooting incident which took place some years ago because a certain member of the Police Force endeavoured to enforce the provision relating to the restriction on the sale of petrol on Good Friday.

I do not suggest that that is a correct attitude to adopt but it illustrates how str-ongly some people feel, particularly those who rely for a living on relatively small service stations which must make the best of the holiday period. They provide a very important service in isolated areas. The provision is welcome and I support the clause.

The clause was agreed to. Clause 11, relating to week-end

baking of bread. Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-I re

ferred earlier to this clause. It provides for the repeal of sections 102 and 103 of the principal Act which relate to the hours of baking of bread. As I pointed out earlier the provision is open-ended and it will take time for conditions to settle down. It could have a very serious effect on the baking industry. There is a current shortage of bakers. If bakeries are to remain open for longer periods, they will have to employ additional bakers or pay their present employees considerable overtime. The additional costs will be passed on to the consumer. I should like to hear from the Minister whether he has had an indication of the possible effects of this provision.

Section 104 of the principal Act refers to the cartage ·Of bread before 6 a.m. and also to the limitation of deliveries to a distance of 30 miles. The Minister's predecessor was adamant about that provision and ttook great ·care to ensure that it was reasonably well .policed. Since that


time the section has been amended to try to pin down the illegal cartage of bread. People in country areas are very concerned that this provision does not break down completely once sections 102 and 103 are repealed.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry) .-The view of the Government is the same as it has been ever since the policing provisions were introduced. The view of the department is the same and the policing arrangements will continue. A number of prosecutions have been instituted recently. In many instances serious complaints were made but insufficient evidence was available to support prosecutions. The broad position is that the policing will continue in the same way. The honorable member for Mildura referred to the number of bakers available. No bakery is compelled to operate on seven days a week. From memory, country bakers were not so much in favour of the provision but the baking industry as a whole favoured it. I did not cause particular inquiries to be made about whether bakeries would be able to carry out baking on seven days a week. It is not a compulsory provision but it seemed to be embraced by the majority of bakers. I gained the impression that they would be able to operate on the days that they chose to do so. I cannot give the honorable member any further information about whether sufficient bakers would be available.

The clause was agreed to.

Clause 12 (Safety precautions to be observed with certain parts of machinery) .

Mr. BURGIN (Polwarth).-The Minister of Labour and Industry said in his second-reading speech-

With certain minor exceptions, at present the Act merely requires that dangerous parts of machinery shall be guarded at their point of use in the factory, that is to say, it places the onus on the factory occupier to provide whatever guards may be necessary. The provisions in the Bill require that machinery shall be provided with appropriate guards at the point of sale.

I agree with the Minister. It. is essential that in future the machmery entering factories, woolsheds and other places of emp1oyment is well guarded right from the point of sale~ but I consider that perhaps the provisions of clause 12 go further than the Minister intended. Its wording could be taken to mean that the wheels or pulleys of machinery at present in factories and woolsheds would have to be changed ; in other words, the provision could apply to the past. I should like the Minister to look very closely at this provision in order to establish whether it does exactly what he intends it to do. --Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-This clause could have very far-reaching effects and one wonders about its over-all extent. It does not appear to be limited to any great degree. The honorable member for Polwarth quite correctly referred to machinery at present in factories and other places. I am wondering whether it is a new idea to have pulley wheels and drive wheels with solid web or disc centres. Obviously some large flywheels could not have disc centres. I should be pleased to hear the Minister's comments. It could well be that the provision would be unworkable in some instances.

Mr. RAFFERTY {Minister of Labour and Industry) .-I thank the honorable member for Polwarth for his suggestions. Since he spoke I have had a further look at the provisions and I think I can understand the factor which is worrying him. I give an undertaking that I will have a further look at the provision between now and the time of the transmission of the Bill to another place.

The clause was agreed to. Clause 13, providing, inter alia

Section 175 of the Principal Act shall be amended as follows:-

(g) After sub-section ( 4) there shall be inserted the following sub-sections:-

(5) A regulation made pursuant to this section requiring tractors to be provided with protective frames shall not apply in any municipal district except by direction of the Minister made on the application of the council of the municipality.


Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-As I mentioned during the debate at the second-reading stage, the Country Party is very concerned about this clause. It covers most of the requirements relating to the fitting of protective frames to tractors. The honorable member for Swan Hill was the only member of this House to refer to the exemptions on a municipal basis. On 11th November, 1970, the honorable member stated-

! think that exemption from the provisions of this Bill should be granted on a shire basis and where shires consider it necessary they should be able to apply for exemption.

That is the basis of the Country Party's attitude to the clause. The honorable member for Lowan also had quite a bit to say on this point. He said, a.mong other things, that the fit•ting of protective cabins would help to reduce the number of deaths. He also suggested that drivers should wear seat belts. At page 1749 of volume 300 of Hansard reporting the debates for 1970-71 the honorable member for Lowan is reported to have said-

r would agree that deaths could be avoided if tractors had sheeted cabins and the drivers wore seat belts.

The Government has turned a complete somersault. Two years ago the Government proposed that at all costs protective frames 'had to be fitted to tractors. T-here was no quibble about it. Some honorable members tried to point out that certain difficulties could arise but the Government was adamant. Then a statement was made that exemptions were to be granted by regulations. As time went by it became obvious that regulations could not be dr-afted under the Act. The end result was that the Bill came into the House with an amendment to allow for regulations, but on the basis that they would not ·apply to any municipal district except by direction of the ·Minister made on the application of the council of a municipality.

The Country Party believes that this places a municipality in a ridiculous situation. If dangerous conditions exist in a municipality it will have to write to the Minister and ask for a direction that it be included in the regulations. If the Government has any respect for the suggestions put forward in the 1970 debate and if it sincerely believes that protective frames are necessary on tractors it will have to change its mind about the provisions of clause 13. All areas of the State should be covered by a provision for protective frames; municipal districts should apply for exemptions and the Minister should decide whether the applications are to be granted.

This is a more positive approach to the matter. If the Government is sincere, it will accept the amendment which I propose. I move-

That, in proposed sub-section (5) of section 175 of the principal Act, as contained in paragraph (g), the words "not apply in any municipal district except by direction of the Minister made " be omitted with the view of inserting the words " apply to every municipal district which is not exempted from that regulation by direction of the Minister, and the Minister shall provide such exemption ".

As drafted, proposed sub-section (5) refers to the application by the council of a municipality. Members of the Country Party consider that this is a sensible amendment, and we will be dismayed if the Government is not prepared to accept it.

Mr. RAFFERTY (Minister of Labour and Industry).-The honorable member will be dismayed, because the Government is not able to accept the amendment. The Government gave this matter a good deal of consideration and considers that a regulation about protective frames on tractors should not apply in any municipal district except by direction of the Minister made on the application of the council of the municipality. The Government's thinking was that it recognizes that the people who make up municipalities in country areas are responsible persons who know their own areas better than do


members of the Government-or members of the Country Party for that matter. The Government is satisfied that these people will recognize the responsibility which the Government is casting upon them and will make application to the Government if the municipality in a particular area feels that it ought to do so. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Government will, following the implementation of the Bill, continue to keep the legislation and the tractor safety regulations under close surveillance, and if it appears at a future time that the responsibility which the Government is placing on municipalities is not being met, the Government will further examine the legislation. That is why the Bill has been drafted in this way, and why the Government cannot accept the amendment moved by the Deputy Leader of the Country Party.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -I am astounded at the Minister's reply on this amendment because the Bill displays a completely negative attitude to this important subject whereas the amendment proposed by the Country Party is a positive approach. By insisting on the proposal contained in the Bill, the Government is placing on municipalities the responsibility for deciding whether to have this legislation implem.ented. I point out that if a fatal accident occurs in a ·municipal district, the blame will be fairly laid on the heads of municipal councillors of that district if they fail to seek the implementation of this provision. The Government is abrogating its authority in this regard. The proposal advanced by the Country Party gives a municipality which feels strongly that the regulations should not apply in its part of the State the right to make application to the Minister who shall then grant an exemption. Surely that is a logical approach. Then the shire council concerned will have fairly accepted the responsibility, after having sought it. I suggest that few municipalities

will take the initiative in this matter. The Government is throwing the re-sponsibility for taking the initiative on to municipalities instead of accepting its responsibility in regard to tractor safety. The result will be a complete negation of the argument put in justi·fication of this Bill, and the Government is running for cover.-

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wiltshire }.-Order! The time allotted for this stage of the debate has expired. I must put the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment?

Honorable members having given their voices--

The .ACTING CHAIRMAN.-The Noes have it. As a division is called for, I will put the question, " That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause."

Mr. WHITING (Mildura).-On a point of order, Mr. Acting Chairman, I thought you had put the question.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-! am putting it in a different way, as prescribed by the Standing Orders. It is to be put in a positive way according to the Standing Orders. It is the same question.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -Mr. Acting Chairman, could you quote the Standing Order under which a question can be changed after it has been put?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-According to Standing Order No. 65 and long standing practice, the question should be put in a positive way. As a division was called for, I put the question again, " That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause".

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Whiting to be omitted stand part of the proposed sub-section (Sir Edgar Tanner in the chair)-

Ayes 36 Noes 7


Dental Technicians [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3471

AYES.

Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. McCabe Mr. MacDonald



(Bellarine') Mr. Smith

(Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Stokes Mr. Suggett Mr. Taylor



Tellers: Mr. Austin Mr. Guy.

NOES.

Mr. Evans (Gippsland East)

Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Trewin

Mr. Whiting. Tellers:

Mr. Broad Mr. McDonald

(Rodney). PAIR.

Mr. Templeton Mr. Moss. 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.

DENTAL TECHNICIANS BILL. This Bill was returned from the

Council with a message relating to amendments.

It was ordered that the message be taken into consideration later this day.

The sitting was suspended at 12.17 a.m. (Wednesday) until 12.48 a.m.

DECENTRALIZED INDUSTRY INCENTIVES (PAY-ROLL TAX

REBATES) 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.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-I declare this Bill to be an urgent Bill, and I move-


Approval of the motion being put was indicated by the required number of members rising in their places as specified in Standing Order No. 78F.


Ayes 34 Noes 24

Majority for moti'On

the 10


(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. McCabe Mr. Ma·cDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher


(Gippsland East) Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lind

AYES.

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith


(Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor (Gippsland South)



NOES.


Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. ~iting Mr. wilkes Mr. Wilton.


(Dundas).

PAIRS.


Mr. Stokes Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn)

Mr. Curnow Mr. Turnbull Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Shilton

Mr. Templeton Mr. Moss.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-I move-


(a) For the remainder of the secondreading stage of the Bill, until 2 a.m.;

(b) for the remaining stages of the Bill, until 4.15 a.m.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-The Decentralized Industry Incentives (Pay-roll Tax Rebates) Bill was introduced

3472 Decentralized Industry [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roll

several weeks ago. It gives effect to an item which was mentioned in the Speech by His Excellency the Governor when he opened the current session of Parliament. It was one of those measures which has been broadcast far and wide across Victoria as one of the Government's steps to provide incentives to decentralized industries within the State. It is ludicrous at this late hour of the sessional period for the Government to impose a time limit on the debate on this Bill when it has had ample opportunity in the past few weeks to allow the debate on the measure to proceed. After the Treasurer's second-reading speech, the debate on the Bill was adjourned for one week. Although the House was given an assurance by the Treasurer that more time would be allowed if it should be required, the Opposition did not ask for more time. Since then the Government has had ample opportunities to bring on the Bill for debate.

I submit that many honorable members, on the Opposition side of the Chamber and also on the Government side, including members of the corner party, wish to raise specific points in relation to this measure. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that the time allocated by the Treasurer is sufficient to enable honorable members to make representations to Parliament about the way in which the Bill will affect decentralized industries or the effect of this Government's policies as they relate to a reversal of the population drift to the city. It is essential that more time be allowed for the debate. There is no sense in blaming the Opposition for wanting to delay the processes of Parliament. Already this evening the Government has ruthlessly guillotined several Bills in order to rush through its legislative programme." If the Government has failed to achieve . what it set out to achieve at the ' beginning of the session in order to put its legislative programme through Parliament it is the Government's own fault. The Opposition can in no way be blamed for that.

As has been mentioned previously, Budget Bills such as this measure should have been submitted to the Parliament much earlier in the session. The way in which the Government has guillotined Bills tonight is nothing short of disgraceful, especially in a Parliament which pledges itself to uphold the democratic rights of the whole community and the democratic rights of its members. The Government must allow more time if honorable members are to debate the proposed legislation sensibly. The Bill involves the expenditure in the 1973-7 4 financial year of about $5 · 5 million, yet the measure is to be disposed of within three or four hours. That is absolutely ridiculous. I urge the Treasurer to extend the time allowed for the debate so that proper consideration can be given to the representations that will be made.

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).I endorse the comments of my colleague, the honorable member for Morwell, and suggest that no time limit should be placed on the debate on a matter so important as this. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation affecting the progress of non-metropolitan Victoria that has come before the Parliament in many years. For the Premier to impose a time limit on the debate on the Bill and thereby to prevent all honorable members from speaking fully on behalf of their electorates is to the Government's shame. As I look around the Chamber I see honorable members from the eastern, western and northern parts of Victoria representing many different towns and areas. I presume with a threehour time limit on the debate it is expected that honorable members representing some of these areas will sit like dummies and put up their hands when their party tells them to do so. They should have an opportunity to speak on behalf of their electorates, particularly on a measure as important as this.

Tax Rebates) [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3473

I should like to have an opportunity to state a case for the Geelong area, and I know that the honorable members for Geelong and Bellarine would also wish to do so. The electors of Geel'Ong believe this Bill was introduced under false pretences. On behalf of the Geelong area, I demand enough time to be able to point out to the Premier and Treasurer that the Bill has been brought in under false pretences. If I am silenced, the people of the Geelong area are also being silenced. The same can be said of other honorable members opposite who represent districts in the Geelong area. The Government may have the numbers to steamroll this measure through Parliament, but I suggest that if it does so it might have second thoughts next April about what is done tonight. I look around the Chamber and see the honorable member for Ba!llaarat South. Surely he ~should have a chance to speak on behalf of people in his area. I know that on the Opposition side of the Chamber the honorable members for Dundas and Portland share my view, as does the honorable member for Morwell who has just resumed his seat. The honorable member for Mildura represents Swan Hill, ·EchuC!a and many other ·country towns which will be affected by th'e Bill.

No doubt all honorable members have received representations from their constituents asking them to voice opinions on their behalf during the debate. I am sure that every member representing a country electorate wishes to accept his responsibility to speak on behalf of his electorate and to mention the effect the Bill will have on it. As I mentioned earlier, in the non-metropolitan area of Geelong we have a special grizzle in relation to this Bill which I suggest was brought before the House under false pretences. I am sure that all honorable members in the Geelong area wish to debate the Bill in its entirety. The Opposition and, I am sure the Country Party object to the guillotine being applied to this measure. Tonight the Government

might have the numbers to stifle the debate, but it will not be able to stifle the electors when it goes to the people in April.


Ayes 34 Noes 24


AYES. Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans


(Glen Iris) Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty



(Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor


Tellers:

Mr. Burgin Mr. Crellin.

NOES. Mr. Amos Mr. McDonald Mr. Bomstein (Rodney) Mr. Broad Mr. Mitchell Mr. Doube Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Edmunds Mr. Simmonds Mr. Evans Mr. Trewin

(Gippsland East) Mr. Trezise Mr. Floyd Mr. Whiting Mr. Fordham Mr. Wilkes Mr. Ginifer Mr. Wilton Mr. Holding Tellers: Mr. Jones Mr. Fell Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis Mr. Lind (Dundas).

PAms. Mr. Manson Mr. Curnow Sir George Reid Mr. Turnbull Mr. Rossiter Mr. Lewis (Portland) Mr. Stokes Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Taylor (Balwyn) Mr. Shilton Mr. Templeton Mr. Moss.

The debate (adjourned from November 22) on the motion of Mr. Hamer (Premier and Treasurer) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-This Bill deals with the granting of pay-roll tax rebates to approved decentralized industries within Victoria. No one

'3474 Decentralized Industry [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roll

would deny that there has never been a greater awareness in Australia than at present of the need for de·centralization. Throughout the years, reports have been presented by expert committees, Parliamentary committees, people concerned with local government and persons concerned with the movement of population within this country on the need to decentralize and to develop in a meaningful way regions which are self -supporting.

I refer the House to the report of a committee of economic inquiry prepared for the Commonwealth of Australia in May, 1965. One of the recommendations contained in the report of the Vernon committee was that Governments should use their fiscal powers to provide incentives needed to change the balance of population. Honorable members are aware that Australia has been described as the most urbanized nation in the world. About 85 per cent of Australians live in the capital cities. Governments are now awakening to the fact that they have to provide incentives of a meaningful nature to reverse this trend of population in the cities.

I also refer the House to the report of the Victorian Chamber of Manufactures in which it recommended-

That tax incentives of high order should be encouraged as an incentive to decentralization since this will result in greater private investment in decentralization areas and lead to a better state of balance between Commonwealth and private expenditure in the designated areas.

The Chamber of Manufactures was referring to both Commonwealth and State taxation incentives.

When explaining this Bill, the Premier and Treasurer mentioned part of the reason why the Government would not accede to· the request of the Opposition .last year that pay-roll tax incentives should be granted to approved decentralized industries in Victoria. Under the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971, ·already various industries and employers in Victoria receive a concessional allowance of about

Mr. Amos.

$20,800 a year. The Bill relates only to those industries which are approved decentralized industries within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act and those industries which the Governor in Council so designates. The Bill lays down a formula under which pay-roll tax is assessed to determine the type of rebate which industries shall receive.

On 28th September, 1971, when speaking on the Pay-roll Tax Bill, the then Acting Premier and Treasurer said-

The Government wants this tax and it wants this measure passed so that the tax can be collected by the State from the 1st September. The Government also wants to honour the arrangements with the other States and the Commonwealth about the way in which it will take over the tax. It will be difficult enough for the employers who pay the tax to have their liability suddenly switched from the Commonwealth to the State and the whole purpose of the Bill is to make it as simple as possible for them to meet their new obligations. The Bill indicates the way the Government proposes to take over pay-roll tax and the way in which it has been drawn up is the way in which the Government will deal with the takeover. The Acting Premier and Treasurer also said that because of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States on the passing of control of pay-roll tax to the States the tax could not be varied.

I have mentioned in a previous debate the remarks of the previous Commonwealth Minister for Snipping and Transport when he referred to the granting of control of pay-roll tax to the States. In a letter which the honorable gentleman sent to the Traralgon City Council on 1st February this year, the former Minister ~tated-

You will recall that last year the Commonwealth handed over to the States the control and application of pay-roll tax.

So that there be no misunderstandings over the arrangments that were made for this, I am writing to Council today to reiterate some of the main points

In handing over the control of payroll tax, the Commonwealth applied no strings whatsoever to the States. From the beginning of the letter it is obvious that the Minister was acting of his own volition and that he

Tax Rebates) [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] ·Bill. 3475

was in no way canvassed by the Traralgon City Council. The letter continued-

Before passing payroll tax to the States, the Commonwealth made two ancillary decisions which add to the benefit gained by the States: firstly, the Commonwealth agreed to reimburse the States for making exemptions from payroll tax to local government authorities; secondly, the Commonwealth continues to operate and pay for the export incentive scheme, which is a formula giving a rebate entitlement in relation to a company's increase in exports.

It seems that the previous Minister for Shipping and Transport took a view different from that of the State Government when it introduced the Pay-roll Tax Bill last year. The Government said that there were strings attached to the handing over of pay-roll tax to the States and that it could not vary the provisions of the Bill or agree to the amendments proposed by the Opposition in relation to incentives being granted, by remission of pay-roll tax, to decentralized industries.

Mr. HAMER.-All the States took the same view.

·Mr. AMOS.-If that is so, the previous Minister for Shipping and Transport must have been wrong. The letter continued-

Thus, if a State wishes to give incentives to certain industries or areas by reducing the level of pay-roll tax that would otherwise be applicable, that would be wholly and solely a decision of the State.

The Commonweath level of pay-roll tax was 2! per cent. Under its new power of control over the tax in Victoria, the State Government has raised this to 3! per cent.

In summary, the position following the transfer of the tax to the States is that the Commonwealth has no influence over the level of pay-roll tax, the method of its administration or matters of exemption.

I hope this letter will assist council in any discussions concerning pay-roll tax.

The Traralgon City Council in no way sought the views of the previous Minister for Shipping and Transport. On his own initiative, the honorable gentleman wrote to the council and explained his Government's view on the way in which pay-roll tax was to be handed over to the States. As I have said, that view differed from

the view put by the Government when the Pay-roll Tax Bill was being debated in 1971.

This Bill grants pay-roll tax rebates to industry, as I have already mentioned. There are one or two matters of concern to the Opposition and I know they will be of concern to the Country Party and to the honorable members for Geelong and Bellarine. One is that the Bill does not cover industries in the Geelong area as it covers decentralized industries in other parts of the State. Another is the way in which this Bill disadvantages those industries in Victoria which benefit from the Commonwealth export incentive scheme. In his second-reading speech, the Premier and Treasurer said-

Clause 4 of the Bill defines the amount of the payment to be approved by the Minister. The amount of the payment will be such proportion of the total pay-roll tax paid by the firm in Victoria, less any Commonwealth export incentive grant, as the wages paid to employees normally employed at the decentralized industry bear to total wages paid by the firm. Wages for this purpose are, of course, wages on which pay-roll tax was paid in Victoria. It is clear from a perusal of the Bill that export industries in Victoria will be disadvantaged. In other words, because the Commonwealth makes export incentive grants to: industries to help them develop and increase their exports, the Bill will not benefit them in any way whatsoever. It is completely wrong for the Government to place these export industries in this position. It will be detrimental to Victoria if the Bill is enacted in its present form. It is important that Victoria develop not only industries with home markets but also export industries. If those industries receive the full benefit of the Commonwealth export incentive scheme in other States and not in Victoria. that would be to the detriment of this State.

Mr. Ross-EnwARns.-Will they get these benefits in Western Australia or South Australia? The honorable member does not know.

Mr. AMOS.-The Leader of the Country Party is referring to the way

3476 Decentralized Industry [ASSEMBLY .1 Incentives (Pay-roll

in which the Commonwealth export incentive grants are applied. I refer the honorable member to the Exporting Incentive Grants Act of 1971 which deals with that. It shows that these grants will be made to export industries throughout Australia ; it does not necessarily refer just to Victoria. From the formula in subclause (2) of clause 4 of the Bill it can be seen that there is a simple multiplication of the pay-roll tax paid by the total pay-roll. Any payment made under the Commonwealth export incentive scheme is deducted and the amount is divided by the pay-roll to arrive at the rebate. One does not have to: be a Rhodes Scholar to know that export industries will receive less by the application of this method of calculation. Export industries ought not to be disadvantaged in that way.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS.-Do you know what is being done in South Australia and Western Australia?

Mr. AMOS.-I will leave that to the Leader of the Country Party. If the honorable member has any information of what is happening there or in Queensland or Tasmania, I am sure the House will be delighted to hear it.

In his second-reading speech, the Treasurer stated that it was estimated that during the financial year 1973-74 payments under the Bill would amount to $5.5 million. This estimate was made by Treasury officials and officers of the Department of State Development and Decentralization in assessing, as closely as they could, the amount of pay-roll tax paid by those industries in Victoria which are already approved decentralized industries under section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act.

On 31'st October, the honorable member for Gippsland East asked the Minister representing the Minister for State Development and Decentralization how many approved decentralized industries employed more than ten persons each and in which towns they were located. The

answer given on behalf of the Minister for State Development and Decentralization by the Minister without Portfolio w·as that there were 401 such industries, and the honorable gentleman indicated where those industries were located.

On 25th October, the honorable member for Gippsland East had asked in which towns decentralized industries had been declared in each year since the enactment of the provisions and how many employees were at present employed by any such firms. The number of industries mentioned in the answer was 4 77. It can be seen that it is not a difficult task to determine the cost to the State of rebates on pay-roll tax. It is interesting to consider the reasons stated by the Treasurer for not including firms within Geelong among those that will enjoy pay-roll tax rebates. The Premier stated-

All firms which are approved decentralized industries within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 will be eligible to apply for incentive payments under the Bill. As honorable members will be aware, approved decentralized secondary industries under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act are industries, approved by the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, which are located beyond a radius of 50 miles of the Melbourne General Post Office, or within a radius of 5 miles from the principal post office at Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, 'Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend.

Later the Premier stated that, in formulating the legislation, the Government had considered the conclusions and recommendations set down in the 1967 report of the Decentralization Advisory Committee. I shall refer to that report shortly because references in it to Geelong are sketchy. The Treasurer also said, that the Decentralization Advisory Committee--

Came to the conclusion that Geelong had reached the self-generating stage. Having gone into the matter in great detail it reported that Geelong "already possesses many attributes of self-generation, for example, proximity to Melbourne, port facilities and, more importantly, an effective level of population. " In other words Geelong had become of age.

Tax Rebates) (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3477

The ·Premier then said that industries in Geelong would not enjoy the privileges that industries in other areas would enjoy.

On page 17 of its report, the Decentralization Advisory Committee reported on the selection of five places for accelerated development and suggested that Geelong should be excluded because it-

Already possesses many attributes of selfgeneration, for example, proximity to Melbourne, port facilities and more importantly, an effective level of population.

That is the only comment relating to reasons why Geelong is excluded. No mention is made of the high incidence of unemployment in Geelong or the way in which industries there have been disadvantaged and, as the honorable member for Geelong North will indicate, are still being seriously disadvantaged.

A reading of the report of the Distribution of Population Committee which was presented in 1962-63 and the recommendations that were made for amendment of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act to bring about the designation of an approved decentralized industry perhaps provides some glimmer why Geelong was excluded when the amending legislation was placed before the House.

Mr. HAMER.-The Labor Party voted against it.

Mr. AMOS.-I will come to that. Sub-section { 4) of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act provides-

In paragraph (h)of sub-section (1) of this section " approved decentralized secondary industry " means a manufacturing or processing industry carried on by a person at a place--

(a) within a radius of five miles from the principal post office at any one of the following places, namely:Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend; or

(b) beyond a radius of fifty miles from the post office at the corner of Bourke street and Elizabeth street in the City of Melbourne--

and approved in writing for the purposes of this section by the Minister of State Development.

Session 1972.-122

That provision was included on the recommendation of the Distribution of Population Committee in 1962-63. On page 27 of its report, the committee stated that except for the established towns of Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, Kilmore, Kyneton and Woodend, the committee recommended that no industries within a radius of 50 miles of Melbourne be approved by the Minister as decentralized industries.

Recently the newly-appointed Minister for State Development and Decentralization has made press announcements stating that because certain towns within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne were not mentioned in the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act and would be disadvantaged, the Minister would ensure that they received the benefits of this measure. But where is the Government going to start and stop, and what criteria will be used in determining those areas within the 50-mile radius?

The Bill authorizes the Governor-inCouncil to approve pay-roll tax rebates for those new industries within the 50-mile radius which can satisfy the Governor in Council that they will create sufficient new employment opportunities. I suggest that the statements made by the Premier and by the Minister for State Development and Decentralization about Balian differ to the extent that one cannot be compared with the other.

In the debate on the Commercial Goods •Vehicles {Decentralized Industries) Bill in October, 1963, the honorable member for Geelong ·West complained that Geelong was not to be included within the provisions of the Bill, nor would it re-ceive ·any of the benefits re~ating to road transport that other areas were to receive. On page 981 of volume 271 of Hansard the honorable member for Geelong is reported to have said on 9th October, 1963-

I think the basis of this Bill and its objectives are admirable. I agree with these wholeheartedly, but I would be letting my constituents down if I did not state their views on the position in Geelong. The basis


of the measure is to create a map-radius line of 50 miles from Melbourne outside of which approved secondary industries will have certain special rights to use road transport as of right. We agree with this principle, but we aver that there are some basic weaknesses when only six towns are specified as exceptions in the Bill. On scanning the report of the Distribution of Population Committee, one finds adequate reasons why those towns were mentioned. There are industries in Bacchus Marsh and the other towns at present, which are operating under special transport conditions, and the committee did not feel that the pattern which had developed should be disturbed because it had assisted industry in those areas. The honorable member for Geelong went on to state a case why Geelong ought to be included within the provisions of the Act, On page 983, the report of the honorable member's speech continues-

The Bill as drafted contains one nigger in the wood pile--the expression " approved decentralized secondary industry." This is the key to the problem. No one would envy the Minister of State Development his task in deciding what is an approved decentralized secondary industry and what is not. I believe such decisions would take ten years off my life overnight. I am sure honorable members will agree that the Minister of State Development should not have to shoulder the responsibility of declaring approved decentralized secondary industries. Again the honorable member complained that Geelong was not within the ambit of the Bill. I can only assume that the honorable members for Geelong and Bellarine will voice their opinions on this measure. I believe they will support the amendment which I intend to move and which seeks to have the Bill in its present form withdrawn in order that manufacturing or processing industries within a radius of 10 miles from the principal post office at Geelong can be classified as decentralized establishments. I am sure that the honorable members for Geelong and Bellarine will find the amendment commendable and will support it.

I do not believe we have yet established criteria on which to determine whether industry in Victoria ought to receive special assistance to bring about a more balanced development and distribution of population. There are seven Acts of Parliament

Mr. Amos.

which in some way relate to the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act in determining which industries ought to receive assistance. There are other measures which do not refer to that Act. I believe the time has arrived for proper criteria to be determined so that we can decide particular industries which should be developed.

There is a lot of unemployment at Geelong, and many people travel from there to Melbourne to work. As a result, the highway between Geelong and Melbourne is packed with people travelling backwards and forwards. That city is in need of special assistance and, if the Government is not prepared to grant a full rebate of pay-roll tax to that area, I suggest that it should grant a pro rata rebate because existing industries in Geelong need special assistance to enable them to expand as the city expands. There have already been instances of industries shifting from Geelong to the metropolitan area. I am sure that if those industries had received encouragement from the Government they would have expanded their operations within the Geelong area. Accordingly, ,I move-

That all the words after "That" be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the expression " whilst this House endorses the principle of incentives to decentralized establishments, it is of the opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill submitted to provide for-

(a) manufacturing or processing industries within a radius of ten miles from the principal post office Geelong to be classified as decentralized establishments; and

(b) payments made to establishments receiving export incentive grants to be calculated on the same basis as other qualified decentralized establishments. "

I believe the Bill should be withdrawn and redrafted. The Bill does not take effect until the end of June, 1973, because in the period from the end of June to November, 1973, industries which are affected by its provisions will be asked to submit claims for pay-roll tax rebates. That gives an opportunity for the Bill to be withdrawn, re-examined and submitted to the Parliament in the


autumn sessional period. Because of the hardships faced by export industries in this State, and the hardships being experienced in the Geelong area, I believe the Government should accept the amendment.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party).-I commend the Government for initiating this proposed legislation which will enable rebates of pay-roll tax to be given to certain decentralized industries in this State. It is interesting to note that this is a proposition which was put forward by the Opposition and the Country 'Party in a previous debate concerning pay-roll tax some 12 months ago. At that time the Government indicated that it was sympathetic to the principle of granting concessions, but that it was not in a position to do so at that time. However, the Country Party is not happy to have this concession applying only to specified decentralized industries, because there are many industries which will not qualify. An outstanding example of that is a sawmill.

If we are going to assist decentralization, we must encourage employers outside the metropolitan area. I can do no more than to repeat the remarks I made in the debate earlier today on the Land Tax ·Bill concerning the way in which the movement of people to country areas of Victoria can be encouraged. I emphasize the point that the Government must realize that it has to do something drastic if Melbourne is not to grow to an unlimited extent. Although it has been said that the Government will limit the population to a certain level-perhaps three, four or five million-it appears that planners are working on the basis of having a population of 6 million in the year 2000. If the Government seriously considers this problem, it will realize that it should give consideration to the provision of incentives which will encourage employers to pack up and go beyond a radius of 50 miles of Melbourne.

I should like to comment on the Commonwealth export incentive

grants which were referred to by the honorable member for Morwell and to emphasize that concessions provided in this measure will have to be in addition to those export incentives. It was argued in the House some 12 months ago that one was tied to the other, but I think it can be fairly argued now that they are quite separate. One is a Commonwealth grant and it is given as an incentive to industry whether it is situated in Melbourne or the country. The same concessions apply to export sales.

It would be of interest to ascertain how this matter is dealt with in other States. The honorable member for Morwell contended that Victoria would be at a disadvantage compared with Western Australia and South Australia, but I disagree with that statement because there is no indication that they will grant concessions similar to those which are the subject of this measure. However, that is no reason for not giving incentives to industries beyond 50 miles of Melbourne. I propose to move an amendment to enable concessions to be granted to all industries beyond the 50-mile radius and also to industries which are within a radius of 5 miles of certain country centres.

I move-That the amendment be amended by the

insertion after paragraph (b) of the following:-

and (c) payroll . tax rebates for all

employers-(i) within a radius of five

miles from the principal post office at any one of the following places, namely : - Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisbome, Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend; or

(ii) beyond a radius of fifty miles from the post office at the corner of Bourke-street and Elizabeth-street in the City of Melbourne.

Mr. TREZISE.-Your amendment excludes Geelong.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-Geelong is wiped under this provision.


Mr. HOLDING.-Why is this? Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-There may

be reasons why Geelong should receive some consideration but it is hard to understand why Geelong, with the big population it has-a major city by any standard in Australia-should not have a self-generating capacity. Apparently for reasons which are beyond me, Geelong appears to continue to stagger along. Geelong is regarded as neither metropolitan nor country so it lacks the advantages of both. That is another matter concerning which I am sure the three honorable members in this House who represent that area can put forward an appropriate argument.

I ask the Government to give serious consideration to ensuring that pay-roll tax is used as a real 1neasure to encourage decentralization in this State, because there are many worthwhile industries, apart from the sawmill industry, which could be centred outside the metropolitan area. The transport industry is an interesting one. It would encourage big road hauliers to have their centre of business out of Melbourne and located at various country centres on the main highways. I suggest that the Government should adopt a discretionary power provision which it can apply to other industries so that they might receive encouragement to establish beyond the metropolitan area.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasuser) .-I indicate briefly the Government's attitude to the reasoned amendments put forward by the honorable. member for Morwell and the Leader of the Country Party. On consideration, the Government has some sympathy with the two matters put forward by the honorable member for Morwell. I foreshadow that at the Committee stage the Government will propose amendments which, although not making the Geelong area equal to the rest of Victoria, will afford some measure of rebate not only for Geelong but for any area within the 50-mile radius which will be designated to receive this incen-

tive. To that extent, I indicate that I agree there are special cases for areas within the 50-mile limit.

I remind the House that the Bill is based on two reports to which the honorable member for Morwell referred. One was the all-party Distribution of Population Committee report which set a 50-mile limit apart from six towns within it. That was followed by the Decentralization Advisory Committee report which reached the same conclusion. I would hesitate to extend the exemption to Geelong as it would be contravening the recommendation of those two committees. However, on consideration the Government believes there is a case for Geelong, although not a full case, because the real objective is to promote decentralization and the growth of centres beyond a 50-mile limit from Melbourne.

The second part of the amendment moved by the honorable member for Morwell relating to existing industries deserves some consideration. It is a complicated matter because many industries operate with an export incentive. It is a difficult matter to sort out what they pay or how much is paid as an export incentive. The suggestion has merit and deserves a second look and I undertake to the House to give it consideration. Because these companies are paid export incentives equivalent to 2 per cent of the pay-roll tax paid by them, it was intended under the Bill to give them an advantage equivalent to another 1 per cent. The honorable member for Morwell tried to indicate that there would be some disadvantage in this provision. There will be an advantage, but it will not be as big an advantage as that which will apply to some other decentralized industries which are at present not exporting. For that reason, the Government should have a second look at export industries, and I propose to do that.

I have indicated in my remarks that the Government is not prepared to go as far as the. Leader of the Country

Tax Rebates) [12 DECEMBER, 1972.) Bill. 3481

Party recommends and extend these concessions to all employers. I remind the House of the investigations carried out which revealed that the emphasis has always been on manufacturing and processing industries. It is in those spheres that our efforts should be directed and if it is in this area that the Government is prepared to confine its efforts so that they will be most effective, the Government will simply be wasting funds to do otherwise.

Mr. WHITING.-We want people in the country areas.

Mr. HAMER.-Yes, I agree that we want people in the country areas, but other matters must be taken into consideration. I refer the honorable member to the Distribution of Population Committee's report which states several times that secondary industry is the key to promotion of growth in country areas. The resources of the Government are not endless and if it is going to make costly rebates, obviously it should direct its financial efforts where they will do the most good. That is the basis of the Bill. Having indicated the Government's attitude to the amendments, I foreshadow certain amendments which I shall invite the Committee to accept. The amendments will apply to areas within a 50-mile limit.

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).In dealing with the amendment, the Premier said that no area within the 50-mile limit should enjoy the pay-roll tax allowance. However, in the Barlan News last week, there appeared this article-

Ballan Shire Council is worried that the township of Balian could be overlooked by the Bill providing pay-roll tax exemptions for certain decentralized industries.

The town is within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne and therefore not eligible for the exemption as the Bill stands.

The council has written to the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, Mr. Murray Byrne, to have the matter clarified.

The next day, the Minister for State Development and Decentralization was reported as follows:-

An exception would be made enabling Balian to share in the new pay-roll tax concessions for decentralized industries, the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, Mr. Murray Byrne, said last night.

Mr. Byrne said: "Now for the first time an exception has been made and Ballan can share in the new Government financial incentives."

That is the first time an exception has been made. Apparently there is to be a special case for Geelong, on the Premier's submission, but there seems to be a contradiction between the remarks of the Minister for State Development and Decentralization--

Mr. A. T. EvANS.-It has no existing industry!

Mr. TREZISE.-What about the meat works up there?

Mr. A. T. EvANs.-There are only two employees so it does not pay pay-roll tax. You don't know your subject.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-The honorable member for Ballaarat North is interjecting out of his place.

Mr. TREZISE.-On the whole, any Bill which extends concessions for the promotion of industry in the country is welcomed by the Labor Party and naturally by the Country Party from remarks made because it gives country industries some advantage to overcome the disabilities when compared with Melbourne. In the expression " country industries " I include industries in Geelong. They cannot be regarded as m'etropolitan industries because they have the added burden of extra telephone and freight costs. In the past too many industries have ceased operations in country areas. When an industry transfers to the metropolitan area its employees and their families go with it. That is the main reason why the population is dwindling in

3482 Decentralized Industry · [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roll

the majority of towns in Victoria outside the metropolitan area of Melbourne.

Geelong has been left out on a limb. The Liberal Party considers that Geelong is in no-man's land. A definite opportunity now exists for Geelong to be regarded as a special area. If it is C'lassified as a country area it will no longer be in no-man's land. In the view of the Liberal Party Government, Geelong is a country area for train fares, motor vehicle insurance, road transport and telephone services, but established industries in Geelong apparently are classified as metropolitan because they are on the same basis as metropolitan industries for the payment of pay-roll tax. The Premier said in his second-reading speech that Geelong does not need the type of assistance provided for in the Bill because it is a self-generating city. He said that since 1960 one major new industry had been established in Gee long each year. I wish he had named those major industries. The only major industry I know which has been established in Geelong since 1960 is that of Alcoa of Australia Limited. Other new industries established in Geelong have been minor, except perhaps that set up by John Sackville & Sons Ltd. I was the first person to contact that company about starting in Geelong.

Over the same period a similar number of industries have closed down or have greatly reduced their staff. The Premier correctly referred to an increase in the population of Geelong, but paraUel increa·ses in industry and employment opportunities have not occurred. Geelong has the highest number of unemployed persons in Victoria and that has been the position for the past seven or eight years. Very few areas in Australia have official unemployment figures as high as those of Geelong. In addition, as the honorable member for Morwell pointed out, thousands of people travel from Geelong to Melbourne each day to work. Many of them would prefer to work in the Geelong area. It is practically impossible for school leavers, particu-

Mr. Trezise.

larly females, to obtain employment in Geelong. Advertisements in the Geelong newspaper for junior female clerks attract about 70 or 80 applications. Unemployed people over 40 years of age find it practically impossible to obtain work in Geelong. Too many people who have matriculated at Geelong secondary schoolls cannot obtain employment in the area. Although similar problems occur elsewhere, they do not occur to the same degree as they do in the Geelong area.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Sir Edgar Tanner).-Order! The time allotted for the second-reading stage of the debate has now expired.

The House divided on Mr. RossEdwards's amendment on Mr. Amos's amendment (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 23 No~ 34

Majority against Mr. Ross-Edwards's amend-ment 11

AYES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Broad Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lind


Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilton.


(Dundas). NOES.


(Ballaarat North) Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer !Mr. Hayes Mr. Jona Mr. Loxton Mr. McCabe Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher

Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith


(Warrnambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor



Tax Rebates) [I2 DECEMBER, 1972.] · Bill.' 3483

Mr. Curnow Mr. Lewis

PAIRS.

Mr. Rossiter Mr. Stokes

(Portland) Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Taylor

Mr. Shilton Mr. Turnbull Mr. Wilkes

(Balwyn) Mr. Templeton Sir George Reid Mr. Manson.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Amos to be omitted stand part of the motion (Sir Vernon Christie in the chair)-

Ayes 34 Noes 23

Majority against the amendment II

AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Rafferty Mr. Balfour Mr. Reese Mr. Billing Mr. Scanlan Mr. Birrell Mr. Smith Mr. Borthwick (Bellarine) Mr. Dixon Mr. Smith Mr. Dunstan ( Warmambool) Mr. Evans Mr. Stephen

(Ballaarat North) Mr. Sugget<t Mrs. Goble Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Guy Mr. Taylor Mr. Hamer (Gippsland South) Mr. Hayes Mr. Thompson Mr. Jona Mr. Trethewey Mr. Loxton Mr. Wheeler Mr. McCabe Mr. Wilcox Mr. MacDonald Mr. Wiltshire.

(Glen Iris) Tellers: Mr. Maclellan Mr. Burgin Mr. Meagher Mr. Crellin.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Broad Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood

NOES.

Mr. Lind Mr. McDonald

(Rodney) Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds

East) Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilton.


(Dundas).

PAIRs. Mr. Manson Mr. Wilkes Sir George Reid Mr. Turnbull Mr. Rossiter Mr. Curnow Mr. Stokes Mr. Lewis (Portland) Mr. Taylor (Balwyn) Mr; Lovegrove Mr. Templeton Mr. Shilton.

The motion· was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time

and committed, pro forma. Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treas

urer) presented a message from His Excellency the Governor recommending that an appropriation be made from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of this Bill.

A resolution in accordance with the recommendation was passed in Committee and adopted by the House.

The House went into Committee for the consideration of this Bill.

Clause I was agreed to. Clause 2, providing, inter alia-( 1) In this Act unless inconsistent with

the context or subject-matter:-" Decentralized establishment " means an

establishment-( a) at which an approved decentralized

secondary industry (within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958) is carried on; or

(b) declared by the Governor in Council under sub-section (3) to be a decentralized establishment for the purposes of this Act.

':' Person " includes a body or association (corporate or unincorpora te). and a partnership.

"Wages" has the same meaning as it has in the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971.

(2) Any person who proposes to establish a manufacturing or processing industry at an establishment within a radius of 50 miles of the post office at the comer of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street in the City of Melbourne but outside the metropolitan area may apply in writing to the Minister 'for a declaration by the Governor in Council that such establishment is a decentralized establishment for the purposes of this Act and the applicant shall furnish the Minister with such information as to the proposed establishment as he may require.

(3) Where the Governor in Council is satisfied that an establishment in respect of which an application was made under subsection (2) will provide significant employment opportunities in the area in which it is located he may in his discretion declare such establishment to be a decentralized establishment for the purposes of this Act.

( 4) The Governor in Council may at any time revoke a declaration under sub-section (3) and the establishment concerned shall thereupon cease to be a decentralized establishment for the purposes of this Act.


Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The House has supported the principle of this Bill, and naturally I am quite sure it is right to do so. Victoria is the first State which has taken this step, and I hope for the sake of decentralization in Australia it is certainly not the last. As the Leader of the Country Party said, it will be interesting to see how other States approach the matter and whether they have any better ideas than Victoria. The Government will be looking to see and anxious to learn because for years we have been saying that the Federal Government should have used its taxing powers in an attempt to promote decentralization and that Victoria had in its hands few tax incentives which it could effectively use. Indeed, until pay-roll tax came into the hands of the States, they had few financial weapons at all, but now by using pay-roll tax in this way it is hoped, as part of a combined assault on the problem of decentralization, that something can be achieved.

In the second-reading debate, I foreshadowed amendments to the Bill to make special provision for areas within the 50-mile limit which it might be desired to assist by means of incentives, bearing in mind that the whole purpose of the Bill is to promote growth, and especially industrial growth, away from the metropolitan area.

Mr. WHITING.-How far away? Mr. HAMER.-Primarily beyond

the 50-mile limit. The Government has adopted that in all its policies to date, and it does not depart from it. The case has been put, however, that within the 50-mile limit, but still outside the metropolitan area, there are places where some kind of incentive ought to be offered. There may be industries which otherwise would establish in the metropolitan area and which could be persuaded to go to Geelong or some other city or town within the 50-mile limit which it would be of advantage to have promoted.

Mr. Ross-EowARos.-It is open to abuse, is it not?

Mr. HAMER.-We have to bear in mind what the purpose is. The purpose is to provide tax incentives. There is a great deal of discretion, and there always 'has been discretion exercised in these areas. The Minister has always had discretion as to what decentralized industries he will declare.

Mr. B. J. EVANS.-He has not declared the timber industry as a decentralized industry.

Mr. HAMER.-The honorable member for Gippsland East disagrees with that criteria. There has always been a good deal of discretion, and I do not see how that can be overcome. The amendments which I intend to propose provide for further discretion, but in the nature of things I do not think that can be avoided. The net result will be designed to help Geelong and other places within the 50-mile limit but not to the extent of places beyond the 50-mile limit which it is the Government's primary aim to promote.

The general scheme of the amendments, of which they all form part, is that power will be given to the Governor in Council to declare within the 50-mile limit but beyond the metropolitan area "special areas", a special area being an area which it is determined needs tax incentives as a means of achieving decentralization. Within that special area industrial establishments may apply to be declared just as if they were applying to be approved decentralized industries beyond the 50-mile limit. If they get that declaration and become a special establishment, they will be entitled to a 50 per cent rebate on their pay-roll tax. That is the general scheme of the amendments. Having regard to all the considerations and all the difficulties in being just and sticking to one's policy, this is a reasonable course of action. Therefore, I move-

That, in sub-clause (1), in the interpretation of " Decentralized establishment" the expression "(a) " be omitted.


The only purpose of this amendment is to enable further amendments to be proposed which follow the same course.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-In commenting briefly on the amendment moved by the Premier and Treasurer, I refer again to the way in which this State and the Government have decided the area in which a decentralized industry will be assisted. I have already referred to the manner in which section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act defines an approved decentralized industry and where those industries are.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wheeler).-Order! The Committee is now discussing the first amendment moved by the Premier, which is to omit the expression " (a) " from the interpretation of "Decentralized establishment" in sub-clause (I). The honorable member must speak to the amendment which is before the Committee.

Mr. AMOS.-With great respect, I submit that because the Premier referred to the way in which this amendment would affect those industries--

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.Order! I advise the honorable member that the Premier has moved an amendment. The honorable member must speak to the amendment. He will have an opportunity later of speaking to the clause, as amended.

Mr. HOLDING (Leader of the Opposition) .-I raise a point of order. Is it not proper, on clause 2, when the Premier moves an amendment and speaks on the scheme of the amendment in fairly broad terms, that an honorable member may reply in the same sort of terms?

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.The Premier has moved a specific amendment.

Mr. HOLDING.-He also spoke on the scheme.

The ACTING CHAIRM1AN.-Order! The Premier has moved a specific amendment, and I invite the honorable member for Morwell to speak to it.

Mr. HOLDING.-There is one rule for the Premier and another for all other honorable members. That is what you are saying.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-Order! Mr. HOLDING.-You can say

"Order", but that does not alter the fact.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the implication that I have given preference to the Premier and not to the honorable member for Morwell.

Mr. HOLDING.-If the Chairman feels offended, I will withdraw, but I point out that the effect of the ruling is to make one rule for the Premier and another rule for the honorable member f.or Morwell.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN.-Order! I advise the Leader of the Opposition that he is not in the chair.

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).! wish to speak on the amendment moved by the Premier. It is of some satisfaction to people in the Geelong area and to members of the Opposition that it was Labor's compromise that if Geelong industries were not assisted as fully as other country areas were, at least they should receive some pro rata payment. It is pleasing that the Premier and the Government have changed their minds because, when members of the Opposition raised this matter last week, the then satisfied Liberal Party said that this type of suggestion was nothing but a political gimmick. Apparently, it is now not a gimmick but a progressive idea.

I am sure that people in the Geelong area who read Hansard will realize that the Labor Party, once again, was in the forefront on legislation affecting Geelong. This is a progressive step. As I was saying earlier, before my time expired in

34:86 Decentralized Jndustry · [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roll

the second-reading debate, in recent years and particularly at present, Geelong industry is in need of an amendment such as this to overcome the difficulty where industries are-

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wheeler).-Order! I advise the honorable member for Geelong North that his remarks would be more appropriate to a later amendment to be proposed to this clause.

Mr. TREZISE.-I apologize. I thought the amendment moved by the Premier related to special concessions for industries in Geelong.

The amendment was agreed to, as was a consequential amendment.


That, in sub-clause (1), paragraph (b) of the definition of " Decentralized establishment " be omitted.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treas

urer) .-I move-That, in sub-clause ( 1), after the defini

tion of " Person " the following definitions be inserted:-

" Special area " means an area declared by the Governor in Council under subsection ( 4) to be a special area for the purposes of this Act.

" Special establishment " means an establishment declared by the Governor in Council under sub-section (3) to be a special establishment for the purposes of this Act. I shall not canvass this matter again except to say that the amendments put into effect the scheme I have already outlined to the Committee. They will make provision for what will be called " special areas " within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne. These can be designated and defined as areas in which it is suitable and desirable that these taxation incentives should be applied to industries which, if they were outside the 50-mile radius, would qualify for them. They may become special establishments and, from then on, the rest will flow.

This is a foundation for the new intermediate concept under which industries in areas within 50 miles of Melbourne can be assisted, and I indicate to the Committee that the Geelong area will be one such area.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-As the honorable member for Geelong North was indicating, the amendment which has now been moved by the Premier is a compromise. As the honorable member has already said, it is part of the policy of the Labor Party to assist the Geelong area and other areas within 50 miles of Melbourne which need special assistance. The original provisions of the Bill deal with the way in which new industries in Geelong, which could show the Governor in Council that they could provide sufficient additional employment, could be granted consideration under the provisions of the Act. What the Premier is now offering is that existing industries within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne, which are not mentioned in the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act, may also claim special consideration for rebates of pay-roll tax.

The Labor Party has already indicated that the way in which the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act defines " decentralized establishment" resulted from a recommendation of the all-party Distribution of Population Committee. The committee examined this matter and recommended that certain industries so assessed be classified as approved decentralized industries. The committee had examined various reports made from time to time throughout Australia and, indeed, throughout the world, on the self-generating or takeoff point of a community. The criterion, which was also adopted by the Decentralization Advisory Committee, was that the self-generating point was 100,000 people. There are now many reports, and particularly the latest report available from the United Kingdom, which suggest that the self-generating point is not 100,000 but 500,000 people. I shall not enter into prolonged debate on that, but it is obvious that Geelong, with some 120,000 people and a high level of unemployment, is not at the self-generating stage and, accordingly, it needs special incentives to provide extra employment opportunities so that it will develop.


Over the past two or three weeks, the honorable members for Geelong North, Geelong, and Bellarine have received representations from chambers of commerce and manufacturers within the Geelong area who requested that a special case be made to the Government that they should receive some consideration so that they could extend their operations. Because of the pressure applied by the honorable member for Geelong North on the other honorable members representing the area, they, in turn, put pressure on the Government which has now proposed the amendments to a Bill which the Premier introduced some four weeks ago.

The amendments will certainly assist industries within the Geelong area. They will also assist other areas within the 50-mile radius of Melbourne which need to provide additional employment opportunity. But the Government had its opportunity twelve months ago and, since the enactment of the Pay-Roll Tax Act, the Government has had ample time to study the implications of granting concessions to industry throughout Victoria and the effect that they would have on the Geelong area if concessions were not granted there. I think I havP. proved that, if it were not for the efforts of the honorable member for Geelong North the amendment now proposed by the Premier would not have seen the light of day. The Opposition supports the am·endment.

Mr. BIRRELL (Geelong).-I am in favour of what has taken place in the House this evening. I point out that the genesis of what is being done goes back to October of 1963 and a tense debate on where the line should be drawn on offering incentives to decentralized industries. I quote a passage from a speech I made, which is recorded at page 1337 of Hansard of 22nd October, 1963-

In fact what is proposed is simply to make an intermediate zone between 25 and 50 miles from Melbourne which would not have the same rights as the area outside the 50 mile radius but which would be a buffer zone.

Something along those lines is now coming to fruition. History repeats itself. Water has flowed under the bridge for nine years since the debate in 1963, and what was enunciated then has taken nine years to sink in.

With regard to the changed provisions for rebates to be granted to decentralized industries, I point out that, under the Bill as originally drafted, it was intended that industries established in Geelong in the future would benefit to the full amount possible. The Committee is now extending the benefits to established industries, and it must be remembered that this will put industries which are established in the area in future on a slightly less beneficial basis. Looking at the context and the needs of the present, I prefer the policy enunciated by the Treasurer tonight. I prefer the idea of a special area rather than the 10-mile zone around Geelong as was proposed in an amendment moved at the second-reading stage. The amendment is broadly on the regional planning zone which is somewhat wider and a little more embracing in the general district than the 10-mile radius. The regional planning zone will take in areas such as Queenscliff which would be excluded by the 10-mile radius proposal. On that basis I am happier with the present approach than with the original suggestion.

The honorable member for Geelong North made certain statements in the Geelong press about the honorable member for Bellarine or myself and the use of the word " gimmick ". The "gimmick" was not so much the operation in the Bill, but the challenge to cross the floor of the Chamber and vote with the Opposition. A member of the Labor Party has never crossed the floor and therefore the challenge was a " gimmick ". The honorable member for Geelong North knows that if he crossed the floor he would immediately lose his endorsement. That was the "gimmick".


Mr. B. J. EvANs.-You have crossed the floor before.

Mr. BIRRELL.-! have, but has the honorable member for Geelong North?

Mr. B. J. EVANS.-Will you do it this time?

Mr. BIRRELL.-! do not need to. The challenge was made that I should cross the floor but the honorable member for Geelong North would not cross the floor in 100 days.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wheeler).-Order! I can hardly allow the honorable member to refer to " gimmicks " and so on under the amendment before the Chair.

Mr. BIRRELL.-The designation of special areas seems to be an answer to the problem although I am not sure whether a broader device may have been used.

Mr. Ross-EnwARns.-It could not have been any broader.

Mr. BIRRELL.-It is possible that the Government could have devised a zone rather than these special areas. I am pointing out that it is a particularly limited device and I should have thought the Country Party would have preferred this to a zone between the metropolitan area and the 50-mile radius. I do not know because I do not speak for the Country Party.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-I will be surprised if the Labor Party falls for this one.

Mr. BIRRELL.-Support has already been expressed.

Mr. Ross-EDWARDS.-1 know, but the Opposition has not thought about it.

Mr. BIRRELL.-It will now be possible to designate special areas as an intermediate or buffer zone where the benefits available to the wider areas of Victoria are not claimed, but at least the Government will try to alleviate the disability that is experienced by Geelong industries in trying to compete with Melbourne industries.

An indication that there are some benefits in the metropolitan area is that when the Ford Motor Company decided to expand, it did not do so in Geelong but moved to Melbourne. The same thing happened with International Harvester Company. The only reason why these extensions were placed in the metropolitan area was· the financial benefits to be derived. Special areas may well reduce this trend, and local industries in Geelong which are thinking of expanding may well do so in Geelong or just out from Geelong instead of moving to the metropolitan area.

The amendment gives some degree of justice which I have always sought and which the City of Geelong has always sought. According to the remarks from the Opposition, apparently the Labor Party at least sees this as some sort of equitable treatment. I support the amendment. I have been working for some weeks to have a provision along these lines included in the Bill and this may be one reason why the Bill was delayed in reaching this place.

Mr. TREZISE (Geelong North).I inform members of the Country Party that specially selected industries in Geelong will get only a 50 per cent rebate of pay-roll tax, and industries in country areas will obtain a full 100 per cent rebate.

Mr. Ross-EnwARDs.-Where does the 50 per cent appear?

Mr. TREZISE.-Reference to the 50 per cent appears in the proposed sub-clause to follow sub-clause (2) . Industries in Geelong will then have some hope of competing with Melbourne and industries in country areas farther from Geelong will still have a 50 per cent advantage over Geelong industries. It seems to be a reasonable proposition, and I should have thought it would suit the Country Party's point of view.

Mr. WHITING.-The amendment does not name Geelong specifically.


Mr. TREZISE.-Perhaps the Premier may do it. The honorable gentleman still has not clarified who will be eligible. He has merely said that industries would apply.

Mr. HAMER.-1 undertook that it would be Geelong.

Mr. TREZISE.-I am wondering whether it applies to all industries in Geelong. If it does then the Geelong textile mills will be eligible, which will suit them particularly because there has been a labour recession in the textile trade in recent years. The Pelaco mill at Corio, over the past two years, has reduced its number of employees from 240 to 30. The Geelong textile mills has had a difficult job in competing with other mills.

Under the measure, the Warrnambool Woollen Mills Ltd. will save $26,000 a year, the Wendouree woollen mills at Ballarat will save $24,000 a year, and a comparable mill at Geelong will save only about $12,000 a year. Naturally, members from the Geelong area would prefer the payroll tax to be more fully reimbursed, but as least I am prepared to compromise and hope that this is only the first step towards full justice in overco1ming the disadvantages suffered by Geelong.

I place on record the support that this campaign has received from local municipal councils in the Geelong area, the Geelong Trades Hall Council, and the Geelong Chamber of Manufacturers. Everyone in Geelong has pulled his weight in making this a partly successful campaign.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-I do not share the thrills and excitement of the Opposition with this amendment because its wording disturbs me to some extent. The Country Party does not dispute the need for giving special consideration to Geelong in view of special problems that the area may have. However, it must be remembered that Geelong is a major centre and under the Bill the Governor in Council will be given

wide powers which I think should be retained by the Parliament. Honorable members do not know to whom the amendment will apply in the future. Mention has been made of Balian and at some stage the Act could be amended to include that town.

The amendment will encourage the spread and sprawl of metropolitan Melbourne because industries will be encouraged to move just outside the fringes of Melbourne and obtain the benefit of pay-roll tax rebates received by country industries and at the same time enjoy the benefits of lower telephone charges and so on. If agreed to by the Committee, this amendment will give tremendous powers to the Governor in Council. It will give the Governor in Council the right to say, "This area is in, and that area is out " and, if there should be an unscrupulous Government, it is not hard to visualize what could happen. If one wonders why there is reason to be fearful of such a situation, one has only to look at what happened in Canberra last week to see what can be done by a Governor in Council. A Governor in Council can make far-reaching decisions which will affect this country for better or for worse.

Mr. HoLDING.-At least decisions have been made, which is more than happened under your mob.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wheeler).-Order! I suggest that the Leader of the Country Party should ignore interjections.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-! find it hard to keep my concentration, Mr. Acting Chairman. Where does Westernport come into this Bill?

Mr. HAMER.-Nowhere. Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS.-The Prem

ier says " nowhere ", but I remind the honorable gentleman that this is a matter for the Government of the day. I acknowledge that the Premier is endeavouring to work out a scheme which will offer incentives to particular areas, but I remind him that Governments change. I am most

3490 Decentralized Industry [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roll ·

concerned about what may be done by a future Government. It may suddenly give preference to one area over another and it could be in a position to bestow political patronage. This is a very serious matter and one which should be given serious consideration.

If the Government intends to encourage areas beyond, say, 30 miles of Melbourne, they will become filled with industries. If the Government desires to help Geelong, then it should mention that city in the measure. If it wants to help Balian, let it do so by including it in this measure. This is a most disturbing amendment, and I believe the Committee should reject it.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-I should like to comment briefly on the remarks of the Leader of the Country Party and the honorable member for Geelong. In his second-reading speech the Premier referred to the way in which the Governor in Council could grant concessions to certain Geelong industries. The honorable gentleman stated-

Consequently, provision has been made in the Bill to enable the Governor in Council to declare firms which propose to establish new plants in such areas, including Geelong, to be eligible for payments under the Bill if those payments would stimulate significant additional employment opportunities in the area. I submit that during the secondreading debate on the Bill the Leader of the Country Party was silent on the way in which the Governor in Council had the power to grant concessions to new industries within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne.

The Leader of the Country Party mentioned the Westernport area and the Mornington Peninsula and stated that the Governor in Council will have power to grant concessions to those areas. I submit that that power is included in the Bill as originally drafted. The Governor in Council has the power to grant a full rebate to the Westernport area if those payments would stimulate significant additional employment opportunities in the area. Particular industries at

Westernport are bound to develop in the future and will provide a significant number of additional employment opportunities.

The Leader of the Country Party is dealing in double standards. On the one hand he mentions that he is worried about the amendment moved by the Premier to which the honorable members for Gee long North and Geelong have looked forward but, on the other hand, the Leader of the Country Party was strangely silent during the second-reading debate concerning the powers of the Governor in Council which are contained in this Bill.

The honorable member for Geelong referred to remarks that he made when the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1963 was amended. The House will be interested to learn what the honorable member said during that debate. He said-

I believe it is possible to define a decentralized secondary industry. I suggest that it could be defined adequately so that in the majority of cases the Minister's decisions would not be questioned. In this way the field would be narrowed down considerably and the Minister would have to decide only a small number of marginal cases. It appears that the honorable member for Geelong has changed his mind considerably since then. He has had a period of nine years from 1963 to 1972 to do so. The honorable member for Geelong also said-

Nevertheless, we do not want to be left behind and omitted from any plans for decentralization. We speak with a united voice, and I am sure that if the House is willing to judge cases on their merits the three alternatives I have suggested and the suggested recording of a definition of decentralized industry deserve the earnest and fair consideration of the House.

If it takes nine years for a backbench member of the Government party to have his views heard by the Government, it is a sad day for the residents of the Geelong area whom he represents. I suggest that it is only since the Government studied the results of last week's election that it decided to listen to the views of the honorable members for Geelong and Bellarine because it thinks those two electorates are worth saving.


Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-The Leader of the Country Party was correct in saying that there is a good deal of discretion in the proposed legislation and, as the honorable member for Morwell pointed out, in the Bill as originally drawn. That is inevitable in a matter such as this; in fact, discretion is exercised whenever there is a possibility of assisting decentralized industry. It is exercised in a variety of ways. A discretion could be exercised conc·erning whether loans and advances should be made, or funds should be provided to assist in transferring key people from the metropolitan area. There is a discretion in the provision of housing. The local council can decide whether it will or will not supply land for buildings, and it can fix rentals or decide that there should be no rentals. It is inevitable that a number of discreti·ons must be provided and exercised.

It is true that the determination of a special area under this amendment will be a matter of Government policy. It is not as broad as defining a zone 25 or 50 miles out. It enables the Government to designate areas as special areas because they will assist decentralization. I do not share the fears of the Leader of the Country Party that this intermediate zone will be filled with industry. On the contrary, I believe, bearing in mind the true purpose of decentralization, that the designation of special areas will be limited and a very tight reign kept on those forms of decentralization within the 50-mile limit. I stress again that it is a matter of Government policy which is being exercised, but a good deal of discretion is inevitable in a case such as this.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -The longer the debate continues the clearer it becomes that the Government has not the vaguest idea what the real problem of decentralization is, or how to go about solving it. No matter what the Premier hopes to achieve by this Bill, in practical terms it will not stem

the flood of people from the country to the metropolitan area, and the argument about Geelong highlights this situation.

Geelong is a city with a population of 120,000 people, 50 miles from one of the finest markets in the world with which it is linked by road, rail and sea, and the Government cannot get industry to go into that area. What hope has Benalla, Bairnsdale, Shepparton and other centres in the light of this situation? What will this pay-roll tax rebate mean to the 120,000 people in Geelong, which cannot develop because of the policies of the Government?

This debate highlights the fact that there is a fundamental problem in decentralization in this State that the Government apparently has not looked at. That fundamental problem is the amount of money being poured directly into the development of the city area, money spent on the construction of the underground railway and of freeways. This is where the problem lies. The Government will not face the reality of the situation that by spending money in the metropolitan area it is creating jobs there and that the country areas are starved of development. The situation will continue.

I was amazed to hear the honorable member for Morwell propounding the problem of Geelong. He should concentrate on the Latrobe Valley. Moe, which is 85 miles from Melbourne, has a good rail link, not a terribly good road link, and not a seaport. I invite the honorable member to compare conditions in Traralgon and other towns in that area with those at Geelong. Geelong is a port with road and rail communication with the metropolitan area and, if need be, direct sea communication with Sydney. The Opposition says that Geelong cannot compete with the development that is taking place in Melbourne. Surely honorable members must look at something more positive than this superficial Bill.

3492. Decentralized Industry [ASSEMBLY.] Incentives (Pay-roU

The Committee has before it an amendment which proposes to give 50 per cent assistance to industries within a 50-mile limit of the General Post Office in Melbourne and in other areas of the State. It will apply to areas inside the 50-mile limit covered by the Melbourne Master Plan. Th'at will mean that industries establishing, say, 15 miles from the General Post Office will be entitled to receive a 50 per cent. concession. Honorable members are not being sensible in adopting this procedure. If I had my way there would be no decentralization concessions in centres within 150 miles of Melbourne. Honorable members are forgetting that this State has many large industries even though, apart from Tasmania, it is the smallest State in area in the Commonwealth.

As I have said in the House before, if the Government did not build the underground railway, the insurance companies could not afford to build multi-story blocks in the centre of the city. These centres can be built only because people will be brought to the city as a result of the Government's building freeways so that the people can get into and out of the city. So long as this policy is pursued the Government will not assist dec en traliza tion.

I am certain I voice the views of every person in my electorate when I say that it is ridiculous to think of decentralization within 50 miles of Melbourne. Geelong ought to be able to stand on its own feet. The Government should look further than manufacturing industries. It should consider the commercial industries and the professions. If the Government is to encourage people to live and work in country areas, the commercial and professional businesses must do their share. Professional people suffer many disadvantages when they go to the country. Telephone calls are expensive and transport and ·educational facilities are problems.

Mr. B. J. Evans.

One could go on ad infinitum. The problem confronting people in country areas is that the Government will do nothing about decentralization. This one infinitesimal approach is hardly worth considering. Geelong. a city within 50 miles of Melbourne. is to receive some benefit. I suggest that honorable members should be realistic and do something dramatic about decentralization instead of just playing with the subject.

Mr. STEPHEN (Ballaarat South).I am slightly disappointed with this amendment as it places some townships in my electorate at a slight disadvantage because of the limitation that it contains. Previously it was proposed that the Minister or the Governor in Council or both would have a discretion to give to certain industries the full or a partial benefit of the pay-roll tax concessions. The amendment before the Committee proposes that these industries will be entitled to receive only a 50 per cent reduction.

The honorable member for Gippsland East contended that no decentralization incentives should be offered in centres within 150 miles of Melbourne. I am sure that the honorable member forgot that there are many small communities within 46 to 48 miles of M·elbourne. They have received no assistance, and consideration should be given to helping them to obtain industry to enable them to maintain a small work force. Although I voice some disappointment at the amendment, I am sure that the Premier will consider looking at the possibility of amending the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act in the New Year to include extra towns with the six at present enjoying exemption. I hope in the New Year thi·s rea'Ssessment may be made to the benefit of areas such as Balian, 'Meredith and Trentham.

The Bill shows that the Government is conscious of the fact that although these towns are within 50 miles of Me1bourne they are entitled to receive consideration and assistance in this field.

Tax Rebates) [12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3493.

Mr. AUREL SMITH (Bellarine).I support the Bill and in particular the amendments introduced by the Government. The Bill will encourage an orderly plan for decentralization within Victoria and will enable the Government to accomplish its aims more efficiently. My colleague, the honorable member for Geelong, and my colleagues in another place during the past two or three weeks have held many discussions with leaders of industry in Geelong and with the Premier, the Deputy Premier and the Minister for State Development and Decentralization. Those discussions covered a wide range of subjects related to decentralization in general and incentives for Geelong industries in particular.

I ta~e this opportunity of denying the implication of the honorable member for Morwell that Liberal Party members representing Geelong and district were pressurized by the honorable member for Geelong North into approaching the Government. The honorable member for Geelong North mounted a press campaign which at times was grossly inaccurate. He had not done his homework. In spite of all the publicity, not once did a member of the Opposition approach the Government or any member of it about this problem. The Opposition mounted a press campaign whereas Liberal Party members from Geelong carefully went into the matter. The result is the amendments which the Government has introduced. The amendments are a sensible attempt to rationalize the Government's decentralization plans for the whole of Victoria. The action taken, as reflected in the amendments, will be welcomed by industry in Geelong and will be accepted as fair and just consideration by the Government.

It is well known that after a Minister's second-reading speech the debate on a Bill is adjourned to allow interested parties to consider and discuss it. That happened in this instance. The Bill was discussed at

length. The second-reading notes were considered, and as a result of discussions and consideration amendments have been brought forward by the Government. I commend the Government for introducing the amendments which I believe will be appreciated by industries in Geelong.

The Committee divided on the amendment (Mr. Wheeler in the chair)-

Ayes 48 Noes 7

Majority for the amendment 41

AYES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Bomstein Mr. Borthwick Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Doube Mr. Dunstan Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Ballaarat North) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mrs. Goble Mr. Guy Mr. Hamer Mr. Hayes Mr. Holding Mr. Jona Mr. Jones Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas)

Mr. Lind Mr. Loxton Mr. McCabe Mr. MacDonald

(Glen Iris) Mr. Maclellan Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Mr. Scanlan Mr. Simmonds Mr. Smith

(Warmambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Mr. Taylor

(Gippsland South) Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Trezise Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wilton Mr. Wiltshire.

Tellers: Mr. Burgin Mr. Smith

(Bellarine).

NOES.

Mr. Evans (Gippsland East)

Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Trewin

Mr. Templeton

Mr. Whiting. Tellers:

Mr. Broad Mr. McDonald

(Rodney).

PAm. Mr. Moss.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Wheeler).-As the next few amendments are interrelated I suggest to the Premier that he move them in globo.


Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-1 move-

That, in sub-clause (2), the words "who proposes to establish a manufacturing or processing industry at an establishment within a radius of 50 miles of the post office at the comer of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street in the City of Melbourne but outside the metropolitan area" be omitted with a view of inserting the words " who is carrying on or proposes to establish a manufacturing or processing industry at ·an establishment in a special area".

That, in sub-clause (2), the word "decentralized " be omitted with a view of inserting the word " special ".

That sub-clause (3) be omitted with a view of inserting the following sub-clause:-

" ( 3) Where the Governor in Council is sati·sfied that an establishment in respect of which an application is made under subsection (2) provides or will provide significant employment opportunities in the area in which it is located he may in his discretion declare the establishment to be a special establishment for the purposes of this Act."

That the following sub-clause be inserted to follow sub-clause (3) :-

"( ) The Governor in Council may declare that a specified area within 50 miles of the post office at the comer of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street in the City of Melbourne but outside the metropolitan area is a special area for the purposes of this Act". Those amendments complete the scheme which I have outlined already.

The amendments were agreed to, as were consequential amendments, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

Clause 3-An employer (within the meaning of this

Act) who-( a) is registered under section 12 of the

Pay-roll Tax Act 1971; and (b) is carrying on a manufacturing or

processing industry at a decentralized establishment-

may apply to the Minister in the prescribed manner before 30th November in each year for a payment in respect of that establishment and the preceding year.


That the following sub-clause be added:" ( ) An employer (within the meaning

of this Act) who-( a) is registered under section 12 of the

Pay-roll Tax Act 1971;

(b) is carrying on a manufacturing or processing industry at a special establishment; and

(c) is not eligible to apply for a payment under sub-section (I)-

may apply to the Mini·ster in the prescribed manner before the 30th November in each year for a payment in respect of that establishment and the preceding year."

This is the clause which enables an employer to apply for a payment if he is already carrying on a manufacturing or processing industry at a special establishment within a special area as designated. An amendment which I propose to move a little later specifies that such a person, if he qualifies, is to receive a 50 per cent rebate of the pay-roll tax paid by him. Clause 3 is a machinery measure to enable an employer to apply for the exemption if he complies with the Act.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -I should like some clarification on the situation which will arise if this amendment is carried. There has not been much opportunity of considering fully the many amendments that have been proposed or of examining their over-all effect. The amendment now being considered by the Committee relates to an employer who is carrying on a manufacturing or processing industry at a special establishment within a special area. I am wondering what effect this provision will have on establishments which are outside the special areas but which are within the 50-mile radius. I wonder whether some firms will gain an advantage in some circumstances and other firms or industries similarly engaged will not benefit to the same extent.

Some forms of industry will have an advantage in that they do not have to be approved decentralized industries under another Act. I must confess that I have not been able to analyse the amendment to find out who would determine that a person was carrying on a manufacturing or processing establishment in a special area. I presume that the Treasurer would make that decision. Yet in respect of industries which are outside

Tax Rebates) (12 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill.· 3495

that area, as I understand it, the provision will apply only to an industry which is an approved decentralized industry under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. In other words, it will have to go through a different process to attract the same concession. How can honorable members be sure that industries with certain qualifications outside the area will have the privileges which are given to industries with the same qualifications inside the area? It seems to me that there is a duplication of administration in this respect.

Mr. WHITING.-Double standards.

Mr. B. J. EVANS.-As the Deputy Leader of the Country Party has said, it may be that double standards will apply to industries in different parts of the State. I should like the situation to be clarified. This provision may well be to the great disadvantage of industries Which are already established but which are unable to qualify for a declaration as approved decentralized industries because those who administer the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act are not authorized to approve the decentralized areas. For example, under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act the Government has made it perfectly plain that it will not accept a sawmill as an approved decentralized industry. Under this Bill the Treasurer might approve a sawmill which is within the 50-mile radius. How do we know and what assurances have we that that situation will not arise?

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-I also should like to ask the Premier for an assurance on what this amendment will do to the Bill. Clause 2 defines a decentralized establishment and refers to the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958. The amendment now before the Committee refers to an employer who-is carrying on a manufacturing or processing industry at a special establishment.

That replaces the expression in paragraph (b) of the clause which refers to an employer who is carrying on a manufacturing or

processing industry at a decentralized establishment. As has been pointed out already, a decentralized establishment is defined in sub-clause (1) of clause 2 as coming within the meaning of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. I suggest that the amendment now before the Committee does not define clearly what the industry is when it refers merely to a special establishment. If this is so, I ask the Premier to give the Committee an assurance that it will be considered further before the Bill reaches another place.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .-This clause, if and when it is amended, will cover two distinct cases, both of them existing industry. In the first case, it will be existing industry which is carrying on a decentralized establishment, which means an establishment, in effect, which qualifies under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. The second category, which is being added by this proposed amendment, are those existing industries which do not and cannot comply with the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act because they are located within 50 miles of Melbourne. The question which has now been raised is: Are the criteria to be the same? One honorable member suggested that it is not even the same Minister. It is; the Minister for State Development and Decentralization makes the decision. It is not specific, I agree, that the criteria are the same, but, as the Committee will recognize, no criteria are laid down in the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act either, except the 50-mile limit.

I assure the Committee that, with the same Minister deciding the same sort of things, he will apply the same criteria. There is no doubt about that. The only difference between the two sets of establishment really is this 50-mile limit which has been applied for a good many years in Victoria as part of the whole scheme of decentralization. So there are the two sets of establishment. They will apply to the same Minister; they will have the same criteria applied to them.


I can give the House an assurance that that is how it will be administered because it cannot be administered in any other way, and no criteria are laid down in any case.

Mr. BIRRELL (Geelong).-I wish it to be recorded that within the 50-mile radius the six declared towns are exempted from this amendment. They come under the old provisions of decentralized industries. So within the 50-mile radius, these six towns are not taken into account when assessing this amendment. No confusion should be allowed to arise on that point. They stand separate and quite apart from this amendment.

The amendment was agreed to, as was a consequential amendment, and the clause, as amended, was adopted.

Clause 4, providing, inter alia-

(3) Where the amount of any export incentive grant or grants received by an applicant in any financial year exceeds the total pay-roll tax paid by him in that year he shall be deemed to have received in the following year an export in.:entive grant in respect of goods or components manufactured or processed in Victoria of an amount equal to the amount of the excess for the purposes of any application made by him under section 3 in respect of that following year.

( 4) Notwithstanding anything in this section where in the opinion of the Minister an applicant would have been entitled to make a claim in the relevant financial year for an export incentive grant or grants in respect of goods or components manufactured or processed by him in Victoria but has not done so the amount of the payment which the Minister shall approve shall be calculated as provided in sub-section (2) except that-


That the following sub-clause be inserted to follow sub-clause (2) :-

" ( ) The Minister shall approve the payment to an employer who applies pursuant to sub-section (2) of section 3 of an amount equal to half the amount that would have been payable to that employer if he had been entitled to apply under sub-section ( 1) of that section." This amendment requires the Minister to approve the payment to an employer who qualifies under the previous amendments, which have now been accepted, and to approve

the payment to such an applicant of an amount equal to half the pay-roll tax already paid.

The amendment was agreed to. Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treas

urer) .-The next amendment is of a somewhat different character and applies to the export incentive grants which are paid by the Commonwealth Government. I move-

That, in sub-clause (3), the words " amount of any export incentive grant or grants received by an applicant in any financial year " be omitted with the view of inserting the words " total amount of any export incentive grant or grants which in the opinion of the Minister were received by an applicant in any financial year in respect of goods or components manufactured or processed by him in Victoria ". This amendment is to tidy up the expression in sub-clause (3) because, on examination, it was found that, when the amount of the export incentive grant is deducted from the payroll tax incentive, it should be confined to goods and components manufactured or processed in Victoria; otherwise, it could incorporate goods and services provided, manufactured or supplied in other States as well, and so make the deduction too great. In other words, this is in favour of the applicant and it simply tidies up the sub-clause.

Mr. B. J. EVANS (Gippsland East). -This proposal does not make sense to me because, as my Leader pointed out in the second-reading debate, the export incentive grant which was paid by the Commonwealth was initially related to pay-roll tax, but now the Commonwealth has handed over pay-roll tax to the State and is in fact still making export incentive payments for its own purposes. I cannot understand why on earth the State should take that into account when it is calculating the pay-roB tax rebate that it intends to make to industries which are exporting. I cannot see how it bears any relationship to this question.

There are many sorts of Commonwealth concessions, subsidies or rebates of various kinds applied to all sorts of industries. Why, for example, does not the Government take into


account the value of tariff protection which a particular industry gets from fhe . Commonwealth? This would be just as valid as the proposal. If an industry is established and exporting and the Commonwealth provides an inducement to encourage it to export, I cannot see that that is any different from an industry which receives tariff protection from the Commonwealth to produce goods for home consumption. They are exactly the same sort of arrangement. Yet the Government takes into account the export incentive but completely ignores the tariff protection. It is illogical to make any distinction in regard to the export incentive. I should be surprised if ultimately the Commonwealth did not wipe this out. It must eventually negate the whole purpose of the export incentive. There is no logic in the proposal and I register the objection of the Country Party and myself to this proposition, which ought to be thrown out.

Mr. AMOS (Morwell).-I again register the Labor Party's opposition to placing export industries in Victoria, which operate from a decentralized area, in this position. I have already pointed out adequately to the Committee, and previously to the House, the reasons why the Opposition considers that export industries operating within those areas ought not to be disadvantaged. We received an assurance from the Premier that he is somewhat sympathetic, as he said, to the views expressed-that is, that those export industries operating in country areas ought not to be disadvantaged in that way and that he would look at the number of export industries which operate in those areas with a view to providing some relief at a later date.

My only suggestion is that it would not be too difficult a task for the Government to determine how much money was involved in granting full rebates to export industries in those country areas. I assume the industries we are referring to are in the main processing industries and not maQufacturing industries; in other

words, I assume that they would include canning industries such as those operating in the Shepparton area rather than any manufacturing industries making plastic goods or some other commodity in Victoria and exporting them overseas. My studies indicate that the majority of manufacturing industries are located in the metropolitan area and would not come under the scope of this Bill. I commend the proposition to the Premier that those industries operating as approved decentralized establishments in country Victoria ought to receive the full amount of the pay-roll tax rebate as well as the incentive grant which, as the honorable member for Gippsland East mentioned, is determined by the Commonwealth and is an incentive given by the Commonwealth to encourage exports.

The amendment was agreed to, as were consequential and verbal amendments.

Mr. ROSS-EDWARDS (Leader of the Country Party) .-In addressing myself to the clause as amended, I repeat the sentiments I expressed earlier. I agree with the honorable member for Morwell that the Commonwealth incentive payments are now quite distinct from pay-roll tax rebates. As was stated by the honorable member for Gippsland East, there are many Commonwealth incentives to various industries by way of tariff concessions, subsidies, and so on. If an industry attracts one of those concessions, it should not be precluded from receiving a pay-roll tax rebate which it would attract by being located in the country instead of the city.

If there are two industries, one in the city and one in the country, and neither was exporting, neither would receive the export incentive but the one in the country would receive payroll tax concessions. If both industries were exporting industries, both would receive the export incentives and the country industry should still attract the pay-roll tax concession. The Country Party opposes clause 4 as amended.

3498 Adjournment. [COUNCIL.] Adjournment.

The Committee divided on the cJause, ,as amended (Mr. Wheeler in the chair)-

Ayes 32 Noes 23

Majority for the clause, as amended 9

AYES.

Mr. Austin Mr. Balfour Mr. Billing Mr. Birrell Mr. Borthwick Mr. Crellin Mr. Dixon Mr. Dunstan Mr. Evans


(Glen Iris) Mr. Maclellan

Mr. Meagher Mr. Rafferty Mr. Reese Mr. Scanlan Mr. Smith

(Warmambool) Mr. Stephen Mr. Suggett Mr. Taylor

(Gippsland South) Mr. Thompson Mr. Trethewey Mr. Wilcox Mr. Wiltshire.

Tellers:

Mr. Burgin Mr. Smith

(Bellarine).

NOES.

Mr. Amos Mr. Bomstein Mr. Doube Mr. Edmunds Mr. Evans

(Gippsland East) Mr. Fell Mr. Floyd Mr. Fordham Mr. Ginifer Mr. Holding Mr. Kirkwood Mr. Lewis

(Dundas)

Mr. Lind Mr. McDonald

(Rodney) Mr. Mitchell Mr. Ross-Edwards Mr. Simmonds Mr. Trewin Mr. Trezise Mr. Whiting Mr. Wilton.

Tellers: Mr. Broad Mr. Jones.

PAIRs. Mr. Manson Sir George Reid Mr. Rossiter Mr. Stokes Sir Edgar Tanner Mr. Taylor

(Balwyn) Mr. Templeton

Mr. Wilkes Mr. Turnbull Mr. Curnow Mr. Lovegrove Mr. Shilton Mr. Lewis

(Portland) Mr. Moss.

Clauses 5 to 7 were agreed to. Clause 8, providing, inter alia-( 1) The Secretary for State Development

or any person authorized by him may communicate to any person administering a law of Victoria relating to taxation or to a person authorized by him any information relating to a decentralized establishment disclosed or obtained under the provisions of this Act.

Mr. HAMER (Premier and Treasurer) .----~1 move-

That, in sub-clause ( 1), after the word " establishment " the words " or special establishment " be inserted.

The amendment was agreed to, and the cliause, as amended, was adopted, as were the remaining clauses.


ADJOURNMENT. Mr. THOMPSON (Minister of Edu

cation) .-1 move-That the House, at its rising, adjourn

until this day, at half-past One o'clock. The motion was agreed to. The House adjourned at 3.46 a.m.

(Wednesday).

14tgislatint <trnuutil. Wednesday, December 13, 1972.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett) took the chair at 11.26 a.m., and read the prayer.

MUNICIPALITIES. ISSUE OF BUILDING PERMITS AT

DIGGERS REST.

For the Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) , the Hon. H. A. Thomas asked the Minister for Local Government-

Will he ascertain and inform the House the reason for the refusal of building permits to owners of that area of land southwest of the Diggers Rest railway station and the Calder Highway?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The answer is-

Plans of subdivision for an area of land south-west of the Calder Highway but north of the Diggers Rest railway station were sealed by the Shire of Melton between 1956 and 1960, and some homes were constructed there before the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works assumed planning control. The Board of Works has since refused further planning permits to enable building for the time being because no water or sewerage services are yet available. The area is remote from existing sewerage facilities, and septic systems cannot be installed without adequate water supply.

Questions . [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] on Notice . 3499

COUNTRY ROADS BOARD~ DECLARED MAIN ROADS.

For the Hon. A. K. BRADBURY (North-Eastern Province) , the Hon. I. A. Swinburne asked the Minister for Local Government-

What roads has the Country Roads Board declared main roads in each of the past five vears?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The answer is detailed and factual, and I seek leave to have it incorporated in Hansard without being read.

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

1968, Johnston Street in the City of Fitzroy-extension of an existing main road by t mile. Johnston Street, which carries heavy through traffic, had already been declared as a main road up to the boundary <Jf the cities of Collingwood and Fitzroy, .and this extension completed the declaration of this street as a main road.

1969, Tallangatta-Corryong Road in the Shire of Upper Murray-extension of an existing main road by 3 · 5 miles, which ·resulted from the rearrangement of the names and routes of three existing main roads in the area.

Yarra Glen-Yea Road in the Shire of Yea-extension of an existing main road by 2 miles. The rearrangement and changing of the names of three main roads in this area resulted in an additional length of 2 miles being declared as a main road and a total length of 14 miles of main roads being rescinded.

Dandenong-Hastings Road in the City of Dandenong and Shire of Hastings-a new main road 10·7 miles in length. The provision of a main road was necessary to adequately cater for the traffic between the important industrial City of Dandenong and the rapidly developing Westernport area.

1969 Gl,enorchy-Horsham Road in the Shire of Dunmunkle-extension of an existing main road by 1 mile. The route of the existing main road was changed and extended to connect with the Horsham-Lubeck main road.

1972 Old Melbourne Road in the Shire of Ballan-a new main road 4! miles in length. Following the construction of the Western Freeway by-passing the township of Gordon a length of 5! miles of the Western Highway was rescinded as a State highway, of which a length of 4! miles was reclassified as a main road.

CALDER HIGHWAY AT DIGGERS REST: ROUTE: GRADE SEPARATION.

For the Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province), the Hon. H. A. Thomas asked the Minister for

Local Government, for the Minister of Transport-

( a) What is the proposed route of the Calder Highway at Diggers Rest railway station?

(b) When is it proposed that the railway grade separation will commence in this area?

(c) Will the Minister supply a copy of the proposed route to the members of Parlilament who represent the area?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT ,(Minister for Local Government).-The answer supplied by the Minister of Transport is-

( a) The proposed new route of the Calder Highway is on the east side of the existing highway. It commences approximately 1·3 miles south of the Diggers Rest railway level crossing and rejoins the existing highway approximately a quarter of a mile north of the level crossing.

(b) No date has yet been fixed for the commencement of this project .

(c) Yes. I have copies of the plan availaMe with me for both Mr. Knight and Mr. Thomas as representatives of the area.

DECENTRA.LIZED INDUSTRY INCENTIVES '(PAY-ROLL TAX

REBATES) BILL. This Bill was received from the

Assembly and, on the motion of the Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization), was read a first time.


the directions of several Acts of Parliament, were laid upon the table by the Clerk:-

Groundwater-Report on the investigation programme for the year 1971.

Public Service Act 1958-Public Service (Public Service Board) Regulations-Regulations amended (No. 331).

Town and Country Planning BoardReport for the year 1971-72.

STATUTE LAW REVISION COMMITTEE.

WILLS (INTERESTED WITNESSES) BILL 1971.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) presented a report from the Statute Law Revision Committee upon the proposals contained in the Wills (Interested \Vitnesses) Bill 1971, together with an extract from the proceedings of the committee, appendices and minutes of evidence.

3500 Labour and Industry [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

It was ordered that they be laid on the table, and that the report, extract from the proceedings of the committee and the appendices be printed.

LABOUR AND INDUSTRY (AM1ENDMENT) BILL.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government).-! move-

That this Bill be now read a second time.

The BiU seeks to amend the Labour and Industry Act 1958. It contains provisions relating to procedure and a number of matters of substance, including shop trading hours, bread baking hours, discrimination against women in employment and the guarding of machinery. It will not surprise the House when I say that the provisions relating to shop trading hours extend the hours during which shopkeepers may provide service to the public. They do not restrict those hours. This is consistent with the policy which has been followed by the Government ever since it achieved office. I first mention a provision which will permit chemists' shops to open on any public holiday. At present they are required to close on all public holidays except Easter Saturday. There is a demand for this service.

Another provision refers to a particular holiday, namely, Good Friday. Representations have been received, particularly from country areas, for example, through the Provincial Cities and Towns Association, that in recent years some motorists have experienced difficulty in moving from one part of the State to another because of the enforced closure of petrol shops. Good Friday is the first day of a four or five day holiday period and as the weather is usually fair many people take the opportunity of travelling considerable distances.

The various churches have been consulted concerning the matter and

the Victorian Council of Churches has reported that its Commission on Social Questions-

considers rthat the question of sales of petrol on Good Friday is in general an industrial matter.

It also expressed the view-that such sales should not interfere

with the rights of individuals and congregations wishing to worship on that day.

The view of the Catholic Church as stated by the Vicar-General was-

that if it is considered that the sale of petrol o~ Good Friday is providing an essentIal service to the community, we would haye. no objections to the changing of the existmg law.

Other churches made similar re, marks. In the light of those opinions, it is proposed to repeal the requirement for petrol ~hops to remain closed on Good Friday. Of course, the legislation will not require any shopkeeper or service station owner to open on that day unless he so desires.

A further provision in the Bill relates to pet shops. Several years ago, the list of classes of shops contained in the Fifth Schedule was extended to include " shops for the sale of aviary and cage birds" and "shops for the sale of aquarium fish ". The reason was that these were specialist shops whose trade was mainly conducted during week-ends. However, the retail trade, like many other industries, has been undergoing recent change and there is now considerable overlapping between the specialist shops and shops which are commonly known as pet shops and which, in addition to birds and fish may sell dogs, cats, reptiles and other animals and also what might be called accessories, such as dog collars, feeding tins and veterinary products as well as fresh and packaged foods for pets. The Pet Shop Owners Association submitted that its members ought to be able to trade on the same basis as the specialist bird and fish competitors and the Government views the submission as reasonable.


The fourth provision dealing with shop trading hours is perhaps a minor provision. It relates to section SOc of the principal Act which empowers the M'inister to fix special shop trading hours for shops in tourist resorts which sell attractive goods to tourists. The provision is at present limited to shops which are more than 20 miles from the General Post Office, Melbourne or are within the Shire of Eltham which has received special treat~ ment. The municipal council of the Shire of Sherbrooke states that most of its municipal district is more than 20 miles from the General Post Office, but a small part is not. The council submits that the whole of the shire is part of the tourist resort known as the Dandenongs, and therefore the whole shire ought to come within the application of section SOc, as does the Shire of Eltham, and the Government agrees.

The provision in the Bill relating to the hours for the making and baking of bread regulates these activities on Saturdays and Sundays. Section 102 of the Act provides that a baker may elect to bake either on Saturday or on Sunday, but not both. If he elects to bake on Sunday, he may do so only before 7 a.m. and after 6 p.m. If he elects to bake on Saturday he may do so at any time of the day.

This arrangement has not been entirely satisfactory in that some bakers or companies operating two or more bakeries elected to bake on Saturday in one place and on Sunday in another, and still afford a service to their customers on both days. Some bakers electing to bake on Saturday have worked two shifts-an early one for the Saturday trade and a late one for the Sunday trade. However what has primarily brought about ~ review of the law has been the emergence of what is known as the " hot bread shop " or the " hot bread kitchen ". Probably all honorable members are aware that the number of these shops is increasing rapidly.

The Hon. J. ·M. TRIPOVICH.-There are about seven at the moment?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-There are more than that. One company alone has seven branches and there are quite a number of others. It is part of the philosophy of operation to provide a service continuously and to do this the "hot bread kitchen" believes it should be able to provide an efficient supply of bread continuously for seven days a week. Generally speaking, bakers organizations are not opposed to this provided that it applies to the whole trade and not just the " hot bread kitchen ". As a matter of fairness, I point out that country bakers appear to have reservations, preferring if necessary to remove the restrictions on Sunday baking but to retain the limitation of a six-day bake. The Bread Carters Union is understandably opposed to any change but the Government has not been able to obtain the views of the Operative Bakers Society.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-Has the Government tried? It would have been nice if the Government had tried to contact the society.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Although this is not my Bill and the baking of bread is not a matter within my department, I have spoken to an official, whom I do not propose to name in the House, although I am prepared to do so in private. The official, who is connected with the Operative Bakers Society and, in fact, works in one of the " hot bread kitchens ", supports the change.

The Hon. J. ·M. TRIPOVICH.-Why did you not say that instead of saying you had not obtained their views?

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The official views of the union have not been obtained.

The Han. J. M. TRIPOVICH.Do you suggest that they ought to meet and decide their views on the question?


The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-1 thank Mr. Tripovich for the interjection.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.You could have said that rather than just say you have not been able to obtain their views. It looks as if the Government has not tried.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-1 have stated it now for Mr. Tripovich's benefit and if he wants information on the identity and place, I shall inform him privately. It is the view of the Government that if any baker or class of baker is to be permitted to bake seven days a week, all bakers should be permitted to do so. The Bill provides for this, and thus a much improved service will be made available to the public. Patronage of the " hot bread shops " at the week-ends leaves no doubt that the members of the public give them strong support.

The Bill contains some important provisions to strengthen the law relating to the guarding of dangerous parts of machinery. The first of these provisions is one of principle as well as practice and derives from a Convention of the International Labour Organization entitled the "Guarding of Machinery Convention 1963 ". This convention indicated the desirability of safety being built into a machine so that the manufacturer would be required to provide guards for any parts which were dangerous. Provisions to this effect now exist in the United Kingdom and in New South Wales. Some time ago the Minister of Labour and Industry referred to the Industrial Safety Advisory Council established under his administration the question of whether similar legislation ought to be introduced in Victoria and the council, after investigation and consideration, advised that in its view there ought to be provision to this effect in the Labour and Industry Act.

With certain minor exceptions, the Act merely requires that dangerous parts of machinery be guarded at their point of use in the factory ;

that is to say, it places the onus on the factory occupier to provide whatever guards are necessary. The provisions in the Bill require that machinery be provided with appropriate guards at the point of sale.

The other provision in the Bill relating to the guarding of machinery relates to safety devices for tractors. I am sure this provision will be of particular interest to honorable members in this House who have an interest in farming. In 1970 section 175 of the Act was amended to apply to wheeled tractors. Regulations which have recently been made require, amongst other things, that wheeled tractors for use in farming pursuits be provided with protective frames. After further consultations with representative farmers and farming organizations from various types of country with differing terrain problems the Government has been convinced that it would not be appropriate to require identical measures to be taken regardless of the type of country. For this reason it is proposed in the Bill that any regulation requiring protective frames should be made effective only upon the application of the municipal council of a district which, after all, has the closest local knowledge of the conditions there applying. A similar provision exists in the Firearms Act in respect of trespass to farms.

Two other changes are proposed with respect to tractors in section 175. The word " wheeled " is to be repealed so that safety devices may be prescribed for any kind of tractor. The concept of a guard has been extended to include safety devices of other types. I have mentioned that the Bill also contains provisions relating to discrimination against women. Earlier industrial legislation, often dating back to the past century or before, frequently had specific provisions intended to protect women and young children. These were based not upon genuine physiological considerations but simply on the idea that women and young persons were weaker and therefore needed to be


protected. As a result, section 70 of the principal Act restricts the employment of male persons under 16 years of age and female persons under 18 years of age in any factory for more than 48 hours a week, more than 10 hours in any day or between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

Section 71 sets out a number of manufacturing processes in which the employment of young persons, or male persons under a certain age, or female persons under a certain age or female persons of any age is prohibited, ostensibly on the grounds of preserving the health of the persons to whom the section relates. Various organizations concerned with the rights of women take the view that provisions of this kind, if not based on scientific grounds, constitute discrimination against women in employment and therefore ought to be repealed. My colleague obtained expert opinion from the Department of Health on this matter. The advice is as follows:-

These provisions appear to reflect a climate of opinion prevalent many decades ago and are without any real scientific basis whatsoever ... there is no justification for retaining any of them at all.

The proposal to repeal sections 70 and 71 were put to the Trades Hall Council in 1970. The council replied that it was opposed to their repeal, but despite subsequent invitations to do so has since failed to submit any reasons for maintaining that view. With respect to sub-section (6) of section 71, it should be noted that there is power elsewhere in the Act for regulations to be made by the Governor in Council to prohibit employment of the kind mentioned and in fact such regulations have been made and will not be affected by the repeal of the sub-section. In other words, whenever a restriction is necessary for the protection of health or to prevent a young person or women from undertaking physical work which would be too heavy, the opportunity exists still of covering the situation by regulation in the light of the facts of the case.

I come now to procedural matters which I mentioned earlier, one of which relates to the substitution of other days for public holidays when Christmas Day, Boxing Day or New Year's Day falls on a Saturday or Sunday. Wages boards common~y prescribe these days to be pubhc holidays without loss of pay. Most of these determinations refer to the question of substitution by reference to a process of substitution provided for " under any other Act ". The provision for substitution is contained in the Public Service Act by means of a proclamation of the Governor in Council. However, this merely has the effect of closing public offices. It is considered inappropriate for industrial prescriptions to be based on this procedure. The substitution of other days under the Public Service Act involves a political decision each year when circumstances may require it by a 1Minister pursuant to the provisions of the Act. The more certain approach contained in this Bill of setting out rules to be followed on all occasions appears preferable and will remove any doubts on what might happen from year to year. It will give certainty and will avoid the matter becoming a decision by wages tribunals or, indeed, a political decision from year to year.

Another provision in the Bill has been included on the recommendation of the president of the Industrial Appeals Court. Sub-section (lA) of section 45 of the princi~al Act empowers any person, as distinct from an organization or members of the wages board concerned, to appeal to the Industrial Appeals Court against a determination by a wages hoard. Every individual is required to obtain leave and, as the Act now stands, must both obtain leave and prosecute his appeal within fourteen days after the making of the determination. In the view of His Honour Judge Leckie, the president of the court, the present arrangement does not allow an appellant adequate time. It is therefore proposed that the time limit of


fourteen days will apply only to the making of an application for leave to appear. It will then be a matter for the court to set the time for the appeal to be considered.

The final matter of substance also relates to appeals taken to the Industrial Appeals Court but in this case from decisions of Magistrates Courts in civil proceedings taken for the recovery of arrears of wages or holiday pay. At present the means of appeal is by obtaining an order to review in the Supreme Court. It is thought that a speedier and less costly avenue of appeal ought to be provided. Therefore it is proposed that appeals may be made to the Industrial :Appeals Court which, after all, is the court that is expert on these matters.

I turn now to the clauses of the Bill. Clause 1 enables its several provisions to be brought into operation by proclamation. Clause 2 is consequential on clause 11. Clause 3 is consequential upon the passage of the Public Service Act 1972, which made provision with respect to the saving of Public Service rights of officers who are appointed to a " Government office " outside the Public Service. Sub-section ( 4) of section 24 of the Labour and Industry Act made some kind of provision for such persons as may be appointed chairmen of wages boards, but these provisions were not considered to be satisfactory in that they merely permitted those persons to be reappointed to the Public Service without conferring any entitlement to re-entry. The matter was taken up in a general way under the Public Service Act and appropriate provisions now exist in that Act which can confer entitlement in these circumstances. This being so, it seems desirable to repeal the provisions of . the Labour and Industry Act regarding the same matter which, incidentally, are inconsistent with those now appearing in the Public Service Act. Clause 3 retains the provisions of sub-section ( 4) of section 24 with respect to the saving

The Hon. A. J. Hunt.

of superannuation rights while excluding any mention of rights of re-entry to the :Public Service which are now covered under that Act.

Clause 4 contains provision for substitution of other days as public holidays when Christmas Day, Boxing Day or New Year's Day falls on a Saturday or a Sunday. Clause 5 contains the provisions extending the time for appealing against determinations of wages boards. Clause 6 extends the jurisdiction of the Industrial Appeals Court with respect to appeals from lower court decisions in civil proceedings. Clause 7 repeals sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act with respect to limitations on the employment of women and young persons. Clause 8 permits chemists' shops to remain open on any public holiday. Clause 9 includes the Shire of Sherbrooke within the scope of section 80c of the principal Act. Clause 10 is to permit petrol shops to remain open on Good Friday. Clause 11 contains baking provisions which I have mentioned. Clause 12 contains provisions about the guarding of dangerous machinery at point of sale. Clause 13 contains the provisions already mentioned with respect to safety devices for tractors. Clause 14 deals with a formal matter. It records from the Attorney-General to the Minister of Labour and Industry the transfer of administration of the Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act 1961. Clause 15 amends the Fifth Schedule to the principal Act by including pet shops in the schedule. Clause 16 makes consequential changes to the table of Parts and Divisions contained in section 1 of the principal Act.

During the Committee stage I shall move several amendments, principally to clause 12, which result from further consideration which has been given to certain provisions of the Bill since its introduction in another place and which result from matters raised there. There will also be amendments to clause 10. These amendments are in

Land Conservation [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Vehicle Control) Bill. 3505

the course of being printed and, as soon as they are available to me, in view of the shortness of time, I shall ensure that copies are supplied to members of other parties. That will be done in time to enable the proposals to be considered before the second-reading debate resumes. I commend the Bill to the House.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province).-! move-

That the debate be now adjourned.

I presume that this motion will enable the Government to meet its commitments. However, I plead for tolerance in the matter of time to enable me to examine the amendments and other details before the Bill is debated.

The motion for the adjournment of the debate was agreed to, and it was ordered that the debate be adjourned until later this day.

LAND CONSERVATION (VEHICLE CONTROL) BILL.

The debate {adjourned from December 5) on the motion of the Hon. V. 0. Dickie {Minister of Housing) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province).-The purpose of the Bill is to provide for the prohibition or regulation of traffic and the use of vehicles on public land. The measure has become necessary because of the popularity of some of the smaller vehicles which are now available. I refer particularly to beach buggies and mini-bikes which today are causing some concern, especially on land which is subject to erosion. I have in mind particularly the beach foreshore where sometimes large sums have been spent in an endeavour to establish grass on sand dunes to prevent the sea from encroaching on the land. The use of mini-bikes and beach buggies in these areas seriously damages any conservation works that have been carried out. The Labor Party does not intend to oppose the Bill.

The vehicles to which I have referred sometimes create a great nuisance and affect the amenity of people. Recently I watched a minibike being ridden along a beach and straight through a number of fishing lines held by persons who had been sitting quietly on the foreshore and fishing in the sea. The person to whom I refer drove his bike through all that fishing gear, throwing it over his head as he went along the foreshore. This is the sort of nuisance that some people will cause.

The Hon. M. A. CLARKE.-He should have been hooked under the ear.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.---~T would have done so if I had been able to catch him. The Minister has said that there is no way in which the operators of these vehicles can be identified as the bikes do not carry number plates. Once the vehicle has gone past, unless one is able to catch up with it nothing can be done about the situation. But apart from the nuisance value, these vehicles can be a source of serious danger.

The Bill provides also that municipal authorities may prohibit or regulate the use of motorized vehicles on any land within their municipality. In his second-reading speech the Minister said that it was proposed to cover the use of motorized recreational vehicles on any land within municipalities. However, I have examined the clause and it seems to me that no mention is made of the motorized vehicles being used for recreational purposes. Clause 6, which strengthens the Local Government Act with respect to the making of by-laws, provides that the following paragraph shall be inserted in sub-section (1) of section 197 of the Act:-

(xxvia) Prohibiting or regulating the use of vehicles propelled by internal combustion on any land or specified part or parts of land not being a highway or private street or road or public land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act 1970.

3506 !And Conservation [COUNCIL.] (Vehicle Control) Bill.

The paragraph contains no reference to recreational vehicles. In my view the words in the paragraph could include a number of vehicles, such as motorized lawn mowers which some people with large areas of land use nowadays. The expression could include also various other vehicles and perhaps even tractors. If a person was causing undue noise a council could possibly make a by-law to prohibit the use of a vehicle on a person's own land. Perhaps the Minister would be prepared to clarify his statement that this provision relates to the use of motorized recreational vehicles and inform the House whether the Bill will implement this intention. Apart from this aspect the Labor Party is quite happy for the Bill to be passed.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province).-The Bill has become necessary because of the changing times in which we live today and, probably, because of the lack of appreciation among some people of the public lands in this State and the purpose for which they are set aside. The measure embraces several aspects of land conservation, including the control of vehicles on public land, the prevention of damage to soil and the environment in these areas, the protection of individuals and offences committed by the users of vehicles. The Bill deals with a problem which is familiar to those honorable members who are associated with public lands, such as forests, Crown lands, national parks, reserves under the Land Act and municipal control. It also deals with the control of what have come to be known as mini-bikes, 4-wheel drive vehicles and other vehicles which were used originally mainly in factories and on other premises for quick transport from one place to another.

Today people take these vehicles out to public areas and proceed to enjoy themselves in various ways. I am not an opponent of mini-bikes if they are used within controlled areas. However, I am reminded of the time when there was surfeit of

small motorized vehicles which were used for competition on various tracks. The use of these vehicles was springing up all over the countryside. The vehicles were not very fast-1 suppose they could travel at 5 or 10 miles an hour, according to the horsepower of the engine in the vehicle-but they became very popular in country areas.

I recall that one afternoon I visited a private property to see one of these vehicles. When I arrived at the property I saw about 300 or 400· people enjoying themselves. The sons of the owner of the property were keenly interested in these vehicles. I made a comment to the property owner which set him thinking. I asked, " Have you a public risk policy in relation to this area on which you allow people to operate this vehicle?" He said, "No, I have not. " I said, " I suggest you had better discuss this with your solicitor because if there is an accident here you might be up for a lot of money. " He saw his solicitor, after which he promptly closed the area. Rallies are held for mini-bikes, usually on private land throughout the State. The riders have no thirdparty or other insurance, but the proprietors are apparently prepared to take the risk.

Close to Myrtleford one can see mini-bikes all the week-end being ridden on two areas of land. These have what are called hazard tracks through them, and the mini-bike riders race one another. They have no protection against injury and do not comply with the regulations or the Act relating to the use of motorbikes. Eventually, someone will be badly injured and a hue and cry will be raised.

Mini-bike activities are causing untold damage ; new tracks are being created, or those which are there are being churned up so that when rain falls erosion will follow. In the forest areas surrounding Myrtleford owners of mini-bikes ride along tracks and even enter private land if they can find someone foolish


enough to let them in. Eventually in these areas there will be extensive erosion.

This is a good Bill because it will give departments power to control vehicles in the areas under their administration. Another area which I have in mind is what is known as the Wonnangatta country through which endeavours have been made over a long period to open a road from the north to the south. This proposal has never been successfully negotiated with the Government, but there are about ten different tracks into the area which 4-wheel drive vehicles and mini-bikes are using. Extensive damage is being caused in these areas. Today one finds tracks everywhere; the mini-bike riders do not follow the forest track because they find it too steep, so they make tracks for themselves. The result is that the forest areas are being wrecked and a lot of money will have to be expended to get them back into order. When the Forests Commission and the State Electricity Commission erect barricades across tracks, these are no problem to 4-wheel drive vehicles or to minibikes ; the barricades are pulled down and thrown away.

The same problem is being encountered at Mount Buffalo. Persons driving 4-wheel-drive trucks travel along a forest road or a fire track and when they come to a barrier they simply bump the posts until they work loose, lift them out and throw them away. Sometimes one can find them and on other occasions one cannot. Sometimes the posts are thrown on the back of the truck and taken miles down into the bush before being thrown away. These people have no sense of responsibility, and it is high time the authorities concerned had some form of control over them.

Under the Bill power will be delegated to officers of departments and other organizations because there is no possibility of the police getting into the remoter areas. Mr. Walton mentioned that in the metropolitan

area the police may be able to give sufficient attention to offenders and to catch up with them, but in the far distant places of the State where areas are under the control of the Forests Commission, the Lands Department or national park committees of management, difficulty is encountered in catching offenders because, as Mr. Walton rightly said, mini-bikes carry no registration plates. The only means of apprehending offenders in such areas is to block the track so that they have to stop. The Bill will provide some means of control by members of the Police Force and officers of departments, and so on.

It is proposed to declare certain areas of foreshore, river frontages and the like throughout the State as hazard areas. This is a good move because it will be possible to close these areas to vehicular traffic and the erosion which is occurring will be prevented. By this means the menace which has been causing much concern may be overcome. These hazard areas will be declared by proclamation, and notices will be displayed at the appropriate places so that interested persons may be aware of the position.

I understand that provision is to be made in another Bill for thirdparty insurance and registration for the types of vehicles to which I have referred. This is a good proposal because it will protect the interests of all persons concerned. This in itself will be a means of controlling what has become a hazard in the community. Mini-bikes are an increasing problem because so many of them, of all shapes and sizes, are being sold. I suppose it will be a passing phase, because they are not much good for any use other than that to which they are put by young people. In the interim, the assets of the State must be protected and members of the Country Party support the Bill.

I notice that the Local Government Act is being amended so that municipalities may play their part in the

3508 lAnd Conservation [COUNCIL.] (Vehicle Control) Bill.

control of this type of vehicle. One of the greatest problems, whether one lives in the city or in a country town, is that of noise, particularly at night. Motor-bike riders and drivers of high-powered cars-what I term fools behind the wheel-want to get into top gear in the first 20 yards, so they roar their engines in first gear and almost lift people in the near vicinity out of their beds, so to speak. These drivers have no consideration for their fellow citizens. I hope the Minister for Conservation will eventually legislate for some control to be exercised over noise because it is one of the greatest problems which exist today.

Over the years when in Melbourne I have stayed at the Commercial Travellers Association's c'lub in Flinders Street. At 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. many motor car and motor-bike drivers try out their vehicles in front of Flinders Street station. They travel down Elizabeth Street and attempt to get around the corner into Flinders Street on two wheelsor one if possible--and the screeching of tyres can be heard for half a mile. This occurs not only in the city but in every country town. Some drastic action must be taken to minimize noise from motor vehicles.

The average citizen can start his motor car in front of one's house without one noticing it. On occasions, 40 or 50 vehicles are parked in front of a hall opposite my home. Generally, I do not hear them depart, but recently a young bucks' party was held at the hall and nearby residents did not get any sleep until about 4 a.m. They gave no trouble until they started for home at about 1 o'clock. From then on, the noise of vehicles starting up and taking a turn or two around the town was deafening.

I ask the Minister in charge of the Bill to direct this matter to the attention of the ·Minister for Conservation with a view to conferring with motor car manufacturers to ascertain whether some of the noise can be

The Hon. I. A. Swinburne.

prevented. Perhaps representations by the Minister and the Chief Secretary would have some effect. In my view, the exhaust pipes do not conform with the law. There should be a way of preventing this disturbance of the peace in both Melbourne and country towns. There should be a little more. sanity in the use of motor vehicles which are part and parcel of our way of life.

I commend the measure and hope those who use mini-bikes and 4-wheeled vehicles such as dune buggies will realize that the action taken as a result of the passage of the Bill will benefit them as well as protect the citizens and assets of the State.


and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to.

Clause 2 '(Interpretation). The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE {Minister

of Housing).-! foreshadow that I shall move amendments to a couple of the later clauses but I should take the opportunity of commenting on what was said by Mr. Walton and Mr. Swinburne, and answer the queries raised if I am able to do so. Mr. Swinburne commented on the noise which permeates the quiet of our beautiful rural towns and asked me to direct the attention of the Minister for Conservation to the problem. Noise is dealt with in the Environment Protection Act. There are five Parts of that Act dealing with pollution of water, air, and so on, and one part specifically deals with noise pollution. I assure Mr. Swinburne that, as soon as possible after the proclamation of the Act, the problems of noise from vehicles or any other source will receive the attention of the Environment Protection Authority.

In relation to clause 6, Mr. Walton said that in my second-reading notes there was a statement that the Bill before the House was designed to provide legislative machinery to control the off-road use of all types of motorized recreational vehicles on


Crown land. I should point out that clause 6 is one of the clauses to which I shall propose an amendment to define more clearly the vehicles to which it is intended to apply. Mr. Walton said that section 197 of the Local Government Act gave power to municipalities to make by-laws, regulations and so on, and, as I understood him, asked whether the provisions applied to motor mowers.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-Yes. They are non-recreational, but " recreational " is not mentioned in the Bill.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.-If the amendment 11 shall propose is accepted, there will be a reference to motorized vehicles and that is the term used in the Motor Car Act. Parliamentary Counsel believes that the term will specifically apply to recreational vehicles. If the term " motorized recreational vehicles " was used, there would be a multiplicity of problems.

The Hon. J. 'M. WALTON.-There are many motorized mowers on which people ride.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.-Perhaps I should elaborate on this when clause 6 is being considered.

The clause was agreed to, as were clauses 3 and 4.

Clause 5, providing, inter alia-(5) Except with the written permission of

the proper authority, a person within an erosion hazard area shall not-

( a) have in his possession or use any vehicle;

(e) cause or allow any water or other fluid to be drained or to flow over the area.

Penalty: $500.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing).-! move-

That, in paragraph (a) of sub-clause (5), after the words "or use any" the word "motorized" be inserted.

The amendment will more specifically relate to the type of vehicles to which the provision is intended to apply. Without the insertion of the word " motorized " before the word

Session 1972.-123

" vehicle " the provision would apply to all types of vehicles, and that is not intended.

The amendment was agreed to.


That, in paragraph (e) of sub-clause ( 5), the words " or allow " be omitted.

The intention of the provision is to prevent the unauthorized introduction of any fluids to the area or any interference with natural drainage. This intention is sufficiently expressed but the words " or allow " are redundant and, as they might be taken to add a further responsibility, the Government believes they should be deleted.


Clause 6-After paragraph (xxvi) of sub-section (1)

of section 197 of the Local Government Act 1958 there shall be inserted the following paragraph :-

"(xxvia) Prohibiting or regulating the use of vehicles propelled by internal combustion on any land or any specified part or parts of land not being a highway or private street or road on public land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act 1970."


That, in the proposed new paragraph, the words " vehicles propelled by internal combustion" be omitted with the view of inserting the words "motorized vehicles".

Parliamentary Counsel suggested that the term "motorized vehicle" neatly and precisely covered the class of vehicle intended to be covered in both clauses 5 and 6. As the term " motorized " is used in the Motor Car Act to define motorized wheel chairs, it is appropriate to use it in this Bill.

I revert to the point raised by Mr. Walton and his reference to a lawn mower with a seat. I believe if such a lawn mower were used on any land or any specified part or parts of land not being a highway or private street or road or public

3510 Land Conservation [COUNCIL.] (Vehicle Control) Bill.

land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act, it would be subject to this provision.

The municipality will have power to make by-laws for land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act and therefore what Mr. Walton suggests probably does come within the ambit of the provision. I know of no reason why it should not. If a lawn mower with a seat is being used in similar circumstances on lands as set out in the Bill, it would b~ . in complete violation of its proVISions.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province).-! interpret the provision differently. It refers to land " not being a highway or private street or road on public land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act 1970 ". This means virtually all private land. Motorized lawn mowers and indeed other types of vehicles such as mini-bikes are used for purposes other than pleasure. For instance, mini-bikes are often used for transport from one point to another on a farm and also for rounding up sheep and so on. I suppose it is drawing a long bow to suggest that a municipality will prosecute in these circumstances, but the Government has said that its intentions were to restrict only recreation vehicles. I suggest that the clause gives municipalities powers in excess of those intended by the Government and outlined in the Minister's second-reading speech. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this matter.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing).-The intention as outlined by Mr. Walton is correct and I now read the clause in the same way as does Mr. Walton. I cannot see any great problem arising from this provision but, for clarification, I should like to refer the matter to the Minister for Conservation so that I may provide accurate information for Mr. Walton. Accordingly, I suggest that progress be reported.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province).-Before progress is reported, I agree that the

provision appears to be far wider than was intended. I understood that the Government was endeavouring to regulate and restrict activities at such events as mini-bike field days on private property. Under the provision, I would have to obtain permission from the shire council to use my tractor on my property.

The Hon. C. A. M. HmER.-Or perhaps to park your motor car?

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-l\1y car is a registered vehicle but I agree that the council would have power to regulate my activities if I had an unregistered motor bike to round up stock, or an unregistered vehicle which I used to travel around my property, or even my tractor, whether or not it was registered. The council could prohibit or regulate how I used these vehicles on my property. I do not think this was intended.

I understood the Government's intention to be to control vehicles that were being used at rallies in the same way as control is exercised over motor-racing circuits. If the interpretation placed on the clause by Mr. Walton and the Minister is correct, I do not think this was mtended by the department or anybody else.

Progress was reported.

COMMAND PAPER. Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Min

ister of Agriculture) presented, by command of his Excellency the Governor, the report of the Police Department for the year 1971.

It was ordered that the report be laid on the table.

STATE COLLEGE OF VICTORIA BILL.

The debate (adjourned from December 6) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) for the second reading of this ·Bill was resumed.

State College of [ 13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Victoria Bill. 3511

The Hon. I. B. TRAY.LING (Melbourne Province).-The purpose of the Bill is to set up a body which will be responsible for the coordination and development of the teachers' college system. This will be done through the creation of a senate and an academic board. This proposed legislation is considered most important. It is as important as the Acts of 1910 and 1945 which were said to be milestones in the educational history of Victoria. It seems a pity that this measure should proceed through Parliament with such a strong body of opinion which is either opposed to it or seeks to have the Bill deferred for further examination.

One of the objectives of the measure is said to be to provide teachers' colleges with autonomy. Members of the Labor Party wholeheartedly support that objective. If the Bill is passed it will provide an interim situation but will not provide autonomy because, for at least five years following the setting up of the State College, the Minister will still have control. It cannot be said that it will be an autonomous body. Therefore, I move--

That all the words after " That " be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof .the words " while this House strongly endorses the principle that teachers' colleges should be independent of Education Department control, it is of the opinion that this Bill should be withdrawn and an expert committee of inquiry appointed to consider and recommend the most appropriate means of administering and co-ordinating tertiary educational institutions in Victoria ".

I accept the good intentions of the Minister and the Government in drafting the Bill, but I am persuaded that a sufficient body of opinion has suggested that, in its present form, the Bill should be withdrawn.

I propose to cite a number of organizations, institutions, opinions and sections of reports that in one form or another and to a greater or lesser degree oppose the Bill, seek its deferment or would like to see it amended. They are as

follows :-The Martin Committee report of 1964 from which a clear inference of opposition to this type of institution could be read ; the Senate committee's report on the administration of teacher education in Australia ; the Council of the La Trobe University ; Dr. Law, VicePresident, Victoria Institute of Colleges; Mr. R. D. McMullen, President, Victoria Institute of Colleges Staff Association Council; the South Australian Karmel committee's report which recommended against this type of institution; the West Australian Jackson committee's report, which similarly objected ; the report of the Victorian Fourth University Committee; the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Melbourne ; the Vice-Chancellor of Monash University; the Victorian Secondary Teachers Association ; the Technical Teachers Association of Victoria; the President of the Victorian Association of Students of Advanced Education; and the Education Vice-Principal of the Australian Union of Students.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE.---Has Mr. Trayling ever known any of these people to support anything?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING.-It could be said that there has been a consistent history of opposition to certain actions or non-actions of the Education Department over a long period of time. It cannot be fairly said that the comment could apply to all the people or bodies that I have cited.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.---Has Mr. Trayling ever met more conservative people than university people?

The Hon. I. B. TRAYLING.-1 am not willing to comment on that. The Victorian Teachers Union, the staff of the teachers' training colleges and the principals of the teachers' colleges are in favour of the Bill.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Is the Victorian Teachers Union in favour of it?

3512 State College· of [COUNCIL.] ViCtoria Bill. · · ·

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING.-I will not attempt to put to the House all the evidence and the comments appearing in the reports. I have mentioned most of the organizations concerned. I shall cite two examples to indicate the depth of concern about the Bill being passed at this stage. I refer to the report of the School of Education, La Trobe University, on the State College Bill.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! Is it of recent date?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING .-The date is not shown on the document.

The PRESIDENT.-Has Mr. Trayling some idea of the date?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING .-It is very recent. I understand that it is as late as last month.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Is it Dr. Goldman's report?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YDING .-It is not under his name personally, but he is involved.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.---.~From where does Mr. Trayling propose to quote in relation to Dr. Goldman's report?

The Hon. I. B. TRA YLING.-I propose to quote from the bottom of the first page under the heading of " General Comment ". It states-

The Government appears to be proceeding with a major proposal, without any fundamental reappraisal of tertiary education in Victoria or consultation with relevant or appropriate bodies.

An inquiry into tertiary education in this State with a view to preparing long-term planning recommendations is required. This Bill is no step forward and will only make future planning more difficult.

Is this not an opportunity further to examine the Bill and what might be its manifestations? If the Bill is not withdrawn, the Government might find itself in more difficulties in extricating itself from problems which arise later. It would have a more unpleasant task of trying to unravel some of the difficulties which it is alleged are included in it.

The only other quotation which I propose to cite to support this body of opinion is from a letter to honorable members dated 3rd November, 1972, from Mr. John Vines, President of the Victorian Association of Students of Advanced Education, and Mr. Andrew Bain, Education Vice-Principal of the Australian Union of Students. They say-

We believe that the concept of the State College of Victoria must be considered in the over-all pattern of education in Victoria. Accordingly we urge the Parliament to refer the State College of Victoria Bill to the advisory council on tertiary education so that it can be examined in conjunction with the future development plan for tertiary education free of political pressure, thus preventing an ad hoc development produced for political expediency.

Perhaps the withdrawal of the Bill on the basis of preventing an ad hoc development on such wide-ranging matters at this stage would have some merit. However, members of my party do not condemn the Bill outright.

My party hopes an opportunity will be pPovided for further examination of the Bill and that it will not be passed prematurely. The measure is considered to be one of the most important concerning education to be introduced in this century. Surely it should not be proceeded with when there i's such a strong expression of opinion from many organizations which want it to be re-examined and for the Government to take a closer look at its provisions. It is also considered that the Government should receive submissions and give them due consideration. We ask that all of the people to whom I referred, and the Parliament itself, should be given another opportunity of having this proposed legislation examined by an expert committee of inquiry.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Mr. Trayling has moved a reasoned amendment. Before that amendment is put, members may speak both to the Bill and the reasoned amendment.

State College of (13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Victoria Bi//; 3513

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-The Bill which is now before the Hous·e is of extreme impor-tance. It details a number of important principles ·concerning tertiary education, the teaching profession and the training rof teachers.

For a long time, matters concerning the autonomy of teacher training institutions-whether the training of teachers should be divorced from the employing authority, namely, the Education Department; the professional status of members of the teaching profe•s•sion; and the relationship between the profession and other tertiary education institutionshave been the subject of considerable de'bate and discussion.

I think it is fair to say that one would be hard put to find any other profession or occupation which has such a fundamental influence on our society •a:s the teaching profession. In view af this, the provisions contained in the measure are extremely important.

If it is accepted that teacher training institutions should be m•ade autonomous, I suggest that there are three principal methods by which this could be done. The first would be to follow the example of the Victoria Institute of Colleges and colleges of advanced education, to establish a governing body and affiliate teacher training institutions within that body, and to have them operating under the control of their own council.

The second method is to transfer the control of teacher training colleges and institutions either to the university system or to the colleges of advanced education system. The third alternative is to give ·e•ach college complete autonomy to operate under its own char-ter and under its own ·council without reference to other training institutions.

The Country Party believes that the last two alternatives-to transfer control of training institutions to the universities or to the colleges of advanced education, or to give each college complete autonomy to operate on its own behalf-are not

acceptable. My party holds the view that a governing body similar to that of the Victoria Institute of Colleges should be etablished and that teacher training institutions should operate under the control of that body-in this case, the State College of Victoria-and that they should also operate under the control of their own councils.

Since this measure was introduced in another place, many individuals, organizations and tertiary education institutions have made representations to every political party-! think my party has received most of them -and advanced various views. This was referred to by Mr. Trayling. The Country Party comes down on the side of the Government in this case, and my colleagues and I will therefore support the measure and vote against the amendment moved by the Labor Party. This does not mean that we accept the Bill without question or qualification and in my later remarks I shall suggest some areas in which my party believes the Bill could be improved and amended in the future.

.In the final analysis-and this applies to the Government of Victoria and to all political parties-we must assess and investigate the arguments ~~ich have been put forward in oppoSition to the enactment of this proposed legislation and make a final judgment which, in the opinion of the House, is in the best interests of the State of Victoria.

I consider that the second-reading explanatory speeches which were delivered in this House and in another place were inadequate in that they did not adequately describe the legislation and inform the Parliament of the steps which led to its introduction. If this measure had been more adequately explained, and if it had been discussed outside the Parliament, much less opposition would have arisen.

I shall now summarize the reasons for the Country Party's support of the Bill. Firstly, it grants long soughtafter autonomy to institutions which are involved in teacher education in

3514 State College of [COUNCIL.] Victoria Bill.

Victoria. Secondly, we believe it will raise the professional standard of teachers and that it will give the teaching profession the right to control its own profession. Other professions in our society, such as the legal and medical professions, enjoy the privilege and assume the responsibility of deciding what standards should be observed within their professions and the rights of people to enter them. The Country Party believes that the provisions of this measure will improve the teaching profession of Victoria.

A third important reason for our support of the proposed legislation is that it will bring the training of teachers in the State and independent school systems together. Undesirable features have developed in relation to these two aspects'of education in Victoria, and my party believes that, in some ways, the enactment of this proposed legislation will help to overcome the problem.

The fourth reason for the Country Party's support of the Bill is that it will provide directly for external studies in Victoria. I shall discuss that aspect when I refer to the Bill in more detail. The Country Party also supports the Bill because under the proposed State College of Victoria system the teacher training institutions in country areas will, to a large extent, be placed on the same basis as those in the metropolitan area and this is a worth-while and progressive move.

The final reason why the Country Party is prepared to support the legislation is that it will enable Victoria to participate in the finance that is to be ·made available by the Federal Government for teacher education. I appreciate that because of recent changes in Canberra, it is difficult to relate what might happen in the future with what was operating under the former system, but it is fair to say that under the State CoJlege of Victoria Bill the State will be able to participate in the finance made available by the Federal Government for teacher education.

The Hon. S. R. McDonald.

On the matter of Federal finance for education, I make one point which is in no way made to introduce party politics into the debate, but it is fair too say that the Australian Universities CommiSSIOn is responsible for the provision of finance and the development of university education in Australia. Honorable members have seen the situation develop where the universities themselves are placed in a strait-jacket having little or no flexibility or discretion within the framework of the over-all system. Today in the press honorable members will have seen the announcement that the new Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, has appointed a ten-man committee to advise him on or to investigate education in Australia. We want to be extremely careful as a State to avoid a similiar situation .developing as has developed in the university field where because the Commonwealth provides some of the finance it believes it has the right to control and direct what should be done throughout the system.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-All the personality is destroyed.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.I will wait for Mr. Ward to enlarge on that in his remarks later, but I agree with the comment and that is what I am endeavouring to point out. The State has a constitutional right in this field and it would be a tragedy if we allowed the system or the situation that has developed in the university field to develop throughout our education system.


The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.Prior to the suspension of the sitting I had outlined the basic principles upon which the Country Party bases its support for this important Bill. I now propose to examine the provisions of the measure in detail and to mention some aspects about which my party has some reservations. When one examines the Bill and the Acts under which the three

State College of [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Victoria Bill. 3515

Victorian universities and the Victoria Institute of Colleges have been established, one realizes that there is a similarity.

Clause 3 of the Bill establishes the State College of Victoria, and it is straightforward. Clause 5 is important because it outlines the objectives of the college. It is drafted in the broadest terms and gives authority for setting up the college under the widest possible charter. The clause does not go into detail of what the senate shall do, but I shall refer to that aspect later. Paragraph (a) provides that the general objectives of the college shall be to serve the community and in particular the citizens of Victoria by ensuring that knowledge of branches of learning of importance in the preparation of teachers, and especially of the arts, humanities and sciences, is made available for the benefit of all who might benefit therefrom, and in such a way as to enable them to have the opportunity of fitting themselves for life as well as becoming learned in a particular branch of learning. The clause outlines several individual objectives.

It is proposed to establish a system of external studies at the State College of Victoria. ·Members of my party and many other persons and interested organizations have suggested this for a number of years and for this reason members of my party are pleased that the provision has been included in the Bill. However, I hope the fact that provision for external studies is included in the Bill does not mean that there will not be a need to provide external study facilities at other tertiary institutions.

An important individual objective of the college is that which relates to the awarding of degrees. It is important that the State College shall award degrees and that degrees shall not be awarded by individual colleges. This is a sound and necessary principle and will ensure that a uniform standard will be maintained.

There is one area of teacher training in Victoria that has concerned my party for some time. That is the area of training teachers for specialist fields. Two fields that come to mind immediately are the training of teachers for remedial education and for pre-school education. Members of my party have discussed this subject with a number of people who are interested in the passage of the Bill and the preponderance of opinion is that if the objectives of the State College are achieved the standard of teacher training will be such that the need for specialist teacher training will be reduced. I accept that this is an admirable and theoretical concept, but in the short term it will still be necessary to do more than has been done in the past to train teachers of remedial education. I could go into details on that and quote what has been done in Westem Australia, but I do not propose to do so.

In debating this measure it is more appropriate to deal with the concept in general terms and principles. In discussing the over-all objectives of the Bill it should be appreciated that the college has a wide charter and is not related only to teacher training. The charter of the college and of the senate which will govern the college is sufficiently wide to bring into being training courses in other fields. This is a worth-while move.

The next important division of the Bill relates to the establishment of the. senate, which will be the governing body of the college. In this regard the Bill is similar in formation to the legislation which set up the governing councils of the universities and of the Victoria Institute of Colleges. One criticism of the composition of the senate by some persons and organizations is that to some extent the senate will be dominated by members of the teaching profession or by senior officers of the Education Department. The State College of Victoria must be related to


the needs of the State and of the community. For obvious reasons it would be wise to have a good representation of members of the teaching profession and of senior officers of the Education Department on the senate. Honorable members must bear in mind that the State College of Victoria and its affiliated colleges will need to utilize the primary, secondary and technical school facilities of the State in providing practical training for teachers.

Clause 26 provides for the setting up of academic boards similar in concept and operation to the professorial boards of the three universities. There is no need for me to enlarge on that aspect except to say that the board will be responsible for setting the standards of courses, staffing and everything else associated with the affiliated colleges.

The most important of the remaining clauses deal with various other matters relating to administration and the implementation of the objectives of the State College of Victoria. However, there are two or three clauses towards the end of the Bill to which I want to refer in detail. In Part H. of the Bill there is a reference to transitory provisions. Clause 43 provides for the establishment of the interim senate which will operate for a period of up to five years. There must be an interim period when there is a change from the existing system to the system envisaged in the Bill.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer and for this purpose I come back to the Minister's explanatory speech in which the honorable gentleman referred to the Government keeping its options open. The Minister was referring to the strong body of opinion which is opposed to the establishment of the State College of Victoria. It seems to me and to my party that the reason why the Government has introduced the Bill and the reason why the Government regards it as important is that there is a need for a third arm for tertiary

The Hon. S. R. McDonald.

education in Victoria. It appears that the reference by the Minister later in his second-reading speech to investigations that are being carried out and the Government keeping its options open is not entirely consistent with the over-all concept of the legislation. I shall refer at a later stage to the co-ordination of tertiary education and the investigations that are being conducted.

It is apparent that the Government's intentions under the Bill are that it is important to establish another arm of tertiary education in Victoria with an accent towards teacher education. I should like the Minister, during the Committee stage, to allay the fears of my party about the expression that the Government proposes to keep its options open. Does that mean that the Government may at some stage change its views about the functions of the State College of Victoria?

Clauses 55 and 56 of the Bill-the final clauses-provide for the incorporation of the colleges currently operating under the control of the Education Department. The procedure to be adopted is similar to that followed when the colleges of advanced education were incorporated under the Victoria Institute of Colleges. Considerable attention has been paid to clause 56 of the Bill during the passage of the measure through the Houses of Parliament and prior to its introduction. I understand from my research into this matter and from discussions which I have had with various persons interested in the Bill that it was not the original intention of the Government to include the clause in the Bill. The clause relates to the co-ordination of tertiary education and it provides that when two or more institutions are proposing to offer tertiary education facilities in any place in Victoria a committee shall be set up to investigate the desirability of this move.

Then the Minister and the five tertiary training institutions outlined in sub-clause (4) are advised. ~n the

State College of (13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Victoria Bill. 3517

Monash University Act and the Victoria Institute of Colleges Act, which was passed in 1965, those institutions are given an extremely wide charter as is proposed for the State College of Victoria. Members of the Country Party are somewhat concerned that clause 56 is not compatible with what is contained in the other university Acts and in the Victoria Institute of Colleges Act. I should like the Minister to refer to that matter also in Committee.

Co-ordination of tertiary education must certainly be given due regard. The manner in which this should be done is to accept the concept that there will be three branches or arms of tertiary education in Victoriafirstly, under the three universities and possibly the fourth university ; secondly, under the Victoria Institute of Colleges ; and thirdly, under the State College of Victoria. The Minister referred to the tertiary advisory committee which is at present operating. He indicated that a chairman and executive had been appointed to this committee which will look into and advise the Minister and the Government on tertiary education. It appears that, so far, the existing committee has not been given sufficient resources with which to carry out its work and that the members of the committee have important and onerous responsibilities in their own fields.

The Government should look more closely at the recommendations contained in the report of the committee on the fourth university. Broadly, in regard to its third term of reference, it recommended that the advisory committee on tertiary education should be made more comprehensive and be given more adequate resources to deal with the situation. If this is done, the Minister and the Government will receive expert advice on the co-ordination of tertiary education in this State. I point out that such committees should be advisory in nature and that the final

responsibility must always rest with the Minister of Education and the Government.

That is all I wish to say at this stage, but I intend to mention one or two minor matters in Committee. Members of the Country Party consider that the passage of this Bill will be an important step forward in Victorian education and that it will affect every level of educationpre-primary, primary, secondary and tertiary levels. It will also have an important effect on the relationship between the State and independent school systems. As I said at the outset, it will give justifiable recognition to the teaching profession in Victoria. With the qualifications I have mentioned, members of the Country Party support the Bill and certainly do not accept the Labor Party's amendment.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization). - Mr. McDonald raised a number of constructive points supporting the second-reading motion which I shall deal with in Committee. In moving his amendment, Mr. Trayling put the case and carried his brief fairly for the Labor Party. The Government cannot accept the amendment for the obvious reason that it would completely destroy the Bill. Although Mr. Trayling spoke in a pleasant fashion, the basis of the amendment is to oppose the setting up of teacher training in Victoria on a full tertiary basis with full recognition. The amendment does not indicate any recognition of teacher training. The only thing it says about teacher training is that it shall be taken away from the Education Department. It then states that the Bill should be withdrawn. That means that this Bill and everything associated with it should be destroyed, that the House should recommend that teacher training should be independent from the Education Department and that another

3518 State College ·of [COUNCIL.] Victoria Bill.

committee of inquiry should be established to consider and make recommendations on the co-ordination of tertiary education.

It is unfortunate that members of the Labor Party did not do a little more homework and did not read the Bill because years and years of work have gone on in this State and throughout Australia and I do not think they would have proposed that this subject should be re-examined by an unknown committee if they had realized the extent of that work. If they had read the Bill they would have noticed, as Mr. McDonald said, that paragraph (a) of clause 5 has been specifically included to enable machinery to be invoked to ensure that over a period of time there will be complete co-ordination of the tertiary status that at last after many years the community has conceded should be given to teacher education in Victoria.

A number of other matters were raised by Mr. Trayling in a pleasant way. He said that a large number of people were against the Bill. I shall speak about the university students who are against it and about Dr. Goldman of La Trobe University later. Amongst the large number of people, including the university students, who are against the Bill, Mr. Trayling suggested that the Technical Teachers Association of Victoria is against it. My instructions are that the Technical Teachers Association of Victoria submitted a written report to the Advisory Council on Tertiary Education. Apparently, this body was unknown to the Labor Party. I do not say that about Mr. Trayling because he had a difficult task. The views of the Technical Teachers Association of Victoria were submitted in detail and were only qualified by the statement which was, in effect, "We are all for it so long as the technical teachers' colleges are included ".

I now mention the persons and organizations in support of the Bill. The Martin committee, without any possible doubt, back in· 1964 strongly


recommended that teacher training in Victoria should be given full tertiary and independent recognition.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.-It took a long time to make it, did it not?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Yes, but this amendment would set back the position another 100 years. The Victorian Fourth University Committee, which sat for a long time and heard much evidence, clearly recommended that teacher training should be given full tertiary recognition. It also recommended, in line with the Bill, that machinery should be provided to co-ordinate tertiary education. The only source which Mr. Trayling could mention which was at all contradictory to the principles enunciated in the Bill was the Senate standing committee on teacher education. As I understand it, that committee recommended the setting up of independent tertiary recognition of teacher training, but in that case, in the light of evidence which it took all over the State, it recommended that teacher training should be associated with the Victoria Institute of Colleges and similar institutions in other States. There is a good reason why in this case that generalization does not apply in Victoria.

Another reason advanced by Mr. Trayling for not going ahead with this Bill was that there had been insufficient time for people to examine it and that a committee should be appointed to go into the matter. I can only repeat what I think most honorable members know, that the whole question of teacher education has been studied and examined by committees, certainly for more than fourteen years, and probably before then. The Advisory Council on Tertiary Education, which includes all the universities, at its second meeting in 1968 thoroughly discussed the role of teacher training in Victoria. Public meetings, seminars and conferences have discussed this subject for many years. The Fourth University Committee fully canvassed and


discussed this subject and recommended exactly to: the letter what is contained in the Bill. The Government is trying to carry out the recommendation contained in the committee's report. An advisory committee has been established, and again the Bill results from discussions of that committee.

In its present form the Bill was submitted a long time ago to the Advisory Council on Tertiary Education which fully examined it. As a result of discussions amendments were made to the measure. It was submitted to Dr. Law of the Victoria Institute of Colleges and to other bodies which have studied its provisions ad infinitum, so there is no valid argument that the Bill has suddenly come to light and is being pushed through. I venture to suggest that the measure could be ex~ amined for a further long period and no one would bring forward any better ideas than that there should be full automony granted to teacher training colleges and that there should be some mechanism provided to examine the whole problem of tertiary education in this State.

The next point made by Mr. Trayling-again in a pleasant way-was that Dr. Goldman and university students were against it. Mr. Trayling read from this famous document from the La Trobe University, but the honorable member could not give a date.

The Hon. A" W. KNIGHT.-There is no date on it.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.That is so, and I cannot give a date, but it comments that the Bill is no step forward and will only make future planning difficult. I challenge Mr. Trayling to inform me when the universities were ever in favour of this sort of legislation. It is interesting to look back on history because the same sort of arguments were used in this House previously when the Government introduced legislation to establish the Victoria Institute of Colleges. Those arguments

were put up by the universities, and apparently members of the Labor Party had the ear of the university people and the students who were opposed to that measure. I intend to quote from Hansard of 25th May, 1965, the remarks of Mr. GalballyI thought he would have handled this Bill on behalf of his party-on the Bill which for the first time gave tertiary status to the Victoria Institute of Colleges. Mr. Galbally's remarks are recorded at page 4658 of volume 278 of Hansard. Mr. Galbally stated that the purpose of that Bill was designed to replace universities with the Victoria Institute of Colleges and at page 4658 of Hansard, he is reported as having said-

It is a cold blooded, pitiless, soulless manoeuvre to destroy the very context of higher education.

Mr. Gal bally said a lot on this subject and at page 4661, he is recorded as saying-

This proposal to have the colleges con~ form to a pattern which would be imposed upo11 them would destroy liveliness and vitality; it would substitute a form of centralized or Government control fixing the standards, engulfing everything in an uncritical uniformity.

On the same page the Hansar-d report continues-

This Government is putting into the incinerator what 100 years of slow, painstaking endeavours have built up.

The Hon. R. J. EDDY.-Were you here during the debate?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Yes, I was here and I debated this measure. I challenge Mr. Galbally on those statements. Mr. Galbally continued-

As for Mr. Bolte, in the field of education, he is a paranoic firebug subject to grandiose delusions that universities are redundant and that degrees should be given to children at the secondary school level.

For the benefit of Mr. Galbally who has just walked into the Chamber, I am quoting some of his statem·ents when he was debating the Victoria Institute of Colleges Bill in 1965.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-They sounded very well from a distance.


The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-I wonder, whether looking back, honorable members agree with the statement that degrees should be given to children at the secondary school level. Of course, Mr. Galbally continued speaking on that occasion but I just wanted to illustrate that what he then said is identical with some of the statements that have been made here today. I hope the House will not be swayed by the remarks that have been made today because it would be a change for the worse in education if the Bill was not passed. If that occurred Victoria would be going backwards instead of forwards. From statements made the Labor Party is opposed to the Bill. If the House accepts the amendment, such action would be turning back the clock twenty years.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-To be accurate you would be turning back the clock not twenty years, but seventeen years because that is the period you 'have been in Government.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Mr. Galbally claimed that the Government was putting education back 100 years. If the amendment moved by Mr. Trayling was passed and this legislation was not enacted, the recognition of teacher training in this State would certainly be put back by twenty years as Victoria would have to start afresh. This would completely destroy any benefit already achieved especially since the profession of teaching has been completely accepted by the community in this State.

The Hon. H. R. WARD (SouthEastern Province) .-1 feel compelled to make some remarks about the proposed legislation. It is disappointing to find the Labor Party moving an amendment which will virtually deny teachers some professional standing. It is also disturbing to hear comment that the legislation is premature and should be withdrawn for further consideration. Any delay in the passage of the Bill to enable a re-examination

to be carried out would result in a further centralization of teacher training and a situation which would be identical with what has happened in the sphere of universities. Honorable members have heard the challenge which has been issued and which will come into reality if the two-man junta in Canberra is allowed to continue. Honorable members ha\'e heard quoted from Hansard some eomments made by honorable members who are still " chipping in ". By accepting the amendment the Government would be delivering a stab in the back to the teachers who have been fighting for professional status for their profession. Apparently the Labor Party is determined to prevent such recognition. The Hamer Government has decided that professional status should be accorded to the teachers in this State.

Since the settlement of Victoria there has been a great fight by various organizations and people to establish teacher training throughout the State. There was a rise and fall in the teachers' colleges until about 1872 when the Education Act was introduced. However, in the 1890s the operations of the Melbourne Teachers College lapsed owing to a shortage of funds. In those days, some 60 teachers went to the college. The college closed for a short period and then was re-established under Mr. Frank Tate. It was still called the Melbourne Teachers College, but subsequently became known as the Melbourne College of Education. Victoria is fortunate in that some 17,000 trainees of the Education Department are being trained to become professio·nal teachers by the teachers' colleges. This legislation is a step towards establishing professional status for teachers.

The law, the church, the military and the medical areas of practice have been traditional professions, whereas the teacher has always been a fringe dweller and kept that way. Universities have never really assisted in the recognition of school teachers. Teachers have been U'nder-rated,


underpaid and often grossly overworked; they have also been criticized for their lack of training in the profession. In fact, the teacher might not have been the most remarkable academic although there are thousands of exceptions to that statement. Nevertheless, he has been well-trained as a tradesman in the art of teaching and is able to impart his broad knowledge to the thousands of children thoughout this State. The teacher has received sound training in the teachers' college system which has been developed in this State.

Professional status has rightly become an important aspect of the teacher's life and, of course, that of the community. Parents expect their most precious possessions-their children-to be in the hands of professional people. There is no measure of the professionalism of a teacher because he must move with the trends of experts and cope with the people and the daily changes in life. Teachers have to convey their quality of service. Quality, of course, is the individual demand of every parent and the Government, in establishing this State College, is preserving what will be needed to promote the future of the country.

There is a fear that this legislation could cause a monopoly and move towards the closed shop aspect of a profession, but in the interim period of handing over the reins of autonomy, there will be a settling down in management, professional training and outlook. I believe Bacon summed up the situation of a profession, and I agree with what he said as regards the teaching profession, in his comments in the book The Maxims of the Law in which he wrote-

! hold every man a debtor to his profession, from which, as men do, seek to countenance and profit, so ought they of duty endeavour themselves by way of amends, to be a help and ornament thereunto.

The establishment of the State College is not professionalism in itself. The State College is the foundation

of the profession's training, expertise, ideals, efforts, conduct, standards of practice and the engendering of the professional spirit. That professional spirit will lift the status of the teacher with his students, the parents, the community, employers and colleagues and the other established professions in our community today.

The Bill lays down the treatment of professional people and it is important that it should receive endorsement as this is most vital and urgent. To some people a professional man is no more than an expert chosen because of his special intelligence, his social abilities and working in some narrow field within the community. This is not so where a teacher is concerned. He is a person of intelligence who has ability to understand parents, to train children, to nurse them, to guide them and be a friend and philosopher to them. Teachers are not always from the upper level of intelligence but this should not be regarded as a deterrent in seeking professionalism. In fact, the training provided at a teachers' college using the special intelligence which fits the teacher makes him a better professional person, both morally and spiritually.

It is a bitter pill for some universities that 75 per cent of admissions to primary teacher training institutions and a large proportion of those admitted to the secondary teachers' colleges perform better than university entrants at matriculation level. Any delay to the Bill would be a disaster. More than 40 per cent of all teacher trainees are in Victorian teachers' coUeges. Is Victoria to stop teacher training to rationalize? Has the Labor Party considered the needs of the profession? Honorable members of the Labor Party are always talking about it but never go any further.

The quality of advanced education should be technologically orientated and not teacher orientated. I can understand why the universities may have some misgivings about the establishment of a State College of


Victoria. For too long, teacher training has been regarded as supplementary to university education. As an honorable member stated by interjection, it is an appendix, but often to get rid of it, an appendectomy is performed, just as happened with physical education training. That is the reason for establishing a State College of Victoria. Even with the establishment of the State College of Victoria, teaching will be minimized or downgraded by professional persons who should be promoting the profession.

Education is a radical movement which is continually challenging and therefore continually changing. An interim senate is to be set up under the provisions of Part II. The transitory provisions of this legislation commence at clause 45. This recognizes the change and gives time for a fundamental structure to be established. This is a most important function and I hope the Minister, immediately this legislation is enacted, will commence the establishment of the interim senate. It is a most important body and there will be a tremendous amount of work to be performed in the next few months and in the next few years.

The Minister recognizes the over .. all challenge in tertiary education, and made this clear by announcing that the Advisory Council on Tertiary Education is preparing a plan for future development in this field. This has already been stressed and pointed out by Mr. McDonald. The universities, of course, fear this advisory council because they do not want co-ordination. That is because of the fear that suggestions may be made by the advisory council for improvements in the operations of the universities.

The teachers' colleges need autonomy to set their own course in curricula and in individuality, for the future of teacher training and the training of children throughout the State and indeed for the service of State education in Victoria. Teachers'

The Hon. H. R. Ward.

colleges and teachers do not deserve to be classed as second rate. That would occur if they remained as one of the colleges of advanced education and continued to be an arm, or as I said before, an appendix, of the universities. Within the next few months, the new management for teacher training will be formed and it is most important that this gets under way. During establishment it should be made clear that there are strict courses and plans for the development of educatio·n and the training procedures to be established.

Some comments were made about student selection. Studentships will still be granted by the Education Department. The department has always endeavoured to choose the best qualified students and those most orientated towards teacher training and teaching. The grant of studentships and the payment of the student teachers will still remain within the purview of the Education Department. The colleges will not grant studentships; they will deal with the admissions. I am impressed with clause 6 which establishes the senate and which provides for wide representation on it. The senate will be composed of representatives of the Education Department, the universities and staffs, the Victoria Institute of Colleges, preschools-to cater for the new emphasis on pre-school training-members of Parliament and the community.

Clause 26 relates to the academic board. Once again honorable members will see the importance given to the board by the Minister and those who drew up the Bill. The board will include ten members of the staffs' association of the teachers' colleges and five other people who have a special interest in tertiary education in the arts, humanities or sciences. The whole structure of the academic board will be developed and pointed towards upgrading teacher training and ensuring that there is a balance of teacher qualifications throughout the State. In this way

State College of ( 13 DECEMBER, 1972.) Victoria Bill. 3523

teachers' colleges in country and suburban areas can be brought into the same structure and degree-granting status as is now provided in some colleges. This is a most important function, which was clearly pointed out by Mr. McDonald who, naturally, would be concerned about whether there would be any difference in the curriculum and degree-granting status between the colleges.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD.-Does the honorable member consider that there should be as many students on the council as there are on the university council?

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-I believe they would be an important adjunct to the council. A responsible group of people is moving into the teaching field. Within a short time, probably by amendment or by further legislation, doubtless provision will be made for the appointment of at least one student to the boards set up within the colleges. I believe also that would assist in some small way towards a greater understanding than exists at present between students and staff. I see no real opposition to this. Certainly no opposition will come from me for recognition in each college.

The Governme·n t has discussed these points and no doubt the Minister will elaborate on the need for greater understanding between the staff and the trainee, who potentially is an important person in the community in training people and in guiding the philosphies of the education structure. I cannot stress too strongly the importance of the State College of Victoria Bill and the need not only for autonomy in the affiliated colleges but also to establish the professional status of a school teacher, a status which is long overdue. It will give him a standing in the community as a professional man in the same way as a status is given to those who are engaged in the law, the church, the Armed Forces and the medical profession.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Tray-

ling to be omitted stand part of the motion (the Hon. R. W. Garrett in the chair)-

Ayes 23 Noes 8


Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell

AYES.

Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie

Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. May

Mr. Dunn Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt

Mr. Eddy Mr. Galbally Mr. Knight Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling

Mr. Hamilton

Mr. Mitchell Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Bradbury Mr. Grimwade.

NOES.

Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Elliot Mr. Kent.

PAm. Mr. Tripovich.

The House divided on the secondreading motion (the Hon. R. W. Garret in the chair)-

Ayes 23 Noes 8

Majority for the motion

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell

15

AYES.

Mr. Hunt


Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. May

Mr. Dunn Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton

Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Trayling

Mr. Hamilton

Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Gross Mr. Mitchell.

NOES.

Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Knight Mr. Thomas.

PAIR.

Mr. Tripovich.


The Bill was read oa second time. The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE

(Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-1 move-

That the Bill be now committed.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-Before the course proposed is embarked upon I wish to make a personal explanation. I understand that during my absence from the Chamber for a few minutes, the Minister in charge of the Bill made some reference to the fact that he thought I would be handling it on behalf of the Labor Party. That assumption was correct but, during the course of the debate on another matter yesterday, certain interpretations were placed by the Government on the question of personal interest. It occurred to me that as I am a member of the Faculty of Education at La Trobe University, my position might become indelicate. Therefore, it was arranged that I would not handle the Bill for the Labor Party, but that Mr. Trayling would do so.

I thought this had been made known to the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, but if the Minister says that he did not know, I shall accept his word. It was certainly known to many other people. In my absence, I understand that the Minister referred to a speech I made some seven years ago. I am not objecting to what the Minister said, but I commend the speech to honorable members.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) (By Zeave).-It was quite immaterial to me whether Mr. Galbally handled the Bill on behalf of the Labor Party or whether Mr. Trayling did so. Mr. Galbally was listed but irrespective of who handled the measure, I would still have quoted the speech because the statements made by Mr. Galbally on that occassion were very similar to the remarks made by Mr. Trayling, and I quoted Mr. Galbally's remarks to show that similar opposition was raised when

this House discussed the establishment of the Victoria Institute of Colleges. I do not apologize for quoting those remarks.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-1 just want to make my position clear.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-1 have now done so.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was committed. Clauses 1 to 55 were agreed to. Clause 56 (CCJ-ordination Com-

mittees). The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE

(Bendigo Province) .-The co-ordination of tertiary education has very real meaning in Bendigo with the Bendigo Teachers College being relatively close to the campus of the Bendigo Institute of Technology. With the tremendous increase in the number of students at the teachers' college in the past three years, the college has encountered problems with facilities and accommodation for the number of students and staff. A similar problem has been experienced by the Bendigo Institute of Technology which is only a short distance away.

When these institutions are considering the provision of library and other facilities, surely it would be preferable for the facilities to be provided as a joint venture. Admittedly, a facility such as a library would need to be slightly bigger than might otherwise be required but I am sure that the provision of a joint library for both institutions would benefit the students from the dual campuses.

The clause relates to co-ordination of university facilities and perhaps the ultimate development of a greater institution. Perhaps the fourth university could be led in this way. I support the establishment of a committee to encourage rationalization of these expensive facilities.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-During the second-reading debate, I raised what I thought were important issues but, contrary to his usual practice of

State College of [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Victoria Bill. 3525

rushing into a debate with remarkable alacrity, the Minister for State Development and Decentralization has chosen not to do so on this occasion. In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to the Advisory Council on Tertiary Education preparing a plan for the future and indicated that at this stage the Government was leaving its options open. Obviously, the Bill represents a firm commitment by the Government to this principle. I ask the Minister what interpretations he places on the legislation as to leaving the options open for the future operation of our tertiary system.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-The recommendations of the committee on the fourth university are embodied in the Bill. One recommendation was to establish an independent tertiary standard of teacher training colleges in Victoria and the second recommendation was the consideration of the co-ordination of all tertiary education. These two recommendations are clearly written into the measure. It is proposed to set up an independent body which gives tertiary recognition to all teachers' colleges throughout the State and then proposed section 78A will enable them to co-ordinate . with other tertiary institutions in the State.

As has been said in another place and as appears in the second-reading notes, there may be all sorts of circumstances in country areas where there could not be a constituent college that could co-ordinate as an independent body with the Victoria Institute of Colleges. For this reason, the options are open to enable that sort of co-'Operation to take place. I suppose it will depend upon the establishment of the fourth university, but these are things in the future, and I hope that with the work that will be undertaken by the Advisory Council on Tertiary Education greater co-ordination will result. Accordingly, the measure leaves the options open. It certainly

establishes that teacher training colleges shall have full recognition at tertiary level. I cannot foresee what will happen in ten or fifteen years.

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

without amendment, and passed through its remaining stages.

LAND TAX BILL. The debate (adjourned from the

previous day) on the motion of Sir Gilbert Chandler (Minister of Agriculture) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province) .-This is one of those measures which come before the House annually for the purpose of fixing the rates of land tax for the ensuing twelve months. The Minister has assured honorable members that the rates are not being changed on this occasion. However, as has been the case in previous years, the Labor Party takes this opportunity of putting forward ideas on how it thinks the Act should be implemented specificaHy to assist people in ~ountry areas who carry on primary mdustry and various other industries particularly where primary produc~ tion is not one of their main sources o.f income. On this occasion, that is what I intend to put before the House.

Primary producing properties are ?OW exempt bl;lt many other people In the community are forcing up the ~osts of ~~ral land because they are 1n a positiOn to pay an exorbitant price which is far in excess of the land's true value for primary producing purposes with the result that it is difficult for the ordinary farmer to make a living. Apart from anything else, it increases the val~e of his property to a stage where It becomes uneconomic for ·~im to continue farming, because the mcome he can derive from the sale of the land is in excess of what he can earn by working the property. As a reasoned amendment, I move-

1Jlat ai_I the words after "That" be om1tted With the view of inserting in place thereof the words " this Bill be withdrawn

3526 Land Tax [COUNCIL.] Bill.

and a new Bill introduced with a view of declaring the rates of land tax and exempting land from the payment of land tax where-

(a) such land is owned and is used or is incidental to the use of other land by an approved decentralized industry within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958; and

(b) such land-(i) is owned and is used for primary production by a natural person; or (ii) is owned by an exempt proprietary company within the meaning of the Companies Act 1961 that is incorporated in Victoria all the members of which are related by blood or marriage-and is used for primary production by a member of the company. Provided that the income of the person or company is derived to the extent of at least 80 per centum from carrying on the business of primary production on the land. And providing further that in determining the income of a person or company for such purposes any income earned as a result of employment undertaken by the person or any member of the company on behalf of the company because of a material reduction in the income of the person or company due to temporary economic seasonal or other factors shall be disregarded." The amendment I have moved is very long, but its purpose is to ensure that a person who does not depend on farming for his living and who, in one way or another, is investing money to produce the effect to which I have referred, will pay land tax if he does not derive at least 80 per cent of his income from farming. The Labor Party adopts the view that such a person should not be exempt from the payment of land tax. My party wishes that principle to apply to companies as well, with the exception of those which are mentioned in my amendment, namely, companies in which all the members are related by blood or marriage.

The amendment provides that a person who, because of the economic set-back which has been experienced by primary industries in the past twelve months, has been forced to temporarily leave his land and obtain a job in the township to supplement his income or to save his farm altogether, will not be affected by this proposed legislation. My party believes that people who manipulate farms from Collins Street or some other city area should not be exempt

The Hon. J. M. Walton.

from land tax but that people who are genuinely carrying on farming pursuits and who have had to leave their properties and seek employment in order to survive, following a particular season, should be entitled to do so until the farm can be put back on its feet, and should be exempt. I trust that the House will favourably consider my amendment.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Mr. Walton has moved a reasoned amendment, and from now on members will be speaking to both the Bill and the amendment.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (NorthWestern Province) .-The Leader of the House passed a compliment to the Country Party in his secondreading speech when he expressed his opinion concerning land tax, because he voiced the policy of my party. I congratulate the honorable gentleman on presenting those views. The Minister stated that he did not believe in land tax in any form at all, and that any tax which was imposed should be related to income. The Country Party agrees with that view.

Although my colleagues and I disagree with the principle of imposing a land tax, this measure contains provisions with which my party agrees, particularly the provision which relates to the increase in the amount of land tax payable by absentee land owners. Paragraph (b) of clause 2 provides that if three-fifths of the entire beneficial interest in any land is owned by absentees, the land shall be deemed to be wholly owned by absentees and the payment of increased land tax will be applicable.

For years the Country Party has fought to obtain exemption from the payment of land tax. Its members believe land being used for primary industry should be exempt, although I do not know whether the Minister agrees with that. A butcher, a baker or a candlestick maker could be obtaining three-fifths or more of his income from the production of primary products, and we consider that such people ought to be exempt.


Last year, when a Bill concerning land tax was before the House, Mr. Swinburne moved an amendment. The Country Party intends to do the same now. We were defeated on the last occasion, but the Country Party always bounces back; indeed, it bounced back with twenty members in the Federal Parliament quite recently.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That came as a surprise.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-It probably came as a surprise to Mr. Walton. Following upon Mr. Walton's amendment, I move-

That the amendment be amended by the omission of all the words and expressions after the word " land ", where second occurring, with the view of inserting in place thereof the words and expressions, " (other than land in the Port Phillip Area as defined in the Electoral Provinces and Districts Act 1965) from the payment of land tax".

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett}.-Mr. Mansell has moved an amendment to Mr. Walton's amendment. Members speaking from now on will be speaking to the Bill and both amendments.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (NorthWestern Province) (By Leave) .-In speaking to the Clerk beforehand, Mr. President, I understood that my amendment would be accepted as a reasoned amendment to Mr. Walton's motion.

The PRESIDENT.-That is what I said.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-In discussing this matter beforehand, we did not know how Mr. Walton intended to word his amendment. Actually my amendment is directed to clause 2 of this measure.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-The heading on the copy of the amendment which has been circulated reads-

Amendment to be proposed by the Hon. A. R. Mansell to reasoned amendment to second reading proposed by the Hon. J. M. Walton. It would have been better if Mr. Mansell's amendment had been separate. The House could then have disposed of Mr. Walton's amendment and then

considered Mr. Mansell's. The document which I have indicates that Mr. Mansell's amendment is an amendment to Mr. Walton's amendment. That is the reason for my remarks to the House.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-! am prepared to withdraw my amendment, Mr. President.

By leave, the amendment was withdrawn.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER (Monash Province) .-As I understand it, the Country Party agrees with Mr. Walton's amendment, subject to the further proposal which was put forward by Mr. Mansell.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-! did not say that.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.-! was seeking elucidation. As I understand it, Mr. Mansell's amendment amends Mr. Walton's amendment by inserting something.

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-My amendment has been withdrawn, by leave, for the time being.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).- I understand that the Country 'Party will reconsider the amendment and introduce it as an individual amendment rather than as an amendment to Mr. Walton's amendment. The House awaits Mr. Mansell's decision in the matter.

The situation is that Mr. Mansell will submit his amendment as a suggested amendment at the Committee stage. That is in order. The only amendment to be considered now is that moved by Mr. Walton. Therefore, any member who now speaks will discuss the Bill and Mr. Walton's amendment.

The Hon. C. A. M. HIDER.! can only describe Mr. Walton's amendment as utter nonsense. That should not worry the Country Party. No one likes any form of taxation, whether it is income tax or any other tax, and Mr. Walton's amendment invites the imposition of penalties upon people who have acquired a land holding.


I point out that income must be raised and that, until there is co-operation with the Federal Government and an effort is made to find other methods by which finance can be raised, we are stuck with the present situation. I think it is necessary for the Government to be selective in choosing any form of indirect taxation, but it is compelled to use this method to raise revenue for the State of Victoria to enable it to do those things which the House considers to be important.

I have no objection to the principle of encouraging decentralization, and I understood that this was exactly what the Government was attempting to do with land tax and pay-roll tax. The Government is attempting to encourage decentralization by granting exemptions.

The second part of Mr. Walton's amendment relates to land use and primary production, and I suggest that it is inequitable that a proprietary company should be eligible for an exemption but a public company should not. I know of no reason why a public company which is farming land should not equally be entitled to a taxation concession as a proprietary company. As honorable members undoubtedly appreciate, a company consists only of its shareholders and the benefits which are passed from the company go to the shareholders. Therefore I cannot see that the type of structure of a company is relevant. However, that is really a minor criticism.

My main concern relates to the two provisos in paragraph (b) of Mr. Walton's reasoned amendment. One proviso states that at least 80 per cent of income must be derived from carrying on primary production on the land. I regret to say that I do not quite understand that term. Honorable members who are farmers may well have difficulty in knowing precisely whether the expression relates to net income or gross income, having regard to the seasonal nature of farming. In some years a farmer has a low income and in other years

The Hon. C. A. M. Hider.

he has a better income. In some years he may have a bonanza. I believe the requirement set by Mr. Walton is impossible accurately to determine, unless one were to use the averaging provisions that exist in the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act.

I wonder how the soldier settler and small farmer would fare, the sort of farmer who is forced by seasonal conditions to do other work such as shearing, contract clearing of land or wheat cultivation on a share-farming basis. Such matters are not covered in the reasoned amendment. I have in mind a farmer who owns 600 or 1,000 acres from which he might get quite a good living but who derives about 50 per cent of his income from other work because he does need to spend 100 per cent of his time on his property. He goes out share farming, clearing land and so on. He is able to do so not solely because of seasonal conditions but because of the way he manages his property, perhaps in conjunction with his sons.

I suggest that Mr. Walton's proposal would eliminate many hardworking farmers who desire, because of their good management of their properties and the time available to them, to engage in other activities. They would pay land tax. I could not imagine anything more inequitable. Whilst I concede that rural land which is used for primary production should be subject to some sort of land tax rebate, I cannot agree with Mr. Walton's view. Bearing in mind the rebates of land tax that flow to industries one should not look at farming interests alone. Farmers are not the only people who have difficult years. Manufacturing industries have varied interests. Many of them require large areas of land which might be considered as being entitled on an equitable basis to some form of rebate, particularly in the interests of encouraging self -sufficiency in a particular industry, not to encourage decentralization in a direct sense but at least decentralization in the sense of development a few miles out of Melbourne. I believe the House


should reject Mr. Walton's proposal. It is incapable of clear definition and in my view would work injustices.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-I have listened with great interest to the remarks of Mr. Hider. The Minister of Agriculture, his Leader in this House, has always been opposed to land tax. It seems that he has a partial disciple in Mr. Hider. I therefore wonder why the Bill has been introduced. Land tax was not payable in Victoria until about 1954 or 1955. Before that it was imposed by the Federal Government which deCided in its wisdom that it was unfair. It divested itself of land tax. The late John Cain, who was Premier of Victoria at the time, decided to apply it in Victoria. We strongly opposed it, but it was the old story that numbers count and the legislation was passed. Since then we have been trying to get rid of it.

I was somewhat encouraged by Mr. Hider's remarks because it seems that he would like to see land tax completely eliminated. It seems that together with his Leader we have converted two honorable members. If we sit here long enough we might gain sufficient numbers to get rid of land tax. It might take a long time because some people who have their money invested in shares do not pay tax at all and they expect those of us who have our money invested in land to keep them. If we are to have a tax that covers everybody, let us have it. Because a man was apprenticed to his father as a farmer and the property passed down through the family over the years the proposals in the past were that he should pay land tax. We have been successful in getting it removed from land used for primary production.

Mr. Walton's proposal takes into consideration the incomes of individuals. I do not know what the income of a man who is farming 200 acres has to do with land tax.

The Hon. 0. G. JENKINS.-It might affect the valuation.

The Han. I. A. S\VINBURNE.That used to be so, until this Government brought in the Valuation of Land Act. Valuations are now made on sa1le ~alue and nothing ·else is taken into consideration. Exemptions are granted on land valued up to $9,000. If the municipal valuator increases the valuation the land may become subject to land tax. There is no other m·easuring sUck and I do not see how the formula will do other than complicate an already complicated measure.

Mr. Hider rightly said that Mr. Walton is trying to catch the very person who does not make a profit from the land. Many people who invest in land obtain benefits under the Income Tax Act. They fo·rce up the price of land by paying exorbitant prices for it. Then they spend money on amenities on the farm, irrespective of whether they are useful. They can afford to do that beoause it knocks the top off their income tax liability. I suppose that many of us over the years have received benefits from the provisions of the Income Tax Assessment Act but that has nothing to do with land tax. Land tax hinges on the valuation of land and is paid accordingly. I do not see how Mr. Walton's amendment can be implemented. He referred to the little fellow who earns a few dollars because he has the time to spare from his small property. In the main he is now excluded and there is no need to bring him into the argument. At present the legislation excludes him so why involve him again?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON .-Because he would not be getting 80 per cent of his income from his farm.

The Han. I. A. SWINBURNE.-But that has nothing to do with the Land Tax Act.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-It is in the amendment.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.! cannot see how it is to be applied. In my book it is based only ·on the valuation. If we are to start meddling we would do better to be rid of land tax altogether and bring in


another form of tax which might be equitable for all of us. Once you start to fiddle around with land valuations, where do you end up? Our policy is gradual ·exemption from land tax for everybody. With the aid of Sir Henry Bolte we were able to exclude rural lands used for primary production. \Ve now ask that the townspeople who service the people who work on the land be given the S1ame privilege. We hope eventually land tax will be removed from metropolitan lands.

A few years ago I poked my neck out one night in the House on the subject of who pays land tax. During the suspension of the sitting for dinner the Leader of the House obtained the figures. They surprised most O'f us. From memory, about 12 per cent of land tax was paid by prim,ary producers, 11 per cent in rural towns and the balance in the metropolitan area. The greatest portion was paid by people within the Golden Mile. We believe the tax can be taken off over a period.

As my colleague has foreshadowed, my party will propose an amendment. We should not be meddling with the income tax laws. If we get into that field we shall defeat our own objective. A few people may be caught but probably it would be necessary to have a declaration whether a person had had a good year or a bad year or the reason why he did not obtain 80 per cent of his income from the land. A person in the later years of his life who has made a go of a farm usually has certain funds invested, either to pay off probate duty or to provide for his children when they become of age. Under the proposed formula he would be paying land tax every year because he had interests other than his farm from which he was receiving revenue. My party is not happy with the proposed amendment and believes it would be well to leave it alone. It would not be applying proper principles to work out the income tax of persons to determine whether they should pay land tax. The amendment should be rejected and I


suggest that, instead, honorable members should adopt the amendment to be proposed by my colleague, Mr. Mansell, which will deal with the principle of land tax as it applies in Victoria.

The Hon. 0. G. JENKINS (SouthWestern Province) .-As the Minister said, the exemptions were redefined when a previous Bill was before the House in 1970. The exemptions from land tax of certain municipal and charitable land were to be lifted if the land was leased for business purposes. Later, the House was told that those proposals would not be introduced until January, 1973. In the interim, the subject has been examined at length and many submissions have been made by charitable bodies and municipalities and, in particular, by the city councils of Melbourne and Geelong.

When the earlier Bill was debated~ I pointed out that if the provisions came into force as they stood the City of Geel'ong would pay more in land tax than it received as payment for the lease of certain land. The Government has now given an undertaking that the withdrawal of these exemptions will be deferred for another year while the matter is being closely examined by an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Inglis, of the Local Government Department. I know that many submissions have· been made to the committee.

A further complication arises under the provisions of the Geelong Market Site Act which makes it mandatory that the City of Geelong pay 20 per cent of the gross rental it receives to the Lands Department. So, to correct another anomaly which would be created, a further amendment to the Act would be necessary. I am glad that this proposal will be deferred for another year so that the many complications which may arise can be considered and any necessary changes made before the new provisions come into force.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (Western Province) .-I congratulate the Leader of the House on holding

Land Tax [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill.·· 3"531

the point of view on land tax which he has expressed. I only wish that he could get the message across to other members of the Government. Land tax is a stupid tax which should not exist. The amendment proposed by the Labor Party would be detrimental to the people it is intended to help. Many small farmers in the Portland area work at Borthwick's and receive more than half their income from that employment. These are the type of people that the amendment would hit. People who farm in a big way do not often have money invested outside their farms, and they would not be affected.

I endorse the policy of the Country Party that all land in country areas should be excluded from land tax. The exemption should apply just as much to businessmen in country towns as it does to farmers. This is one way in which something could really be done about decentralization. If the Government wants land tax to be maintained on land in Melbourne, that is up to it, but surely it can allow a concession to people in the country. The municipal rates in the country are much higher than land tax and primary industry has to bear the burden of those rates. This is an area in which great assistance could be given to country residents.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Walton to be omitted stand part of the motion (the Hon. R. W. Garrett in the chair)-

Ayes 23 Noes 8


AYES.

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt

Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. May Mr. Mitchell Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Dunn Mr. Hider.

Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Thomas

Mr. Hamilton

NoES. Mr. Tripovich

Tellers: Mr. Trayling Mr. Walton.

PAIR.

Mr. Galbally.


and cornmitted. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2, providing, inter aliaSubject to the principal Act there shall in

the case of each owner of land be charged levied and coUected by the Commissioner and paid for the use of Her Majesty in aid of the Consolidated Revenue for the year commencing on the 1st day of January, 1973, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1973, 'a duty of land tax upon land as provided in the table appended hereto:

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL (NorthWestenl Provision) .-1 move-

That it be a suggestion to the Assembly that they make the following amendment:After the words " a duty of land tax upon land " the expression " in the Port Phillip area as defined in the Electoral Provinces and Districts Act 1965" be inserted. The objective of the suggested amendment is to encourage decentralization of industry. The Country Party believes that it would have the worth-while effect of encouraging the establishment of industries outside the metropolis. It would help persuade large industries to set up in the country instead of the city, and that is what everyone wants. Any loss of revenue from land tax which the Treasury would suffer ·as a result of this suggested amendment being enacted would be compensated by the fact that much public money would be saved by Govem~ment instrumentalities not having to provide water, sewerage, and roads in the city where they are much more expensive than in the country.

Sir GILBERT CHANDL.ER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 have made myself clear on the principle of this type of tax. However, on the suggested amendment, I can only point out that this measure is a Budget Bill.


It is estimated that revenue totalling $30 million will be received from land tax. Mr. Mansell did not indicate what sum would be involved if his suggested amendment were agreed to. He said that the amount would be small, but I do not know what he means.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-The M'inister produced figures last time the subject was discussed.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-The figures I produced were not in accordance with the suggested amendment. The figures I gave were related to the area controlled by the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works and were substantially different from the purpose of this amendment, so honorable members should not hold me to those figures. This measure is part of the Budget. The Government has estimated that the revenue from land tax will be $30 million. I have indicated my attitude towards this taxation. I hope at some stage someone will suggest how that amount of $30 million can be recouped. Perhaps it will come from the changed attitude in Canberra.

The Committee divided on Mr. Mansell's suggested amendment (the Hon. G. J. Nicol in the chair)-

Ayes 15 Noes 15

AYES.

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Dunn Mr. Elliot Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Mansell Mr. May Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Swinburne Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling Mr. Tripovich.

Tellers: Mr. Eddy Mr. McDonald.

NOES.

Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hider

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

Tellers: Mr. Gleeson Mr. Hauser.

Mr. Clarke Mr. Walton

PAIRS.

Mr. Fry Mr. Hamilton.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-In view of the equality of voting, it devolves on me to give a casting vote. As this is not a final decision on this matter and the decision on the suggestion will be made in another place, in order that the motion may receive further consideration I cast my vote with the Ayes. The Ayes therefore have it.

The suggested amendment was agreed to, and the clause was postponed.

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.

QUALIFICATIONS JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS. A message was received from the

Assembly transmitting the following resolution: -

The Legislative Assembly acquaint the Legislative Council that they have agreed to the following resolution:-

That, contingent upon the enactment this session of legislation to constitute a Joint Select Committee to inquire and report into the law relating to certain disqualifications for membership o.f the Legislative Council and the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Holding, Mr. Maclellan, Sir George Reid, Mr. RossEdwards, Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Wilkes be appointed members of the committee; that the committee have power to move from place to place in Victoria or elsewhere, and sit on days on which the House does not meet; five to be the quorum, and desire the concurrence of the Legislative Council with the powers and quorum requirement of the Committee as provided therein and request the Legislative Council to name the six honorable members of the Council in accordance with the legislation.

It was ordered that the message be taken into consideration later this day.

Decentralizedlndustrylncentives [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Pay-ro/ITaxRebates)Bi/1. 3533

. DECENTRALIZED INDUSTRY INCENTIVES (PAY-ROLL TAX

REBATES) BILL. The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE

(Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-1 move-

That this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill implements the proposal which was announced by the Treasurer in his Budget speech to provide an additional direct financial incentive to assist firms in establishing and expanding industries in the country. It represents a significant step in the intensified programme which the Government has adopted to promote a more balanced distribution of population, and of industrial and commercial activity, throughout the State. Payments under the legislation will commence in the financial year 1973-74 and in that year it is estimated they will be of the order of $6 million.

In substance the Bill provides for the making of annual incentive payments to approved firms engaged in manufacturing and processing operations outside the metropolitan area. These payments will be based on the amount of pay-roll tax paid in respect of employees at such decentralized firms, after allowing for any grants received from the Commonwealth Government under its incentive scheme for export industries. These Commonwealth payments are in essence pay-roll tax rebates.

All firms which are approved decentralized industries within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 will be eligible to apply for incentive payments under the Bill. As honorable members will be aware, approved decentralized secondary industries under the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act are industries which are approved by myself as Minister for State Development and Decentralization, and which are located beyond a radius of 50 miles of the Melbourne General Post Office, or within a radius of 5 miles from the principal post office at Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend.

The amount of assistance to be approved by the Minister in the case of approved decentralized industries is provided for in sub-clauses (I) and (2) of clause 4 of the Bill. It will be such proportion of the total pay-roll tax paid by the firm in Victoria, less the amount oif any Commonwealth export incentive grants received, as the wages paid to employees normally employed at the decentralized industry bear to total wages paid by the firm. In general terms this means that the incentive payment to an approved decentralized industry within the terms of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act will be equal to the pay-roll tax paid in respect of employees- at the decentralized establishment in the preceding year, after taking into account the amount of export incentive grants received from the Commonwealth.

In addition, the Bill makes provision, upon appropriate declarations by the Governor in Council, for the payment of incentives to firms which are carrying on, or which propose to carry on, manufacturing and processing operations in approved areas inside a 50-mile radius of the Melbourne General Post Office excluded by the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act, but outside the metropolitan area.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-What do you call the metropolitan area?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.The area as declared under the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works plan. In considering applications from firms to be declared under sub-clause (3) of clause 2 of the Bill the Governor in Council is required to be satisfied that such firms are providing, or will provide, significant employment opportunities in the area concerned. As provided in sub-clause (3) of clause 4 of the Bill, the amount of assistance to be approved by the Minister for such declared firms will be 50 per cent of the pay-roll tax paid in respect of the decentralized establishment in the preceding year, with the export incentive grants being offset in the same way as for approved decentralized industries.

3534 Decentralized Industry Incentives [COUNCIL.] (Pay-roll Tax Rebates) Bill.

The lower rebate paid to declared firms operating inside the 50-mile radius of Melbourne takes account of the relative advantages enjoyed by such firms, compared with firms at a greater distance from raw materials and markets.

The Bill provides for repayments of pay-roll tax to decentralized industries-not exemptions from pay-roll tax. This form is necessary because pay-roll tax is levied by all States on the basis of uniform legislation. It is essential that this should be so. Until 1971 it was a Com1monwealth tax. When the tax was transferred to the States, all States picked up the then existing Commonwealth Pay-Roll Tax Assessment Act, departing from it only where essential to provide for a State basis of taxation.

If the advantages of the present arrangements for State pay-roll tax are to be maintained, the basis of taxation must continue to be the same in aU States. If not, the whole scheme will become unduly complex and an undue hindrance to the efficient management of firms with interstate interests.

Apart from the need to preserve uniformity in pay-roll tax legislation in all States, there is a practical reason for the form this Bill takes. When pay-roll tax was transferred to the States the existing $20,800 concessional deduction under the Commonwealth legislation was continued. However, for interstate companies the proportion of the deduction which could be claimed in each State was calculated by reference to the proportion of taxable wages paid in each State. If an interstate firm operating a decentralized establishment in Victoria were to be exempted from pay-roll tax in Victoria, this would affect its pay-roll tax liability in every 'other State in which it operated.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides that employers who are registered under section 12 of the Pay-roll Tax Act 1971, and who are carrying on manufacturing or processing operations at a decentralized establishment, or at a


special establishment as declared by the Governor in Council, may apply to the M1nister for State Development and Decentralization after the end of each financial year, but before the end of November, for a payment in respect of such establishment for the preceding year.

Clause 4 of the Bill defines the amount of the payments to be approved by the Minister on the basis which I have already outlined. The formula in clause 4 of the Bill is merely a " shorthand " way of describing the calculation of the incentive payment for approved decentralized secondary industries.

Sub-clause (5) of clause 4 of the Bill provides that where in the opinion of the Minister an applicant was entitled to apply to the Commonwealth in the preceding year for an export incentive grant in respect of his production or processing operations in Victoria, and he did not do so, the calculation of his incentive payment under the Act would be based on his pay-roll tax calculated at the rate of 1 per cent-this being the differenee between the 3! per cent rate on which the State decentralized industry payments are based and the 2! p·er cent rate on which the Commonwealth's export incentive grants are based.

The remaining clauses of the Bill cover the necessary machinery matters for the detailed administration of the Act. Clauses 5 and 6 provide for situations that may arise where false or misleading information relating to an application is furnished to the Minister by an applicant wilfully, negligently or otherwise. These provisions are based on provisions in the Commonwealth Export Incentive Grants Act and the Commonwealth Income Tax Assessment Act.

Clause 7 provides for the Secretary for State Development, or any person authorized by him, to have access to the books and documents which are necessary to enable him to assist the Minister in the detailed administration of the Act.

State Electricity Commission [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3535

Clause 8 provides for the necessary exchange of information between the Secretary for State Development and the Commissioner of Pay-roll Tax which is essential for the administration of this Act. At the same time it imposes upon the Secretary for State Development and his staff conditions of secrecy similar to those imposed on the commissioner and his staff under the Pay-roll Tax Act. I certainly commend the Bill to the House.

On the motion of the Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province), the debate was adjourned.

It was ordered that the debate be adjourned until later this day.

STATE ELECTRICITY COMMISSION (AMENDMENT)

BILL. The debate (adjourned from

December 8) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) .-From the lighting of the first electric lamp in the last century to the "thinking process" of electronic brains today~ electricity has steadily becom·e a universal benefactor of mankind. It has brought light to men's lives and has relieved them of the toil of manual work. In all its fields of application in our daily life, whether in production, administration, information, traffic, science, research, culture, medicine or in domestic use, electricity is always ready and has become indispensable.

Today, electricity not only can be generated in quantities which were unimaginable in previous times, but also can be transmitted hundreds of miles to the spot where it is needed. There it can be converted into light and power, heat or cO'ld, pictures or sound. Thus, electrical energy not only serves to increase productivity within the technological and economic fields, but also serves to extend and enrich the life of the

individual. Thus, the quantity of electricity consumed can be taken as a measure of the standard of living. The consumption of electric power will continue to increase since progress is unimaginable without electricity.

This is a technical Bill in some respects. The provisions contained in clause 2 will provide protection for the coalfields in the Latrobe Valley for their future use in power generation. I foreshadow at this stage that I intend to move amendments to clauses 2 and 3 in Committee.

I wish to read from a book entitled Brown Power by Cecil Edwards who was commissioned to write the history of the operations of the State Electricity Commission. This provides some of the background history to the Bill. At page 255, the author stated-

On land in the Latrobe Valley not owned by the SEC are 30 square miles of possible open-cut sites. in which 47,500 million tons of brown coal have been proved and a further 37,500 million tons are 'inferred'. About 60 per cent of the proved coal (29,000 million tons) has less than 100 feet of overburden. Areas that can be economically exploited under present methods and costs represent a reserve of about 10,000 million tons.

In March 1920, the Secretary to the Commission wrote to the Secretary of the Public Works Department, pointing out that the Electricity Commissioners' Act of 1918 provided that the Commissioners might acquire, by agreement or compulsorily, lands within a 20-mile radius of the township of Morwell, as approved by the Governor in Council.

Commission land is held mainly by Crown grants that go down to 1,000 feet. Normally land titles now issued give the surfaceowner mineral rights to only 50 feet and, except in some areas granted before 1891, any coal-bearing deposits remain the property of the Crown.

Further, at page 256, Cecil Edwards stated-

When Parliament established the State electricity undertaking as a statutory public corporation in 1918, it laid down two important principles.

One was specific: It provided that the Electricity Commissioners be free from control except on certain major matters, such as approval of new projects and large contracts. Subject to the approval of the

3536 State Electricity ·commission [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) BilL

Governor in Council, the commissioners were also given overriding powers in acquiring land and constructing works.

I have referred to those passages which have a bearing on this Bill. The provisions contained in clause 2 relate mainly to problems encountered in the Loy Yang area where some contention has arisen among landowners. No doubt most honorable members received a circular letter and other correspondence from persons in the area who are concerned about the problem. In regard to the Loy Yang area, I quote from a State Electricity Commission publication entitled Latrobe Valley Brown Coal Resources, as follows:-

South-east of Traralgon-in the Lands Department subdivision of Loy Yang-over 1,000 bores have been sunk and more than 40 square miles of coal-bearing lands have been proved. Additional areas are being investigated further east in the neighbourhood of Gormandale and Willung. Boring on a small scale has also been carried out south of Sale at Coolungoolun, south-west of Morwell at Yinnar, and along the northern fringe of the coal fields beyond Tyers.

The greatest continuous thickness of coal yet discovered-and the thickest known in the world-is in the Loy Yang field, where boring has revealed 757 feet of brown coal under 89 feet of overburden.

Clause 2 of the Bill provides that following the enactment of this Bill the relevant date is to be extended to 1st September, 1972. The problems in respect to the date are complicated and detailed and would require tedious repetition to explain the whole process of acquiring land by the State Electricity Commission in a certain form and what is necessary before it can be acquired. A certain formula must be applied to obtain the valuation which the State Electricity Commission places on the land under its Act, in conjunction with the Land Act and the Valuation of Land Act. As I stated before, this cannot be done until the State Electricity Commission has served notice to treat--only then can it go ahead. Probably my colleague, Mr. May, who represents the area will go into the matter in more depth than I have this afternoon.

The Hon. A. W. Knight.

I inform the House that I propose to move certain amendments in the Committee stage. However, at this stage of the sessional period, I do not propose to deal with the proposition in depth. Over a period of time, I realize that certain problems have been associated with the subject-matter of the Bill, but I do not believe the problems are insurmountable. If the interested parties met around the table and talked to one another the problems could be solved. They are not serious, and I hope they will be overcome in the near future.

One matter which has caused some concern is that the Bill makes no provision for further areas to be set aside for the purpose of obtaining coal. I know of an area near Wilson's Promontory where there are large deposits of brown coat I have in mind the Gelliondale coalfield. Because of certain policies adopted in overseas countries in respect to coal reserves, I believe Victoria should consider utilization of these fields. I am led to believe from high authority in the State Electricity Commission that it could actually construct a power station at Gelliondale. The station would not be a huge structure, but of a smaller size which could use the reserves of coal in the area, thus reserving the future coal capacity of the Latrobe Valley where operations have been concentrated because it is economic to work at this stage in that area and to utilize the local coal deposits. Mr. Kent and Mr. May would be aware of the Gelliondale coalfields, as would other honorable members who have visited the area.

I am concerned that the Gelliondale coalfield is not reserved under the State Electricity Commission Act, and it is doubtful whether it is reserved under the Mines Act. I am concerned with the future of this country's generating wealth. I consider that action should be implemented to safeguard the future of power generation in Victoria. The coalfield could be reserved by legislation to allow the State Electricity Commission to construct a power station in the future.


Probably a 1,000 to 1,500-megawatt power station would be of economic value to the area. My colleagues in the Country Party, as well as other honorable members, would welcome this move as a feature of decentralization. I realize that from the point of view of pollution Mr. May might be somewhat despondent at my suggestion but that is not necessary because today power stations do not cause as much pollution as many people think. Certainly, there is visible evidence of smoke expelled from the stacks but this does not cause a serious pollution problem. To construct a power station in this area would be a good idea because an abundant supply of circulating water is available in the vicinity of the area where Mr. May resides. I put that suggestien to the Government.

I have not gone into the matter in depth as I believe Mr. May and probably Mr. Kent will both deal with the problem associated with the Loy Yang area. I informed the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon that I would co-operate in the passage of this measure because I know the Government is anxious to conclude the current sessional period. I am sure that if the honorable gentleman were now in the Chamber, he would emulate the producer of a television show or a film and hold up a big sign reading, " Cut , .

I have referred to some of the problems associated with the Bill. A further provision concerns the voting rights in relation to the Yallourn Town Advisory Council, concerning which I foreshadow an amendment, copies of which I have supplied to the Minister in charge of the Bill and to Mr. May who is speaking on behalf of the Country Party. It would be wiser to deal with my amendment in detail in Committee, because to do so at this 'stage would he needless repetition. The Labor Party believes an amendment is needed to strengthen the voting rights as was done with the Local Government Act. Representations have been made to me on some difficulties which I believe are not insur-

mountable. I conclude my observations on the Bill by indicating to the Minister that the Labor Party is prepared to call for a division on the amendments that I shall move in the Committee stage.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) . - Like the previous speaker, I realize that the Government desires to conclude the sessional period as early as possible, hence I shall not deal at length with the ramifications of the Bill. The measure was debated at length in another place, where various amendments were proposed. It is important nevertheless that I should refer to the basis which makes the proposed amendments to the State Electricity Commission Act so important.

The Bill is important because it relates primarily to the area of land known as the Loy Yang coalfield which is situated south of Traralgon. Since the 1940s there has been a blanket over the land which has been zoned as agricultural B. The definition of the term makes provision for many uses. Because of the blanket over the land the owners have not been able to carry out improvements to their properties which has had a disastrous effect. The market for the land has been limited and owners have not been able to use the land as a negotiable security on which to borrow because nobody wanted to buy land of this type where the field of competition was so limited. As I said, the blanket acquisition bas existed for a period of 25 years. The effect of the blanket is evidenced by the recent revaluation of the municipality, where valuations were down by 26~ per cent which is a calamitous state of affairs. The reduced valuations demonstrate the effect of the blanket over the land.

Having attended meetings of the Loy Yang Property Owners Protection Society, I know the concern of landowners about their insecurity in the future. Of course, attempts have been made to remedy the situation, and indeed the State Electricity Commission has purchased

3538 State Electricity Commission [COUNCIL.] (Amendment) Bill.

some properties in the area. As Mr. Knight rightly stated, difficulty could arise when a satisfactory price could not be negotiated. There was no requirement for the State Electricity Commission to serve a notice to treat.

Mr. Knight referred to, and read extracts from, the book Brown Power which sets out the position although not in its entirety, on my understanding of the situation. In the past when legislation was ·enacted to establish a power station, an Order in Council was required enabling the State Electricity Commission to negotiate and to serve a notice to treat. The procedure currently operating is the reverse. No legislation has been en·acted to establish a power station and no Order in Council has been issued at this time. As one of the members representing the area, I am naturally concerned about the position and I am aware of what could happen. I am conscious that the Government must also be apprehensive about the situation.

In his second-reading speech, the Minister said-

The commission last year notified some 60 landowners in the Loy Yang area south of Traralgon that their properties could be required in the early stages if and when the Loy Yang area is chosen as the site for a major development of brown coal based generating plant.

The words suggest to me that the Government is doubtful whether this area will be developed. Naturally the Government would have to adopt a psychological anoroach to the matter, even though there is no urgency concerning it. I hope the area may be developed, but the Minister was not definite in his comments. He said that it may be required and if and when it is required the area of land involved will be sufficient to supply coal requirements up to 1985.

The Country Party considers that the landowners in question have been at a decided disadvantage over a long period of time. Admittedly, the Country Party believes that in the interests ·of tfue State, if coal supplies are available, they should be pre-

The Hon. R. W. May.

served, but the land should not have a blanket placed on it. Clause 2 of the Bill refers to the owner of any land within a radius of 20 miles of the township of Morwell. A radius of 20 miles from the township of Morwell extends close to the town of Rosedale, and I believe the area will embrace the requirements envisaged at the present time.

The Minister for Fuel and Power has given an assurance that an Order in Council will be put through enabling the commission to serve a notice to treat and to permit the landowners, if they are not satisfied with the negotiated price, to appeal to the Land Valuation Board of Review. It is considered that this is fundamental and vital. Earlier I said that under the legislation as it exists the State Electricity Commission must serve a notice to treat, after which farmers may take their case to the Land Valuation Board of Review if they are not satisfied with the valuation.

Until now the desire of the State Electricity Commission to negotiate has applied to an area of 3,000 acres. There has been agitation for the area to be extended to 11,000 acres. The measure before the Parliament by which it is proposed to establish a radius of 20 miles will embrace an area in excess of 11,000 acres. The Country Party agrees that the area referred to by the Minister should be covered by an order of the Governor in Council. An assurance along these lines was given by the Minister in his second-reading speech. This will enable people whose land is acquired to take advantage of an appeal to the Land Valuation Board of Review.

I suggest to the Minister that in negotiations the present valuation, which has been written down by 26! per cent, should not be adhered to but rather an endeavour should be made to ensure that justice is done. The reduced valuation was brought about by the blanket which was put on the sale of land in the area. I ask also that, in negotiating, consideration be given to the


valuation of comparable land not affected by any blanket on the sale of land. The Country Party requests further that all land outside the 20-mile radius shall be free from controls. Members of my party feel that this is a reasonable request and that it is one upon which landowners can justifiably be expected to insist. In view of the spirit in which the Minister has spoken and the assurances that he has given I hope the honorable gentleman will go this extra distance on this vital issue. A favourable decision in this regard is essential in the interests of good public relations.

I am sure that not only the Minister but also the State Electricity Commission after this long time, especially in view of the doubt in the minds of landowners, will accept that the area outside the 20-mile radius should be freed from the restrictions. I have been given a copy of the amendment which the Labor Party proposes to move and I thank that party for its courtesy. I am not sure that the amendment envisaged will achieve any more than the Bill for the landowners who are affected. Perhaps it is a little premature at this stage to deal with the amendment proposed to clause 3.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Perhaps the honorable member could touch on it in passing, but details should be reserved for the Committee stage.

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-I merely say that we shall listen with great interest to Mr. Knight's remarks on this amendment. It appears that there is some merit in the amendment which is proposed. The Country Party has no objection to the other clauses.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-The Bill deals with quite a few matters concerning the State Electricity Commission, but the subject which is of particular concern to Mr. May and to me is, as he has suggested, the compensation of

landowners and the security which they have, or may feel that they have, in parts of the coalfields around Morwell and Loy Yang. Over the years there has been a great deal of uncertainty in the minds of people who have been farming land in the area. 'f'hey have been unsure of the future or of the value that will be put on their properties relative to the value of other farms in other areas. Attempts have been made on their behalf to clarify the position, to guarantee them security and to ensure that they suffer no financial loss.

The Labor Party believes the tremendous resources of coal that exist there should be controlled by the State and that no private individual or group of individuals should be able to hold the remainder of the community to ransom. Conversely, the Labor Party believes that persons who happen to be situated in this locality should not be required to suffer a loss because their property is on an estate which is required by the State for the benefit of the whole community. It could be said that these people have been able to continue as active farmers over what could be considered to be a lifetime.

Perhaps they have had some uncertainty about their future in the past twenty years, but they have been able to earn good incomes from their properties and have been able to live in an environment in an agricultural area where their farming has been quite profitable. However, they have been deprived of something which is particularly valuable, not only from the econmnic point of view but also from the philosophical attitude of farmers in that they have never known what sort of security they had, or what they could do in future to hand on to those who succeed them the property which they have been farming. This is a disturbing element in the mind of any person who has a love of the land. They have not known whether to stay on the land or to leave it. There has been little indication of when or whether they would be required to leave.


My understanding of the proposition is a little different from that mentioned by Mr. May. It is that notices to treat will be available when the proposal embraces an area of 11,000 acres, but that there remains a large area of approximately 18,000 acres in zone agricultural B which is reserved for coal-winning purposes and over which the commission does not intend to exercise any rights at this stage. Basically the Labor Party suggests that the landowners in the area who have a bona fide reason for wishing to sell their property should be able to negotiate so that the State Electricity Commission may purchase the land at valuation. That situation would arise where a notice to treat had to be served on the people.

It may be considered that this would leave the situation too wide and that it would be too costly if there were a ·large-scale desire by landowners to follow such a course, It may also be felt that it would impose a sudden and unexpected burden on the State through the commission. However, I believe only a few people would have a genuine reason for wishing to take the opportunity of disposing of their property, thus removing the insecurity. I do not consider that there should continue to be private transactions of land in an area which is under a blanket and which ultimately, at some time in the future, will have to be used for the production of coal. If it is not required for that purpose and the private owners wish to sell to the commission, the land could certainly be leased to those who wished to carry on farming activities.

It is unfortunate that because of uncertainty in the area there has been a reduction in land valuations. Many farmers would prefer to see a reduction in the valuation of their properties, but not those who would like their properties to be acquired at valuation at some time in the future. Here we see a contradiction in the area when properties are compared with other properties in a similar economic environment. The State Electricity Commission has been generous in the


past and I believe the cost to the community of continuing to adopt a generous attitude would not be high. We must make special allowance for various factors which arise when people have to leave the area in which they have made their homes and have lived, particularly those people who wish to pursue the same calling as their parents did.

The landowners should be paid compensation above the normal land valuation because they are being displaced and will have to acquire land elsewhere. As no more land is being produced, the displacement of a number of farmers in a particular area creates a demand for land which inevitably increases land prices. Accordingly, it is not unreasonable that these landowners should be paid compensation in excess of the current land valuation.

The Labor Party seeks to guarantee justice and security for all and to obtain an assurance concerning the future so that the uncertainty in the minds of these people can be removed. I shall reserve my further comments on this subject until the proposed amendment has been moved in Committee.


and committed. Clause 1 was agreed to. Clause 2, providing, inter alia-(2) After sub-section (2) of section 23

of the Principal Act there shall be inserted the following sub-section:__,

(3) The owner of any land-( a) within a radius of 20 miles of the

township of Morwell; and

(b) which the Governor in Council has by Order under sub-section ( 1) directed that the Commission may acquire-

may by notice in writing inform the Commission that he desires to sell the said land and the land shall thereupon be deemed •to be required for the purposes of this Act and the Commission shall within 28 days of such notice being given serve the notices required to be served by section 9 of the Lands Compensation Act 1958.


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

That paragraph (b) of proposed subsection (3) be omitted with the view of inserting the following paragraph:-

" (b) in the Agricultural "B" Zone under the Latrobe Valley SubRegional Planning Scheme 1949 as amended from time to time--".

The purpose of the amendment was explained during the second-reading debate. Currently, it is necessary for the commission to obtain an Order in Council before it can serve a notice to treat on landowners. Moreover, until this action is taken, the landowners cannot negotiate with the commission as to the amount of compensation that will be payable or take the matter before a land valuation board.

The amendment will overcome the problem by allowing the landowner to inform the commission in writing that he desires to sell the land and the commission will then be required to serve notice to treat. When these formalities have been dealt with, the commission will be able to negotiate with the landowner and finalize the acquisition of the property. We realize that the commission has not the wherewithal to acquire the entire 27.000 acres. If the amendment is agreed to, I do not imagine that the ~ommission will be inundated with a flood of applications from landowners who want to vacate their properties and receive compensation. Mr. Kent and I have dealt with the aspects of the raw resource that is available in the area. The amendment will allow the commiSSIOn progressively to acquire the area that it will require for the development of the Loy Yang coalfields which will not take place until the 1980s-about fifteen years hence.

Because of the long delay, certain landowners may be forced to make a decision to move elsewhere but may not have the wherewithal to set up on another property and follow the same agricultural pursuits or even to buy a residential property in a nearby town such as Traralgon. The

Session 1972.-124

amendment will enable the commission and the landowners to negotiate the purchase of properties in the Loy Yang area and thus overcome the problems that are being experienced by certain landowners.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-Mr. Knight and other honorable members have forcefully put the points of view of landowners in the Loy Yang area and I hope I am as sympathetic as anybody towards the rights of landowners. The amendment will make it mandatory on the commission, on demand if necessary, to acquire some 27,000 acres for which the estimated cost is in excess of $10 million. I suppose honorable members can argue that some owners will not want their land acquired and may not want to be compensated, but this is what the amendment would do.

The arguments and representations have been put on behalf of the landowners in the area. After all, the commission moved to the Latrobe Valley in about 1918 and Mr. Knight and Mr. Kent have already contended that the coal in the area should be regarded as a raw resource for the State; therefore, it is not a military secret that the area possessed this resource.

The rights of these people have been put before the Minister for Fuel and Power and, ~as Mr. May has indicated, after considering these matters the M~inister gave an undertaking, which I am authorized to repeat, that the State Electri'City Commission is prepared, if my wording is correct, to declare notices to the extent of some 11,000 acres in this area as distinct from the tota'l area envisaged in the amendm·ent of 27,000 acres, 'and is also prepared to compensate immediately the owners or those who have a vested interest in the 11,000 acres. That will involve the commission to the extent of $5 million. The commission argues, and I think with some justification, that that will take it up to 1985. To go


beyond that and actual'ly pay compensation, as t!he com,mission ·can be called upon under the amendment, for some 27,000 acres at a cost of $10 million is going a litHe too far.

The Mini1ster has a'lso said publicly, and I repeat it, that outside the 11,000 acres for which the commission is prepared to pay compensation once this BiH is passed, if any question of hardship in relation to the balance of the land a'rises the honorable gentleman will give it reasonable and sympathetic ~consideration and may, in certain 'Circumstances, be prepared to grant ·compensation in such a case. For those reasons, the Government is unable to suppovt the amendment.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-I should like the Minister to clarify one or two ~aspects concerning clause 2. With the 27,000 acres mentioned by the Minister the Shire of Traralgon, as wel1 as the landowners, has a financial interest. That is why I suggested earlier that the Government ought to free the area outside the 11,000 acres. I have made my livelihood off the land and the'refore know what happens in farming. Farming is a long-term venture and a farmer is planning his blood 'lines and so forth well into the future. It is not possible for a person to uproot hi·mself in a short ti·me and re-establish elsewhere. The landowner should be given a period of grace in which to continue his activities on the existing property until the new property is brought to a stage at which he can earn a living off it. Compensation received in these circums,tances is never overgenerous.

I understand that it is necessary to issue two notices to treat before acquiring a property. An assurance is given in the BiH that the Order in Council will be approved, but I should like some clarification on whether the amendment moved by Mr. Knight will have any effect on the Order in Council. I understand that the amendment does not achieve anything other than to make it mandatory for the commission to acquire 'a much larger area.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State D_evelopment and Decentralization) .-Mr. May raised three points. The honorable member felt that for the sake of natural justice there should be a freeing of the land outside the 11,000 acres. He suggests that this would be a good idea because people could then utilize their properties in the way that they wished and the municipality would benefit from the increased revenue because of the development that could take pl1ace on the land.

The views expressed by Mr. Kent and Mr. Knight would be opposed to that point of view, because the area has been set aside for the nation, and notice has been given that coal deposits are available there. To allow the area to be utilized for industrial and residential purposes would, I suggest, cause tremendous hardship in the future.

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-It would be wrong.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Yes. The area is now zoned agricultural B and can be used only for agricultural purposes. If it were allowed to be used for some other purpose, in the knowledge that in the future it was to be used for coal-winning purposes, severe hardship would be inflicted and problems would arise.

Mr. May also raised the question of fairness to landowners whose land has been acquired. I am happy to say that I agree with what he said in relation to the payment of compensation to a man who had his land acquired against his will for public purposes. There is no doubt that in some cases the compensation paid is unfair. The Government will have to examine the matter, although I point out that it is proposed that the people concerned will be paid an amount of compensation which is 10 per cent above the actual value of the land. The State Electricity Commission has indicated that it is prepared to do the sorts of things that Mr. May has requested. This situation is different from those in


which the Country Roads Board and other instrumentalities acquire land and utilize it within a short time. In this case no use of the land is to be made until 1985.

The State Electricity Commission has indicated that it is prepared to lease the land back, and I suggest that nothing could be fairer than that. I am also instructed that the State Electricity Commission valuers will value the land at its full price even though it has been zoned and even though the coal resources do not form part of the land. The land will be valued at its full value with no deductions being made. I believe I have answered Mr. May's question.

The Hon. A. W. KNIGHT (Melbourne West Province) .-I understand some of the reasons which have been advanced by the Minister concerning the Government's opposition to the amendment I have proposed. The Minister will doubtless recall that in his younger days a similar situation arose in relation to mining areas, and that a situation involving miners was discussed in the earlier part of this sessional period. In his tenacity to overcome the problem, the Minister had legislation passed in this House.

People on properties which are the subject of a blanket order cannot go onto the open market and obtain collateral which will enable them to start again until a notice to treat has been issued and authorized by the Governor in Council. I am sure the Minister appreciates the difficulty of landholders who are in such a situation. It places people in the area concerned in the same position as people in mining areas in the Bendigo and Ballaarat provinces who could not get money on the market to establish businesses. This is the situation at Loy Lang at the present time.

I do not agree with Mr. May's suggestion that the area should be opened up. I have closely studied the fuel situation, including both liquid and

solid fuels, throughout the world. Generally speaking, the level of reserves in overseas countries is low; and I believe it is imperative that our fuel reserves should be preserved for future generations. Anyone who attempted to establish a capital investment in this area would be running a risk. I do not think people with a sound knowledge of business would attempt to do so.

I listened carefully to Mr. May's contribution to the debate. If he desires to have any part of the amendment I have proposed clarified, I shall be happy to elaborate on it. I desire to thank the officers of the State Electricity Commission for their courtesy, co-operation and advice concerning this legislation. As always, they went to great lengths to provide the information that I required. If the amendment is accepted, I do not think many applications will be received from people who desire to leave the area, because at present they are doing well on their farms. Some elderly people may wish to leave and, perhaps, spend their retirement in a northern climate, but they are unable to do so unless a notice to treat, authorized by the Governor in Council, is served on them.

In the areas of 11,000 acres and 16,000 acres which are involved-in respect of which rhe State Electricity Commission does not plan to take action until 1985-1 believe it would be fair to enable people to move without the necessity of a notice authorized by the Governor in Council to be issued. At present, the principal Act forbids them from doing that.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-1 have been assured that the State Electricity Commission can examine hardship cases. The Minister for Fuel and Power in another place has given that undertaking, and it has bee·n confirmed by officers of the commission.


The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-1 should like the Minister to give an assurance that following the passage of the Bill the Minister for Fuel and Power will immediately submit to the Governor in Council an order authorizing the commission to acquire the area of 11,000 acres at Loy Yang. This was adverted to i'n the Minister's second-reading speech.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-The order has been prepared, and is merely awaiting the passage of this measure.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-1 thank the Minister for the assurance. As the Country Party understands it, the passage of the Bill wi!l enable all of the people within the area of 11,000 acres to take advantage of the situation. The Country Party feels that this is a much better method of dealing with the matter than to do it in a piecemeal fashion. It will be welcomed by many people in the area who have been frustrated over the years as a result of the blanket order which has been applied. The Country Party accepts the situation envisaged in this Bill.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-The assurance given by the Minister in another place relates only to the area of 11,000 acres. For that reason, it does not affect the amendment. Governments and Ministers change, and often they adopt different attitudes concerning the zoning of agricultural B areas which this amendment covers.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Knight to be omitted stand part of the clause (the Hon. G. J. Nicol in the chair)-

Ayes 23 No~ 8


AYES. Mr. Bradbury Mr. Hunt Mr. Byrne Mr. Jenkins Mr. Campbell Mr. McDonald Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Mansell Mr. Dickie Mr. May Mr. Fry Mr. Mitchell Mr. Gleeson Mr. Storey Mr. Granter Mr. Swinbum,e Mr. Grimwade Mr. Ward. Mr. Gross Tellers: Mr. Hauser Mr. Dunn Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton.

Mr. Eddy Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Trayling Mr. Tripovich

Mr. Hamilton

NOES.

Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Elliot Mr. Thomas.

PAIR. Mr. Galbally.

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

That, in proposed sub-section (3) of section 23, after the word " Act ", where first occurring, the expression "notwithstanding that there has been no direction given by the Governor in Council under sub-section (1) . " be inserted.

The amendment was negatived, and the clause was agreed to.

Clause 3, providing, inter alia-( 1) Section 30 of the Principal Act is

hereby amended as follows:-(a) For paragraph (a) of sub-section (5)

there shall be substituted the following paragraph:-

" (a) be elected as prescribed by persons whose names appear in a roll prepared as prescribed-

(i) of adult persons who are resident in the Yalloum town area; and ".

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

That, in sub-paragraph (i) of proposed new paragraph (a) of sub-section (5) of section 30, the words " adult persons " be omitted with a view to inserting the words " persons who have attained the age of eighteen years and". I do not wish to go into detail about the proposed amendment. It is the policy of the Government to give a vote in municipal elections to eighteen-year-aids but it seems that it is abandoning the policy in respect of the Latrobe Valley Advisory Council. It was the en uncia ted policy of the Government to give eighteen-yearaids a vote in State elections and this policy was followed in respect of


changes to the Local Government Act. Honorable members have heard all sorts of reasons why the same policy cannot be implemented in respect of the Yallourn Town Advisory Council. Reference was made to the Commonwealth electoral roll. Much has been said by honorable members opposite about Victoria being a sovereign State which the Commonwealth wants to take over. Let us show our independence as ~a sovereign State in respect of the electoral rolls and ·the policy enunciated by the Government before the last State elections.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-Our opposition to the amendment does not involve State sovereignty and does not oppose the granting of a vote to eighteen-yearaids. It is simply a question of common sense. The position in Yallourn is unique. Unlike elsewhere in Victoria the people who are entitled to be involved in local government t}?.ere are not only landowners and occupiers of land. All adult people there may be involved. To have a vote they do not need a vested interest in land or property. The simple requirement is that they are adult people appearing on the rolls. If that position is altered a special roll will be needed for Yallourn. In respect of Yallourn we do not want to get involved in special rolls. The eighteen-year-olds have more rights there than have eighteenyear-aids anywhere else in Victoria and possibly in Australia. We do not think that at this stage it is worth while making separate rolls to give eighteen-year-olds living at Yallourn a vote for the Yallourn Town Advisory Council.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-I understand that if an eighteen-year-old is the occupier of a business or is a tenant in his own right he is entitled to a vote.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-That is right.

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-Yallourn is not a substantial residential area but there is a fair business community of people who reside away

from the area. I do not think a great principle is involved, because people of eighteen years of age who lease property are eligible to vote now. Probably it would involve the Government in great detail to separate those who would be eligible to be on the roll under the present conditions and I agree that it does not seem worth while.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Knight to be omitted stand part of the sub-paragraph (the Hon. G. J. Nicol in the chair)-

Ayes 16 Noes 15



AYES.

Mr. Gross


Mr. Hauser Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt

Mr. Fry Mr. Garrett Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Dunn Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Mansell Mr. !May

Mr. Jenkins.

Tellers: Mr. Storey Mr. Ward.

NOES.

Mr. Mitchell Mr. Swinburne Mr. Thomas Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. McDonald Mr. Trayling.

PAIRS.

Mr. Hamilton IMr. Galbally Mr. Hider Mr. Clarke.



EDUCATIONAL GRANTS BILL. The debate (adjourned from the

previous day) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Develop·ment and Decentralization) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT (Melbourne Province) .-This is an important measure. One realizes that, during

3546 Educational Grants [COUNCIL.] Bill.

any session, 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the measures presented are accepted by all parties. There might be minor disagreements on them; sometimes it is just a matter of 'Crossing " t's " and dotting " i's ". But, with a small percentage of legislative measures, there are vast areas of disagreement, some based on basic political ideology and others on more pragmatic reasons. But these reasons crop up and they result in a wide variance of opinion between the parties on both sides of the House and in the comer.

This measure primarily prompted me to gather facts and figures which would support my arguments and those of the Labor Party and, at the same time, downgrade the Govemm·ent's per cp.pita handout procedures. But :one must ask what useful purpose would a long, drawn out but determined presentation of the Labor Party's philosophies and policies and the reasons behind them serve at this stage.

It will be agreed that I have never been guilty of talking for too long on any matter before the House; I have spoken for no longer than necessary. The longest debate I can remember was one in which I was opposed to my friend, the Minister for State Development a·nd Decentralization, for a peri'od of nine and ,a half hours on 'a Bill relating to 'S'ocial welfare. On another occasion, I locked horns for a considerable period with the Minister of Housing on the question of dental mechanics. But they w·ere procedural Bills and we argued item by item on the clauses which had to be considered, and the process was necessarily time consuming. But the Liberal Party Government has a programme and it is playing the numbers game which is so important in politics and which will permit it to implement its part of the State aid programme.

There is little doubt that there is nothing I could say which would give priority to needs, wherever they may occur. I emphasize "wherever they may occur ", in the public or private system of education in this State. I accentuate that phrase because there

The Hon. D. G. Elliot.

has been so much deliberate distortion of the Labor Party's philosophies and policies throughout the State of Victoria. However, I shall not single out any particular party or person in this connection. Nor shall I indulge in any catechism of discrediting hate on this matter. Unfortunately, hate has reared its ugly head on far too many occasions.

All opinions are entitled to respect and there is little doubt that, in the vast majority of cases, opinions are sincerely supported by each faction's adherents. Personally, I find it almost impossible not only in the pragmatism of politics but in my Christian beliefs-whatever they amount toto reconcile blanket aid with the huge and almost frightening task ahead of us to create irreducible minimum standards in certain areas of both the public and private sectors of education. I could quote hundreds of examples to support this and I am sure that any other honorable member could do the same.

Naturally, the Labor Party would like the State Government to fit in with the Commonwealth Government's concept of a needs commission on education. The trend of events could make this inevitable in any case.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett}.-Order! The honorable member should not go too far on the Commonwealth side of this matter.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-It is germane to what the House is discussing, Mr. President. I even saw a nod by the Minister in charge of the Bill, who is a pragmatic politicianthat I will give him.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Is that a nice term?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-It is not discreditable, as the Minister knows. But today is 13th December, 1972, and we are almost at the end of the spring sessional period of Parliament during which the Government has been mauled, maligned, and magnificently masticated with great justification.

Educational Grants [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Bill. 3547

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-I hope you had plenty of indigestion.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-That would be concomitant with the mastication of any Government member and one would need about fourteen varieties of bicarbonate of soda. I summarize by making a final plea to Victoria's present regime. It is an invitation to embrace fairness and the humanitarian concept of helping those who need it, once again wherever they may be, to reach a nationally acceptable standard prior to the disbursement of aid in other directions.

Although members of the Labor Party do not oppose the measure, they leave it in the laps of those who embrace so-called liberalism with the fervent hope that, like Ben Chifley and Gough Whitlam, they might see the light on the hill. But we feel that we must make a final plea on this measure and issue a final invitation to the Government by moving an amendment to the second-reading motion. Accordingly I move-

That all the words after " That " be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the words "1this Bill be withdrawn and redrafted to provide for the establishment of a needs commission to examine and determine the needs of schools and students in Government and non-Government education and to recommend to :the Government of Victoria on a continuous public basis, the level of expenditure necessary to meet the requirements of Victoria's school children on the basis of needs and priorities, educational experimentation and regionalization ". It may be argued, as it was on a previous occasion, that adoption of the amendment would stop any aid in its present form. However, the Minister would concede that that would not happen because there are existing statutes under which payments would be made to private schools in the interim. So, with the trend of events, here is an unprecedented chance for the Government of Victoria to move towards realism.

The Premier and Treasurer has recently written some timely letters seeking the co-operation of the Federal Government and many forms of aid from the Commonwealth

to Victoria. Surely there is an element of reciprocity which should go with these timely and well publicized approaches-we have seen close-ups of letters on television screens even before they have been discussed in the House. But this is something which I will ignore because it is not related to the subject. It gives me justifiable reason to press the Government to have another look at this matter. I have moved an amendment; the rest is up to the Governn1ent.

The Hon. I. A. S\VINBURNE (North-Eastern Province). - The period from about 1966 or 1967 has involved what could be called political football in Australia concerning the principle of State grants. Some honorable members have agreed and some have disagreed with it. Nothing has been more controversial in any sphere. The Bill appears to be a reasoned way of overcoming the problem. Agreement has been reached between the Governments and the States and a formula has been worked out giving State aid to non-State schools on the basis of 40 per cent of the cost of educating a child in a State school.

Whether it should be 30, 40 or 50 per cent is immaterial; the principle behind the measure should be emphasized. A basis has been reached providing educational assistance to those people who elect to send their children to non-State schools for reasons which are many and varied. The amendment moved by Mr. Elliot deals with the principle of a needs basis. Scholarships, studentships and other forms of educational assistance have been granted. Scholarships on a Commonwealth basis are granted after examination and a means test is applied. If a child is of poor parents he gets the lot; if his parents have some assets he gets less; and if his parents have many assets, he obtains only the value of a university place.

In the State sphere studentships are provided to children who pass a test and they are then bonded to the

3548 Educational Grants [COUNCIL.] Bill.

relevant State department. No means test is applied; whether the child comes from rich or poor parents the same assistance is given for the same period. The only penalty-if it could be termed such-is that a child who accepts a studentship is bonded to the department that provides the studentship. This system has operated in the Education Department for many years. I know of many children who come from poor families and who would never have seen a university if it were not for that system. I have seen many brilliant children who have come from rich families and who have wasted opportunities.

I have always held the opinion, and I always will, that there are reasons why private schools should be assisted. Other members of my party have different views, but in the main we believe we ought to proceed on the Australia-wide basis that has been laid down to provide the necessary funds to ensure that the private schools shall continue. It has always been said that they will never go out of existence and that the State should not be charged with their responsibility. Whether we want that is a matter of private opinion. A Commonwealth-State arrangement is the right and proper way of making the system uniform.

I appreciate the provision that the school must provide a statement setting out how the money is applied each year and that the financial returns will be audited. It also requires that the financial position of the school be shown. Members of my party have advocated this provision on several occasions not only in this House but at election times. It would give Parliament an idea of the application of the moneys and what is the actual position of the various schools in Victoria. Members of the Country Party support the measure and trust that this system will continue. Whether the amounts under the formula increase or not in the future will depend on the determination of State and Federal Governments. At the moment the system is on a firm


basis. In the past the Commonwealth has operated one way and the States in another way, and when it has come to election time one State has increased the amount to the concern of other States. That was not the right principle to adopt. The system is now uniform and consequently my party will support the measure and vote against the amendment.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-It is fair to say that Mr. Elliot argued his case reasonably. It is also fair to say the principle of financial assistance to all schools has been accepted by all parties. It is to the credit of the community and its tolerance and fair-mindedness that this principle has been accepted. It would have been hard to realize fifteen years ago. The only aspect of difference is how it applies. The Government is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by Mr. Elliot.

It is well known that in the Budget the Government agreed to make this allocation of money to independent schools on the basis set out in the Bill. The amendment moved by Mr. Elliot would destroy the Bill and take away the assistance that the Government has undertaken to give. The Government joined with the then Federal Government in overcoming the problem on the basis set out, to take it out of the political arena. Agreement was reached with the other States and the Commonwealth. Victoria stands by its commitment.

The amendment would destroy the Bill. The obvious problems associated with withdrawing the Bill are the undertakings given to the parents of children who go to private schools. They have budgeted on this basis and it would be a hardship if the assistance was now taken away. I shall not deal with the argument of needs, which has been dealt with on other occasions. What Mr. Elliot says may be true. The Commonwealth may take a different line. Problems may arise and I hope they will be solved.


The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Order! The Minister for State Development and Decentralization must realize that he is speaking to the amendment.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-That is so. I am only touching on this aspect, quietly, shortly and pithily. There would be problems with the Commonwealth setting up a ·needs commission to control more than 2,000 schools. The Government has never accepted that principle. It is a real problem. The Government gave certain undertakings in the Budget; it stands by those undertakings a·nd for that reason it is unable to accept the amendment.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Elliot to be omitted stand part of the motio.n (the Hon. R. W. Garrett in the chair)-

Ayes 21 Noes 8



AYES.


Mr. Hunt Mr. Mansell Mr. May Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Dunn Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider

Mr. Elliot Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling

Mr. Hamilton

Mr. Nicol Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald.

NOES.

Mr. Tripovich.

Tellers: Mr. Eddy Mr. Walton.

PAIR.

Mr. Galbally.

The motion was agreed to. The Bill was read a second time,

and passed through its remaining stages.

LAND CONSERVATION (VEHICLE. CONTROL) BILL.

The House went into Committee for the further consideration of this Bill.

Discussion was resumed of clause 6-

After paragraph (xxvi) of sub-section (1) of section 197 of the Local Government Act 1958 there shall be inserted the following paragraph:-

" (xxvia) Prohibiting or regulating the use of vehicles propelled by internal combustion on any land or any specified part or parts of land not being a highway or private street or road or public land within the meaning of the Land Conservation Act 1970."

and of Mr. Dickie's amendment-That, in proposed paragraph (xxvia), the

words " vehicles propelled by internal combustion" be omitted with the view of inserting the words "motorized vehicles".

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-I previously moved that an amendment be made to proposed paragraph (xxvia) by omitting the words " vehicles propelled by internal combustion " and inserting the words " motorized vehicles ". I suggested that progress be reported because it was felt that the proposed amendment did not sufficiently clarify the position. I have had prepared a new amendment, and therefore I seek leave to withdraw the previous amendment which had been considered by the Committee.

By leave, the amendment was withdrawn.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-I move-

That, in proposed paragraph (xxvia), the words "vehicles propelled by internal combustion " be omitted with the view of inserting the words " motorized vehicles for recreational purposes".

As pointed out by Mr. Walton and supported by Mr. Swinburne, the ramifications of the wording of this paragraph as originally proposed did bring into section 197 of the Local Government Act, which is the by-law making section, a power greater than was intended. Mr. Walton pointed out that in the second-reading debate no mention was made of the purpose


of the Bill being to control the offthe-road use of all types of motorized recreational vehicles on Crown land. The amendment now proposed will overcome the problem raised by both Mr. Walton and Mr. Swinburne.





The debate (adjourned from earlier this day) 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. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-This Bill to amend the Labour anq Industry Act 1958 is the normal type of Bill which comes forward each sessional period to make amendments in confo~~ity with Government policy and ansmg from departmental experience as well as adjustments which may be necessary to rectify discrepancies found in the legislation. It is strictly a Committee Bill but I shall deal briefly with each item. I indicate that the Labor Party proposes to oppose clauses 5, 7 and 13.

Clause 2 repeals sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 3 of the principal Act and is consequential upon the passing of the provisions contained in sub-clause (2) of clause 11 which deletes the provision for the baking of bread as provided for in section 105 of the Act.

Clause 3 is designed to preserve the superannuation rights of persons appointed to the panel of chairmen of wages boards who are appointed from outside the Public Service. The Public Service Act has been amended to protect the rights and superannuation privileges of those who come from the Public .. Service, but persons may be appointed .. from outside and the

amendment seeks to preserve superannuation rights that they may have. The Labor Party offers no opposition to that clause.

Clause 4 will regularize the public holidays provided for in lieu of Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year's Day if any of those days falls on a Saturday or Sunday. An agreement on this matter was made with the Government after the late Mr. J. V. Stout and Mr. Fred Riley ·negoti..ated an understanding with the Department of Labour and Industry. If I recall correctly, that occurred in the late 1940s or the early 1950s and the agreement has been observed ever since. Now the Government has seen fit to write the principle into the legislation. There is ·nothing new in the principle, which has been accepted for many years. I happened to be at the Trades Hall when Messrs. Stout and Riley returned after having gained what was really thought to be a great win.

If Christmas Day, Boxing Day or New Year's Day fal·ls on a Saturday or Sunday, employees are to be granted holidays in lieu. The Bi11 provides that if Christmas Day falls on a Saturday the reference shall be deemed to be a reference to the following Monday. If Christmas Day falls on a Sunday, the reference shall be deemed to be a reference to the following Tuesday. Similar provision is made for Boxing Day and New Year's Day.

Although the prescription will now be included in the principal Act, the practice has been followed for years. As the Minister for Local Government pointed out, it has depended on the Government whether the principle would apply each year. Everybody will now know where he stands.

Clause 5 is the controversial clause for the trade union movement. It extends the period for the finalization of a claim or an appeal against a wage rate or determination. Possibly, before the Minister for Local Government ever entertained politics, the arrangement with a wages board was that there would be a


representative of labour and a representative of industry who together with the independent chairman would constitute the wages board. There was to be no prolonging or frustrating of determinations of the wages board beyond fourteen days.

Honorable members may think that clause 5 is a dictatorial provision but the idea underlying it is that a determination should operate within fourteen days and that there should be no argument against it after that time. However, democratic processes can be taken to the point of stupidity. If the wails and complaints and appeals of each individual are to be dealt with according to the law, proceedings could continue for weeks or months. The trade union movement believes this could mean a return to the industrial problems experienced before the principle of wages board determinations was established.

The Government took the view that it was inequitable that an employer, who disagreed with the recommendation of the association of employers, should be precluded from having a right of appeal. Similarly, anv individual worker who is not a unionist but who takes a viewpoint different from that of the organized trade union should have an opportunity of putting his views; therefore, he should have a right of appeal. I recall arguing against this principle in the House, and strong arguments were presented by the Labor Party. It was envisaged that a fourteen days' delay could enable employees' organizations to resolve further points of diff·erence just as the employers would have to, within fourteen days. Following the insertion of provisions which gave individuals the right of appeal, the Government is going one step further by proposing that if a person appeals within fourteen days, he shall have the right to be heard. This may go on for many more days if the person avails himself of his full rights under civil law with injunctions and other legal processes. I do not know how far it could be taken and I doubt whether even Mr. Galbally could suggest a limit. The

Labor Party strongly disagrees with the principle and is prepared to vote against it on a division. The Labor Party strongly objects to allowing all these avenues to be used against a determination of a wages board.

The Labor Party has no objection to clause 6, which inserts certain words into sub-section (1) of section 4 7 of the principal Act. This section gives exclusive jurisdiction over appeals against decisions of Magistrates Courts and there can be reference to an appeals court for a review. The clause provides-

In sub-section (1) of section 47 of the principal Act after the expression " (including the metropolitan industrial court) ", there should be inserted the following words:-

" In any proceedings under section 149 or sub-section (2) of section 198 or". Section 149 refers to holiday pay and section 198 refers to the power to recover any rate determined irrespective of any agreement. This clause brings both those provisions within the ambit of appeal to the Industrial Appeals Court. In the case of the latter one, even if a person arrives at a written or verbal agreement to work for a wage less than that determined by the court or a wages board and the case is heard and a decision is made in a Magistrates Court, there is a right to bring the rna tter before the Industrial Appeals Court. The Labor Party has no objection to that. I think that is a good proposition and, much as it may act in favour of the employer, in some instances it will react to the advantage of the employee on appeal.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Normally the latter.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-That may be so, but I feel that it may react sometimes to the benefit of the former. However, my party has no objection to that. Sections 70 and 71 of the principal Act are being repealed. The Opposition is very sorry to see this. When the Minister was delivering his second-reading speech I interjected-not rudely, I hope-when he said there had been


no official reply from the Trades Hall Council to requests that had been made about the unions' attitude to the sections being repealed. I point out to the House that the Trades Hall Council considered this matter at a meeting of the executive and, by circular to all unions on 11th May, 1970-a long time agotook up the matter with the various unions. Section 70 ·of the Act provides for the p~otection of females and young persons in industry.

This provision has been discussed also by the International Labour Organization. This is not a matter of equal rights for men and women but a case of protecting females and young persons in industry. Section 70 states that no person shall employ in a factory any male under sixteen or female under eighteen years of age to undertake certain specific work. It states also that people of that age shall not be worked for more than 48 hours in any week. If there were to be any alteration to that provision one would have expected that it would not be to repeal it but to reduce the number ·of hours to 40. If we go back to the original Arbitration Court agreement which was the basis of the 40-hour week, then perhaps the maximum should be 40 hours, plus 4 hours overtime. But the Government proposes to repeal the provision.

That section says also that a male under sixteen or a female under eighteen years of age shall not be employed for more than ten hours on any day. If there is to be an alteration to that section, surely one would expect that it would be to reduce the period to eight hours a day. I make no accusation against the Government, but it could be proposed that these people shall work for twelve or fourteen hours a day. That would be a reasonable inference~ The next part of section 70 states that a person of the age I have mentioned shall not be employed between the hours of 9 p.m.-in the case of a female under sixteen years of age, 6 p.m.-and 7 a.m. I know of many young people who work after 6 p.m.

The Hon. J. M. Tripovidh.

There is provision in some awards for females over the age of eighteen years to work after that time if the employer provides a taxi to take them home. Why does the Government want to alter this provision? On the basis of its proposal to repeal this section of the principal Act, the Opposition will not support the Bill. I suggest it is completely wrong to repeal it. There is no rhyme or reason why the Government should wish to repeal it. The Minister said when referring to the repeal of both sections that their provisions are covered by regulations. I remind him that no regulations are written into the master grocers' determination.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-They could be covered equally by awards.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-1 do not know about that. The Labor Party would prefer to see the provisions remain on the statutes rather than have them included in regulations. Honorable members are not happy about the way that the Department of Labour and Industry polices the regulations. Only last week I had occasion to take action against an engineering firm which at present requires young people to work 48 hours a week, pays them for 40 hours and makes them sign for this amount as having been earned in 40 hours. This is a condition that one would have ·expected many years ago in industrial affairs. This is not typical of employers today, but it is a matter which had to be reported to the unions so that it could be policed. The Department of Labour and Industry had not become aware of this matter.

On the basis of a strike which took place in the engineering industry only a fortnight ago, it was learnt that this firm to which I refer paid its employees for the two days that they were on strike on the condition that the time was made up. The time was made up as overtime and paid for at ordinary rates of pay. That is not a maintenance of industrial conditions in the way that we have discussed them in this country. Consequently,


members of the Labor Party take the strongest objection to the repeal of section 70. Section 71 comes into a different category. This is a provision which could be updated because it relates to certain industries which do not exist today. It could be updated on the basis that there are other industries which have come into operation and which are equally dangerous as those which are listed. Section 71 states-

( 1) In a part of a factory in which there is carried on-

(a) the process of mercurial silvering of mirrors; or,

(b) the process of making white leadno person shall employ any person under eighteen years of age.

Those are industries which are not strong in their organization today and possibly consideration could be given to their removal from the provision. The section continues-

(2) In a part of a factory in which the process of melting or annealing glass is carried on no person shall employ any female under eighteen years of age.

I remind the House that females do not work in that industry anyhow. The section continues-

(3) In a factory in which there is carried on-

( a) The making or finishing of bricks or 'tiles not being ornamental tiles; or

(b) the making or finishing of saltno person shall employ any female under sixteen years of age.

There is nothing wrong with these provisions, but they apply to industries which were obnoxious in their day. If the Government likes to say that the provisions are out of date, there is reason to update the1n because there is another industry where similar provisions could be applied. I refer to the manufacture of glue. Some of the solvents associated with the making of glue when inhaled cause drug addiction. Already this has caused the loss of one boy's life. I admit that only one boy has lost his life in this way. I do not want to delay the House by going into details of that case, but there are dangers associated with some of

the industries in which boys under sixteen years of age and girls under eighteen years should not be employed. This section should not be repealed but should be updated. Consequently, the Labor Party will definitely vote against the repeal of that section.

The Hon. W. G. FRY.-The honorable member started to talk about the Trades Hall Council. What was the reply?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I did not seek to justify it.

The Hon. A. J. HuNT.-The council replied but did not give reasons.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I cannot understand that because the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which is now the Amalgamated Metal Trades Union, replied and said that it agreed that sections of the Act could be modernized. However, if the Government deletes the section it could and would seriously jeopardize the working conditions of employees in industrial areas. The Australian Meat Industry Employees Union-the butchers' union, as we call it-replied that it was not involved in any of the industries mentioned in the section. However, it mentioned that it was concerned about the maximum hours of work nermitted by the section and said that it should not be repealed but should be strengthened or updated.

Then followed some suggestions along the lines of those that I made about the 48 hours being reduced to 40 hours. The Timber Workers Union made a similar suggestion, as did also the Australian Railways Union. The Clothing and Allied Trades Union made similar suggestions and oointed out that the current regulations applying to the clothing industry set 6 p.m. as the latest finishing time for a girl of sixteen years. This regulation should not be relaxed. Employers should not work girls under sixteen years of age in factories after 6 n.m. The Pastrvcooks Union, the Food Pre~ervers Union and the Furniture Trades Union made similar comments


and pointed out in relation to subsection (1) of section 71 that mercurial silvering has not been done for about 50 years although the Act still provides for it. The suggestion was that the Act should be updated. I accept that.

It was mentioned also in relation to sub-section (2) of that section that modern techniques of annealing would not be injurious to health and that the methods used today are much different from those which were used when the Act was written. However, the provision has not been updated. There is no problem about that. The Manufacturing Grocers Employees Union went to some trouble in its reply and, under the name of Mr. N. A. Gibbs, provided an explanation of its attitude.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-To the Trades Hall Council?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-Yes. That union made the same suggestions as I have put to the House concerning these two clauses. If the Minister would like to have them I would be happy to provide him with copies of these replies so that he may have records of the attitudes of the unions. If the debate on the Bill were adjourned, I would be able to provide him with more of the history.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-If the honorable member has spare copies I should like to have them for my files. They would be most helpful.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I shall be happy to make them available to the Minister later. I refer now to clause 8, which allows chemist shops to open. This provision is of no significance. A chemist shop in my area never shuts. I said to a very good friend of mine who conducts a chemist shop, " How will this affect you? " He said, " It will not make any difference as there are no more than 24 hours in a day." His premises do not close. This provision will enable other premises to open for whatever hours they want to remain open, and if they do not choose to do so, they may close.

Many of them will not remain open for longer periods, but that is entirely their own business.

Clause 9 provides that the whole of Sherbrooke shall come within the Tourist Act and that shops shall be allowed to open for trading as shops in tourist areas. When this matter was debated previously in this place, it was suggested that this would happen not only in the Shire of Sherbrooke but also in premises in the extremities of neighbouring shires. If the shops in this area are permitted to operate as tourist shops, why not permit all other shops to open for whatever hours they choose? An increased cost would be involved in the shops remaining open for longer hours, but if that does not matter, and apparently it does not, why not permit them to open? Why should the provision apply only to Sherbrooke?

Clause 10 relates to the sale of petrol on Good F.riday. The Minister has been good enough to show me the proposed amendment, so I intend to refer to the provision as it will eventually apply, if the amendment is accepted, instead of the way in which it applies now. By clause 10, paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1) of section 82 of the principal Act will be repealed. This will enable petrol shops to sell petrol on Good Friday. Restrictions will still apply to the sale of petrol on Anzac Day and Christmas Day. The Labor Party does not disagree with the proposal because Good Friday is the commencement of a five-day holiday break, many people want to travel away for the week-end and most car petrol tanks hold only sufficient fuel for a journey of about 200 miles. The churches do not disagree with the proposal because they realize that people like to go away for long week-ends, such as Easter week-end. I am wondering why a similar provision is not made when Christmas day falls on a Friday ~ecause again that is the start of a five-day holiday break.


Clause 11 relates to week-end baking of bread. The amendment will allow the baking of bread to take place on any day. I hate to say it, but I told the Government when the bread Bill was before the House that the Act would be circumvented by bakers such as Tip Top Bakery who would bake bread on a Saturday at one bakery and on Sunday at another bakery and still provide enough bread to cater for the needs of both areas.

Nowadays the bread industry is not concerned about baking seven days a week. The Labor Party vigorously opposed the introduction of Sunday baking, but those who are now employed in the industry are paid high rates of overtime and therefore they are satisfied whilst those who manage the large bakeries are happy to compete with the smaller bakeries which they will probably flatten soon. The hot bread shops are a new innovation but I do not know how long they will be able to withstand the competition from the large bakeries when one has introduced a loaf which a housewife can keep in the refrigerator and bake at home when it is required.

Clause 12 relates to safety precautions to be observed with certain parts of machinery. Proposed section 174A refers to "every set-screw pin bolt or key on any revolving shaft, spindle, wheel or pinion " but no reference is made to the shaft itself. Admittedly, anything atta1ched to the shaft is dangerous but so too is the shaft, and that is not covered by the provisions of the new section. I should like the Minister to look into this matter. Proposed section 17 4B makes it an offence to seH or let or hire machinery not provided with guards.

The provisiOns of clause 13 indicate that the Minister of Labour and Industry has had to eat every word that he said last year concerning safety devices on tractors merely because of the electoral prospects of Mr. McCabe, who represents the Lowan electorate in another place. I

really think that is the explanation for the Government's changed attitude on this question. I looked at the Wimmera Mail-Times and low and behold the paper carried the headlines, "Success at last! Councils will have say-roll-bars ". The article states, inber alia-

Wimmera and other rural councillors will have the right to say who fits roll-bars to tractors.

Regulations will be changed to allow municipalities to decide whether they want roll-bars on farm tractors.

" At long last we have achieved success with opposition to roll-bars on tractors used by farmers on the flat Wimmera plains ", Mr. McCabe said.

This highlights the competition between Mr. McCabe and the endorsed Country Party candidate for the next State election in Lowan. It is a repeat of what happened during the Hampden by-election when the Camperdown abattoirs were given a grant of $10,000 and the Co'lac interests were most upset. Camperdown received the grant because of the Hampden by-election.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Can Mr. Tripovich explain the connection between the Hampden by-election and the Bill?

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-The headine in the paper at that time was " Hunch paid off " and I am now indicating that the alteration in the legislation affecting ro'll-bars is tied up with the seat of Lowan in the Legislative Assembly. In this case, the Minister of Labour and Industry is eating his own words. Whether Mr. McCabe retains his seat remains to be seen.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-He will do it without any trouble.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.There will be a lot of trouble because it will depend where the Democratic Labor Party directs its preferences; they may go to the Country Party candidate.

The PRESIDENT.-Order! What have Democratic Labor Party preferences to do with the Bill?


The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.-I am sorry, Mr. President, but I could not ignore the intelligent interjection from the other side of the Chamber and I felt I ought to answer.

On the question of roll-bars for tractors, the agricultural engineering reports from the Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Melbourne contain a survey on ages of drivers involved in tractor accidents. The authors of the article relating to the survey were W. F. Baillie and I. W. GrevisJames. I shall not read the whole report but I commend it to the Minister of Labour and Industry as I think it would make much better reading than the aspirations of Mr. McCabe. The authors state-

For the young we should put forward more straight educational material with perhaps less emphasis on the cautio:1ary tales.

It appears that inexperience rather than irresponsibility was the main cause of youthful involvement in tractor acc'idents. The other group which had a relatively high incidence of involvement were the over-50-year-olds, so Mr. Ward will have to be careful there. At page 8 of the report, the authors state-

On the other hand, the 50-and-overs who are the men of power and influence in farmers' organizations and public affairs generally, need to be convinced of the risks they themselves are taking so that they will do something about getting safer tractors.

At present roll-bars are compulsory on tractors. The flatness of the Horsham plains does not overcome the exuberance of a young person in driving a tractor. A driver can encounter problems when digging dams or moving over the edge of a dam to see whether a sheep is stuck in the mud. The dangers to persons over 50 years of age are the same whether they are driving tractors in the Wimmera or the hilly country of Gippsland. The Labor Party will vote against the clause because its members are not interested in the Lowan electorate. Mr. Kent will deal more specifically with clause 13.

Clause 14 inserts the Disposal of Uncollected Goods Act in the Second Schedule. This corrects an oversight in earlier legislation.

Clause 15 will include in the Fifth Schedule pet shops, including shops for the sale of aviary and caged birds or aquarium fish. This will allow the shops to remain open during the week-end. These shops are more interested in selling their hardware goods in addition to the pets. The Labor Party offers no objection to the provision. Clause 16 makes a number of consequential amendments following the earlier amendments in the Bill.

As I said earlier, the Bill is strictly a Committee Bill. Many of the amendments included result from action by the department in finding faults in the legislation rather than the implementation of Government policy. The Labor Party will vote against clauses 5, 7 and 13.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (NorthWestern Province) .-As Mr. Tripovich has said, the Bill contains a number of amendments to the Labour and Industry Act. The proposal to allow chemist shops to open on a public holiday does not cause disagreement by the Country Party because undoubtedly such shops offer a service to the public, which is necessary not only on five days a week but also at week-ends and public holidays. The provision which allows petrol shops to open on Good Friday is reasonable, particularly with the number of tourists and persons who desire to move into country Victoria during long week-ends such as Easter week-end.

The Country Party agrees with the provision to allow pet shops to open at week-ends, which is the time when families can visit the shop together. Furthermore, the Country Party does not disagree with the proposal to allow the Shire of Sherbrooke to come under the provisions of trading hours for tourist areas. I cannot see any reason why this should not apply in these borderline cases where a part of a municipality comes within

Lab,1ur and Industry [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3557

the 20-mile limit as laid down in the Act.

We are concerned about the various expressions used in this measure concerning the baking of bread. If the Bill is passed by Parliament, bread will be baked at any time of the day, including week-ends. I ask the Minister to explain in the Committee stage what he meant when, in his second-reading speech, he said, " although the country bakers have some reservations". What reservations do they have? Certainly, the concern of country bakers should be considered deeply; and my party is concerned that if, over a period of time, there is any whittling away of the protection which is afforded to them, they will be adversely affected. I ask the Minister to elaborate on the reservations of country bakers and to explain why the Government felt that they were not justified.

The Country Party supports clause 12, which deals with the provision of various safety guards and coverings on dangerous parts of machinery in factories. There can be no doubt that my party has supported similar provisions concerning tractors and various other types of farm machinery. Pulleys, shafts, and other parts of machinery present a grave danger to people who are continually operating them, and, although a person could perhaps operate a machine for 40 years without any trouble, it takes only one mistake to lead to a possible fatality. Even the grease nipple on a rapidly spinning shaft can be enough to kill a person. People working in factories should be protected by having the dangerous parts of machinery covered wherever possible. The Country Party supports that provision of the Bill.

Clause 13 is the most controversial part of the Bill. It deals with the provision of safety cabins on wheeled tractors. The question of fitting safety cabins has been a continuing story in this Parliament for a number of y~ars and, during that period, the Government has changed its opinion and its attitude on a number of occasions.

A Bill concerning labour and industry was debated in Parliament in November, 1970. It referred to tractors, and at that time the Minister said that the Government would go ahead and proclaim various safety regulations for tractors, including the fitting of roll-bars and safety cabins. At that time, the Country Party expressed its concern that a provision relating to safety cabins would apply to the whole of Victoria. My party felt that safety cabins were not justified in many parts of Victoria where tractors were used only for normal farm purposes and did not constitute a serious danger to the driver.

The Bill was debated in this Chamber on 19th November, 1970. I read the Hansard report of the debate to ascertain how many honorable members referred to the need for exemptions and the basis on which they should be granted. At the time, I contended that provision should be made in the Bill to provide for exemptions on a municipal basis; and, as I understand it, in another place an honorable member adopted the same attitude. The Country Party opposed the Bill because it made no provision for exemptions. The Minister-the present Minister of Housing-had progress reported.

When the Bill was next debated in the House, on 24th November, the Minister proposed the following amendment:-

AA. After sub-section ( 1) of section 206 of the Principal Act there shall be inserted the following sub-section:-

"(lA) Any regulation may be limited in respect of time, place or circumstances, and in addition, in relation to any tractor-

(i) a regulation may be limited to a class or kind of tractor; and

(ii) different regulations may be made in respect of different classes or kinds of tractors."

The only reason for the amendment being moved was that the Country Party exerted pressure on the Government.

The Han. K. S. GRoss.-The honorable member is kidding himself.


The Han. B. P. DUNN.-It is recorded in Hansard. The Country Party's argument forced the Government to propose an amendment, and, because of that, the party supported the Bill, feeling that the right thing would be done and that the regulations would be proclaimed on the basis of various exemptions. My party's whole argument was based on the fact that there should be exemptions on a municipal basis. In a letter which I wrote to the Secretary of the Department of Labour and Industry on 29th June, 1971, I said-

! believe that municipalities should be given the opportunity to proclaim their area as an area requiring the fi:tting of safety cabins or otherwise. To introduce blanket regulations for the whole of Victoria is to subject farmers to an unnecessary cost, for no benefit, and if areas could be proclaimed by municipalities they could be exempted or accepted as required.

However, in September of this year farming industries and members of this House were circularized with a list of regulations which demonstrated to me that the Government had not considered the argument which had been put forward, and had blatantly gone ahead and proclaimed regulations which, with minor exemptions, were to apply to the whole of the State. The regulations provide, inter alia-

Protective Frames. 5. ( 1) Every wheeled tractor 1to which

this regulation applies shall be fitted with a protective frame or cab which complies with the specifications of AS N70-1969. The regulations then described the various weights of tractors which would be excluded and referred to wheeled tractors being used in orchards in close proximity to a building, and so on, and continued-

(3) This regulation shall come into operation-

( a) on :the 1st October, 1974, with respect to tractors maunfactured in or imported into Victoria on or after that date; and

(b) on the 1st October, 1982, wrth respect to tractors manufactured in or imported into Victoria before 1st October, 1974.

In other words, after 1st October, 1974, new tractors at the point of use were to be provided with safety

cabins, and after 1982 all tractors except the few which were to be excluded must be provided with safety cabins.· This caused much opposition in country areas, and led to further representations being made to the Government. The representations were ignored, and the situation of dry farmers was also ignored. Mr. Tripovich asked whether it was a political move to circularize the regulations concerning the fitting of tractor cabins so that representations could be made. The Government did a complete about-face and brought in ineffective legislation, even though the Minister had fought for years to have this regulation included. It appears to me that there is more to it than meets the eye.

I believe members of Parliament should be informed concerning changes and suggestions in legislation, but if honorable members wish to know what is going on, they have to read a Horsham newspaper. It appears to me that deals can be made with the Minister on the side while Parliament is left in the dark. What about the representations which were made in this House? The Country Party opposed the Government's proposal for the fitting of tractor roll-bars, but what did the Government do? The Minister prescribed regulations, and members on all sides of the House revolted against them-yet the Liberal Party claims to be a party which understands rura1 problems. One or two honorable members in that party do, but their party's knowledge is not very deep.

When this measure is being considered in Committee, the Country Party intends to move an amendment. To some degree, this measure is satisfactory, in that it makes provision for some exemptions. There are areas of the State which need safety cabins to be fitted on tractors; but the Bill enables the Government to completely shy away from the issue and pass the buck to municipal councils. The Government has run away from the problem, because it thinks it is a potato which is too


hot to handle. The Government has said to muaicipalities, " If you want safety cabins in your area, apply to the Minister, and he will say that you can put them on." It means that the Minister merely puts his stamp of approval on what is requested by a municipality.

The Country Party believes that municipalities should be consulted, but it contends that all municipalities within Victoria shall come within the regulations until they have requested exemptions and that when they request exemptions the Minister shall grant them.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-What is the difference?

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-The Country Party's amendment will say that on the application of a municipality the Minister shall grant an exemption. At the present time the whole situation is dead. It will not even be discussed by municipalities. But if they are placed in a position of having to apply to be exempted from the regulations, they will discuss the matter and apply to the Minister for an exemption, and he shall provide it.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Have you ever studied the figures of deaths and accidents on flat land?

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Yes, and I have found that very few accidents have occurred in normal farm work. It must be remembered that any farmer, including members of this House, is free to install a roll-bar on his tractor now. I have been approached by people who have said that they must fit safety cabins to their tractors. When I have asked whether they have done so they have said that they have not. Any farmer can put a safety cabin on his tractor. We are discussing whether this Parliament will make farmers fit them. Under this Bill, at the point of manufacture, tractors will be provided with anchors for safety cabins. I believe it is a

reasonable proposition to provide tractors with anchors and to provide safety cabins as an optional extra.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-What is the average cost of a safety cabin?

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Estimates range from $150 to $800.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-The average cost is $189.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Tractors could be provided with anchors, and safety cabins should be provided as an optional extra for people who want them or in areas where they are required because the municipalities have requested that they remain under the Act. I shall have more to say at the Committee stage of the Bill. The facts should be known. The Country Party has consistently fought for exemptions for flat-land farmers, We have achieved those exemptions, Certain supporters of the Government are claiming credit. Hansard shows that the Country Party has played a very eff~ctive role in this field.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-Honorable members have heard a very interesting speech from Mr. Dunn, who formerly was concerned with the Victorian Young Farmers Association. That group did a tremendous amount of work on the dangers of tractor farming and finally came out very emphatically on the necessity of implementing legislation to safeguard the lives of people employed in driving tractors: Mr. Dunn has been here for some time but apparently he has failed to appreciate that the decisions which have been made here in respect of this Bill are the decisions of the Govern. ment. I understand that the Country Party is not part of the Government. The House is dealing with a matter of grave concern. It affects the lives of people who are engaged in working farm machinery or other machinery. The controversial part of the Bill which will necessarily attract a lot of attention relates to the fitting of protective frames on trac, tors.


The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Does the honorable member have a protective frame on his tractor?

The Hon. D. E. KENT.-I do not intend to engage in personal aspects. For the protection of every person engaged in rural industries a law is essential compelling them to protect themselves. Very little consideration has been given to the varying circumstances. The evidence of tractor accidents proves that they are not peculiar to a particular environment. Accidents have occurred throughout the country in all types of conditions and types of work. If a blanket exemption is granted it will defeat the whole purpose of protective. legislation. It would render it ineffective.

The House would be adopting a principle which would not be tolerated in any other legislation in that it would be allowing a particular section of the community to decide whether the lives of people in a particular area were worth protecting or whether they should be left to chance. A tremendous amount of work has been done by various organizations. In particular the Victorian Young Farmers Association has been deeply concerned with the need for protective devices. Mr. Wilson, the State president of the association, and Mr. Daly, a past president, have both expressed to me their bitter disappointment that Mr. Dunn, a former member, has failed to support them in following up the hard work they have done over many years. These people are concerned about the future. They would be acting within the present laws. I believe that all of us in this House conform to the existing laws.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Did the honorable member have seat belts fitted before they were compulsory?

The Hon. D. E. KENT.-I do not want to deal with any personal aspects on which many honorable members could be sensitive. The subject was raised in this House in 1970 when the Bill was introduced. It was then stressed that uniformity was desirable in all States. I wish to

quote now from the Weekly Times of 5th April, 1972. It contains an article headed " Rafferty says Victoria will lead in tractor laws ", written by George Macauley. It states-

Victoria looks like joining the world leaders in the field of tractor safety legislation in the near future.

In a special interview, the Minister for Labour and Industry, Mr. J. A. Rafferty, outlined the current moves in this field.

Close consultation with New South Wales to obtain uniform regulations in both States.

The department's aim was to work with the farming community to establish a safety programme. It had a full-time rural safety officer who was concentrating on the young community in the country where the response was excellent and an awareness of safety would do the most good.

Talking on future moves, Mr. Rafferty said that regulations covering the fitting of protective frames or cabins was nearing the final draft form. All the responsible bodies concerned (farmer organizations, manufacturers ·etc.) had been consulted and the department was actively engaged in drawing up the final draft.

This would not be completed until negotiations with New South Wales authorities had been concluded to ensure that the regulations in the two States were uniform.

He said that he was not wasting time because lives were still being lost. The negotiations with New South Wales were a major reason for the present delay but if agreement between the two States proved impossible then the Victorian Government would still proceed and not shelve the regulations.

Subsequently Rafferty's rules have been amended. A report in the Sydney Sun of 24th November states that Mr. Hewitt, the New South Wales Minister for Labour and Industry, said that new regulations would be introduced before the end of the month to take effect from 1st January. He went on to detail the regulations. This has been a matter of concern throughout the country. It involves all people engaged in any way with tractors. The Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of Melbourne conducted investigations into tractor accidents in Australia. In 1964 it came to the conclusion that there was evidence of danger in all types of country a·nd that the accident rate in Australia

Labour and Industry (13 DECEMBER, 1972.] (Amendment) Bill. 3561

was very high. Its report stated that the estimate of 100 fatalities a year on the current tractor population worked out at about 4 per 1,000 tractors in use. It went on to say that the fatality rate was about half the current rate for motor cars.

In Australia we have a tragic road toll. Something drastic has to be done. I do not think anyone would assume that by reducing the number of deaths on the roads we would reach the limit of safety, that it would not be economic to try to achieve a higher degree of safety. In essence people who oppose this Bill are saying that there is a price which they are prepared to pay for human lives. There is a price, they say, which is too high to safeguard human lives.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Does the honorable member favour the use of breathalyzers?

The Han. D. E. KENT.-I am delighted to have the assistance of honorable members who are well acquainted with these problems. A special problem occurs in hill country. Gippsland is involved in that problem to a large extent. The report of the Department of Agricultural Engineering of the University of Melbourne states-

Within the general problem, however, it will be seen that there is a special problem in the hill country, particul1arly in the Gippsland hills of Victoria, which are intensively farmed, principally for dairying. Discussions with medical practitioners suggest that in these areas the Australia-wide average rate of fatalities is exceeded many times ov;er. For ex1ample, one doctor estimates that the area served by his practice contains about 7,000 people, about 3,000 of whom live in the towns. The rural sector of this population would therefore contain no more than about 1,500 potential tractor drivers. Yet he attends to 4 to 5 tractor deaths every year. This suggests a fatality 1'1ate 7 or 8 times the average for Australia as a whole.

The Hon. K. S. GRoss.-Where does he practise?

The Han. D. E. KENT.-There is strong evidence to suggest that he practises in Korumburra. Although the evidence points to the fact that there is greater danger in hill country, there

is substantial evidence to show that accidents occur in all types of country.

I have a number of press cuttings referring to accidents which occurred during 1972 and in most cases the accident involved a tractor overturning. Most tractor-caused fatalities have happened in this way and in other cases very serious injuries have been sustained. Both the fatalities and the serious injuries could have been prevented if protective frames ·had been fitted. A report in the Courier-Mail of Brisbane, of 8th June, 1972, states that a man was killed the previous day when a tractor overturned and crushed him. He was a married man with two children.

The Han. H. R. WARD.-What about Massey-Ferguson's turnover?

The Han. D. E. KENT.-I deplore the fact that a member of this Council adopts a facetious attitude to accidents resulting in death and injury. A report in the Hobart Mercury of 6th January, 1972, states that a sixteen-year-old youth was fatally injured the previous day when a tractor he was driving overturned on a narrow country road near his home. Another report in the Courier Mail of Brisbane states that a 35-year-old man of Cardiff, Newcastle, was crushed to death when a tractor overturned on him while he was pulling stumps on his property. The Northern Times of Kerang of 29th August states that a man died when the tractor he was driving rolled on him. A report in the Sydney Telegraph of 9th February, 1972, states that a farmer was killed when a tractor he was driving crashed 20 feet down the bank of the Hunter River. A report in the Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial of 31st January, 1972, reports an accident which happened in the province I represent. It states that a man from Dumbalk North was killed when a tractor he was driving left McMeekins Lane near Mirboo. The Korumburra Times of 23rd November, only a few weeks ago,


r~port~d that a Ranceby farmer was killed m a tractor accident on a steep hill at the rear of his homestead.

Those reports are an indication that many tractor accidents are fatal and most of them have involved ~ tractor overturning. It will be argued that protective frames or cabins would not have prevented all of these !at~lities or all of the shocking inJUries suffered by many victims of tractor accidents. But they would go a long way towards protecting tractor operators and reducing the cost to the community of caring for the injured and the widows and children of the victims of these accidents.

There are particular circumstances for which there must be exemptions, because certain operations cannot be carried out with tractors fitted with roll-bars, but I shall deal with the exemptions later. The simple fact is that tractor accidents occur wherever tractors are used and there are no safe areas.

There is one factor which would certainly be in the minds of farmers who have a particular sensitivity which was once described as the hippocket nerve. It would be a reasonable proposition to provide that substantial reductions in insurance premiums for workers compensation be allowed in policies applying to tractors fitted with safety devices. That rould be one of the most effective ways of reducing the vocal opposiUon to safety devices which comes from a portion of the farming community. The possibility that accident victims could sue should also have the effect of bringing more support for safety legislation. In the United States of America, Ralph Nader won many actions in court against the manufacturers of unsafe motor cars, and that could happen here in relation to tractors.

The most controversial aspect of the Bill is that the regulations re{}Uiring tractors to be fitted with protective frames shall not apply in any municipal district except by direction of the Minister made on the application of the council of the


municipality. With great respect to the capacity of municipal councillors throughout the country, I believe they are not competent to decide on a matter of public safety of this type and should not be charged with a responsibility which rightly rests on the Government of Victoria. Councillors work hard and efficiently and undertake many and varied responsibilities, but on this matter they could be subject to local pressure a~d, in .the interests of peace, they might yteld to that pressure against the interests of the whole community. That type of proposal would not be accepted in regard to any other public safety measure.

There have been strong representations from farmers and members· of farmers' organizations in many areas opposing the compulsory fitting of safety devices. Some people of mature age have worked on tractors for years without accidents and believe that the unfortunate victims have themselves to blame. Mr .. Tripovich produced evidence to show that tractor accidents were frequent with young drivers and then, again, with drivers over 45 or 50 years of age, and he delivered a warning to another honorable member in relation to this. But there is no particular age at which tractor drivers are safe and people of mature years who no longer drive tractors are sometimes more concerned with their own welfare than that of other people. To allow ·municipalities to decide whether exemptions should be granted from the requirement to fit safety devices would completely destroy the legislation.

Pressure has been applied by the Country Party and if the provision allowing municipalities to decide whether tractors need to be fitted with protective devices or not is adopted the Country Party must accept the responsibility of the C'Onsequent failure ro reduce the aC'cident rate in the way it has been reduced in countries where safety measures have been applied. Sweden was one of the first countries to enfO'rce the


use of safety frames on tractors and the rate of tractor accidents has been reduced to insignificance.

Despite pressure from certain farmers on country members of the Liberal Party it should be ·compulsory that tractors be fitted with safety frames in all areas. Perhaps the Liberal Pa·rty expects tractor farmers to replace another minority group whose support the Liberal Party seem·s to have 'lost. The House should oppose the exemption provided in clause 13 of the Bill.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-I have listened to many speeches in this House but I have never heard one so far off the mark as that of Mr. Kent. There is no disagreement with the principles the honorable member has enundated on the need to use protective appliances on machinery, including tractors. Mr. Kent carefully re,ad the clause of the Bill to which he objects and blamed the Country Party for its inclusion. But the olause· was included in the Bill by the Government ~and nobody else. Certain honorable ·members have been named as being responsible for its inclusion, but it is the responsibility of the Government. Through the good offices of the Minister these members have submitted to the Cabinet and to the Parliam·ent something which 'completely reverses the principle of the BiU which was enacted 1'ast year.

It is amazing how this Government can ·move with the times. But, surely, all honorable members accepted the princip1le when the amending Bill was befo:re Parliament in the previous session that safety devices should be fitted to all tractors 1to overcome the problems which ·oan be found, as Mr. Kent indic'ated, all over Australia, from Queensland to Tasmania. Country Party members know that these accidents occur, and that is why the Young Farmers Union proposed that safety measures be enforced.

The Country Party stands by the principle that the same provi'sion should apply throughout Victoria.

The provisions to which Mr. Kent objects do not apply to the regulations requiring ·tractors to be fitted with protective frames. This means that m'anufacturers must provide for the appliances so that they ·can be fitted to tractors, as from a certain time. The Country Party stands by this principle.

I thought Mr. Dunn made it clear that the Country Party believes that roll-bars should be avaHa'ble for use on all tractors so that all drivers may make up their own minds whether to use them, in much the same way as people who trave·l in cars make up their own ·minds to use the seat helts when they are fitted.

It is compulsory to wear seat belts but it is a matter of personal liability. I understand that, without taking into account cars not fitted with seat belts, only about 60 per cent or 70 per cent of people use the S'eat belts that are fitted. I suppose all of us have not bothered to use the seat belt on a short journey at some time. I was not enamoured of the idea of wearing seat belts but after I had worn one for twelve months I agreed that they saved injuries and life. I am concerned that the efficiency of seat belts has not been po'liced and I was amazed recently when I travelled in a car in which the seat belts were completely inefficient.

In re'lation to the fitting of tractor frames, the Government made provision for exemptio·ns for tractors used in orchards where frames could not be used, but they had to be granted to important people. Now it is proposed that an exemption be granted for all of Victoria.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-If people want to exerdse it.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-! am speaking of the provisions of the Bill. Mr. Dunn wishes to reverse the procedure and place the responsibility on 'everyone in the State to fit roBbars unless a municipality, for special reasons, makes representations to the Minister for consideration of an exemption. Mr. Kent accused members of the Country Party o'f wanting


to get rid of the provision. Perhaps this is because someone in the western part of Victoria thinks that the area is so flat that rol'l-bars should not be fitted.

I have driven tractors since 1934 or 1935 on country as flat as anywhere in Victoria. I have also driven them on hilly country and I have had as many near accidents as any person who drives a tractor on that type of country. I am fortunate that I was not on the list that Mr. Kent read out. Many of us who use tractors in hilly country quickly get into difficulties. It is important that roll-bars should be fitted. It may be four ·or five years or longer before it is made compulsory, but, like the seat belt legislation, it will ultimately come. If wise municipal councillors sitting around a tabl'e invite applications for exemptions, few people will apply. The Minister would then consider them. The present provision is contrary to what the Government proposed last year.

The provisions of the Bill extend safety measures. I agree with Mr. Tripovich that guards should be placed over revolving shafts which are just as dangerous as protrusions. If a person's clothing is caught in a machine, he could be twisted quickly. I lay it on the line that members of my party stand for the implementation of provisions providing for the fitting of roll-bars on tractors. I am not worried about the political implications. Provision for exemption exists under the Firearms Act and in the notorious ferret Bill and this type of exemption could apply to tractors. It has been suggested that accidents in flat countries have been caused when people have been building dams and so on. Is that not the type of work for which tractors are used? Surely roll-bars should be fitted. The manufacturers are making them by the thousands; they can be purchased in all shapes and sizes. Honorable members should not hoodwink themselves that this is something new. Most new tractors are fitted with the necessary mountings.


I make it quite clear that the members of the Country Party made representations that certain exemptions should be given but they stand by the principle that the provisions of the legislation should apply throughout the State. Exemptions could then apply in much the same way as they are granted to orchardists under the principal Act. Members of my party will vote against the clause if the foreshadowed amendment to be proposed by Mr. Dunn is negatived. We do not accept the principle that the whole State should be freed from the original legislation so that 210 municipalities can write to the Minister requesting that some consideration of exemptions be given. I do not want any misunderstanding on this matter.

The Hon. S. R. McDONALD (Northern Province) .-Mr. Kent made some inferences which were not justified. He questioned whether or not members of the Country Party were in favour of protective devices being fitted to tractors. If he looks at the record of the previous debate in Hansard, he will see that members of my party indica ted in no uncertain terms that they wanted them. He said that most of the primary producers were hit in the hip pocket and that was the reason for their objections to the fitting of safety devices.

I do not know whether Mr. Kent has travelled around Victoria. If he has, he should have seen that most of the tractors in the wheat-growing areas are fitted with cabins and protective frames which cost approximately $400 to $500. It is not fair to say that primary producers are influenced by their hip pockets. The principal Act provides for the compulsory fitting of safety devices. This amending legislation provides for the granting of exemptions. That is why Mr. Dunn has foreshadowed a further amendment.

The Government has done an amazing somersault; originally it introduced strong measures that would have gone all the way in providing safety. In the intervening period between the enactment of that legislation and the introduction of this


amending Bill, its attitude has become weak and irresponsible. The provisions of clause 13 leave the initiative to the municipaliti'es rather than allow the previous legislation to apply. If the municipalities see fit not to consider this matter and not take the initiative, no action will ensue. On the other hand, the amendment foreshadowed by Mr. Dunn will change the situation so that at least the municipalities will have to take the initiative and give the matter serious consideration. Depending on the decision of the municipality, it may make application to the Minister for exemption. In the light of the comments of Mr. Kent, these points are important.

Irrespective of the action taken by the Labor Party, one would certainly not have gained the impression of support from the remarks of Mr. Kent. The provisions of the principal Act were strong, progressive and sensible except that they did not provide for the possibility of exemption. On the other hand, the amending legislation goes much too far in the opposite direction.


and committed. Clauses 1 to 4 were agreed to. Clause 5, relating to appeal.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-Mr. Tripovich queried this clause, and I can understand his doing so. He does not want to see any action which would occasion delays in the implementation of awards. I certainly agree that it is essential in the interests of industrial peace to ensure that awards are implemented as promptly as possible. However, there is under the principal Act a procedure for appeal. In the case of unions and organizations, that is an appeal as of right. In the case of other individuals who desire to appeal, the appeal is only by leave.

An appeal by an individual by leave of the court is a rare procedure indeed. It takes some time to get an application for leave on. When an application for leave is heard, it is

normally dismissed. Sometimes, by consent, it is treated as the hearing of the appeal itself. If that procedure is adopted and if in those rare occasions leave is granted, and if it is granted without the application being treated as the hearing of the appeal, it is going to be impossible for the appeal to proceed because normally by then the fourteen days would have elapsed. The Government proposes an amendment to meet that rare case only.

I emphasize that the amendment has been proposed on the recommendation of the President of the Industrial Appeals Court who recognizes that in those rare instances it becomes impossible to prosecute an appeal because of the rigid time limit. I certainly agree with the general logic that Mr. Tripovich has espoused, that awards should be implemented as soon as possible, but I think he will aopreciate the reason why in this specific and rare instance it is necessarv to enable the court to provide a littie more latitude.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-I thank the Minister for his explanation. I do not nropose to argue against it. I have been requested to call for a division on this clause because no alteration is desired. However, I will convey th~ Minister's remarks, which I think will be reassuring. to people in the trade union movement who fear that frustrations through iniunctions, and so on. would with the passage of time delay the operation of a determination.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The Government acknowledges the validity of Mr. Tripovich's view.

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

Ayes 22 Noes 9

Majority clause

for the 13


Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Mr. Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Dunn Mr. Fry Mr. Gleeson Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt

AYES.

Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. May Mr. Mitchell Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Granter Mr. Bradbury.

NOES.

Mr. Eddy Mr. Trayling Mr. Elliot Mr. Tripovich

,Mr. Galbally Tellers: Mr. Kent Mr. Walton Mr. Thomas Mr. Knight.

Clause 6 was agreed to. Clause 7, relating to the repeal of

sections applying to employment of females and young persons.

The Bon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-Again, Mr. Tripovieh, with his deep knowledge of labour affairs, has expressed a concern for the protection of women workers and youthful workers which I think everybody appreciates and, I hope, shares. The concern is certainly shared by the Government. However, the real question is the way in which protection should be exercised. Going back a great many years, detailed provisions were set out in sections 70 and 71 of the Act. Those provisions arose from the philosophy of the days in which they were enacted rather than from any detailed knowledge of effects. They were rigid provisions imposed by legislation. The need for some of them has passed. In many other cases the result is that there is a discrimination against youthful workers or against women workers-a discrimination which women themselves have asked should go.

How should protective conditions be imposed? Surely they should be imposed not on a blanket basis but by special provisions relating to special industries where special classes of people need special protective measures. Those special protective measures, where necessary, should be based on evidence relating

to the particular industry and the particular category and duties which young people or women are called upon to perform.

Furthermore, these conditions can be imposed by means of awards or by regulations under the Act. Mr. Tripovich knows better than I the conditions imposed in awards from time to time. He also knows the regulatory provisions available for use. The Government believes it is far more appropriate to use those having regard to special conditions applying in particular industries or particular jobs and having regard to the scientific evidence and the kind of duties which young people and women are called upon to perform. There is no desire whatever to break down conditions or to call upon women or young people to undergo onerous conditions in any way.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-M'embers of the Labor Party cannot accept that viewpoint. As the M'inister pointed out, the Act was written many years ago and provided that males under sixteen years of age and females under eighteen years of age should not work more than 48 hours a week. Today, it is accepted in the majority of the countries of the world that the average working week should be of 40 hours. That principle has been accepted in Australia. The question is not one of discrimination against women.

M·embers of the Labor Party contend that men under sixteen years of age and women under eighteen years of age should not have to work more than 40 hours a week or more than ten hours a day. The recommendation of the International Labour Organization Conference of 1951-not 1963-was that these conditions should apply to juvenile workers. It is ·not a question of discrimination against women. On the subject of equal pay for work of equal value, I point out that it is still accepted by the International Labour Organization that because of their physical make-up women are not


physically capable of performing certain arduous tasks. Psychologically they cannot cope with certain other work. Therefore, the campaign for equality of the sexes is based not on the principle that they can all do the same job but on the principle that women who undertake the same tasks as men should receive equal pay for work of equal value.

The Opposition adopts the argument that no male under sixteen years and no female under eighteen years should be called upon to work more than 48 hours in one week or ten hours in one day. If this nation is to be judged in the way that some honorable members desire it to be judged, I suggest that instead of having regulations governing the employment of those two groups, provision should be made to enable the community to work males under sixteen years and females under eighteen years as long as it likes; and females under sixteen years until 11 p.m. or midnight and then turn them loose to find their own way home-because this is a modem country! That is completely wrong. If the Government is putting up that sort of argument to the people, it is complete eye-wash.

The Government should concede as a matter of principle that certain provisions should be in statute form and not provided for in regulations or determinations. In the grocery trade, there is no regulation covering the employment of females even though the industry employs a high proportion of females. The Labor Party opposes any alteration and is prepared to take it to a division. If the Government pursues this type of labour and industry legislation it will be moving back into the dark ages and wiping out all protection for juvenile workers. The Labor Party opposes this clause.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-I wish to reassure Mr. Tripovich on this matter. Mr. Tripovkh has been good enough to supply me with information indicating ~he views of various trade

unions on matters falling within their purview. I regret that in some way there seems to be a break-down in communication between the Government and the unions, but I assurP, Mr. Tripovich that the material to which he referred does not appear on the file that I have. I wi'll draw the matter specifically to the attention of the Minister of Labour and Industry. I will invite the honorable gentleman to consider the relevance of the submissions put by the individual unions and use them as a basis for considering whether specific regulations are necessary in particular industries. I will also ask the honorable gentleman to notify Mr. Tri povich direct as to the action, if any, taken on the submissions which Mr. Tripovich has given me.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-I thank the Minister for his assurance. The Government appears to want to move away from what is accepted by the Intemationa'l Labour Organization, an organization composed of representatives from the employers and the employees which sets world standards on various principles. Nations are expected to abide by its decisions.

If the Minister of Labour and Industry wants to advise me I would be grateful to receive his advice but I should like the Minister of Labour and Industry to deal directly with the Trades Hall Council. Something has caused a break-down in communication. I am certain that the information provided to me would have been forwarded to the Minister of Labour and Industry by Mr. Stone, the secretary of the Trades HaH Council. There would be nothing wrong with Mr. Stone doing what I have done tonight-photostating the replies from the unions and the summary arrived at and forwarding it to the Minister of Labour and Industry. It appears that the letter may have gone astray but Mr. Stone did write in reply. The replies from the unions


obviously should be considered because in my opinion their case is unassailable. On principle, the Labor Party opposes this clause.

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

Ayes 22 No~ 9

Majority clause

for the 13

AYES.

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Dunn Mr. Fry Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Houghton

Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell Mr. Mitchell Mr. Storey Mr. Swinburne Mr. Ward.

Tellers: Mr. Grimwade Mr. May.

NOES.

Mr. Galbally Mr. Kent Mr. Knight Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling

Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot.

Clauses 8 and 9 were agreed to. Clause 10-Paragraph (a) of sub-section ( 1) of

section 82 of the Principal Act is hereby repealed.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-This clause deals with the sale of petrol on Good Friday and the proposed amendment of the Act is very simply expressed. However, the attention of the Government has been drawn to the fact that because it is in that simple form lessees of service stations from oil companies or others will not be adequately protected against being forced against their will to open on Good Friday. Honorable members will recall the care that the Government took to ensure that no pressure should be brought upon service station proprietors to work more than a certain number of hours a week. It is desirable that these safeguards should be retained even though the Government is allowing service stations to open on Good

Friday. I invite honorable members to vote against the clause. In doing so I indicate that later I shall move for the inclusion of a new clause which is designed to ensure that despite the opening of service stations on Good Friday all the safeguards at present in the legislation will be retained.

The clause was negatived. Clause 11 was agreed to. Clause 12, providing, inter aliaAfter section 174 of the Principal Act

there shall be inserted the following sections:-

" 174A. ( 1) Every set-screw pin bolt or key on any revolving shaft spindle wheel or pinion which is part of the machinery in a factory driven or intended to be driven by mechanical power shall be so sunk or encased or provided with guards as to prevent as far as possible loss of life or bodily injury.

174B. Any person who sells or lets on hire or as agent of the seller or hirer causes or procures to be sold or let on hire, for use in a factory in Victoria-

(a) any machinery prescribed as machinery to which this paragraph applies, which is not provided with such guards as will prevent as far as possible loss of life or bodily injury; or

(b) any machinery not provided with such guards as are prescribed in relation thereto-

shall be guilty of an offence against this Act."

The Hon. A. J. HUNT r(Minister for Local Government) .-I move-

That, in sub-section ( 1) of proposed section 174A, the words "shall be so sunk or encas,ed or provided with guards as to prevent as far as possible loss of life or bodily injury " be omitted with the view of inserting the following expression:-"shall be-

( a) completely encased; or (b) provided with guards so as to pre

vent as far as possible loss of life or bodily injury-

unless it is so sunk or otherwise situated as to be as safe as it would be if it were completely encased or provided with such guards".

The purpose of the amendment is to make the provision much clearer.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-What is the difference between " totally " and " completely "?


The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-The proposed amendment seems to be a better form of expressio·n. There is little difference, but this form of expression is more consistent wit:h normal Parliamentary draftsmanship.

The amendment was agreed to. The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for

Local Government) .-I move-That the following new section be added

to the clause:-" 174c. It shall be a defence to any

prosecution for an offence-(a) against section 174A if the defendant

proves that the machinery to which the charge relates was manufactured in or imported into Victoria prior to the commencement of section 12 of the Labour and Industry (Amendment) Act 1972;

(b) against paragraph (a) of section 174B if the defendant proves that the machinery to which the charge relates was manufactured in or imported into Victoria before the prescription of that machinery as machinery to which that paragraph applies;

(c) against paragraph (b) of section 174B if the defendant proves that the machinery to which the charge relates was manufactured in or imported into Victoria before the commencement of the regulations prescribing the guards to which the charge relates ".

This amendment involves the question of retrospectivity. The provisions of clause 12, which have been dealt with already, are additional to those now co·ntained in the Act in section 17 4 in respect of the guarding of machinery and in sections 175 and 176. Much equipment is actually installed and in operation and it is thought that it might be unduly harsh to make this new provision apply forthwith to all such machinery. The desire is predominately to safeguard the future. It is proposed, therefore, not to apply these new and harsher provisions to equipment already in existence.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-Does this mean that it shall be a defence for a firm to show that it had the equipment prior to the coming into force of the Bill? Will it be exempt from the provisions of the Act, despite the fact that some parts of the machinery

might be dangerous? I understand that it is the duty of inspectors of the Department of Labour and Industry to make sure that there is protective covering on machinery, irrespective of where the machinery came from or when it came. If it is dangerous, it should be covered.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-As I understand it, the defence will relate only to the more stringent requirements which are now being inserted by the Bill and not to anything which would have been an offence before.

The amendment was agreed to, as were verbal amendments.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-I still consider that it is necessary to raise points on clause 12. Although the new provision provides that every set-screw, pin, bolt or key on any revolving shaft, spindle, wheel or pinion shall be protected, it does not require the shaft to be protected. The shaft is very dangerous when it is spinning. Often it will spin so quickly that in some circumstances a person may not be aware that it is spinning. This adds to the danger. I invite the Minister to look closely at this provision. If the desire is to protect a person the desire must be to protect him from all the machinery and not from some parts of it.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-I have taken note of the remarks made by Mr. Tripovich during the secondreading debate and during the discussion in Committee. I am aware of the support given to him by Mr. Swinburne. Quite clearly there is merit in the points raised by the honorable member. On the other hand, if one looks at the new provisions one sees that they are designed to deal with protuberances from spinning shafts, in respect of which I think both honorable members will concede that greater danger exists. I concede that a revolving shaft, particularly if it is revolving at high speed and if it is . a thin shaft, may be a source of very real danger.


However, I think the honorable member will concede that a far greater danger would arise from protuberances on spinning shafts which may not be seen and which obviously and very clearly need a guard on them. This is what the amendment is designed to provide. If the shafts prove to be dangerous, action can be taken because already they would be covered by the existing section 174 which deals with dangerous equipment in general.

Without full investigation I would hesitate about agreeing to the specific inclusion of the word " shaft " in the provision. However, I shall ensure that the remarks made by the honorable member are drawn to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Labour and Industry, within whose sphere of responsibility this matter lies. If it is thought that the matter mentioned by the honorable member should be covered specifically rather than rely on the general terms of section 174, I am sure that the Minister will include an amendment in the next Labour and Industry (Amendment) Bill. As the honorable member suggests, these Bills come before the House as regular occurences.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-I assure the Committee, and particularly the Minister, that if the shaft comes within the terms of section 174, all appendages to it would be covered by the section. So why is there a need for an alteration? Section 174 provides, inter alia-

( 1) Every occupier-( a) of a factory, shall provide guards

for-(i) all dangerous parts of the

machinery of the factory; (ii) all danger~us applia~ces us.ed

in or m connection wrth the factory;

(iii) all dangerous parts of the factory.

If the shaft is covered by that pro vision, why make any alteration to the existing provision? I cannot accept the Minister's explanation. Although I have no instruction to vote against

the clause, I assure the Minister that the Labor Party is still concerned about the shaft itself.

The clause, as amended, was agreed to.

Clause 13, providing, inter aliaSection 175 of the Principal Act shall be

amended as follows:-(g) After sub-section ( 4) there shall be

inserted the following sub-sections:-

' (5) A regulation made pursuant to this section requiring tractors to be provided with protective frames shall not apply in any municipal district except by direction of the Minister made on the application of the council of the municipality.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN (NorthWestern Province) .-1 move-

That, in proposed sub-section (5) of section 175 of the principal Act, the words " not apply in any mumcipal district except by direction of the Minister made" be omitted with the view of inserting the words " apply to every municipal dsitrict which is not exempted from ·that regulation by direction of the Minister, and the Minister shall provide such exemption ". Perhaps I should clarify the effect that the amendment will have on the existing clause. Proposed sub-section (5) of section 125 provides-

A regulation made pursuant. to this. section requiring tractors to be prov1d.ed w1th pr~tective frames shall not apply m any mumcipal district except by di~ect~on of the Minister made on the application of the council of the municipality.

Although the proposed sub-section and the amendment are probably a little complicated, as the Bill stands a municipality is required to apply to a Minister to have tractor roll-bars prescribed for the particular municipality. Members of the Country Party say that the whole of Victoria should come within the provisions of the Act and that the municipalities that want exemptions should be required to apply to the Minister who shall then grant an exemption-not "might" or "may", but "shall". The word " shall " is important because there would be considerable doubt whether a municipality's application would be granted, if the Minister had complete discretion.


The words which I propose shall be inserted state that a regulation shall apply to every municipal district which is not exempted from the regulation by application to the Minister. Some municipalities want tractor roll-bars. I do not want to canvass the whole argument again, but the position is that some municipalities certainly do not want safety cabins on tractors. Many of the municipalities in the area which I represent do not consider that they are necessary. I believe their arguments are legitimate. Nevertheless, there are areas of Victoria in which the fitting of safety cabins to tractors is supported. The amendment which I_ have proposed allows the municipality to discuss the matter.

As the Bill now stands it will have effect, but it will be dead. However, if the amendment I have proposed is accepted, those municipaliities which want to be exempted from the provisions of the section will be able to discuss the matter and an exemption will be granted when an application is made. The arguments on this issue have been fairly well canvassed. I believe the clause will be more effective if it is amended as I propose and it will permit the exemptions which are required. It will suit the areas that want safety cabins to be fitted to tractors within the municipality.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS (Western Province) .-1 should like to make a few comments on this clause and on the amendment proposed by Mr. Dunn. I cannot accept the amendment or believe that this is the only way that the matter can be handled, nor can I accept that the Bill will be dead unless the amendment is carried. Some time back the Minister of Labour and Industry sent a circular to most honorable members who represent country electorates, saying that the department was drawing up a set of regulations and requesting our views on tractor safety regulations. I took the opportunity of sending a copy of the letter to each of the municipalities within my province, with a short covering

note saying simply that I wanted the council's views. In no way did I try to tell the councils what my views were, nor did I indicate anything else to them. I wanted to hear their advice on the subject.

Of the twenty municipalities in the electorate representing as diverse a terrain as one could find anywhere in Victoria, eighteen replied that they wanted the right to declare all or part of their municipalities to come under the regulations making roll-bars compulsory. The two municipalities which wanted it made compulsory on an arbitrary basis over the whole State were the cities of Warrnambool and Horsham.

The municipalities represented extremely hilly country, moderately undulating areas, and completely flat plains. In their wisdom, and I believe rightly, the councillors decided that it was their prerogative to decide whether roll-bars should be made compulsory for their ratepayers. Councillors are responsible people, and surelv it is their responsibility in these areas or the whole of Victoria to make certain and to be positive that they always do the right thing by the ratepayers.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.Under the Government's amendment, the councillors would not need to do anything; they need not be positive at all.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-This gets back to many of the arguments that were raised during the second-reading debate concerning tractor safety, how accidents occur and various other aspects. Only one small aspect of tractor safety is being tackled by providing for roll-bars.

The Hon. S. R. McDoNALD.The Government is not ·even tackling that.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-Roll-bars are not the complete answer, because, in the way that the regulations were drawn up, certain activities were exempted. For example, why should tractors engaged on road works, whether owned by the Country Roads


Board or municipalities, be compelled to have them whilst tractors engaged in tree clearing and many other jobs which are far more dangerous than ordinary day-to-day farming work are exempt?

The Hon. A. R. MANSELL.-Tree pulling contractors put additional guards over their tractors.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-Not all of them. A tractor hauling a roller along the road at between 10 and 15 miles an hour is potentially just as dangerous as any tractor in a paddock and yet the one inside the paddock is compelled to be fitted with a roll-bar whilst one operating on the road is not. It does not make sense.

When the subject was first raised in Parliament I made quite a few comments on it. What I said then still stands today and I am reinforced in my views by an article in the Department of Agriculture's Industrial Bulletin No. 1134 of 27th April, 1970, by Mr. Ken Halsall, the department's senior agricultural engineer. Mr. Halsall believes that an over-all approach towards safety should be designed firstly to reduce the chances of an accident by field settings, operation and design; and secondly to minimize the effect of an accident. He calculates that it would cost about $4 million a year to fit safety frames to new tractors sold in Australia. I do not doubt that estimate.

However, tractor safety is like any other form of industrial safety in that much depends on the design of the vehicle and there has been no scream from the Department of Labour and Industry or from many farmers' organizations to manufacturers for a tractor to be produced which is less susceptible to roll or to cause accidents. In most cases, the driver causes an accident, but if he is in a vehicle that is a little unsafe in the first instance it is far easier to have an accident

The cost of testing cabins has been variously estimated at from $200 to $800. In a letter addressed to the

Minister of Labour and Industry, a tractor cabin manufacturer in Horsham states-

Although at first they state that th9 safety frame cabin will be tested in accord· ance with " Australian Standard " No N70 = 1969, which states that, a crush test, quote, " of twice the weight of the tractor, shall be applied to the front and back uppermost beams of the safety frame", they have added a rider to th~ effect that:-the safety frame shall bE? crush tested to destruction while bolted to a tractor.

This means in effect that it is imperative that after passing the minimum crush test, the safety frame destructs before any struc· tural damage is incurred upon the tractor, although you will readily understand that a tractor is not designed to stand unlimited pressure. The writer goes on to say that at least 81 models of tractors have been current over the previous two years, so there would be at least 160 differ .. ent models to be tested at a total cost of apprmdmately $129,000. The manufacturer estimates the approximate cost of testing one model of safety cabin at $811.

The Hon. B. P. DUNN.-Is that for testing or is that the cost of purchase?

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-That is the cost of testing. Eventually the cost will be passed on to the farmer.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-1 point out to Mr. Gross. that he appears to be making a secondreading speech rather than discussing the clause.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-1 realize that, Mr. Chairman, but following the time-honoured custom with a BilJ such as this, which is more or less a Committee Bill, when the spokesmen for the other parties had stated their policies, I reserved my remarks for clause 13, the particular provision which I wanted to discuss. The amendment moved by Mr. Dunn affects clause 13 and if carried will alter its whole meaning. On the other hand, Mr. Tripovich's proposal is to vote gainst the clause which would also have a major effect.

The CHAIRMAN.-The honorable member may proceed.


The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-Mr. Dunn sought to claim all of the credit for the Country Party for the introduction of this particular clause, but he was badly astray. The Country Party ran a bad second.

The Hon. 1. A. SWINBURNE.We did not claim credit for the amendment contained in the Bill.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-Mr. Dunn claimed credit for the regulations.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.But not in the way Mr. Gross has suggested.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-1 will accept that.

The CHAIRMAN.-! do not think I can extend the latitude of the Chair to cover replies to comments made by honorable members during the second-reading debate.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-1 bow to your ruling, Sir. I also have a letter written by the chairman of the agricultural committee of the Victorian Farmers Union, Mr. G. Manly. In written submissions to the Minister of Labour and Industry on 22nd October, 1971, Mr. Manly stated, amongst other things-

Thank you for accepting the deputation and for making time available to the Victorian Farmers Union so that we may refer

to the question of tractor safety and how best the regulations may be drafted to achieve the objectives of your departmental and, at the same time, allow practical implementation at farmer level.

Mr. Manly goes on to talk about the protective frames for cabins and makes the point that the regulations prescribe the building of anchor points for such devices by the manufacturers of tractors and this is taken care of in the Bill. He further states-

We recommend that the regulations permit shire councils to decide whether or not protective frames or cabins are to be compulsorily fitted within the boundaries of the shire. We see no problems of demarcation provided the regulation specifies the normal place of garaging of the tra·ctor as the deciding factor for application of the regulations. Mr. Manly also suggested that any reference to old tractors should be deleted from the regulations and I heartily agree with his contention.

A lot has been said over the years about the incidence of accidents and where they happen. A member of the Victorian Farmers Union agricultural committee has made a study of agricultural reports over the years in an endeavour to produce facts on tractor accidents. The details of fatal accidents to farmers and farm labourers during the calendar years 1970 and 1971 are as follows:-

1. Feeding hay from carryall, tractor gained speed down hill and overturned. . Hill End 2. Caught in P.T.O. shaft of tractor driven pump . . Scrubby Lake 3. Truck ran into back of tractor drawn trailer of wheat . . Gerang Gerung 4. Tobacco farmer, jumped from back of tractor, trailer hit his head . . Buffalo River 5. Removing tree, tractor overturned rearwards . . Macclesfield 6. Farm manager, passenger on carryall, slipped on rear wheel and crushed.. Yarram 7. Faulty cast axle support broke, causing tractor to overturn . . Bullarto North 8. Driving tractor over waterhole embankment, slipped over edge and

overturned . . . . . . . . 9. Lost control going down very steep bank, overturned

10. Scooping dirt, slipped on incline, overturned . . . . 11. Trying to pull header out of drain with a B.250, overturned rearwards

Barrangarook . . Deans Marsh

Leongatha Mitiamo

12. Clearing land, and old fence, fence caught against tree, tractor flipped over rearwards . . . . . . . . . . Devon Meadows

13. Apparently had dizzy spell, and fell in front of tractor . . . . Dennington 14. Ploughing, wheels locked on turn and skidded over edge of gravel pit, fell

out and tractor landed on him . . . . . . . . . . Wodonga 15. Loading trailer load of rocks on steep gully, tractor plunged down gully,

overturned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Merton 16. Slashing bracken on side of steep hill, slasher jammed and skidded tractor,

overturned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barjarg 17. Slashing bracken rough hilly, one side of slasher dug in, causing overturn.. Childers 18. Deaf, unloading posts, tractor driven by friend, looked around and struck

by rear wheel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cowarr 19. Scooping dam, tractor reared climbing embankment. Overturned rearwards Dixie 20. Ploughing on side of creek, front wheel slipped over edge, tractor rolled

down, throwing him to ground (reported ripping rabbits in burrows)

Session 1972.-125

Dadswells Bridge

3574 Labour and Industry [COUNCIL.] (Amendment Bill.)

The list of 20 accidents that I have read covers a period of two years.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-Those are 20 lives which could have been saved with roll-bars.

The Han. K. S. GROSS.-They are accidents in which roll-bars may have saved six or seven lives. In all cases conditions were such that in my opinion, roll-bars should have been compulsorily fitted to the tractors. However, roll-bars would not have saved one of the children who were killed in tractor accidents.

Under this Bill and the regulations, industrial and horticultural areas are exempt. I cannot understand why, because in 1970 and 1971-two calendar years-there were twelve deaths in such areas. They occurred at Mildura, Redcliffs, Preston, Corndale, Swan Hill, Youlong, Tallangatta, Tangil Bren, Lakes Entrance, Barwon Heads, Yallourn, and Nowa Nowa.

The Han. I. A. SWINBURNE.-We had faulty regulations which were introduced by your Government.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-They were brought in by the Government, but that is not to say that I, personally, favoured them. My attitude was well known to the Government and the department.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-And to us.

The Hon. K. S. GROSS.-Yes, that is so. I do not think the amendment moved by Mr. Dunn will achieve anything, nor do I think the provision in the Bill will provide a 100 per cent answer to the problem. However, I still believe the provision in the Bill will prove more effective, and will be more in line with what municipalities and the Victorian Farmers Union want than any other proposal that has been advanced. We should do more than just talk about this matter. The measure should be passed tonight so that it can come into operation as soon as possible.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-I believe the House is arguing about a distinction

without a difference. I start from the proposition that municipalities are, firstly, responsible; secondly, they are better informed and more knowledgeable about the special problems of their own areas than are tnembers of Parliament.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-You are a model of inconsistency.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-When Mr. Elliot keeps quiet I shall continue.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-You are not in the hunt when you start ad-libbing with me.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-1 shall start again.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-With your roll bars on.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-Perhaps Mr. Elliot would like to go first. I will defer to him.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol}.-1 invite Mr. Elliot not to interject.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT.-1 shall commence again and say that I start from the proposition that municipalities are, firstly, responsible; secondly, better informed and more closely in touch with the special needs of their own particular areas, and the problems of those areas, than any Government, any Minister, or even the Parliament as a whole, can possibly be. Thirdly, they are as concerned with the saving of lives and safety generally in their areas as are members of this Parliament.

If those propositions are accepted, there is no difference between the two views that have been expressed and the House has been arguing about nothing. The only difference that remains concerns who should apply the regulations. The Government has suggested that the local responsible authority which best knows the terrain and the problems of its own area should decide whether exemptions should apply within the whole or part of the municipal district.


I do not for a moment accept the suggestion of Mr. Kent that municipalities are not competent-that was his phrase-to deal with the situation. I have heard a Commonwealth Parliamentarian, who is in a position o.f power, say that State- Parliaments were not competent within ce-rtain fields, but were within the areas of their own responsibility. The Federal Parliame·nt has its responsibilities, and the municipalities have their responsibilities. I have informed the House of what this Bill does. Mr. Kent also suggested that m.unicipal councils were liable to yield to pressure. That is a strange argument to be advanced by a politician.

I have suggested that municipal councils are certainly likely to be concerned about safety in their own areas, and I have said that it is a responsibility that they are willing and most competent to assume under the legislative machinery the Government is giving them.

Mr. Gross has put certain arguments. The Minister has been aware of the two views, and has heard all the pros and cons of the matter. He has sought them within his department. I have sought the Minister's views on the matter, and he is of the view, having considered all the information, that the measure should stand as presented to the House and that the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Gross has indicated that the Victorian Farmers Union supports the provision which is included in the Bill and that the great majority of municipalities in his area also support it as it now appears. For those reasons, the Government regrets that it cannot accept the amendment. It believes that the clause, as drafted, should be agreed to.

The Hon. D. E. KENT (Gippsland Province) .-It is regrettable that the Government feels it is not competent to make decisions. I believe what has been said indicates that there is a tremendous need for a review of

the Constitution so that areas of responsibility can be defined. Apparently local municipalities are to be given wider powers.

The CHAIRMAN (the Hon. G. J. Nicol).-I cannot see the relevance of the remark. Mr. Kent is speaking about the Constitution.

The Hon. D. E. KENT.-My remarks relate to the powers of municipalities, Mr. Chairman. When this Bill was introduced we believed it was designed to give the Government certain powers, but we find that it is merely delegating responsibility to municipalities.

Mr. Dunn's amendment changes the wording of the clause. It may have some slight beneficial effect. The use of the words " The Minister shall provide exemptions " takes away the powers of a responsible Government. I do not think the Minister for Local Government would like to feel that the powers of this Sovereign State were being superseded by a local municipality, notwithstanding the fact that great responsibilities are cast upon municipal councils throughout the State. The Labor Party is of the view that the amendment which has been moved by Mr. Dunn is slightly the lesser of two evils.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (Western Province) .-It does not matter much what is done to protect tractors and machinery or anything else if the operators do not take sufficient care. If they do not take sufficient care, accidents are bound to occur. I was a councillor when the Government introduced similar legislation some years ago, and I was quite indignant that the Government was not prepared to make the decision itself. If councils feel that a particular area should be exempted, they can apply for exemptions, but they must feel strongly about it or there will be a real schemozzle, with some areas having exemptions and some not having them. If they go al•ong with the legislation, they have it, 'but if they are strong enough they will apply, and that is


the key t:o the am·endment. . It i'S straightforward and I feel that It has a lot of merit.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-The effect of t'he amendment pro:posed by Mr. Dunn woUJld be that some councils might fe!el that it was necessary to provide for protection by roB-bars to be compulsorily fitted to tractors and others might not. Last week the case for compensation was heard of a bulldozer driver who was injured on 9th October 1969. H:e Wa'S 'awarded damages of' $100,000. If a council refuses to take advantage of the provisions or if there is n10 provision for the protection of a tractor driver, a tractor driver in valved in an accident could be awarded damages of up to $100,000. I remind honorable mem'bers that there is n'ow no need for a written agreement in respect of workers colffipensation l'egi'S'lation. A verbal agreement can suffice.

In insuring a tractor driver for ·workers cornpens·ation purposes reduced ·rates might be appHcable if roll-bars are fitted. Pretty stiff rates could be payable when ·roB-bars are not fitted. I invite t'he Colffimittee to consider the case of the bulldozer driver that was heard last week. I think it would be better to go back to the original provision and not be influenced by an election that might take place in a couple of months.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-1 am disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to give a little more consideration to the propos'al put forward by my colleague, Mr. Dunn.

Trhe Hon. A. J. HUNT.-1 have given it serious consideration.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.Possihly the Minister is labouring under some difficulties. It is obvious from what was s'aid by Mr. Gross that 'some difficulties have arisen amongst 1nembers of 'the Liberal Party. The whole of the argument put forward by !M,r. Gross was based on regul'ations put out by the Minister

to implement the previous measure. None of us liked them. They were bad regulations and should never have been put out in that form. But why should the Aclt be amended? Why should not consideration. be given to amending the regulatiOns rather than going back? Ever since I left the Subordinate Legislation Com,mittee M·r. Gross has served on it. As a memlber 'Of that committee, the honorable member knows as much about the regulation making powers as -anybody in this Chamber. I should have thought that h:e would take the necessary steps at that stage to ch'aHenge the regulations if they were to be brought in and declared. If they had not reached th1at stage the honorable member should have taken steps to see that Vhe regulations were in accordance with the original A>ct. They were not in accordance with the Act and ·J believe that is where M·r. Gross made his mistake. I think the honovable member has made it abundantly clear tonight that he is not keen on roll-bars, nor are his constituents.~

The Hon. K. S. GRoss.-ln certain areas.

~he ·Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-But a few weeks ago the honorable member expressed much the same opinion in relation to road safety. He claimed that he could drive at 80 miles an hour without any difficulty. He wanted to have the trees back 20 feet from the roads so that there would be room if he rolled his car. In this instance he believes people in difficult locations should fit roll bars to their tractors, but not others. My colleagues and I consider the responsibility should work the opposite way. This Parliament has the responsibility to say that safety of tractor drivers is essential. Reference was made to twenty accidents and it was said that the lives of the drivers probably could have been saved if the tractors concerned had been fitted with roll-bars. The proposed amendment will have the effect of wiping out the Bill. If the Minister expects that the municipalities will


come up with requests that the legislation be implemented he will be severely disappointed.

I accept the word of Mr. Gross that eighteen out of twenty bodies wanted exemptions. Those eighteen bodies could write in for exemption and obtain it in that way. Do not let us reach the farcical stage of wiping out the original proposition. I can assure the Government that its approach will not work. Nobody will want any regulations under the Act because there is nothing to regulate. It is a completely negative approach to a very serious problem.

Mr. Kent referred to the history of this Bill. I believe roll-bars are necessary on tractors operating in my district. They are also necessary on bulldozers. I have seen as many bulldozers rolled as I have seen tractors rolled. They all must be brought into line, big and small. They are all apt to turn over. I have had more escapes from big tractors than I have had from little tractors. Usually the smaller machines can be manoeuvred but once the big tractors get away the drivers do not have a chance. The attitude of my party is that we ought to go back to the spirit ·of the original Bill. If the regulations were wrong, let us correct them and make them conform with the spirit of the debate which took place in this House at that time.

The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Dunn to be omitted stand part of the clause (the Hon. G. J. Nicol in the chair)-

Ayes 16 Noes 15

Majority against the amendment

AYES.

Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Fry Mr. Garrett Mr. Gleeson Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade

Mr. Hauser Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. Storey.

Tellers: Mr. Gross 1Mr. Ward.

1

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Dunn Mr. Eddy iMr. Galbally iMr. Kent :Mr. Knight !Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell

NOES.

Mr. May Mr. Swinburne Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling Mr. Tripovich.

Tellers: !Mr. Elliot Mr. Mitchell.

PAIRS.

Mr. Hamilton Mr. Walton Mr. Hider Mr. Clarke.


The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-1 propose the following new clause to follow clause 9:-

AA. Seciion 82 of the Principal Act shall be amended as follows:-

(a) paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) shall be repealed.

(b) in sub-section ('3) after the word " business " there shall be inserted the words " on Good Friday or ".

(c) in paragraphs (a), (b), (e) and (f) of sub-section ( 4) after the word "business" (wherever occurring) ther.e shall be inserted the words " on Good Friday or ".

(d) in paragraph (c) of sub-section ( 4) after the words " open for " there shall be inserted the words " business on Good Friday or for".

(e) in sub-section (5) after the word " business " there shall be inserted the words " on Good Friday or ".

(f) in sub-section (6) after the word " business " (where twice occurring) there shall be inserted the words "on Good Friday or".

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

with amendments, and passed through its remaining stages.

QUALIFICATIONS JOINT SELECT COMMITTEE.

APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS.

The message from the Assembly transmitting a resolution relating to the appointment of a Qualifications Joint Select Committee was taken into consideration.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-1 move

That this House concur with the powers and quorum requirements as provided in the resolution of the Legislative Assembly;

3578 Town and Country [COUNCIL.] Planning (Amendment) Bill.

that the Honorables W. G. Fry, J. W. Galbally, Q.C., A. R. Mansell, Haddon Storey, Q.C., I. A. Swinburne and J. IM. Tripovich be appointed members of the committee;

that the time and place for the first meeting of th·e committee be fixed as Eleven o'clock on Wednesday, 20th December, 1972, at Parliament House; and

that a message be sent to the Assembly acquainting them therewith. This is simply a follow-up of the decision made by this House the other night.

The motion was agreed to.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL.

This Bill was returned from the Assembly with a message relating to amendments.

The Hon. A. J. HUNT (Minister for Local Government) .-The first amendment made by the Legislative Assembly deletes the words " rejected any item of the estimate, omit that item '' from paragraph (b) of subsection ( 4) of proposed new section 12B which is inserted in the principal Act by sub-clause ( 1) of clause 9 of the Bill and inserts in their place the following: -

by resolution disapproved the amount of any item of the estimate, omit or modify that item after consideration of the terms of the resolutions. The amendment arose from remarks made by Mr. Walton in this House which were supported by Mr. Trayling. Initially I disagreed with the remarks but was persuaded to give an undertaking that the matter would be further investigated and that, if it was thought fit, an amendment would be proposed in the Assembly. That has been done and the amendment has been 1nade.

The second amendment deletes the expression "(3A) to (3F)" from new sub-section ( 4G) which is inserted in section 21 of the principal Act by sub-clause ( 1) of clause 17 and replaces it with the expression " ( 4A) to (4F) ". This amendment refers to a drafting error. There was an original draft and a later draft and the clauses were not renumbered as they should have been. In this case the Legislative Assembly was the

House of review and attention was directed to this. I therefore invite the support of the House for the amendments. I move-

That the amendments be agreed to. The motion was agreed to.

LAND TAX BILL. This Bill was returned from the

Assembly with a message intimating that they had decided not to make the amendment suggested by the Council on consideration of the Bill in Committee.

It was ordered that the message be referred to the Committee on the Bill.

CONSUMER PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL.

The debate (adjourned from the previous day) on the motion of the Hon. V. 0. Dickie (Minister of Housing) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-In his second-reading speech, the Minister referred to this Bill as a social measure. The Country Party regards it as being a little more than that; it is also a business measure. The Country Party is in hearty agreement with the principle of the measure and, I hope, its intentions.

Clause 6 of the Bill will insert a new Division 2A, relating to misleading marking of prices, in the principal Act. It provides that a person offering to supply goods of any description shall not advertise or otherwise indicate the deposit required and any periodic rates of payment unless the cash price is also indicated. That is good so far as it goes but I doubt whether it goes far enough. Particularly in relation to the sale of expensive items, there should be displayed the cash price, the deposit required, and the rate of payments and, in addition, the total cost of the item under the terms and conditions. I am a little disappointed that the Government did not go that little extra distance.


New Division 2B, which wiH also be inserted in the Act by clause 6, deals with mock auctions, crazy auctions, and the like. The Country Party recognizes that, if it were not for fools, there would be no wise men. It is doubtful how far any legislation can go to protect fools because it is impossible to save people from themselves. People are now better educated than they were and better equipped to use the psychological approach to sales and to gain the confidence of people and play on their selfish instincts. It was as a result of this that we have seen in Melbourne what were described as crazy auctions. Many of the people who attended them fell into the category of fools. Any person who believes he will get something for nothing in this world is living in a fool's paradise.

The Country Party supports the Bill although it does not go far enough. It is probable that the Act will need further amendments, and it is to be hoped there will be a more opportune time to debate the principles at length. My party wishes the Bill well and hopes it will achieve what the Government expects of it.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-Undoubtedly consumer protection is one of those glorious subterfuges of modern society, such as decentralization. Everyone is in favour of decentralization but nobody does anything about it. Consumer protection is in the same category. Our means of commercial substance depend upon the fact that they are able to prey at leisure on the consumer. The whole fabric and structure of modern commercial society is in jeopardy.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-Do you believe in the maxim of caveat empbor?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-I do not; it is the vendor who should be made aware so that the goods are marketed in a proper and honest fashion. There would be no need to protect the consumer if the vendor

were honest. Caveat emptor means that one can sell as one likes and that the uninitiated, the uneducated and the " un-rich " should pay the penalty. From time to time Bills of this nature are introduced and just as readily as they are introduced, ways are found to get around them. Members of my party will not oppose the Bill, but we are not misled by it.

The Hon. W. G. FRY (Higinbotham Province) .-1 shall not repeat myself because I spoke at length on the report of the Consumer Protection Council for the year ended 30th June, 1971, and I referred to the firms, Paladin Pest and Weed Control, and Champion Pest Control Pty. Ltd. These people took advantage of a lady in the Sandringham area. On my advice she resisted payment and court proceedings were to issue. These were laid down and the firm was to prosecute. On the day set down for hearing all the witnesses were ready but representatives of the firms did not turn up and they have not been heard of since. They have not turned up for twelve months. I have heard that the Department of Health has licensed them again. I say no more.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra Province) .-Mr. May said that this Bill would probably have to be further amended from time to time. That is so with any consumer protection legislation because it is necessary to deal with situations as they arise from time to time. Mr. Galbally may have led the House to believe that the law has never protected the weak and the innocent. On the contrary, the law has always sought to do that. In the nineteenth century it protected people from fraud and misrepresentation and indeed people who were ill-educated, who suffered ill health and who, as the result of that state of disadvantage, were put upon by other people.

As Mr. May has pointed out, in our community today more sophisticated techniques are used against consumers. I should add also that buyers quite often take down or defraud sellers. But, in matters of


consumer protection, we are concerned with the buyers. Mr. May said that the provisions of clause 6 did not go far enough. In one sense, I agree. The point of the clause is that consumers should be better informed of the nature of the transactions in which they are involvedthey should know the cash price of the goods which are being displayed or advertised.

Ideally the answer to all the problems of consumers is that they should be fully informed of the goods or services which they are about to purchase and the conditions under which they are about to purchase them. Where people buy goods on credit, they ought to know the cash price of the goods, the deposit, the weekly payments and the rate of interest. If one were to require the disclosure a·f the rate of interest to be charged in all such transactions, the consumer would be free to make a choice and would know whether he was paying 30 per cent or only 5 per cent interest. All he now knows is that he is paying, say, $5 a week.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-The honorable member should have been here twelve years ago when I introduced my hire-purchase Bills. Now we have a Daniel coming to judgment.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.In his far-sighted fashion Mr. Galbally has seen the development of selling which did not exist twelve years ago and which exists today. He foresaw chattel mortgages, revolving credit accounts and so on. It would be most desirable if the rates of interest were required to be disclosed. They could not be disclosed in the way in which this Bill requires them to be disclosed at the time of display or advertisement because one would not know the other terms of the transaction. I hope future legislation will provide for further disclosures.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Does the honorable member know what rate of interest is paid by a news-

paper boy buying a bicycle on hire purchase? It is somewhere between 30 per cent and 40 per cent.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.-Mr. Galbally did not quote the name of the finance company involved. I believe some companies would charge that rate. It is certainly not the standard rate of interest charged by finance companies which are members of the Finance Conference where the rate would be no more than 10 or 12 per cent flat.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Which is about 20 per cent effective.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.-If Mr. Galbally would allow me to finish, I would say that it would be about 20 per cent effective. No reputable finance company would charge 30 per cent or 40 per cent. I am aware of one person who purchased some goods and obtained finance not from a reputable company but from a person whom I would regard as a disreputable money-lender who took out a first mortgage on this person's home as a security for the money advanced. That is a perfect form of security and does not require any high rate of interest. He did not reveal the rate of interest, and when it was calculated it was found to be 35 per cent.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-1 wish the honorable member had been here twelve years ago.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.This was not twelve years ago; it was some time later. That person lost his licence.

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Do you believe that simple rates should be compulsory rather than flat rates?

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.Does Mr. Elliot mean the disclosure of simple rates?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Yes.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.Yes, of course.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-Mr. Storey should read my pamphlet about the hire-purchase harpies.


The Hon. HADDON STOREY.Has Mr. Galbally read the report on fair consumer laws tabled in this House this year?

The Hon. D. G. ELLIOT.-Have you written something on it?

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.-1 was one of the committee which produced this report. A great deal of attention was paid to this subject. It was reported that simple and effective interest should be disclosed and that anything else was misleading. I am glad so much agreement with my observations has been obtained from honorable members on the other side of the Chamber. I commend the Government for introducing the Bill.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province) .-This Bill amends the Consumer Protection Act relating to the operations of door-todoor salesmen, and sets out new provisions for the price marking of good.s and mock auctions. Clause 5 provides that persons who sell their wares from door to door on behalf of themselves or companies will be required to present some sort of identity card so that the person with whom they are dealing will know who they are. A person failing to comply with this provision will incur a maximum penalty of $50. If the person is taken to court, a smaller fine may be inflicted. Members of my party believe that a further penalty should be imposed, that where an agreement is made by a person who does not present an identity card, the agreement shall be null and void and be unenforceable. This will deter people from not carrying out the provisions of the Act.

It may be better if the salesman handed to the prospective customer a card such as a business card for permanent keeping or, as was suggested by Mr. May, that the identity card should contain a photograph. That would not be too difficult. During the Committee stage, I foreshadow an amendment along those lines. Clause 6 deals with price tic-

kets and provides that a person offering to supply goods of any description shall not advertise, display, state or otherwise indicate the deposit required or any periodic rates of payment, unless the cash price of the goods is also indicated. I suppose the Government claims that this is in line with the recommendations of the Consumer Affairs Council in its report for the year ended 30th June, 1972. The council said that the actual selling price as distinct from any particular allowances, deposits, weekly or other periodic repayments or interest charges should be disclosed when offering any goods for sale on cash or credit. I read into that recommendation that all goods that are offered for sale ought to have the selling price on them, not just the deposit or the weekly payment.

The Hon. R. W. MAY.-And it should be legible.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is so. This recommenda:tion clearly indicates that the selling price ought to be placed on the article at all times. If the Government contends that it is carrying out the intention of the recommendations contained in this report. I say that it is not doing so to the extent of the recommendations.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY.-The report was presented after the Bill was introduced, was it not?

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-The report might have arrived at Parliam·ent House then, but it is for the year ended 30th June, 1972, and would have been drawn up at about that time. However, by the time it was printed and presented to this House-there are delays of three months to two years in the presentation of reports-there may have been a delay of four or five months.

In any event, I imagine that the Minister in charge of this organization would know the contents of the report and would be aware of its thoughts and what it was about to recommend. If he was not, he was


not doing his job. It has recommended to the Government that all articles should carry a price ticket with the retail price marked on it. I do not think that is unreasonable. I had an experience recently interstate when I purchased a shirt in a shop in a tourist area. It did not have the price on it and, as usual, I did not query the price when I was charged $15.95. On returning to Melbourne I saw the same article in a shop in Bourke Street for $10.95. Undoubtedly, the person who sold me that shirt had a variable price for different people. If he thought a person was an easy mark or was buying well, the price was increased. Of course, I would not be caught again.

I feel so strongly about this matter that I cannot see any reason why a reputable dealer who is endeavouring to sell his wares should be afraid to have a price tag on his articles. In most reputable shops in Melbourne that is done, but some shops adopt the practice of not displaying the prices and the sort of experience I have described can and does happen as a matter of business practice. On many occasions, price tickets are even taken off when persons are assessed as being an easy mark and higher prices are stated.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-Sometimes the price indicated on the ticket is just the deposit.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is so. All sorts of gimmicks can be and are indulged in-not by the majority of stores, which in the main are honest. They have a profit margin which allows them to make a reasonable profit to pay dividends to their shareholders and to cover overhead expenses, and so on, but a few go beyond that and extract from the gullible public amounts in ·excess of the real worth of the article.

Consideration should be given in the future, if not on this occasion, to amending the legislation in such a way as to require the vendor to show not only the deposit or the weekly payments out also the full price so

that a person may go elsewhere and compare prices. That is a good way to do business. As I said previously, any reasonable shopkeeper who wants to conduct a legitimate business acts in that manner at present.

Further, where goods are discounted, both prices should be displayed. If the retailer claims that goods are marked down to $50 from $75, both prices should be stated. That is a reasonable proposal because many persons who claim to have marked down prices have not actually done so. One of the most atrocious examples in recent yearsnot quite so much since the fixed price legislation was passed by the Commonwealth-is in the electrical trade. Fictitious retail prices are quoted far in excess of the proper price of the goods. Almost any electrical store will offer huge discounts. To prove that they are giving a huge discount, they pull out what is said to be the retail price list and show the price which the manufacturer recommends. For an ordinary refrigerator that price might be $450, but in fact it is sold for $250, the cost to the retailer being about $175. These are fictitious prices which are deliberately inflated to allow people to carry on discount businesses. The electrical trade stinks in this regard, and has done for some years. The Government and the Consumer Affairs Council should examine this situation.

I realize that many m·embers who have been associated with the retail trade know that what I am saying is true. If it is desired to protect the public, this is one method by which it can be done. When a reduction in price is claimed, the full price should be marked on the article, and it can then be compared with prices in other stores to ascertain whether it is a genuine reduction.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-Some stores give large trade-in discounts and then throw the articles away.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-This practice is adopted by manufacturers of many articles, including sewing


machines and printing machines. One firm has a museum of hundreds of printing machines which it keeps in the building and will not sell because they are to be destroyed; they are not to be re-sold because if they were people would not buy new machines. These are the sort of practices which the Government should be trying to prevent.

Probably the most important provision in the Bill is that which deals with mock auctions. I do not understand exactly how they operate, but I visited one or two just out of curiosity because I do not believe any article is ever given away; some one has to pay. When free products are offered-they are only worth a few cents-they are, as the Minister said, sucker-bait, which is an appropriate name. These are offered to attract gullible people. Members who have had a little more training and dealings in business, commerce, buying and selling, and so on, realize how careful one has to be. It is difficult to appreciate that some people in the community are gullible enough to visit these establishments and to buy something without even having inspected it.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-Qne sometimes gets caught although one tries hard not to be.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON.-That is so. The proprietors of such establishments have nothing else to do but to dream up new ways of defrauding the public, which are, in a sense, nothing but confidence tricks, and that is how I should describe mock auctions. From reading the report of Monash University students I understand that the doors are closed and that only a certain number of persons are allowed to buy. It is obvious that if they are staying in business they must be making a profit somewhere along the line. If they are acting in a dishonest way, they should be controlled, as this legislation proposes. Honorable members have been informed that it follows along the lines of the South Australian legislation which appears to have been reasonably successful, as I hope this measure will be. Apart

from the amendment which I have foreshadowed to clause 5, the Labor Party offers no objection to the Bill.


and committed. Clauses 1 to 4 were agreed to. Clause 5, providing, inter aliaAfter section 20 of the Principal Act

there shall be inserted the following section:-

" 20A. ( 1) A vendor or person acting on behalf of a vendor making any approach or carrying on any negotiations which may lead to an agreement or offer to which this Division applies shall carry an identification card showing his name in full, his business address and the name of the firm or company (if any) which he is representing and shall produce it on his first approach to a potential purchaser and at any time thereafter when so requested by a potential purchaser or purchaser.

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

That the following sub-section be added to proposed new section 20A :-

"(3) An agreement to which this Division applies shall not be enforceable by the vendor if the vendor or a person acting on behalf of the vendor failed to produce his identification card on his first approach to the purchaser as required by subsection ( 1) .".

I have explained why the Labor Party considers that this sub-section should be inserted. The Bill provides that a person who fails to produce an identification card can be fined $50, but I doubt whether that stage would be reached because such an allegation is difficult to prove in court. A better punishment is cancellation of the agreement because if that can be done the work of the salesman concerned has gone for nothing. The commission which the salesman usually gets is not paid when the agreement is unenforceable.

The Hon. V. 0. DICKIE (Minister of Housing) .-When this matter was raised by the Labor Party in another place, the Minister in charge of the Bill indicated that he would examine the proposal before the Bill was dealt with in this House. This was done, and the Government intended to accept the amendment because it was thought to be fair and reasonable in


the circumstances. When that was made known, the Government was advised by its legal advisers-only about 24 hours ago-that if the amendment was accepted the difficulties of proof that were likely to arise from such a provision would be increased. They said that every contract to which the Division relates would be in doubt This would add to the possibility of avoiding the consequences of a contract by maintaining that the identification was not produced and would cause further difficulties.

The Government considered that this proposal was above politics and was prepared to accept the amendment. However, the Government has since been advised by its legal advisers that if the proposal were accepted it could create possibly more difficulties than the difficulty it set out to cure. Therefore, the Government considers that it would be better if the amendment were not accepted and the Bill was left in its present form.

The Hon. HADDON STOREY (East Yarra Province) .-I had not seen this amendment before, but I agree with the observations of the Minister. I have a good deal of sympathy with the object behind the amendment but the practical consequences of it would be enormous. Many agreements made when a salesman goes to a door are made not with the salesman but with either his employer or some independent body for whom he is just a commission agent or through a third person finance company. The other organizations would have no idea whether the salesman had produced his identity at the time he came to the door. They would make their arrangements in accordance with the agreement and later might find that the whole transaction was brought to an end by reason of the operation of this clause. Mt. Walton mentioned the difficulty of proof in prosecuting a salesman and imposing a fine upon him. This would apply equally to the question whether the proposed amendment could be effective. That in itself poses many problems. Under

the clause a person could come along after the expiration of two years, during which time the goods could have been well and truly used, and claim the end of the con tract.

The objective which Mr. Walton is trying to achieve is most desirable, but the amendment would not be satisfactory and would cause more harm than good.

The Hon. J. M. WALTON (Melbourne North Province) .-I thank the Minister and Mr. Haddon Storey for their remarks and sympathy, even though it does not help the Labor Party much with its amendment. In some respects I am inclined to agree with their comments but I believe it will be difficult to police clause 5. In fact, I would go so far as to say that because the approaches will usually be made to one person-that is, the person who answers the door-the question whether the salesman produced an identification card will be a matter of argument between the person who came to the door and the salesman. The Government will have to come up with something better than this-some system which is acceptable to everyone. One solution would be to require the person to indicate by signature that a card had been produced but that procedure would be unwieldy, and anyway, people are suspicious about signing anything, and I do not blame them.

The Government will have to find some method other than the present one, because I do not believe it is workable. It will be a matter of one person's word against another. The Labor Party is trying to put the onus of proof on the person who is supposed to produce the card, but whether the amendment would achieve that is another question. Further consideration should be given to clause 5; otherwise, the provision will just remain on the statute-book and that is all.

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



LAND TAX BILL. The message from the Assembly

relating to the amendment suggested by the Council on the consideration of this Bill in Committee was taken into consideration.

The House went into Committee for the further consideration of the Bill.

Postponed clause 2, providing, inter alia-

Subject to the Principal Act there shall in the case of each owner of land be charged levied and collected by the Commissioner and paid for the use of Her Majesty in aid of the Consolidated Revenue for the year commencing on the 1st day of January, 1973 and ending on the 31st day of December, 1973, a duty of land tax upon land as provided in the Table appended hereto:

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture).-! believe I am right in indicating to the Committee that when progress was reported it was because of a suggestion to another place that the whole of the State outside the Port Phillip area should not be subject to land tax and that the land within the Port Phillip area should be the only part of the State subject to land tax. I expressed myself quite definitely on this. I indicated that as the Bill was a Budget Bill which would produce about $30 million revenue for the State, the Government was not prepared to accept the suggestion of this place. Accordingly I invite the Committee to agree with the view of another place, which was that the suggested amendment be not agreed to.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-1 suppose the Committee has little option in the matter. In view of the fact that the Government has the numbers, the Committee will reluctantly have to accept the decision.

Postponed clause 2 was agreed to.


DECENTRALIZED INDUSTRY INCENTIVES .(PAY-ROLL TAX

REBATES) BILL. The debate (adjourned from

earlier this day) on the motion of the Hon. Murray Byrne (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) for the second reading of this Bill was resumed.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-When the Federal authorities passed over the collection of pay-roll tax on the principle of the return to the States of a growth tax, it was claimed that no consideration could be given to decentralized industries because the Budget had been prepared and it made no provision for the loss of this revenue. Discussion took place in this place and another place on the industries which ought to be considered.

There was discussion also on the inclusion of Geelong in this measure. The Government had twelve months in which to consider the matter. It announced that it would introduce a measure and that it would use the incidence of pay-roll tax as a means of encouraging industries to settle in country areas. Now that the Bill is before the House, members of the Labor Party are disappointed at the formula which is set out in clause 4 for the payment of tax by decentralized industries which come within the provisions of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. I refer to the provisions which state that an approved decentralized secondary industry is one which is carried on beyond a radius of 50 miles from Melbourne and includes industries within a radius of 5 miles from the principal post office at Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend.

Members of the Labor Party are sorry to see how the formula has been worked nut. Any industry in the places which I have just mentioned will attract the benefit of the Bill whereas industries established at Geelong will not qualify for the full rebate incentive. I ask bluntly

3586 Decentralized Industry [COUNCIL.] Incentives (Pay-roll

why this should be so. If the Government has had twelve months in which to consider this measure, why does it have this differential in relation to Bacchus Marsh and the other five towns mentioned. I know that it is not because the Minister of Housing lives there. I am certain that that is not the reason. I do not know why Broadford should be included in the provision. Perhaps it is because it comes within the Bendigo Province. Perhaps Kilmore is included because it is in the same province. Those would be political considerations.

There should be an equality of incentive to industries to become established outside the metropolitan area. Honorable members will be aware that there has been a vast change in the Bill since it was introduced in another place. Instead of referring to these businesses as decentralized industries there is now a new classification of " special area ", meaning an area declared by the Governor in Council under subclause ( 4) of clause 2 to be a special area for the purposes of the Act. A " special establishment " is an establishment declared by the Governor in Council under sub-clause (3) to be a special establishment for the purposes of the Act. All this is centered on the amendment which is now embodied in sub-clause (4) of clause 2 which provides-

The Governor in Council may declare that a specified area within 50 miles of the post office at the corner of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street in the City of Melbourne but outside the metropolitan area is a special area for the purposes of this Act. That provision was deliberately written into the Bill to bring industries at Geelo·ng under the Act. The Labor Party would have preferred it if the amendment moved in another place by members of my party had provided that Geelong should be included, even if the inclusion was through section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act, so that a decentralized industry could be one within a 1 0-mile radius of Geelong. The method which has been adopted

The Ron. J. M. Tripovich.

creates a differential. Just as we have seen a differential of treatment with tourist shops, so there will be the same problem in this legislation. If a person sets up an industry more than 5 miles from Bacchus Marsh and he is to receive some sort of consideration, that consideration will be based on the provisions of sub-clause (3) of clause 4 which provides-

The Minister shall approve the payment to an employer who applies pursuan1t to sub-section (2) of section 3 of an amount equal to half the amount that would have been payable to that employer if he had been entitled to apply under sub-section ( 1) of that section.

If the industry is established within the 5-mile radius it receives the lot. Members of the Labor Party consider that the Government should not be creating these differences based merely on the fact that one industry is within 5 miles of Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisborne, Kilmore, Kyneton or W oodend when another place just outside that area would receive different treatment. If it is proposed to give incentives to all areas within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne, let them all be dealt with on the same pattern and on the basis of the 50 per cent rebate. It is true that my friends in the Country Party who will follow me in the debate will say that under the Bill an industry which is half a mile outside the metropolitan area could be deemed to be a special industry or that an area could be deemed to be a special area and the Minister will find it very hard to answer that· suggestion. Subclause ( 1) of clause 4 of the Bill provides-

The Minister shall approve the payment of an amount calculated in accordance with sub-section (2) to an employer who applies pursuant to sub-section (1) of section 3.

Briefly, that formula provides that an industry, which is a decentralized industry under section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act, shall receive an incentive which equals the total pay-roll tax paid by the appli~ cant in the relevant financial year, less any export incentive grant pai_d by the Commonwealth, multiplied by the number of employees employed in the decentralized industry in re-


spect of whom pay-roll tax has been paid, divided by the total wages paid by that company. This means that the industry will receive an in· centive only for those employees who are employed by the industry.

The Bill makes provision for the description of " employee normally employed at a decentralized establishment " as meaning an employee who normally reports for work at the establishment, but does not include an employee who is normally employed in retailing, selling or in associated distribution, installation or service activities, or in an administrative, clerical or secretarial capacity in connection with such selling or activities. Therefore, it must be someone who is actually engaged in production. It is possible, as an example, that the tax paid would be $6,600, less the incentive provided by the Common· wealth, which could be $72,000, multiplied by the number of employees at the decentralized industry, divided by the total wages paid. That calculation is impossible of solution.

What happens in these circumstances? The industry would not be overpaid, so the additional incentive would be carried over as a debit until the next year. What is the Government's proposal to deal with that situation? The Labor Party will vote against clause 4, partly because it will be a most difficult clause to administer. I do not think the Government has considered some of these aspects of the measure which arise from an involvement of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act which relates to decentralized industries.

This is particularly so in Teference to sub-clause (2), which relates to tbe towns I h:ave 'already m·entioned. Considering the ·extensive amendments which had to be made to the Bill in another pliace, I have some doubt whether it wa's the desire of the Government to extend its benefits to industries in Geelong. If the Government wants Geelong to be an area which benefits, why should the concessions be less than those given in the other six towns? Suppose a decentralized industry is established outside a 5-mile radius of

any of those towns. Why should it receive benefits of only 50 per cent of the value of those granted to an industry within one ·of those six towns? This is a controversial aspect of the Bill.

Undoubtedly the Government has done its best to use pay-roll tax rebates as an incentive, but either it has not thought its way through the Bill or it has been badly advised. I do not want to criticize public servants, but I think the advice has been bad. Apparently, all the possible circumstances have not been taken into consideration. It is all right for the Government to say in the country that it had decided to do this and that, but it is a different matter to apply the provisions in a fair and proper manner.

Sub-clause (2) of clause 4 ought to be deleted as it aff·ects the towns I have mentioned. All country towns outside a 25-mile radius of the Melbourne General Post Office and within 50 miles of M·elbourne should be considered as places in which industry would attract a 50 per cent pay-roll tax benefit. If industries in Geelong are to benefit to the extent of 50 per cent, then why not industries in Bacchus Marsh or Kilmore or other such places? After having twelve months to consider it, the Government should have given more thought than has ap .. parently been given to this. Bill.

The essential words of clause 4 are, " The Minister shall approve the payme·nt ". These: should be attached to clause 3 and clause 4 should be deleted. Industry should receive incentives to go to the country, but what does it matter if a decentralized industry is located in Geelong, Horsham, Wangaratta or Bairnsdale? If all industries outside the metropolitan area received pay-roll tax conces .. sions and export incentives, that would be an encouragement to in .. dustry to decentralize. The reason why people do not live in the country is that it lacks amenities. Schools. hospitals and sporting amenities and so on are necessary to attract increased population and, if they are provided in the country, people will have no ·objection to living there.


If some better provision for payroll tax incentives can be provided than that provided by this Bill, advantage should be taken of it. I should particularly like to see incentives provided for industries established outside a 50-mile radius of Melbourne and, if that could be done, I am. certain that no one would be happier than the Minister for State Development a·nd Decentralization.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-(North-Eastern Province) .-When a Bill such as this is presented to the House, one had doubts about the sincerity of the Government. There is no excuse for the Government not having given more consideration to the Bill than it has. A great deal has been said about incentives for decentralization and what the Government would do to encourage it. A feature of the Governor',s Speech on the opening of Parliament was a tenpoint plan to encourage decentralization. But the Government's insincerity is proved by its presenting a Bill of this magnitude on the last day of the sessional period. Honorable members of this House saw the measure for the first time only a matter of hours ago. The secondreading speech of the Minister was delivered yesterday, but during the present sitting. Honorable members cannot be ·expected to give reasoned consideration to a measure which was presented in this way, particularly in view of the number of amendments made to the Bill in another place last night. The Country Party is not satisfied with the Bill as it is and, therefore, I move-

That all the words after " That " be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the expression " whilst this House endorses the principle of incentives to decentralized establishments, it is of opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill submitted to provide for-

all business manufacturing or processing establishments which are--

(i) within a radius of five miles from the principal post office at any one of the following places, namely:- Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Gisbome, Kilmore, Kyneton or Woodend; or

(ii) beyond a radius of fifty miles from the post office at the comer of Bourke Street and Elizabeth Street in the City of Melbourne;

to be classified as decentralized establishments."

There is a contradiction in the Minister's second-reading speech. In fact, the Bill is not one to encourage decentralization. A proposal was announced in the Governor's Speech but it was rapidly whittled down and all we have now is this sop to public opinion which is proposed to attract industry from the fringes of Melbourne to country areas. Under the interpretations in clause 2 of the Bill, " metropolitan area " has the same meaning as it has in the Town and Country Planning Act 1961. That means the area within a radius of seventeen miles from the General Post Office.

" Person " is defined as including a body or association (corporate or unincorporate) and a partnership.

I shall now deal with a provision which was inserted in the Bill in another place. A " special area " is an area declared by the Governor in Council under sub-section ( 4) to be a special area for the purposes of this Act, whilst " special establishment " means an establishment declared by the Governor in Council under subsection (3) to be a special establishment for the purposes of this Act. Sub-clause (2) of clause 2 provides-

Any person who is carrying on or proposes to establish a manufacturing or processing industry at an establishment in a special area may apply in writing to the Minister for a declaration by the Governor in Council that such establishment is a special establishment for the purposes of this Act and the applicant shall furnish the Minister with such information as to the proposed establishment as he may require. The clause then provides that the Governor in Council may declare specified areas as special areas. What is decentralization and what is its significance? Surely the purpose of decentralization is to get the people away from Melbourne and away from the Melbourne and Metropolitan Board of Works planning area. The Minister will probably


say that industries in special areas will receive only 50 per cent of the incentive granted to industries outside the 50-mile radius. Industries around the fringe of Melbourne and perhaps I mile outside the metropolitan area will consider themselves to be within the metropolis. It is all eye-wash to suggest that the Government is sincerely trying to create and encourage decentralization in Victoria. If the Government were sincere, it would endeavour to establish industries outside the 50-mile radius and away from the smog and congestion instead of spreading the sprawl on the fringes of Melbourne.

On 6th October last year, when the pay-roll tax was debated in this House, the Country Party and the Labor Party fought to provide a real incentive to country industries and only the casting vote by the Chairman of Committees defeated our move. The Government has had more than twelve months in which to bring forward a real incentive to country industries. Many existing industries and new industries close to Melbourne in the future may apply to the Minister to be declared as a special establishment and will then qualify for the 50 per cent rebate. This will be disadvantageous to many country industries.

Sub-clause (4) of clause 4 refers to an incentive granted by the Commonwealth in order to encourage manufacturing industries to export their goods. The Commonwealth Government based the incentive upon the payment of pay-roll tax but that Government is now out of that field and now it cannot be classified as a pay-roll tax incentive.

The purpose of the export incentive grant was to encourage industries to manufacture secondary goods for export to build up Australia's overseas balance of payments which had diminished with decreased earnings from primary exports, upon which Australia has been depending for so many years to retain its overseas credits.

Under sub-clause (4) of clause 4, these industries will be little better off than they are now. For Bruck Mills at Wangaratta, the pay-roll tax payable in 1968-69 amounted to $66,300 and the export grant was $71,200, so that the company would have obtained no benefit in that year from the pay-roll tax rebate. In 1969-70 the company would have paid $78,200 in pay-roll tax a·nd it received an export rebate of $61,800. This year the company would have qualified for a pay-roll tax rebate of approximately $17,000. In 1970-71 the payroll tax payable was $81,000, and the export rebate was $78,900. Therefore, under this Bill the company would have qualified for a rebate of $1,000.

The measure brings these companies back to the same basis as their competitors in the metropolitan area. They have been thrown aside by the Government regarding their ability to qualify for a rebate of pay-roll tax.

The pay-roll tax payable by Consolidated Meat Holdings Pty. Ltd. as at 30th June, 1972, on a pay-roll of $3,559,906, was assessed at $119,611. The company received back an export incentive grant of $87,958 so that under this Bill the company would have gained a net $31,653.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-Mr. Bradbury should realize that in 1972 the rate of tax was only 2! per cent and only in the past year has it been increased to 3! per cent, so this would involve, on Mr. Bradbury's figures, something more than $31,000.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-The Minister cannot deny that these people will only receive the difference between the export grant and what their competitors are paying in Melbourne.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Perhaps it should be based on income tax instead of pay-roll tax.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.! wholeheartedly agree, but rebates on income tax are beyond the powers


of the State Government. The Government should be honest and sincere. If it wants to encourage decentralization, it is not going the right way about it because in the two cases to which I have referred, this Bill will make little difference and the businesses will not be much better off than their competitors in the metropolitan area.

The measure has been altered so many times that one wonders where the pressure has been coming from; whether it has come from big industries in Melbourne which contend that this cannot be done because it will force them into the country where they do not want to go; or whether pressure has come from members of the Government party who were afraid that the Bill as originally drafted could cost them their seats. The real incentive for decentralization must commence outside the 50-mile radius of Melbourne.

The Hon. 0. G. JENKINs.-What about 150 miles?

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-Geelong is more or less a suburb of M'elbourne. If Geelong cannot look after itself, there is something wrong. I am sure that Geelong can look after itself. Industries in many other centres should receive incentives rather than industries in Geelong.

Again, we hear so much about the proposed Wodonga-Albury complex. Donga Meats Ltd., Wodonga, which commenced operations many years ago, was probably the first decentralized industry in Wodonga. Under this measure the company will not be much better off than its competitors in Melbourne. The same position applies to any other business that is already established or will be established in a country centre.

The Country Party wants a genuine incentive to be given to industries to move from the metropolitan area; not just out to the fringes of Melbourne but out into the country, and thus develop the State. Then honorable members will see an improvement in land costs and the provision of services and facilities in the metro-

politan area. I trust that the House will support the amendment that I have moved to the second-reading motion.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-Honorable members now speaking will be speaking to both the second-reading motion and the amendment.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE (Minister for State Development and Decentralization) .-Speaking to the amendment, with great sincerity and enthusiasm, Mr. Bradbury started off by saying that the Government was insincere and based his arguments on the fact that this Bill has been introduced in the last stages of the sessional period. That beyond the power of this House and I suppose it is one of the penalties which members of a second Chamber have to suffer, certainly throughout Australia. The Government announced its proposed pay-roll tax legislation, the measure has been before another place, and the principle is simple.

On the question of sincerity, I think we have to put our money where our mouth is. If Mr. Bradbury asserts that the Government is insincere, I remind him that the Government is presently committed to lose more than $6 million under this measure. That should be sufficient proof of its sincerity. I do not think Mr. Bradbury means what he said. I know of his enthusiasm in this matter. This amendment was moved with the best of intentions, but the Government is not able to support it because of its effects. Firstly, it completely destroys the Bill. The amending Bill would have to be withdrawn from the House, and that would mean the withdrawal of t'he benefits contained in the legislation. I can assure Mr. Bradbury that industries are most anxious to enter his area. A large number of industries have approached me and inquired about going into his area, but on1y on the basis that they would receive this incentive. Otherwise they intended to go to New South Wales.


M'r. Bradbury's amendment has two interesting aspects. It excludes any assistance to anyone outside the 50-mile radius, with the exception of the nominated towns, and it excludes Geelong. It is true that there is provision in the Bill which enables the Governor in Council in certain circumstances to nominate a specified area, but I point out that the Government is committed to assisting Geelong.

Over the years, various committees and various Acts of Parliament have excluded Geelong when considering the question of incentives and I never thought I ·would be in the position in this House of defending that city. But we have to face the facts squarely. One factor in assisting Geelong is that it is cheaper to build up the population of Geelong than it is to build up the population of Melbourne.

AH Federal political parties and the Commonwealth Government are committed to the establishment of satellite cities within 50 miles of Melbourne and Sydney. Vast sums of money will be spent on these projects, but despite that, it is still a fact of life that it is cheaper to build satellite cities, properly planned, within 50 miles of Melbourne, than to permit uncontro!Hed growth of Melbourne. It is cheaper for M!elboume and for the nation.

The Government is anxious that there should be balanced development throughout the State, and I am prepared to defend the action of the Government in giving assistance to Geelong, because it is a city with a fairly large population and, because it has all the amenities and facilities that are required, that city can be developed at far less cost to the community. Although the States concerned and the Commonwealth Government are committed to these projects, I do not think we have reached a complete answer to the question of the deve'lopment of Victoria.

What Mr. Bradbury's amendment reaUy seeks to do is to give blanket pay-roll tax rebates outside the 50-mile limit. That would result in every employer in that area receiving a rebate. He does that by including the word " business " in referring to " all business manufacturing or processing establishments ".

The word " business '' is very wide indeed. It includes everythingbanks. insurance companies, shops and farms. It includes things which are completely unrelated to decentralized industries ".

Perhaps I should try to inform the House concerning the definition of " decentralized industries ". Those words have appeared in Acts of Parliament since 1963. The expression " decentralized industries " was referred to by the Distribution of Population Committee, a committee of which the Minister of Housing was chairman, and which did magnificent work. The committee submitted a remarkable report which referred to "decentralized industries ", as did the Manson report. These have been wide interpretations of the words "decentralized industry ". In a pamphlet issued by the Divison of State Development concerning the policy adopted in approving of decentralized secondary industries, the following statement was made:-In granting approvals, cognizance is given to operations whereby any goods, products, commodities or wares are created, fabricated, refined or made marketable. Only the sawmilling and bread baking industries have been specifically excluded.

Everyone concerned with decentralization, should realize that this rebate is an incentive to decentralization-it is not a subsidy to be ·given to people who are not concerned with decentralized industry.

The final report of the Distribution of Population Committee referred to " decentralized industry " many times. It clearly stated that it must be a " decentralized industry " and that assertion was unanimously agreed to. In legislation which has


been enacted, including the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act, "decentralized industry " has been emphasized. In the Labor Party booklet, Regional Development, it says, in relation to pay-roll tax-

In order to attract industry to country areas, the Australia Labor Party will offer pay-roll tax concessions to approved decentralized industry, and it refers to manufacturers who choose to be located in remote areas or small country towns, and states that they should be exempt from payroll tax.

On 12th September, 19'72, M'r. Dunn is reported in a newspaper article as follows:-

Mr. Dunn said the first move that should be made by the new Minister responsible for Decentralization, Mr. Byrne, is to abolish pay-roll tax to approved decentratized industries.

Twelve months ago, Mr. Bradbury and his party said that incentives should be given to approved decentralized industries. In almost every matter to which I have referred the term " decentralized industry " has been used.

The giving of subsidies to shops, banks, insurance companies, and so on, it will not bring people to country areas. Myer's will not go to Yarrawonga even if they are given a subsidy. They will go there only if people are there. Decentralized industries will bring people to country areas because they create additional employment. I know this amendment was moved with the best of intentions, but we do not want the incentives to be applied to farmers, bankers, and so on. It is necessary to introduce decentralized industries which create employment.

The Hon. 0. G. JENKINS (Southwestern Province) .-1 support the Bill. I believe it is a sincere and practical step by the Hamer Government to assist decentralization. In a debate earlier this evening Mr. Galbally referred to decentralization and indicated that it is a subject about which nobody does anything. I submit to the honorable member that this legislation assists materially the

concept of decentralization of industry. Mr. Tripovich drew attention to the differential operating in industries in special areas. The history goes back to 1963 when the Commercial Goods Vehicles Decentralized Industries Bill was before this House. The nine members who were then here and are still here will recall that amendments were made to the Bill in another place. On or about 27th November, 1963, that Bill came into this House. It then contained a provision for a radius of 25 miles. Mr. Tripovich, as is reported at page 2559 of Hansard of 27th November, 1963, moved an amendment to change the radius to 50 miles. That has been the linchpin on which an successive legislation relating to decentralized industries has hinged. There is no question about that. There have been eight or nine amendments affecting decentralized industries and they all go back to the definition contained in clause 5 of that Bill. Mr. Tripovich moved the amendment which changed the radius from 25 miles to 50 miles, excluding the Geelong area.

I could not quite follow the calculations of Mr. Tripovich because he went rather quickly. He was referring to the export rebate provided for in clause 5. Mr. Bradbury also referred to the export rebate paid by the Commonwealth Government. It does not matter how much pay-roll tax is paid or how much a company's exports grow, it cannot receive back more than it has paid. It is possible for an industry to increase its exports considerably. The way that the calculation is made means that a substantial rebate can be paid if the base year on which the increase is calculated is relatively small. However, I can assure honorable members that the Commonwealth never pays out more than it receives. The calculation boils down to the fact that a pro rata refund of 1 per cent is paid. The Commonwealth rebate is 2t per cent. Pay-roll tax is payable in Victoria at the rate of 3! per cent. The purpose of the formula is to calculate the proportion of wages paid in the


decentralized area in relation to total wages paid in the city after allowing for the export rebate. I appreciate that it is complicated and is more easily expressed in the formula. I can show to Mr. Tripovich figures indicating that it will work out quite reasonably.

Mr. Bradbury asked whether amendments were made as a result of representations by honorable members representing the Geelong area. I make no apology for our doing what we could to have the Government accept the amendments to this Bill. As the M'inister said, the option exists not o·nly to go to Melbourne, Geelong, Ballarat or Wodonga. The option is also to go to Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong or Wagga. It makes no difference--

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-Would the honorable member call a 17 -mile radius a decentralization policy?

The Hon. 0. G. JENKINS.-! am saying that a person wishing to set up a factory somewhere in Australia will look quite objectively at the benefits he might receive, the disadvantages of setting up in one area as against another area and will weigh up the whole lot in the balance. I do not believe this is the last word in decentralization. In recent weeks all parties vying to be elected as the Government of Australia made various decentralization proposals. They were spelt out in general terms. In the next three to six months the policies of the Federal Government in regard to decentralization will have settled down. In Victoria we are now able to indicate to the Federal Government that we consider that areas like Geelong, within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne, as the Minister indicated, ought to receive a share of any funds that the Commonwealth is to make available as incentives to people to go to those areas to set up industries.

At a later date when those policies are clearly defined and agreement has been reached between the Federal and State Governments, we might have to revise our attitudes in the

light of offers that the Federal Government may make. For that reason our definitions of special areas and special establishments within those areas are vital. I will not weary the House in discussing what might be the penultimate business before the House prior to Christmas. Mr. Gleeson, the honorable member for Geelong and the honorable member for Bellarine in another place, and I have had considerable discussions with representatives of various organizations in Geelong. We have had the advantage of lengthy discussions with the Minister for State Development and Decentralization, the Premier and Deputy Premier. As a result of those dis-cussions we were able to convince the Government of the justness of our cause. I make no apology for that. I believe this is a sensible and fair policy. Having regard to all the factors, the offer being made in this Bill to industry in Geelong is fair and I welcome it.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL (Western Province).-lt might be late but I hope it is not too late. I am very disappointed that we are trying to deal at this late hour with what might be the most important Bill we have debated in this session. It is to be regretted that we should be so tired when we are debating such an important matter. The Minister must be very disappointed to find himself landed with a Bill like this which deals with his city of Geelong. He could not be anything but disappointed. How can he go into my area and explain this to the people?

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-1 will.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL.! agree that the Minister will, because he is a good publicity man. He will do his darndest to explain it but I do not think he can satisfy the people. We should have a look at the plan that is to take place. There is a plan for the Melbourne metropolitan and wider areas, out almost to Geelong. It will take in about 5 million people by the end of this century. Industries are being encouraged


to do a little more. Last Tuesday's Sun News-Pictorial carried the following report:-

CITIES: LABOR PLEDGE HAMER SETS COST.

The Prime Minister, Mr. Whitlam, yesterday promised a new deal for the outlying areas of Sydney and Melbourne.

He said the Government's urban policy promised a new deal for all such areas in Sydney and Melbourne, which were Australia's two worst-go:verned cities.

The Government would transform health, education and transport ser:vices in the two cities within three years, Mr. Whitlam said in Sydney. The Premier, Mr. Hamer, has said that we need $276 millio·n for transport alone in the next five years. The plan is to build up areas just outside the city. I have said many times that to attract industries out into the country it has to be made more profitable for them to go there. Decentralization is not a move to the outskirts of Melbourne. Anybody who thinks that should think again. People living in Horsham, Warmambool, Portland and Casterton do not think of the Melbourne district in connection with decentralization. I am quite sure that the Minister must be very disappointed tonight, knowing full well that he set out to obtain something, but his party took it away from him and left him almost featherless. It is a sad time for decentralization to·night. The Government will not get very far with its ten points. The Minister will not be facing the next election in the way he wanted to face it. I am not interested in what they do at Canberra. If they want to play around up there, that is their business. We are governing Victoria; it is not Canberra governing Victoria. The Government has the say in Victoria and it should forget about most of what happens up at Canberra. The Victorian Government should be concentrating on what it is doing here. I share the Minister's disappointment tonight.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE (Bendigo Province) .-1 was quite surprised to hear Mr. Mitchell make

the bald statement that the only way to achieve decentralization is to make it more profitable for an industry to go outside a 50-mile radius of Melbourne. If he is sincere he should reread the Bill because that is exactly what the Bill does. The rebate payable is 100 per cent outside a 50-mile radius. If that is the criterion, it is clear that it is more profitable for an industry to go outside that radius. Mr. Mitchell has shown by his words that he does not understand the Bill.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL.-! was not thinking of pay-roll tax. I was thinking of many other things.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-It seems to me that honorable members opposite are belittling this mighty effort to encourage decentralization. About $6 million is to be made available as rebates. I totalled the number of declared decentralized industries within the Bendigo Province at about 120. On simple mathematics it means that about $1 million will be refunded to those industries within the Bendigo Province. If that is not an incentive, I do not know what is. I know that Mr. Tripovich is worried about the situation of the six named centres. I think the M'inister has adequately explained the reason why these centres continue to come up. The committee which made the recommendations named those centres. Decentralized industries are now located at Bacchus Marsh, Broadford, Kilmore, Woodend, Gisbome and Kyneton. They have been declared and are receiving all the benefits available to decentralized industries. It would certainly be a retrograde step to exclude them because Mr. Tripovich is offended. I think it is important that the named decentralized industries get the benefits to be attached to all decentralized industries.

Mr. Tripovich referred to the special areas provision. The House seems to believe that only Geelong will be in the special category but I remind honorable members that certain other towns are within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne. yet they are definitely considered to


be country. I am thinking in terms of industries at Trentham, La·ncefield, or Yea. I should be very pleased if honorable members who disagree with this would say that they do not consider that people who live in those towns or work at the factories which are paying pay-roll tax in those places are not in the country and do not need help.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-They are not within a 50-mile radius.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-They certainly are.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.-What about Yea?

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-That is about 48 miles from Melbourne as the crow flies, Trentham is 4 7 miles and Lancefield is 42 miles. In those areas there are industries which are paying pay-roll tax. I should be very pleased if the Minister, now that he has the power to do so under this measure, would declare these as special areas and encourage further development which would provide some benefit to industries in those areas. The amendment proposed by Mr. Bradbury is a weak effort to try to do something. As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, it all hinges on the word "business". That is the only word that is different. But of course " business " could include all kinds of industries or businesses which could be carried out in the country. A primary producer is carrying on a business a·nd, if he is in a big enough way and pays payroll tax, he would receive a benefit. I do not know that that is such a brilliant idea.

The Hon. A. K. BRADBURY.-The honorable member is putting up the brilliant ideas.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-1 am knocking down those which were suggested by the honorable member, although his ideas certainly do not warrant much attention. The only part of the Bill with which I am not particularly happy is that which t:aises a problem involving companies

which export and so attract an incentive from the Commonwealth. It seems to me unfortunate that there should exist this strange rel·ationship between the Commonwealth with its export incentives and the pay-roll tax which does not involve the Commonwealth in any way. I suggest that this matter could most easily be resolved by the Commonwealth granting the export incentive in some other way. I believe this will have to be provided for at a later stage if the Government is unable to resolve the matter in some other way. Certainly I do ·not see this as a stumbling point or a reason for not allowing the Bill to proceed. It is important that the Bill should be passed. I know that people in country areas want this legislation. I am surprised that the so-called champions of the country do not like it, do not want it and wish to bring in an amendment which is absolute rubbish.

The Hon. R. W. MAY (Gippsland Province) .-1 support my colleague who proposed the amendment. I consider tlhat anything which makes it more attractive and profitable for industry to go to the country or to the outlying areas of the State will have decidedly a beneficial effect. I think the Government should consider the return that it will receive if an industry establishes itself in an outlying plaoe merely through the added freight on foodstuffs, which attract the highest charges of any goods transported by rail. But this is only one aspect. I can understand Mr. Grimwade's attitude because this Government already has indulged in a system of selective tendering for the construction of schools. Tenders for schools in Gippsland which have cost millions of dollars have been let to city-based builde•rs and country builders have been totally ignored.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-That is not true. There has been no change in the policy which gives preference to country builders.

The Hon. R. W. MA Y.-I am merely stating the facts and referring to a company which received a contract.


If the Minister checks with the department he will find that the contract was ·let to a ·city-based buHder who is carrying out the work by sub-contracts, using country-based sub-contractors and squeezing the last cent from them. I can well understand this policy coming from this Government. I assure the House that the people of Gippsland do not appreciate it. Yet it is a policy which seems to be running riot throughout Government departments. Even in the case of the spreading of fertilizer by air for the water and sewerage board at Dutson Downs, the contract was let to a city-based firm. That board is a Government agency.

The Rural ·Finance and Settlement Com·mission, another Government body, also indulges in selective tendering. The same thing was done at Heytesbury. In addition in that area a contract for the spreading of 700 tons of fertilizer was let to a city-based company. If this policy continues, country industries will wither and die.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-Many farmers invest their money in the cities.

The Hon. R. W. MA Y.-But most of them are looking for drought assistance. If the Government opened its heart it could help many people in country areas.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).- Order ! The honorable member is straying somewhat from the Bill.

The Hon. R. W. MA Y.-1 am referring to decentralization, which is what the Bill is about. The measure is designed to assist industries to go to the country. Anything that will assist them or provide a greater incentive for them to go to the country will have my wholehearted support. In the long term, assistance of this kind will be beneficial to the State. I suggest that the amendment moved by Mr. Bradbury will be a step in the right direction and will make a major contribution towards assisting industry in country areas. I reiterate that I register most emphatically my opposition to the selective system far ten-

dering for the construction of schools~ especially where the contract runs into five figures and is allocated to a city-based contractor.

The Hon. MuRRAY BYRNE.-Plenty of contracts go to country contractors under the same system.

The Hon. R. W. MA Y.-Perhaps they do, but unfortunately contractors who get them seem to be based in the city. I give my whole-hearted support to the amendment proposed by Mr. Bradbury and hope it will receive support from the House.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH (Doutta Galla Province) .-1 propose to speak to the amendment moved by Mr. Bradbury and to indicate the Labor Party's attitude to it. If carried~ the amendment will exclude all those areas which are within 50 miles of Melbourne. The principle enunciated in the amendment relates back to the provisions of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act and industries which come within its scope.

The Hon. MURRAY BYRNE.-And businesses.

The Hon. J. M. TRIPOVICH.And businesses. There has been a little competition for benefits in Lowan, but there has been little consideration for Geelong which has had the worst record of unemployment during the past five years. This situation can be attributed to the collapse of the wooUen industry in that city. The mills which used to function in Geelong are no longer_ operating and the introduction of bulk handling and various other things have caused a fall in wharf employment. If we can encourage industries into the Geelong area we should do so. The Labor Party proposes to support the Bill rather than the amendment.

Mr. Jenkins mentioned that I moved an amendment based on a 50-mile limit, but I did not confine it to six towns, which was a recommendation of the Distribution of Population Committee. The attitude on the question of decentralization was that the limit should not be 27 miles from Melbourne. The Bill as


presented in this place was based on 25 miles. I suggest that I had good reason to move the amendment and I believe the House had good reason to vote for it. On present indications my party considers that pay-roll tax gives nothing-it returns something; it is a rebate. All we are saying is that companies will receive a rebate on pay-roll tax from the State Government and receive also an export incentive from the Commonwealth Government. Why should they not receive these benefits if they are situated in the country?

Mr. Grim wade voted against the measure last year when the Labor Party wanted to do something about the situation, but now he says that it is a good idea. The Opposition does not say that it is a bad idea. We accept that it is a good idea, but we want more than the Government seems to be prepared to give. We propose that Geelong should be included in the scheme. The Opposition will support the Government on the measure but will vote against clause 4.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL (East Yarra Province) .-A couple of the statements made by some previous speakers need correction. I refer firstly to the comments of Mr. May who brought to the attention of the House that in the area which he represents certain schools had been built under a system of selective tendering. The honorable member admitted that there are country tenderers on the selective tendering list. He admitted also that the contracts were allocated to city-based builders. I think Mr. May, as well as every other honorable member in this plrace, knJows that a Government has a certain amount of money with which to build 'Schools and other facilities for the people in general and when it cans for ten!ders under the selective tendering system it includes people in whom it has faith.

It is fair to say that the tender is let to the man who submits the lowest contract tender price. Therefore I cannot understand how Mr. May can blame the Government for

the contract being let to a city builder rather than to a country builder. It is obvious that the reason was that the city man offered to do the work for a lower price than the country man. The city man was able to do this, despite the country man having all his facilities situated in the immediate area.

The Hon. R. W. MAv.-Is the honorable member suggesting that tenders were called for it?

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.-The honorable member knows that selective tendering is used. I should like to refer also to a couple of points raised by Mr. Mitchell. From what he said one would feel that the Government intended to give decentralization benefits in the form of pay-roll tax rebates to all industries outside the metropolitan area if they were within a 50-mile radius of Melbourne, but that is not the case. The Bill defines quite clearly what the special area is. Most importantly such areas must be declared by the Governor in Council to be a special area for the purposes of this Bill. It is interesting that Mr. Mitchell is complaining that Geeiong, which is within the 50-mile limit, is being brought within the provisions of the Bill. The amendment moved by Mr. Bradbury is completely against what Mr. Mitchell has said and is, in fact, supporting the Government. Mr. Bradbury proposes as an amendment, inter alia-

That all the words after " That " be omitted with the view of inserting in place thereof the expression " whHst this House endorses the principle of incentives to decentralized establishments, it is of opinion that the Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill submitted to provide for-

all business manufacturing or processing establishments which are-(i) within a radius of five miles from

the principal post office at any one of the following places, namely:-

Bacchus Marsh-

That is, 34 miles from Melbourne. Members of the Country Party are suggesting an area within 29 miles of Melbourne. The amendment suggests Kilmore, which is approximately 30 miles from Melbourne. If


5 miles are deleted, the amendment suggests that members of that party would support decentralized industries within 25 miles of Melbourne. How can the Government be criticized for bringing in special areas under an Order of the Governor in Council'? How can it be doing wrong when it suggests Geelong as an area, which is over 40 miles from Melbourne when, in fact, the Country Party wants to bring in areas much closer?

Mr. Bradbury raised the question of the export rebates being used in the formula. In one respect, I agree with what he said. It seems a little unfair that if a company is exporting and if it wishes to go to the country and become a decentralized industry, it must suffer in some way by having the amount of rebate which it obtains from its exports deducted from the pay-roll concessions. Reality must be faced. The Government is starting on a new venture. Honorable members will agree that, on starting a new venture one must not start at upper limits. A start must be made somewhere. As the Minister said, it is expected that the Government's proposals will cost $6 million.

The Hon. C. A. MITCHELL.-Close to Melbourne.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.Again that is a silly suggestion. Members of the Country Party want to bring in areas closer to Melbourne than does the Government. Mr. Mitchell does not know what he is talking about. Looking at the matter fairly, one can only try to provide funds for decentralized industry in Victoria, and $6 million is a lot of money for a start. This is a good piece of legislation and I am sure, as time goes by, that the Government will wish to extend it and assist people to go farther-say, 100 miles from Melbourne by giving additional benefits. I am confident that the Government will do it.

It would be fair to say that a company located in Melbourne which is large enough to have a

reasonable export trade to the extent mentioned by Mr. Bradbury would not go to the country to seek this benefit. It is getting the benefit -it has a market for its wares. If it is getting a large sum of money back as an export incentive it must have a big percentage of its business in the export field. It would not be the type of industry that would wish to decentralize itself at this time by moving to the country. The industry more likely to move to the country would be a new type of industry coming into the State or an industry manufacturing for the Australian market as a whole. This type of industry would be more prone to accept the offer of the Government. That type of industry is needed. It would have sufficient staff to gain the maximum benefits of this Bill, and it would be large enough to have enough employees to provide the potential for sufficient work for other small industries to establish within reasonable proximity of that decentralized industry. For a start, the Government should be commended on this proposed legislation.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-I have listened with great interest to Government supporters defending this disgraceful Bill. They do not understand what is in it. Mr. Campbell said much about the amendment moved by Mr. Bradbury, in which he names the six towns mentioned in the provisions of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 as applicable areas. Clause 2 provides that a decentralized establishment means an establishment at which an approved decentralized secondary industry within the meaning of section 5 of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act 1958 is carried on. Automatically the Government will grant those as special areas.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.Why is Mr. Mitchell complaining?

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.Mr. Campbell has had his opportunity. He did not see that provision. M·embers of the Country Party are


excluding other areas but are seeking to retain those which, over the years, have had the benefits of the provisions of the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. Mr. Campbell does not know anything about it and he has the cheek to accuse members of my party of seeking areas nearer than Geelong. This Bill is a " save the Geelong seat Bill" and Mr. Campbell knows it. The honorable member representing Geelong knows it. Mr. Grimwade mentioned Trentham and Lancefield. What industry is there? The honorable member mentioned Yea as being within 50 miles of M·elboume. I have travelled to Yea more than he has. I saw him at the show the other day and it was the first time he had been there for years. If the honorable member travelled from Melbourne he would be a long way off.

The Hon. F. S. GRIMWADE.-If ] travelled as the crow flies, I would not.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.Mr. Grimwade would have to be a very straight crow! This Bill has to justify something which has been changed for a particular purpose. The honorable member repreS'enting Geelong was honest enough to admit that it was the pressure from members representing the Geelong area which induced the Government to amend the Bill to include this provision. It does what Mr. Campbell said it would do at the finish--decentralize as far as 50 miles and then the Government would consider 100 miles.

The Hon. W. M. CAMPBELL.! did not say that; it is a lie.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.It is not a lie. People in the outer areas of the State will be disgusted when they understand the ramifications of the Bill. Members of the Country Party will not support it. We have consistently supported the provision of tying the areas to the Commercial Goods Vehicles Act. It was understood that would be the measuring stick in regard to this measure. But instead we now find

that any area within 50 miles of Melbourne can be declared. That cannot be denied. Honorable members have already been told that it is mainly to benefit Geelong but if there is enough political pressure at Gisborne, that town will benefit; if there is enough political pressure from fast-growing Me1ton, that town will also benefit.

The Hon. H. R. W ARD.-Why not? The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE.

! should not think so. Members of my party are trying to keep out the metropolitan area. Throughout his tours of Victoria I do not think the Minister ever envisaged that he would be foisted with this Bill. Members of my party will not support the measure in its present form. We support the amendment.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed by Mr. Bradbury to be omitted stand part of the motion (the Hon. R. W. Garrett in the chair)-

Ayes 26 Noes 7


AYES.

Mr. Byrne Mr. Hunt Mr. Campbell Mr. Jenkins Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Kent Mr. Dickie Mr. Knight Mr. Elliot Mr. Nicol Mr. Fry Mr. Storey Mr. Galbally Mr. Thomas Mr. Gleeson Mr. Trayling Mr. Granter Mr. Tripovich Mr. Grimwade Mr. Walton. Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser Mr. Hider Mr. Houghton

Mr. Bradbury Mr. Dunn Mr. McDonald Mr. Mansell

Tellers: Mr. Eddy Mr. Ward.

NOES.

Mr. Swinburne. Tellers:

Mr. May Mr. Mitchell.

PAIR. Mr. Hamilton Mr. Clarke.

The motion for the second reading was agreed to.


Clauses 1 to 3 were agreed to.


Clause 4 (Minister shall approve payments).

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

Ayes 17 Noes 16

Majority for the clause 1

Mr. Byrne Mr. Campbell Sir Gilbert Chandler Mr. Dickie Mr. Fry Mr. Garrett Mr. Granter Mr. Grimwade Mr. Gross Mr. Hauser

AYES. Mr. Houghton Mr. Hunt Mr. Jenkins Mr. Storey Mr. Ward.

Tell'ers: Mr. Gleeson Mr. Hider.

NOES. Mr. Bradbury Mr. Dunn Mr. Eddy Mr. Elliot Mr. Galbally Mr. Knight Mr. Mansell Mr. May Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Swinburne Mr. Thomas Mr. Trayling Mr. Tripovich Mr. Walton.

Tellers: •Mr. Kenrt: Mr. !McDonald.

PAm. Mr. Hamilton Mr. Clarke.

The remaining clauses were agreed to.


ADJOURNMENT. CHRISTMAS FELICITATIONS.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-By leave, I move-

That the Council, at its rising, adjourn until a day and hour to be fixed by the President or, if the President is unable to act on account of illness or other cause, by the Chairman of Committees, which time of meeting shall be notified to each honorable member by telegram or letter. I take this opportunity of thanking you, Mr. President, for the dignified manner in which you have presided over the proceedings of this House in this session. Your rulings and your unbiased attitude in handling the affairs of this Chamber have been exemplary and we extend the compliments of the season to you and your good lady.

I thank Mr. Galbally, especially, and his deputy, Mr. Tripovich, and other members of the Labor Party, because I appreciate the co-operation and the understanding which have been extended in the carrying out of the business of the House. I always envy Mr. Galbally for the way in which he can get up at the drop of a hat, without knowing anything about the subject, and make a brilliant speech. I can appreciate how in pleading a case in court he would have members of the jury almost weeping. Mr. Gal bally possesses great quality and ability, and I pay tribute to him and again thank him and his deputy for their co-operation. To Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Mansell and other members of the Country Party, I extend my thanks. A little while ago, honorable members witnessed a grand fighting speech by Mr. Swinburne but speeches of that kind in this House do not always bear results.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-1 know it hurts the Minister painfully to say that.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER.-! have been on the receiving end sometimes. I assure Mr. Swinburne that I appreciate his co-operation very much. The honorable member has a rather penetrating mind. He fossicks around until he finds some little thing which is wrong and away he goes. He has had this kind of app·roach ever since he came into the House-perhaps it was because he was trained in a very hard school which has enabled him to display these qualities here. Over and above that, friendship and understanding have existed between all parties in this House, which has meant much for the conduct of the business of this House.

I thank my three Ministerial colleagues-my deputy, Mr. Murray Byrne, and the other two Ministersfor their co-operation and understanding. At all times they have carried out their duties as Ministers in the very high tradition of Ministerial responsibility when called upon to handle various subjects outside their own portfolios.

Adjournment. [13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Adjournment. 3601

To my back-bench friends, I express thanks. On many occasions during the year I have indicatedrightly or wrongly-that they should not speak on a particular matter and, with one or two exceptions, that request has been loyally acceded to. Of course, as Leader, one has to make this judgment, and although it may be in conflict with the thoughts of honorable members almost without exception it has been carried into effect. I thank those honorable members for their loyalty and for the work that has been put into the various committees set up on the Government side of the House to assist with the preparation of a number of Bills. They have been prepared to vet them and analyse the proposals and have been most helpful in that regard, especially Mr. Gross, as chairman of the rural committee. I have had quite a lot to do with him and I thank him for his assistance.

I also thank the Chairman of Committees, Mr. Nicol, who occasionally occupies the chair as Deputy President. Occasionally he upsets calculations by giving the casting vote in such a way that it causes a little trouble but we arrange to get things back on the rails again in due course.

In regard to our friends at the table-the Clerk, Mr. Bruce M·cDonnell, Mr. Graham Grose and Mr. Bob Evans-! suppose few Parliaments would have a more efficient staff. Their courtesy and help to all members have been of the very highest order and I am sure I echo the thoughts of all honorable members when I thank them for their services.

To Mr. George Oliver and our friends at the door, and all others, along with our friends on the Hansard staff, I can only say, " Thank you " for what I believe has been a very profitable session. A lot of legislation has been passed and, whatever honorable members may think, in the 30 odd years I have been here, not one Government has been able to introduce its legislation in its entirety early in the session and then coast along to an easy finish. It does not

seem possible to operate that way but if it did generally there would be a few adjournment motions to upset calculations. However, that is the way it goes. We have a wonderful debating Chamber. The atmosphere here and the relationship that exists between all parties is of the highest order a·nd as Leader of the Government, for the time being, I can only say, "Thank you".

On behalf of my colleagues I extend to everyone the best wishes for a very happy Christmas and for a bright, peaceful and accident free New Year.

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY (Melbourne North Province) .-On behalf of myself and my party, I say "Thank you", Mr. President for the way in which you have looked after us once again during the long session this year. We know that you are of robust health; may you long continue to reign over us.

I thank the Leader of the House for the kindly references he has made to me personally. I hope the House will agree with me when I say that good government is nourished by a vigorous Opposition and that is what we have endeavoured to be. To the Leader of the House, let me say I do not think I have ever met a more patient and kindly man in the way he handles the House. The honorable gentleman will not put up with any nonsense, but he is astute and at all times a man of great charity and sympathy and we all like him very much. I must, of course, acknowledge the help I have had from my own party and thank those honorable members for their patience and understanding.

My colleague, Mr. Swinburne, and I have been friends in good times and in bad times. Sometimes I wish he would lean a little more to us and I have encouraged him in that but he, Mr. Mansell, and his party, make a very strong contribution in this Chamber. Mr. Swinburne and I have been talking over things tonight, and we are looking forward to next year, particularly after the State election, with renewed vigor.


The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-! am sorry for interjecting, but why is that so?

The Hon. J. W. GALBALLY.-1 cannot at this moment think of an appropriate answer without giving away professional secrets. The Labor Party joins with the Leader of the House in thanking the clerks at the table whom we never mention by name. There is only one book I should like to write and that is, "The Secrets of the Table Officers ". Everyone comes to the clerks and receives wise advice which is given without fear or favour. One of the most magnificent things about this Parliament is that all honorable members can go to the Clerks of the House and receive wise advice. They know all the Standing Orders and have an answer for everything. It is a wonderful thing for the integrity of Parliament.

We wish to thank Hansard, the dining room staff, the Library, Mr. Oliver and the young constables who come up here and watch us-perhaps for the first time in their lives; I wonder what they think of us!

This has been a long sessional period. May all honorable members go home to their fami'lies and enjoy a happy Christmas with them.

The Hon. I. A. SWINBURNE (North-Eastern Province) .-On behalf of myself and my party, I wish to join with the Leader of the House and Mr. Galbally, firstly, in thanking you, Mr. President, for your tolerance in allowing us to put our arguments on the various Bills that have been introduced. Sometimes we get a bit vigorous, as the Leader of the House has mentioned, but you have always exercised the utmost tolerance even though sometimes I believe we get a bit unruly. During this last sessional period, Mr. President, you have guided the House ably and well and we appreciate it.

I thank the Leader of the House and his Ministers and colleagues for a good debating sessional period. We have enjoyed it and perhaps they have. As Mr. Galbally has said, the Leader of the House is a most toler-

ant man, perhaps because of his background, but if one starts to delve too far he becomes livid and that is where it stops! One knows when one reaches that stage that a change of tactics is necessary so that the wind will blow some other way.

Over many years, I have had great fellowship and friendship with the Leader of the House and I have appreciated it. From his Ministers, whilst we might argue the point and have our differences here in debate, we have always had the utmost cooperation, not only in the House but also in the departments which they administer. From the Leader's backbenchers, as he named them, we have received the utmost co-operation and with his worthy Whip, Mr. Granter, we have always had co-operation. If we have desired a pair, the honorable member has always done his best to accommodate us and we in tum have always endeavoured to reciprocate.

In regard to my friend, Mr. Galbally, and his deputy, Mr. Tripovich, and his party, as Mr. Galbally said, we do not always see eye to eye and occasionally we talk things over and endeavour to find a way in which to sit on the same side more often but, unfortunately, sometimes Mr. Galbally and his members stray across to the other side and leave us alone. It may take a little longer for us to train them as we should like them to act but, as Mr. Galbally said, there is always the future to look to. Over the years whatever the set-up has been, we have always had good fellowship between all honorable members and we can cross to the other side of the House, sit together and have a joke and when the next division is called be on the opposite side. This has been part and parcel of life in this Chamber. It is the fellowship all round which has made membership of this place a pleasant interlude in our lives.

Like all other honorable members, whenever I want to find out something I consult the clerks and seek some free advice. We do not have to

Adjournment. (13 DECEMBER, 1972.] Adjournment. 3603

pay for it and it is readily given. The Country Party appreciates their loyalty to the House.

Our friends of Hansard always endeavour to make our speeches read better than we have made them and this we appreciate very m.uch. A microphone, connected to a tape recorder, was installed in the middle of the Chamber during this sessional period. I do not know whether many honorable members have referred to it-I think some have used the recording to check some point-but I have never challenged what the Hansard reporters have recorded and I have found that they have done a better job in their report than I did when making the speech. In those circumstances, I have had no desire to hear my speech played back on the tape recorder, and I have left it at that.

From the attendants, Mr. Oliver and his assistants, we have always received the utmost courtesy and cooperation. To those of us who make this place our home for three or four days every week, they have been very kind in attending to our various wants. We obtain the same kind attention from the dining room staff and in the Library, and among those who sit around and wait for us to complete our duties and then drive us to our homes.

On behalf of my colleagues of the Country Party, I extend to each one the best wishes for a Merry Christmas. I trust that when we come back into this House we shall find that the same fellowship exists. I should also thank sincerely my colleagues, especially my deputy, Mr. Mansell, for their loyalty. I wish them a Merry Christmas and each and every one of them joins with me in extending the best wishes to members and staff at this Christmas season.

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. R. W. Garrett).-We are just finishing another sessional period after sitting for about fourteen hours. It says a lot for the gentlemen who sit in this Chamber that, after a fourteen hour series of debates, the majority of

them still have a smile. There is a great deal to be said of the standard of the honorable members of this House. I thank Sir Gilbert Chandler for the kind remarks he made about me. I have had a very happy association with Sir Gilbert for about fifteen years, during twelve of which we represented the same province. We have continued our friendship and I appreciate that as well as all his help and co-operation during the past year.

I have had the utmost co-operation from Mr. Galbally too. I have enjoyed his excerpts from the classics and various other quotations during the many speeches he made throughout the year. I appreciate Mr. Swinburne's touches of fire every now and again and the fact that he was always there ready to talk common sense on the Bills he handled. Altogether, we have very good leaders and deputy leaders in this House. Mr. Tripovich and Mr. Mansell, I am sure, give great support to their party leaders, and the same applies in the Government party. I can say of the Ministers, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Dickie and Mr. Hunt, that we have never had Bills handled better than they have been handled during the past year or so. They are masters of their trade. They understand their work and I am sure all honorable members appreciate the way they have presented their Bills.

The Chairman of Committees, Mr. Nicol, is always ready to do his job in an excellent manner. Perhaps honorable members do not know of the work he does for me from time to time. Whenever I have a couple of appointments at the same time, Mr. Nicol always helps me out most satisfactorily, and I appreciate his help very much. All honorable members also appreciate the services of the Temporary Chairmen of Committees, Mr. Gross, Mr. Bradbury, Mr. Fry and Mr. Knight. I should also mention the Whips, Mr. Granter, Mr. Walton and Mr. Mansell. Their's is not an easy task but it is possibly a little easier in this Chamber because, in the five years I have been in this


chair, I have not had to ring the bells for a quorum. That says a lot for the interest and enthusiasm of members of this House.

We could not have more efficient officers than the three officers of this House. They are always ready to help us at all hours of the day and night. I have not yet found them wrong. They always seem able to give the right advice and I appreciate that. It is not often said, but they are also smart looking officers and that is something to appreciate. They are cheerful, and that is another valuable point. They can even show their cheerfulness at twenty minutes past two in the morning.

We do not see so much of Mr. Mithen, the Clerk of the Papers, but he performs a very useful service for us in keeping up with all the documents we need, and that is certainly appreciated. Miss McGovern, the Librarian, is a most dedicated officer of tliis Parliament. Miss McGovern, Mr. McVilly, her assistant, and the rest of the Library staff provide a wonderful service to us throughout the year although their numbers are limited. The Hansar'd staff always give their best. Hansard has had a difficult session. A couple of the reporters have suffered illnesses, and this Parliament has had to borrow replacements from Canberra from time to time. This has enabled Mr. Stuart to cope with the work.

The refreshment room staff under Mr. Barry and Mr. Burton are always cheerful and they provide excellent food and services at most unusual times. As Mr. Swinburne has said, we make this place our home for a few days every week and we would not be able to do that if we did not have such good service from the refreshment room. Miss Green, my secretary, is a most efficient, cheerful and helpful person, and during the five years she has assisted me, she has not made a single mistake. That must be a record for any secretary.

My driver, Mr. Fred Gotts, works very hard and makes my life easier.

The President.

As those honorable members who have one know, a good driver can save a person a lot of work and energy. I also thank the Housekeeper, Mr. Oliver, and his staff. Mr. Oliver is a housekeeper in the true sense of the term. Never has this House been kept as well as it has in the past year or two, since Mr. Oliver has been here. Everything is polished and shines. Nothing is left to cha·nce. When ambassadors and others visit us, Mr. Oliver is always there to look after everything in a most dedicated way. We appreciate what he does for us.

We must not forget the engineer, Mr. Tynan. He has been at Parliament House for many years and has a most amazing knowledge of what goes on here. When he retires, I do not know what we will do. I hope he will be here longer than I am and that I do not have to cope with any new maintenance engineer. I thank Mr. Collins, my orderly, for making my life easier. I appreciate everything he does over long hours. The gardeners must not be forgotten. They keep the gardens at the back of the House in wonderful order, a·nd it is lovely to be able to walk around them.

One friend of ours who has not been mentioned is the Government Printer. It does not matter whether we complete a sitting at 2 a.m., 3 a.m., or 4 a.m., our Notice Paper for the following day is on the desk whe·n we arrive. Someone has to do that, and the Notice Paper is always correct. The printers have been wonderfully helpful. They must work a lot of overtime in the small hours of the morning on our behalf. I wish all these people the best of everything. I wish the staff and all honorable members and their families a happy Christmas and a prosperous and, especially, a peaceful, New Year. I hope to see all honorable members here again in the next sessional period, and I wish them all a safe trip to their homes, especially those who come from far distant places.

Sir GILBERT CHANDLER (Minister of Agriculture) .-Before you put the motion, Mr. President, some

VIC TO :RIA · VIC TO :RIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) FORTY -FIFTH PARLIAMENT THIRD SESSION...

Documents

Transcript of VIC TO :RIA · VIC TO :RIA PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) FORTY -FIFTH PARLIAMENT THIRD SESSION...