[Thursday, 29 April 1982j117

1-Gcgiaiatinr QonritThursday. 29 April 1982

The PRESIDENT (the Hon. Clive Griffiths)took the Chair at 2.30 p.m.. and read prayers.

SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES ACT

Tribunal: Sialemeni by President

THE PRESIDENT (the Hon. Clive Griffiths):I feel that I should advise honourable members ofthe following action I have taken in regard to theSalaries and Allowances Act: Pursuant to section10 (4) (a) of this Act, it is necessary for a personto be nominated by the President of theLegislative Council and the Speaker of theLegislative Assembly to assist the tribunal in aninquiry, in so far as it relates to the remunerationof the Ministers of the Crown, the ParliamentarySecretary of the Cabinet, and the officers and themembers of Parliament.

As honourable members would be aware, Mr i.G. C. Ashley. the previous Clerk of theLegislative Council. has served in this positionsince 1975. Mr Ashley has indicated that he nolonger wishes to act in this capacity. I haveconferred with the IHon. Speaker and I wish toadvise you that we have nominated Mr W. F.Willese. of 56 Bradford Street. Coolbinia. to beappointed to assist the tribunal. Honourablemembers will be aware that Mr Wijlesee is aretired member of Parliament. We feel that he isadmirably suited to act in this capacity, becaringin mind that he has served both as a country andcity member of Parliament. and that he hasserved on the back bench and as a Minister, andwas Leader of the Opposition and then Leader ofthe Government in the Legislative Council. Webelieve his former vast parliamentary experi .encejustifies his appointment. I wish to advisehonourable members that the Premier hasconcurred with this nomination and Mr Willesee'sappointment has been confirmed.

QUESTIONS

Questions were taken at this stage.

REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESSAGENTS AMENDMENT BILL

Introduction

Bill introduced, on motion by the Hon. R.Pike (Chief Secretary).

G.

ACTS AMENDMENT(CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND PROCEDURE)

BILLSecond Reading

Debate resumed from 27 April.THE HON. 1. G. MEDCALF (Metropolitan-

Attorney General) 12.49 p.m.]: This verysignificant Bill has received considerable attentionfrom the ranks of the Opposition. Although wehave had only one speech on it, by the Hon. J. M.Berinson, his comments did reflect a great deal ofattention and thought to the provisions containedin the Bill. Therefore, it is quite apparent that theBill received a good deal of study by thehonourable member and by anyone to whom hemay have referred it. It has been useful to receivehis comments and I have given them a great dealof attention.

On his first proposition, that we should defer orwithdraw the legislation, I am afraid theGovernment is quite unable to agree. The basicreason which he put forward as to why thelegislation should be deferred or withdrawn wasthat the report which has been prepared, or whichis in the course of final preparation by the CrownCounsel. Mr Murray. is likely to be presentedwithin the next three or four months. Whilstcommending the Government for having takenthe initiative in requesting Mr Murray to makethis report, and also for having made the decisionto make the report public, the honourabicmember felt this would provide a sufficient reasonfor not proceeding with this legislation now.

The real problem about that suggestion is thatthe report, which Mr Murray has almost finalisedand which will be put before the public as soon asit is in a ready and convenient form, will compriseat least two substantial volumes of some 600 to700 pages. It is a very comprehensive report onthe Criminal Code generally. It is quite apparentthat it will take a long time for the public toadequately study the report. When I say "'public",I mean not only members of the public who wantto study it in aspects or in detail, but alsoparticularly law reform bodies, professional andpolitical groups, perhaps. and certainly interestedsections of the community. Many groups in thecommunity are interested in certain aspects of theCriminal Code and it will be necessary to allowthem appropriate time to study it.

The Government commissioned this report.It is the first major study since 1913 and theGovernment does not propose to debar anyonefrom having an adequate opportunity of studyingthe report; so I cannot say when the report mightform the basis of legislation. It may be that the

1177

1178 [COUNCIL]

legislation could be introduced perhaps evensooner than I think it will be, but I have asneaking feeling that it will not be because thereis a natural aversion by informed people in thecommunity to legislation entailing such-substantial matters as the entire Criminal Codebeing brought in too hastily.

This report will raise many issues and I do notpropose to go into them now; but they should bequite apparent to honiourable members. Over theyears we have debated many things in relation tothe Criminal Code, and there will be manyinterested people, many comments, and differentopinions which will all have to be sorted out;and discussions will need to be held. For thatreason, no-one can say when the Murray reportmight in (act become enshrined in legislation andit is not possible to defer this legislation.

The reasom is that the legislation containsa number of quite important matters whichhave caused concern over a period of time,some longer than others, and it is felt that thetime has come for appropriate amendments to bemade to the Criminal Code. For those reasons, itis not really open to the Government to abide bythe suggestion that has been made by theOpposition.

Having decided that it is necessary to proceed.I propose to deal with the major points ofopposition which were expressed by thehonourable member. I firstly refer to the firstamendment in the Bill which will increase thepower to fine from $1 000 to $50 000. In 1902 thefigure of $1 000, then £500. was put into the firstCriminal Code and 80 years later we areproposing that the amount should be $50 000.This is not a matter which should be left anylonger. There has been considerable pressure fromthe courts that the power to fine should beincreased.

I think I mentioned two reasons in the secondreading speech, but the basic reason which couldhave been more happily or adequately expressedis that it will provide another option to the courtsas an alternative to imprisonment; in other words,the courts will be able to impose a substantialmonetary penalty in lieu of imprisonment, onpeople who have the capacity to pay. Asubstantial penalty will inflict considerablepunishment on those people, particularly if theyhave derived profit from their ill-gotten gains. Ispeak of people who have been convicted and arenot simply on trial.

If a person has been convicted of a seriousoffence relating to property, there is every reasonthat that person should have a severe penalty

inflicted on him in terms of monetary loss. Theamount of SI 000 is totally inadequate. I do notmention this because I am attempting to convincethe honourable member, in view of his indicationthat he agrees with this: I simply give it as areason that we should proceed at this time. Wewill provide another option which the courts need.The courts have needed it for many years and itshould not be left any longer. Perhaps it shouldhave been done previously. This is the first time ithas been drawn to my attention, but if it is worthdoing-as it is-it should be done now.

This penalty will then be able to be used by thecourts, either as an alternative to imprisonment ortogether with a term of imprisonment. It has aspecial virtue in its being an alternative toimprisonment and it will come into effect the daythis legislation has the force of law. That isvery important and, for that reason alone, weshould be proceeding with the amendment to theCriminal Code.

The question of the amount of the penalty isone on which there will be as many opinions asthere are people. I will be quite frank with theHouse and say that there was some debateamongst my officers in the Crown LawDepartment as to what might be the penalty. Thereason for the debate was fairly obvious as thecommittee on the rate of imprisonment hadrecommended that the amount be unlimited andthat the sky be the limit. Other people wouldshare that view. There were others who felt that$20 000 might be enough. It was a case ofplucking a figure out of the sky.

The basic reason that $50 000 was acceptedwas that it coincided with a recent penalty whichhad come into effect Australia-wide in relation tothe uniform securities legislation. Here again itdeals with property offences, and white collarcrime, amongst others, and it did seemappropriate that we should equate the figure tothe national legislation. Perhaps that was thereason this figure was decided upon.

I mentioned in my second reading speech thatthere will be sufficient opportunity for thispenalty to be reviewed because when the Murrayreport is made public this matter will again beunder discussion and if people have a view on thismatter, or if experience shows that it is not theright Figure, we can have another look at it. I neednot remind the Hon. J. M. Berinson that this is amaximum figure and, at the discretion of thecourt, the fine can be adjusted at any figure up to$50 000.

The Hon. J. M. Berinson asked in a kind ofinverted way whether I would concede that, with

1178

[Thursday, 29 April 1982] 17

the pressures of office, the advice of my assistantsin the Crown Law Department might be crucial. Iconcede that most readily. Even without thepressures of office, the department's advice wouldbe crucial and essential to an exercise of this kind:I most certainly would not be without it.

In fact, this Bill has been prepared byexperienced parliamentary counsel in response toviews put forward by a very expert committeecomprising possibly the three most senior officersin this field in the Crown Law Department. Theiradvice has been carefully considered, and is theresult of experience over a period.

As I have mentioned, some of the matters areof more recent origin than others-notably, ofcourse, the Di Simoni case in relation tocircumstances of aggravation. The question of theinadequacy of fines has been with us for a numberof years. All these matters, with the exception ofthe proposed amendment to section 233, whichrelates to the powers of police in certain cases,have come from the committee.

As I indicated during my second readingspeech, the request in connection with section 233came from the Commissioner of Police, who wasconcerned that in the change of jurisdiction lastyear he had lost some of the protection previouslyenjoyed by his officers, the loss of whichprotection might place them in some kind ofjeopardy in the event of their having to exercise asevere force which might cause grievous bodilyharm or even death in the course of theirattempting to prevent a person from escapingarrest.

The Commissioner of Police suggested thissection be amended. I must confess that on closerexamination of this matter I Felt some of themisgivings expressed by the Hon. J. M. Berinsonbecause it appeared some of the offences whichwere referred to and which would have beenaffected by this section were not offences whichwould call for the use of the severest form offorce. Therefore. I have taken up the matter withthe Commissioner of Police. He is happy that thematter be left for the further consideration of theMurray inquiry, so that item might be moreadequately dealt with.

All the commissioner was seeking to do was torestore the status quo: he was not asking for anymore powers than he had before we amended theAct last year. He was simply saying. -I had thesepowers in relation to all these crimes, and youhave taken them away without giving it athought." Indeed, I think that is what happened: Ithink it was done without giving a thought to thatsection of the Criminal Code. He was simply

saying, "Why did you do it?" and, on closerexamination. Parliamentary Counsel was not ableto give a simple explanation. For those reasons. Iagree the matter should receive furtherconsideration and, during the Committee stage ofthe Bill. I will move to delete the relevant clause.

I have discussed this matter with Mr Murray,who agrees it could be more adequately dealt within his report on the basis that some of theseoffences clearly appear to require that the policehave maximum protection.

The offences to which I am referring are, forexample, where a person is causing an explosionlikely to endanger life, or where a person isintentionally endangering persons on an aircraft.In those circumstances, one could well imaginethat, if called upon to effect an arrest, the policemay be required to use a very high degree offorce. Provided they use it in a reasonable wayand in good faith, I believe they should receive thefull protection of the law.

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: In retrospect, youmay even have been justified in retaining lifeimprisonment in those cases: they are very seriouscases.

The. Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: True, they arevery serious cases. However, the alternative wouldbe for me to move an amendment which wouldcontain a schedule: it would require me toevaluate those matters in the short time available.While, personally. I would be happy to dash offmy opinion and give my views on the seriousnessof these matters, there would be others who woulddiffer from me, and they may be right.

I have looked at these items. To give anillustration of the point I am making. I refermembers to the offence of breaking and enteringa dwelling in the night time. In my opinion, thatis an occasion when the maximum use of forceshould be permissible. In other words, if someoneis being arrested in the course of breaking andentering a dwelling by night, I believe the police,along with the householder, are entitled to use themaximum force. Indeed, I have spoken to manyfarmers and countrymen and I know that in mostcountry areas, particularly in lonely farm houses,it is well accepted that if anyone breaks in atnight he is likely to get a bullet. Thesc people areon lonely farms and they believe there is only oneway to deal with a person who breaks a door or awindow at night in order to effect entry: Theywould pull out their rifle, and shoot him.

The Hon. P. H. Wells: It happens, too.The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: A great number of

people would subscribe to the view that, in sucheases, the police should be entitled to use the

1179

maximum degree of force; however, others woulddisagree. Some 15 or 20 such ofrences areinvolved. For those reasons. I believe the mattershould be evaluated by a proper committee andsome time should be allowed to discuss it. I admitthat during the interim period we face theprospect that the police are not protected in thecase of one or two serious offences. should theydecide to use the maximum degree of force. It isunfortunate, but that is the situation. It is amatter on which we may need to hasten, inadvance of the Murray report.

It may well be we must bear in mind theprospect of another amendment to this legislationin the next part of the session; I take it on thatoccasion we would receive the co-operation of theHon. J. M. Berinson.

The H-on. J. M. Berinson: As always.

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: I turn now toclause 6, which deals with sections 582 and 656 ofthe Criminal Code: these sections relate to thecircumstance of aggravation. The High Court ofAustralia only last year held that in the case ofDi Simoni if the circumstance of aggravation isnot pleaded in the indictment, regard may not behad to it in sentencing. All that means, of course,is that when the pleading is drawn up in theindictment, if it contains no specific reference tothe aggravating circumstances of the crime, whenthe court comes to sentence the convicted person.it is unable to takc any note of or bear in mind thefact that circumstances occurred-even thoughthe fact might have been brought out in theevidence, and it might be apparent that itoccurred.

This is not in accordance with the practice ofthe courts in Western Australia over the last 80years. Western Australia is what is known as acode State. We have a Criminal Code. There arethree code States in Australia and there is aboutto be a fourth code area because the NorthernTerritory is going to join Queensland, WesternAustralia, and Tasmania in having a CriminalCode. The other States are common law Statesand they have different rules and laws in relationto a substantial number of criminal offences.

The High Court in this case has applied thecommon law principle, which applies in the otherStates, to a code State which had always acted ona different principle. We had always taken theview that it was not necessary to plead in theactual indictment the circumstance ofaggravation, so long as it was brought out in theevidence. But the convicted person was not givena sentence higher than the lesser one which wasprovided for the offence without the circumstanceof aggravation.

If I may illustrate that to members, I refer tothe crime of robbery which carries a penalty of 14yea rs' imprisonment. But if it is armedrobbery-that is. with a circumstance ofaggravation, or robbery in company, or whensomeone is wounded-that carries a sentence oflire imprisonment, the maximum sentence.

These offences are graduated. There is theordinary offence or robbery and the circumstanceof aggravation when the penalty goes rrom 14years' imprisonment to life imprisonment. Whatthe High Court has said is that unless in thecharge or indictment the ract is specified, that theperson was armed or that he was in company withothers, the court cannot take that into accountwhen sentencing the accused, although theevidence may clearly demonstrate that he wasarmed or in company.

For the last 80 years under our code, our courtshave interpreted that difrerently. It has beenpermissible here not to rerer to the circumstanceor aggravation in the indictment, and indeed, theCrown Law Department has taken the view thatit rerers to the circumstance or aggravation only ifit seeks the maximum penalty which goes withthat more serious offence.

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: Why should thedepartment make that judgment? If there isaggravation, why shouldn't that charge be laid?

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: That is a goodquestion. Perhaps we might more adequatelydiscuss it in Committee. The answer may be thatthe officers of the department do not alwaysknow. They cannot always tell and they do notalways have the evidence. They cannot put in thecharge facts which they cannot produce evidenceto establish. They cannot do it on the basis thatperhaps the evidence might come out in cross-examination of the other side. Even though theymight know someone was armed, they might notknow who the armed person was. It has alwaysseemed in Western Australia that this propositionof the common law was an artificial one and, if Imay speak plainly, devoid of common sense.

We have never been in favour of the commonlaw proposition. Our courts have never adoptedthe interpretation that we are required to use thatproposition nor has it been the practice to followit. I am inrormed that this also applied in theother code States which had much the same viewbefore the Di Simoni case. We are seeking here torestore the position that always applied. What wedid berore we should be able to continue to do, solong as we do not penalise the prisoner by failingto mention the circumstances and then giving hima higher penalty.

1180 [COUNCIL]

[Thursday, 29 April 1982] 18

There is a safeguard in this legislation whichprovides that if the circumstance of aggravation isnot mentioned the prisoner cannot get the higherpenalty which goes with that aggravated offence;,but the judge can take into account what hascome out in the course of the trial if there wasaggravation, when imposing the lesser penalty of14 years' imprisonment-to take the case ofrobbery.

Why on earth should we not modify thecommon law if we want to'? After all, we havemodified it many times and in many ways. Thecode has been modified in innumerable situationsbecause for various reasons it has been decided weneeded to take some statutory action to changethe traditional common law. If the High Courtsays there is a gap or loophole and says it thinks itshould be put right by the common l 'aw, there isnothing to stop us saying we have always done it aparticular way and we propose to continue doingso. That is what I am saying now.

but we have the safeguard that the person whois convicted in a case where the circumstance ofaggravation is not pleaded in the indictment shallnot receive any greater penalty than for the lesseroffence without that circumstance. That seems tous to be eminently suitable and sensible and Ibelieve it is something the House should endorse.

If I may give an illustration of the way in whichthe common law has been modified previously, wedid so to our advantage in a number of situations.and one which has received a considerableamount of public acclaim was that made undersection 28 of the code. It was a case decided bythe High Court about two years ago, arising inVictoria. a common law State. The decision wasthat if one is sufficiently intoxicated-sufficientlydrunk-one cannot form an intention to commit acrime.

That does not apply in Western Australia orthe other code States because our code provides tothe contrary unless there is a specific element ofintention in the offence. We have overcome theproblem that Victoria faces in relation to offencesinvolving drunkenness. Recently there was a casein NSW involving this precedent in which it washeld that a person was too intoxicated to becriminally responsible for drunken driving. We donot face that situation here.

The Hon. P. H. Wells. Nor should we.The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: Drunkenness is no

excuse except in certain rare circumstances. Whyshould we not modify the common law if we wantto" It is the common law of England which hasbeen handed down through the centuries, and noone is a greater admirer of it than I am; but I donot believe we should follow it slavishly. I am sure

the Hon. P. H. Wells would agree with thatobservation.

This brings me to another item to whichobjection was raised: that is. clause 7 which dealswith the joinder of various offenees. such as wilfulmurder, murder, or manslaughter, With otheroffences. If the amendment we are seeking to bepassed is passed by the Chamber, and if twooffences of wilful murder occur in the samecircumstances, they can be included in the onecharge and only one trial need be held. Forexample. if several murders and another crimeoccurred, they could be dealt with together,provided they were factually and legally similar.

This provides the means whereby. for example.we can try, at one trial, a person who hascommitted a double murder. If a person rushedinto a house with a machine gun, murdered ahusband and wife, and rushed out again, whyshould not he be tried on both murder counts atthe one trial? Why can he be tried for only one ofthose murders, making it necessary for a secondtrial to be conducted for the other murder'?

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: What is the Point ofthe second conviction for wilful murder'?

The Hon. I. G. MEDCALF: I thank the Hon.Joe Berinson for that interjection.

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: I am giving you allthe right leads.

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: I was hoping thehonourable member would ask that question.because I have been itching for an opportunity toanswer it. The Hon. Joe Berinson gave theillustration of a man being hanged, drawn andquartered. I think he used the word "hung-

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: That was in thecorrespondence. I would never have used ii.

The H-on. L.G. MEDCALF: It is true, if a manis to be hanged, drawn, and quartered, he mightas well only be hanged. or drawn, or quartered. Ifa man rushes in and murders two pcople -and isconvicted and sentenced to death for one Of thosemurders, there is little point in sentencing him todeath a second time. I would agreewholeheartedly with that hypothesis. but thesituation is not always as simple as that.

In many eases the situation arises where aperson is charged, say. with a homicide in thecourse of an armed robbery. In other words, arobbery attempt occurs and a cleaner, caretaker.or someone in the building is murdered.Unfortunately hundreds of these situations occur.I remember very vividly the murder whichoccurred in the course of a robbery at Canis Bros.in Hay Street. Under the existing law, the murder

1181

1182 COUJNCI L]

cannot be joined with the armed robbery in oneindictment, although both offences happened atthe same time, the offences and the witnesseswere the same, and probably counsel on both sideswere the same. Regardless, two trials must beconducted.

The honourable member asked: Why bother? Itis necessary simply because success may not beachieved on the homicide charge as a result of atechnicality or even without a technicality and thedefendant may be acquitted. However, it may bequite apparent, in the course of the homicidecharge, that an armed robbery occurred. One isfaced with the prospect that, having failed on thehomicide charge, one does not intend to let thefellow off, because all the evidence tends to showhe in fact committed a robbery or intended to doso and he can then be convicted on the lessercharge.

As a result of this amendment, it will bepossible to do this at the one trial, Instead ofsaying. "Right, all you witnesses come back fromKalgoorlie or wherever in three months' time.because we are going to have another trial", thedefendant may be tricd on both counts at the onetrial.

Previously the defendant either would beremanded in custody or allowed out on bail forthree or six months until another trial occurred.Not only does that involve the time of the courtsand the witnesses, but also it causes a great dealof mental .anguish, if not for thedefendant-a though the defendant usuallysuffers to some extent-certainly for his relativesand friends, those that he may have.

Bearing in mind the circumstances, it isobviously necessary to change the procedure.Adequate safeguards are provided in that thejudge's discretion must be exercised and is alwaysavailable. If a judge believes separate trials shouldbe conducted, he may order accordingly and nodoubt counsel would have something to say aboutthat, If counsel believes separate trials should beheld, I am quite certain counsel would make hisor her representations very apparent to the court.It could also be a ground for appeal were theperson convicted and prejudiced in some waybecause of the joinder of these matters.

We do not believe judges of the Supreme Courtare not to be trusted in this respect. I know thehonourable member did not say judges of theSupreme Court were not to be trusted, but I felthe implied he was not satisfied their discretionwas a sufficient safeguard. We reject that view.

The IHon. J. M. Berinson: I actually quotedpractitioner opinion to that effect.

The Hon. 1.0G. MEDCALF: Yes; I can imaginewhose opinion that was, too.

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: Whose opinions theywere.

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: The Association ofLabor Lawyers.

Some very useful opinions were contained inthose views, but there is a very valid reason forrejecting them. Therefore. I submit we shouldaccept clause 7.

The final matter on which the Hon. MrBerinson voiced an objection was in relation tojuries. It is proposed in the Bill that juries shouldbe permitted to separate in the course of capitalcases. At the present rime they cannot do so,although they can separate in all other trials,including rape trails. However, juries are unableto separate in a homicide trial, because the codespecifically says they cannot. We believe thatprovision is outmoded and should be changed.

A considerable amount of judicial pressure hasbeen exerted for this change and, indeed, in mostof the other States I am informed that, at thejudge's discretion, juries may separate in capitalcases. As I said, judicial pressure has been exertedto move in that direction so that juries are norlocked up and confined for the entire period of ahomicide trial.

The honourable member put the argument thatJurors might watch television were they allowed togo home. It is quite true. they might do so, butthey can do that now if they are involved in trialsother than homocide trials. Jurors may watchtelevision if they are involved in rape trials. I amled to believe the average juror is not so stupid asto be led astray by something he might happen tosee on "Nationwide".

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: Which particularsociety of lawyers led you to that conclusion?

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF I will not answerthat question.

There is no reason this discretion should not begiven to the judge who can, if he wishes, orderthat the jurors remain together. We are concernedfor the jurors themselves, because they prefer togo home. They are not very keen about beinglocked up in the Criterion Hotel or the ParkTowers Hotel, where I believe they areaccommodated now. Greater difficulties areexperienced in this regard in country areas: Jurorshave family responsibilities and we must be alittle more realistic about this provision and allowthe discretion to remain with the judge as it is inall other cases.

1 182

[Thursday, 29 April 19821 18

Counsel may make representations if theybelieve the jurors should remain locked up. Nodoubt the provision can be changed if it is feltthere is anything in the argument that television isso biased and so liable to influence jurors thesedays that it might prejudice the course of criminaltrials.

In order to minimise the inconvenience tojurors, in order to ensure jurors in homicide trialswill not be dealt with more severely than those inother trials, and subject to the safeguard that thejudge has the ultimate discretion and can orderotherwise, we believe jurors in homicide trialsshould be allowed to separate.

I think I have answered all the main points. Anumber of important amendments were dealt within the second reading speech, amendments towhich the member indicated he did not have anyobjection, and which will effect some importantadvances. Little reference was made to the alibiprovisions-

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: I said that we agreedwith them positively.

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: Yes, indeed: Imerely mention that the amendment is aconsiderable advance on the position in otherStates. It will preserve to an accused the right toproduce his alibi at his trial. This does not applyin other places where an accused is debarred fromputting his alibi if he has not given notice of it.We will allow an accused the right to produce hisalibi, and in such circumstances provision is madefor an adjournment.

In the circumstances I have outlined, the Houseshould support the Bill.

Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In CommitteeThe Chairman of Committees (the Hon. V. J.

Ferry) in the Chair; the Hon. 1. G. Medcalf(Attorney General) in charge of the Bill.

Clauses I to 4 put and passed.

ClauseS5: Section 233 amended-

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: As indicated inthe second reading speech, and for the reasonsthen given with which I will not bother theChamber again, the Government wishes to voteagainst this clause.

The Hon. J. M. BERINSON: I will be happyin this case to follow the lead of the Government.I take the opportunity of this clause to make somemore general comment.

I appreciate the care and the thoroughness ofthe Attorney's attention to the various objectionsraised by the Opposition to the Bill as a whole. Iappreciate also his flexibility on this clause,though I can only regret that the flexibility didnot go further to some additional clauses on whichI will have something to say in a few moments.

The Opposition's objection remains to theprocedure which involves our pre-empting in acertain sense the tabling of the Murray report.The reason for our objection is that nothing hasemerged from the Attorney's reply to suggest adegree of urgency on any of these proposals thatrequires us to proceed now rather than in three orfour months. We have not suggested that noaction on the Criminal Code should be taken untilthe whole of the Murray report is digested. andsubstantial amendments incorporating many ofthe Murray recommendations introduced: wehave said though that we should wait on thereport because it provides the first opportunity inmany years for a comprehensive look at this verylong, detailed and technical Act.

So far as we are concerned the very measureswith which we are dealing in this Bill could bedealt with in isolation in a few months, andagainst the background of the Murray report andwithout necessarily waiting for the very manyother amendments which that report mightjustify. I do not propose to expand on that anyfurther, but simply make the point that ouroriginal request that these matters be consideredin the light of the Murray report rather than inanticipation of it, still seems to represent theproper approach.

As to clause 5, I welcome the Attorney'sinitiative in setting it aside. I agree with him thatfurther review might show that some of theoffences which were sought to be caught by clause5 should in fact be caught by the provisionsenabling the police to use extreme force in givencircumstances, but that, as the Attorney says, issomething which can be remedied easily at asubsequent time.

I support the proposal that this clause bedeleted.

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: The Governmentis proceeding with the Bill because it believesthere are a number of amendments of which thecourts ought now to have the benefit. I do notwant that to be misinterpreted; I do not meanthere are matters in hand which might be affectedby this legislation. I do not mean that for amoment: there is no intention to change anythingthat is going on. I thought I made it clear that theGovernment believes we should have forthwith

1183

1184 [COUNCIL]

the benefit of the unlimited power to fine, andsome of the other proposals.

As to waiting for three oi four months, or a fewmonths. I believc it is better to be sure thn sorry.It is a much better prospect that we should do thisnow, and cover matters that are far more pressingthan some of the matters which will come out ofthe Murray report.

Mr Murray has been intimately concerned withthese amendments, with the exception of the onein relation to the police. I anticipate theHon. Mr Berinson's remark: I have not said thatfor his information, but for the information of theCommittee.

Clause put and negatived.Clause 6: Section 582 amended-The Hon. J. M. BERINSON: This is the clause

the effect of which is to reverse the effect of theHigh Court decision in the Di Simoni case. I willnot go over the whole argument presented in thesecond reading speech except to say it isdisappointing the Government is still intent onretaining clause 6 to reverse the effect of thatdecision. A certain inconsistency is involved, if Imay say so. between the argument in support ofclause 6 dealing with the Di Simoni effect, andthe argument in respect of the provision later inthe Bill which permits juries to be separated incapital cases.

As the Attorney quite correctly pointed out, itis the practice in a majority of other States topermit jurors to be separated, subject to judicialdiscretion in all cases. He relies on the majoritypractice elsewhere to support the change to thejury practice here. When we come to clause6-and where the Government insists on reversingthe effect of Di Simoni's case-it relies on theattitude of the minority of States and the minorityof jurisdictions which have to deal with this sortof problem. Admittedly, the reason that arises isthat so many jurisdictions do not have a codifiedcriminal law as we do and are dealing in commonlaw standards. Nevertheless, it remains a fact thatthe majority of jurisdictions in the AustralianStates and the sort of countries we mostcommonly compare ourselves with, would follow(he practice in Di Simoni's case ratIher thban theoriginal practice in this State which this Bill seeksto reintroduce.

I asked the Attorney in the course of hiscomments just why it was that the factor ofaggravation should be omitted from anindictment, and the Attorney welcomed thatquestion. He was even kind enough to say it wasan important question-I suspect he conceded itwas important because he had his reply ready.

The reply was that the reason the factor ofaggravation is not always included in anindictment is that the prosecution does not alwaysknow before a trial that it can establish the factorof aggravation. There is the converse to thatargument, and that is, that the defendant facedwith an indictment which does not include theelement of aggravation can be prejudiced to thatextent in the preparation of his defence.

Another factor has been put to me by counsel,and I confess that in this area of the Bill I relyentirely on advice. I have had no personalexperience in this area but this further factor isput to me as important. It relates to the basis onwhich counsel can give advice to a defendant inrespect of admissions: that is, in respect of hisadvice as to whether or not the defendant shouldplead guilty. For instance, I take the exampleprovided by the Attorney General of robbery andarmed robbery carrying respectively 14 years'imprisonment or life imprisonment. Counsel couldinform his client that the maximum penalty forrobbery was 14 years and the going rate-so tospeak-for convictions on that charge was five orsix years. That is what he could expect. He goesinto court and pleads guilty on the basis of thatadvice, and the statement of facts, includes areference to aggravation, and the judge isentitled-admittedly still within the l4-yearmaximum rather than the 20-year maximum-totake into account the element of aggravation.what the defendant needs to know is that thegoing rate is no longer five or six years. The goingrate could well be of 10 to 12 years.

Sitting suspended from 3.45 p.m. to 4.00 p.m.The Hon. J. M. BERINSON: In his reply to

the second reading debate, the Attorney Generalwas uncharacteristically unkind. He said, as Ihave recorded it. that the attitude of theOpposition to the question of the propertreatment of aggravation as it affects sentencingis devoid of commonsense. I hope that some of theconsideration to which I have referred, both inCommittee and in earlier debate, will be enoughto indicate, at least, that there are seriousconsiderations in support of the common lawstandard.

Apart from that, all I would want to add is thatit is a shame to see how the Attorney General andthe Chief Justice of the High Court of Australiadisagree on what constitutes a proper standard ofcommonsense. When one reads the decision of theChief Justice in Di Simoni's case, one finds hisreference to the principle which this Bill willoverturn as a fundamental and importantprinciple. I suppose that might be taken simply toindicate that, as an historical fact. the common

1184

jThursday. 29 April 19821 18

law has regarded it as a fundamental principle. Iwould think, however, that the connotation of hiscomment goes further than that-. so that when theChief Justice referred to the principle as"fundamental and important"', he described it inthose terms because he wanted to express theopinion that this was a principle which ought tobe preserved.

The Opposition believes that, this having beenestablished by the High Court test, it is indeed aprinciple which ought to be reflected in thisState's administration of the criminal law. Iindicate again to the Committee that clause 6 isone of the aspects of the Bill to which theOpposition is fundamentally opposed.

The Hon. I. G. N4EDCALF: While it is truethat I did say that a majority of States hadallowed separation of juries in homicide cases,and I did not expand that argument in this case, itwas not because a majority of States think thatway. Indeed. I believe that about an equal numberof States have the situation which we have hadhere traditionally: but that is not necessarily agood reason for adopting the suggestion that weshould act, even if the majority were against whatwe are now proposing.

There are other reasons, and I have given them;but particularly, when for 80 years since we havehad the Criminal Code, had particular provisionsand a particular understanding of the law, that isa good reason for differing from what might applyin some of the other States. I reiterate that thereis no reason why we should not improve upon thecommon law if it does not Fit in with thereasoning which we have always understood here.

In regard to the suggestion or the statement Iam alleged to have made that the Opposition wasdevoid of commonsense, I did not say that. I saidthe proposition was devoid of commonsense. Norwould I have said that the Chief Justice of theHigh Court was devoid of com monsense!

The Hon. J. M. Berinson: No. It just follows!

The Hon. 1. G. MEDCALF: I have the greatestrespect for the Chief Justice of the High Court.Indeed, I respect the proposition that has been putby the Opposition. However, I believe that thekind of case to which the hontourable member wasreferring is a very rare one. I amn not reallyqualified to say whether the situation to which hehas referred is a likely one, in any event. Whensomebody pleads guilty, I doubt whether thissituation could arise.

I would like to mention the kind of case whichthe Government has in mind in relation to this(381

amendment. Take the situation in which threepeople decide to rob a bank, and one of them isarmed. We do not know who is the armed person.They go into the bank, and in the course ofrobbing the bank the bank manager is shot. If thecircumstance of aggravation is pleaded in theindictment, and only one circumstance is pleaded.under the common law reasoning that could beused. For example. if the indictment said that so-and-so, in company, did so-and-so, thecircumstance of aggravation is being pleaded. Thereference to being in company is a circumstanceof aggravation. However, if there is no record of aperson being armed, when the judge is consideringthe sentence he cannot make use or the evidencewhich comes out that somebody was armed, andthe bank manager was shot. All he can consider isthat these people were in company, because thatis what was pleaded in the indictment.

That is the kind of difficult situation which theCrown faces. The Crown acts in the interests ofthe public, because the public have an interest inseeing that people who commit such crimes whilearmed are in fact punished for having committeda crime while armed.

I suppose it is a difference of interpretation.whether one is looking at it from the point of viewof the defence or the point of view of the Crown.Quite frankly, from the point of view of theCrown, one is looking at it from the point of viewof protection of the public, if one is looking at itproperly.

For those reasons, I ask the Committee tosupport the clause.

Clause put and passed.Clause 7: Section 585 amended-The I-on. 1. M. BERINSON: Clause 7 deals

with the joinder of offences, and seeks to treatwilful murder, murder, and manslaughter chargesin this respect the same as any other charge. TheAttorney General says. -Why should we treatthem differently?" As I tried to indicate in myspeech on the second reading, we should treatthem differently because a special seriousness isattached to homicide and to the possible penaltiesapplicable to it. That is the basis of our attitude toclause 7, and also to the later clause which dealswith the separation of juries.

This is the aspect of the Bill in respect ofwhich, in my speech on the second reading. Ireferred specifically to the advice and experienceof a number of members of the criminal Bar. Forthe information of the Committee, those memberswere not necessarily members of the LaborLawyers Association. Indeed, in my state ofrelative ignorance as to criminal law procedures, I

1185

was surprised at the vehemence with which allpractitioners with whom I discussed this Billapproached this aspect of it. I admit that freely. Iwas most surprised that this joinder questionconcerned them almost more than any otheraspect of the Bill.

The Attorney deakt with the case where robberyled to murder, and I believe he was referring tothe Cans Bros. case. The problem practitionersput to me is that the joining of cases too oftenoperates with what may be referred to as ashotgun effect: One sprays the pellets in alldirections knowing they will hit something; or onegoes before a jury accusing a man of a wholeseries of offences including homicide with the ideathat the jury will accept that he may not havedone all those things but he must have donesomething. That is a detriment to the defendantwhich, it has been put to me, ought particularly tobe avoided in these most extreme cases; namely,the capital cases.

I summarise by saying that it is the specialnature of the capital cases and the extreme natureof the penalties applicable that form the basis ofour opposition to the proposed change in thejoinder provisions and the separation of the juryprovisions.

The Hon. I. G. MEDCALF: The situation towhich the Hon. J. M. Berinson has referred is onethat has been with us for a long time; namely, theability of the prosecution to join a number ofcharges. That has come under criticism in one ortwo cases. One magistrate in Kalgoorlie-who isno longer there, because he elected toresign-frequently made these comments,particularly in relation to the Road TrafficAuthority, which has the same principle but in adifferent Act. Admittedly there could be instanceswhere the joining of numerous charges could beoverdone: however. I do not believe in thissituation such considerations should deter usfrom proceeding with this amendment.

I have given the illustration of the tremendoussaving in time alone quite apart from the costsand expenses, both to the Crown and to privatepeople, by avoiding numerous trials involving oneset of facts only. Clearly there are so manyconsiderations in favour of this move that onemust be forced to go along with it. not only on theground of economy but also for many otherreasons which 'make this a very usefularrangement.

Perhaps I could extend the illustration of thethree robbers who rob a bank, in the process ofwhich the bank manager is killed. If we cannot jointhe robbery and the murder offences there couldbe difficulty, because one of the three robbers

might have stayed outside the bank keeping -nit-in a car waiting for the other two to bring out themoney. That man did not shoot the bankmanager, but he was an accomplice of the twowho entered the bank. He will be charged withmurder although it is not likely he will beconvicted of the murder. If we can join the othercharges, he may well be charged with a lesseroffence and be convicted of robbery. These thingsare all very significant in the expedition of justice.

When the Hon. Joe Berinson refers to thenumber of lawyers he found who had vehementviews on this matter, one can understand that,because basically it depends on the point of view.The defence point of view was ingrained in meand I have always looked at things from thatpoint of view. But there is another point ofview-the public point of view. We have to findtht right balance, and I believe this is it.

Clause put and passed.Clauses 8 to 18 put and passed.Title put and passed.

ReportBill reported, with an amendment, and the

report adopted.

Third ReadingBill read a third time, on motion by the Hon. 1.

G. Medcalf (Attorney General), and transmittedto the Assembly.

GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS AMENDMENTBILL

Receipt and First Reading

Bill received from the Assembly; and, onmotion by the Hon. 1. G. !vedcalf (Leader of theHouse). read a first time.

Second Reading

THE HON. 1. G. MEDCAIF (Metropolitan-Leader of the House) [4.19 p.m.]: I move-

That the Bill be now read a second timeThis Bill represents a further progressive step inthe Government's land freight transport policy,which has the aim of developing an efficienttransport industry in Western Australia andproviding users with the benefits of competitionand freedom of choice.

The main objective of this legislation is to havea joint venture company commence functioningon or about I July 1982. The exact date will bedependent upon the time taken to finalise thelegal and administrative details after Parliamenthas dealt with this legislation.

1186 [COUNCIL]

[Thursday, 29 April 1982j 18

To achieve this target it is essential the jointventure organisation be formed and functional insufficient time to enable a smooth transitionthereby ensuring a continuing satisfactorytransport service for the people of WesternAustralia. Therefore I July has been decidedupon for implementation of the next stage of thederegulation process of the Government's freighttransport policy. Members are informed also thatthe Government has decided to allow farmers tocart their own wool, mohair, and chaff in theirown vehicles from that date.

Essentially, the new Bill does three things: Itmakes provision for the Railways Commission toparticipate in a joint venture freight forwardingcompany: it allows Westrail to give credit tocustomers or suppliers in the course of therailways normal business: and it authorises thecommission to construct and maintain sidingsboth within and outside the limits of the railway.

The joint venture proposal is for a proprietarylimited company 50 per cent Westrail owned and50 per cent owned by Mayne Nickless Ltd.

The joint venture option was decided upon afterreceiving the Commissioner of Railways'recommendation that it would be the best andmost effective way to complete the deregulationof smalls freight in Western Australia.

The Commissioner considered it to be in thebest interest of Westrail to participate in thehandling of smalls freight and keeping downWesTail's deficit.

The joint venture operation is expected toremove from Westrail's annual deficit in 1984-85,some $7 million per annum-1981 dollars-acourse which significantly benefits users andtaxpayers.

The joint venture company will handle smallstraffic-that is. parcels less than carload, andsome wagon load, excluding private sidingstraffic-in competition with any othertransporters.

The smalls traffic involves approximately325 000 tonnes per annum or about two per centof Westrail's freight. It does not include the bulkhauls.

Smalls consignments have been regulated torail for many years. However, the current methodof handling these traffics is not the most efficient.

Under conditions of free competition. railcannot compete by the existing methods. This hasbeen proved in other countries and by Westrail'sown experiences. Deregulation of smtalls has beendecided upon, but this was inevitable becausepeople will not accept regulation when there arebetter alternatives.

The joint venture company will work like anyother freight forwarder, consolidating smalls andforwarding it by rail or road-whichever is themost efficient, It will have country depots. operatecomprehensive services and use local carriersextensively. The company will not have any unfairadvantage over others. Deregulation of smallstraffics will be implemented without tonnagelimitation on or about I July 1982, to open upmarketplace competition between transportoperators.

The joint venture proposes to offer smallsservices to all possible destinations presentlyserved by Westrail at similar frequencies.

As the company will operate at a lesser costusing about half the staff as the old method andwill be subject to Competition. it follows thataverage prices and services will improve.

As part of the implementation of theGovernment's freight policy the joint venturemove will be closely monitored. The assurance isgiven that adequate transport services will bemaintained to remote areas, if necessary underfranchised arrangements.

The joint venture will result in Westrail'shaving about 780 fewer employees-this is lessthan 10 per cent of the organisation's presentwork force. About 400 staff will be required forthe joint venture and the company proposes torecruit 250 from Westrail and 150 from MayneNickless.

The assurance has been given that no Westrailpeople will be dismissed as a result of the change.The remaining Westrail positions which areaffected-that is, those not transferring to thenew company-will be absorbed by the usualreduction procedures: that is, throughproductivity improvements and a policy of non-replacement.

The Government's land freight transport policyis progressively enabling the transportrequirements of the people of Western Australiato he met in the most efficient and lowest costway.

In regard to the final two aspects of the Bill,the intention is to confirm the power of theRailways Commission to advance credit to clientsin the normal course of business.

A consequential amendment adds the specificauthorisation for the commission to constructsidings outside the railway property; for example.where a private landowner requires a siding intohis property.

I commend the Bill to the House.

1 187

1188 COUNCIL]

Debate adjourned, on motion by the Hon.Robert Hethcrington.

ACTS AMENDMENT (MISUSE OFDRIJOS1 AMENDMENT BILL

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

motion by the Hon. 1, G, Medealf (Leader of theHouse), read a first time.

Second ReadingTHE HON. IL G. MEDCALF (Metropolitan-

Leader of the House) 14.24 p.m,]: I move-That the Bill be now read a second time.

THE HON. J. M. HER INSON (North-EastMetropolitan) 14.25 p.m.]: I rise to indicate thatthe Opposition supports this Bill.

THE HON. 1. G. MEDCALF (Metropolitan-Leader of the House) [4.26 p.m.]: The purpose ofthis Bill is to rectify an anomally that occurredwith the passage of two separate pieces oflegislation during the last session of Parliament,dealing with the criminal jurisdiction of theDistrict Court of Wcstern Australia.

Members will recall that the Acts Amendment(Misuse of Drugs) Bill, Act No. 57 of 198 1, wasintroduced to facilitate the operations of theMisuse of Drugs Act 1981.

Part Ill of Act No. 57 of 1981 was intended toextend the jurisdiction of the District Court toenable it to deal with drug offences that werepunishable with up to 25 years' imprisonment.

Section 42 of the District Court of WesternAustralia Act was amended to achieve thatobjective as previously the jurisdiction of thecourt was confined to offences' punishable with 14years' imprisonment or less.

At a later date, and as a completely separateexercise, the Acts Amendment (Jurisdiction ofCourts) Bill, Act No. 118 of 1981, wasintroduced. That Bill also amended Section 42 ofthe District Court of Western Australia Act sothat the District Court had jurisdiction to try alloffences other than those punishable by death orlife imprisonment.

This latter amendment proclaimed on IFebruary 1981, removed entirely the necessity forthe amendments contained in part Ill of Act No.57 of 1981 which has not yet been proclaimed.

The Bill now before the House rectifies theanomaly by repealing part Ill of the ActsAmendment (Misuse of Drugs) Act 198 1,

I commend the Bill to the House.Question put and passed.

Bill read a second time.

In Commit tee, ec.c

Bill passed through Committee without debate,reported without amendment, and the reportadopted.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time, on motion by the Hon. 1.G. Medcalf (Leader of the House), and passed.

FAMILY PLANNING ASSOCIATION

Funding: Motion

Debate resumed from 28 April.

THE HON. R. C. PIKE (North Metro-politan-Chief Secretary) [4.28 p~m.l: Inspeaking to the motion moved by the Hon. LylaElliott, I indicate that the following commentshave been supplied by the Minister for Health:There is no need for this motion. The actions withrespect to funding proposed in Miss Elliott'smotion already have been carried out by theGovernment on the representations of theMinister for Health (Mr Young) who has been incontact with the Family Planning Association onthis matter for some time.

I want to make it clear that the Governmentacknowledges and supports the general activitiesof the Family Planning Association and that iswhy the Premier has acceded to the association'srequest for top-up funding in 1981-82 to theextent of up to 527 000, and prior to this hadalready advanced 522 000 for this financial year.which the association uses in non-clinical areas ofeducation and training.

The Minister for Health has advised theassociation and publicly stated that he will beapplying for an increase in the association'sfunding out of State resources in 1982-83. TheGovernment would like to ensure that theoperations of the association are at leastmaintained at the existing level.

The funding for the clinical activities of theFamily Planning Association in the past has beenprovided wholly by the CommonwealthGovernment and the association anticipated thisarrangement to be maintained for the currentfinancial year.

In December 1981 the Commonwealth advisedthe Family Planning Association that a fixedgrant of $242000 would be allocated for the198 1-82 financial year. The grant was to be basedon the actual expenditure figure for the previousfinancial year. Because of inflation and increasedsalary award payments. the association was facingan anticipated deficit of some $27 000 to $29 000.

1188

[Thursday. 29 April 1982]118

The association undertook to review its operationsto effect economics.

I make the point here that there has been an11.98 per cent increase in costs due to wageincreases. I ask all me mbe rs, particularlymembers of the Labor Party, to note that whenany claims for wage rises take place in this State.the Labor Party always says. "Yes, we think thereshould be a wage increase:, it is reasonable." Thatcould be interpreted as being a fair argument.However, it is very proper for the House to notethat here we have an actual figure on which towork; the association's wage bill has increased by11.98 per cent. The result of such wage increasesis always an increase in charges. In this case, thewage increase will result in an additional 527 000to $29 000 having to be found.

I remind the House that when we are looking atincreased charges because of increased wagestructures, we cannot be as one-sided as somemembers are wont to be. If members are going tosupport wage increases, they cannot in the nextbreath oppose reasonable increases in charges.

The Minister for Health has had a closeinvolvement with the association, especiallyrecently by way of correspondence and bydeputation. and it was out of thiese representationsthat the favourable consideration for financialassistance arose.

Following consultations with the Minister forHealth and exchange of correspondence on thematter, the association on 5 March made awritten request to the Under Treasurer for agrant to cover the shortfall in operating costs dueto the reduction in the level of Commonwealthsupport for the current financial year.

In response to this submission for top-upfunding for the current financial year. thePremier on 7 April advised the Family PlanningAssociation that all State funds had beencommitted and that he was unable to assist.

Following a review of expenditure levels as at31 March and known commitments as at 14April-I ask members to note that date-itappeared the Public Health Department would beable to assist with some extra funding.

On 20 April the Minister for Health approvedan approach to the Premier for a review of thesituation and the Premier has agreed to thepayment of up to a further $27 000.

I hope members forgive the pun when I say thismay be a bitter pill for the Hon. Lyla Elliott toswallow! I would not like Miss Elliott or membersof the Opposition to think I am being unkind if Iwere to say that the motion is now meaninglessand in view of the fact that action already has

been taken by the Government on the majorthrust Of Miss Elliott's propositions, I advise theHouse to vote against the motion, unless of courseMiss Elliott would care-in view of thisexplanation-simply to withdraw it.

THE HON. LYLA ELLIOTT (North-EastMetropolitan) [4.34 p.m.]: I am astounded at theinformation given by the Chief Secretary that theGovernen has relented and has agreed to makethis extra payment to the Family PlanningAssociation. Naturally, I am delighted at thenews.

The Hon. Robert Hetherington: You did notfind it a bitter pill at all.

The IHon. LYLA ELLIOTT: Not only am Isurprised, but also I am sure the executive officerof the Family Planning Association would besurprised b~ecause as recently as today he wasunaware of the fact that this decision had beenmade by the Government. It seems very strangethat until this motion was moved in the House thesituation had been as it originally obtained;namely. the Family Planning Association wasadvised by the Government that only $22 000would be made available this financial year. I donot know what happened-apart from the movingof this motion-to make the Government changeits mind. However, it has happened, and I amvery pleased to hear it. The State has been gettingout of the Situation very cheaply up until now.

The Chief Secretary quoted a lot of figureswhich I am sure were difficult ror members toassimilate.

The Hon. 1. G. Pratt: 1 thought he was quitelucid.

The Hon. LYLA ELLIOTT: He referred to theamount of money made available by theCommonwealth for clinical activities, andamounts made available by the State for non-clinical activities. The fact is that, because Of theprevious system of funding by theCommonwealth-that is, deficit funding-theState has been getting out of it very cheaply.

The association, under the heading "ClinicalActivities", has been able to list many of theadministrative Costs Which should have been listedunder the heading "Non-clinical Activities".However, when the system changed, it meant thatthe association no longer received adequate fundsto keep up with inflation, increases in wages, andso forth. So it is now having to look to other waysof adjusting its bookkeeping so that it can keep itshead above water because of this, in effect, 20 percent Cut in funding from the Commonwealth andthe fact that it is not able, as it were, to pass over

1189

1190 [COUNCIL]

so many of the administrative costs 10 the clinicalactivities heading.

I do not believe that, because at this late hourthe State has agreed to pay over the sum of$27 000. the motion should be withdrawn.Certainly the State has acceded to part (a) of themotion, and I am very pleased about that.However, the motion contains a second part; thatis, that the State Government should approachthe Commonwealth Government to urge a returnto the previous system of funding-namely,deficit funding-to enable the services offered bythe association to be restored and maintained, Ifwe do not now carry the motion, it means we arenot calling on the State Government to take thisaction. Therefore, I do not intend to withdraw themotion, and I hope that members will see fit tosupport it.

Question put and negatived.Motion defeated.

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT AMENDMENTBILL

Second Reading

Debate resumed from 28 April.THE HON. D. J. WORDSWORTH (South)

[4.38 p.m.]; When I had the privilege of takingover the portfolio of Forests, probably the firstpoint I appreciated was that the Governmentcontrols the entire forest resources of this State. Itis understandable that this should be so when oneunderstands the history of our forests. Probablywhen the first settlers arrived here, they thoughtthat their main export would be agriculturalproducts. However, they soon-found that timberexports were far more profitable. Swan Rivermahogany soon became a major export from thisState. It was used not only for ship building, butalso, later, the streets of London were paved withit. It became the basis of sleepers for the railways.

The northern hemisphere was blessed withsoftwoods but, perhaps apart from the oak tree, itwas short of hardwood. So this hardwood timbercontributed a great deal to the early developmentof Western Australia.

Although there was plenty of timber in thesouth-west in the early days. regrettably theforests were soon over-exploited and theGovernment found it necessary to control thisresource before it was depleted completely.Nevertheless, the Government was niot able toprevent overcutting and it is only in the last fewdecades that the trend has been reversed. TheGovernment now has a definite policy: by the year2010 it will have replaced with softwoods two-

thirds of the present timber cut, and for sonicyears now the Government has been plantinga pproximately 3 000 hectares a year of pine.

Unfortunately the royalty payment on timber isvery low, and this fact has created many of ourdifficulties. Needless to say, people who have landunder timber have been forced to Find analternative use for their holding so that they canpay the various taxes on the land and still makesome sort of profit.

With the low royalties on hardwood, it did notoffer much of a profit. It was all very well for theCrown to Set a low royalty on this type of timber,but it made it nearly itnpossiblc for landowners toconduct a business of growing hardwood in thisState. Fortunately, the Government found it hadto set a different royalty rate for softwood, and itis rather interesting that the royalty rate forsoftwood is three times that of hardwood, and yetSoftwood takes only one-third of the growing time.Perhaps I have illustrated the difficulties we havein regard to private forestry in this State.particularly for hardwoods.

It is easy enough for the conservationists to say,-Why does not the Government increase theroyalty on hardwood up to the level applying forsoftwood?" If we did this, towns such asPemberton would soon close down and the timberindustry would be in chaos. The best policy tofollow is one of gradual implementation of higherroyalties on hardwood.

To encourage the planting of softwoods Irecommended to the Government that changes bemade in regard to land taxes. I had receivedrepresentations from various organisations andprivate foresters-including the AustralianPrivate Forests Development Institute which doesa great deal oF work in this direction throughoutAustralia. It is rather interesting to read thefollowing in the Minister's second readingspeech-

There is no valid reason for forestryactivities to be denied the exemption which,incidentally, is available to landowners inmost of the other States.

At present the Land Tax Assessment Actprovides an exemption. under Certain-conditions, for most types of primaryproducing businesses with the exception offorestry businesses.

It is remarkable that it has taken as long as it hasfor the timber producers in this State to be put ona footing equal with other agriculturalproducers. The Minister pointed out that, in thepast, under certain circumstances, those who

1190

[Thursday, 29 April 19821 19

produced timber on their land were able to have arebate of up to 50 per cent of their land tax.

The Minister went on to say that it wasvirtually impossible for any of the landownersinvolved in this type of business to comply withthe requirements of the Act. While theamendments in this Bill appear to satisfy theneeds of places outside the metropolitan area andthose zoned under a country town , planningscheme, some confusion and difficulty arise withthose within such areas.

The requirements for a person to be exemptedfrom land tax if his land is within themetropolitan region or a country town planningscheme, are threefold. Firstly, if the land is zonedother than rural, it must be used solely orprincipally for that purpose. In other words, if Ihave 100 acres for forestry as my sole business-

The Hon. 1. G. Medcalf: Hectares.The Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: It does not

have to be. We will become confused. 1 will talkabout five acres, a small area, because it does nothave to be 100 hecta res at this stage.

The land has to be used solely for forestry. Inotice that the Minister said "solely" or'~pri 'ncipally". I find that difficult to understand,because "solely" is 100 per cent, and I would havethought "principally" would be about 50 per cent.

The Hon. H. W. Gayfer: 51 per cent.The Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: That is a

very wide divergence of definition. I would likethe Minister to comment on how this isinterpreted.

I find it difficult to understand that, because ifone is going to plant over a period and harvestover a period-that is usually the case, because ifone harvests all in the one year, one's income is allin that year. and one loses a lot by income tax, soobviously one harvests over a period. Yet as thetimber is phased in or out, one is back in the landtax situation. The word "principally" is the rightone to use; and if the definition of "solely" isapplied, it would exclude a lot of people.

Having passed the fact that the land is usedprincipally or solely for the business of forestry.the second requirement is that the person usingthe land must be the owner. This is unusual.Certainly, in the metropolitan area, it is unusualto have a requirement that the user of land mustbe the owner. It certainly does not apply to mostbusinesses around the town. Very few people whorun businesses own the land on which the businessis situated. However, this is one of thequalifications of this requirement. The Minister

said this is reasonable and realistic. Perhaps hewould expand on it.

The third condition is that the owner mustderive in excess of one-third of his total netincome from the business. This is a very difficultcondition. I am against income qualifications forthese sorts of things. In other words, one is aprimary producer if one derives a high proportionof one's income from farming. Anyone who plantstrees will do so as an income tax deduction-inother words, it will be taken from his income.That will be part of his expenses, so he will notgain income From primary produce or from thegrowing of timber.

If one starts applying this sort of definition toprimary producers, it will exclude a lot of people.Let us take a member of Parliament who retiresfrom this place and has -a superannuationpayment.

The Hon. H. W. Gayfer: You arc notsuggesting a taxation lurk, are you?

The Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: He icouldfind that, however small his superannuationbenefit may be, it could be twice as great as theincome he derived from his land. If that was so,he would not be able to claim an exemption fromland tax, and he would be pertalised to thatextentI. That would apply also to anyone who wasborrowing to plant the trees, or who was living onhis sayings while he wax doing so.

The Minister went on to say that it is realisedthat people could have difficulty in meeting thesestatutory requirements. Under certaincircumstances, a taxpayer could appeal to theTreasurer. When I see some examples oftaxpayers appealing to the Treasurer, I find oftenthe taxpayers have -found the Treasurer not to bea very sympathetic person to whom to appeal.Perhaps I will give an example of that later.

If one cannot fulfil the requirements that theland is used solely or principally for the business,that the person using the land is the owner, andthat the owner derives in excess of one-third of histotal incomne from the business, one could beexempted from land tax in one other way, andthat is by planting 100 hectares.

If one planted 1 000 trees to a hectare, on mycalculations 100 hectares with 1 000 trees perhectare is 100000 trees. If a tree is worth $50,one would have to be a millionaire five times overbefore one could obtain -an exemption from landtax. That would indicate this legislation isconfined to a few very wealthy people orcompanies. Therefore, few people will be able toMeet the condition of 100 hectares.

1191

1192 COU NCI LI

One of the difficulties I see in this conditionarises from the provisions in clause 1 2 of theschedule to the Land Tax Assessment Act, towhich it is proposed to add the followingpassage-I

or, where the land is used for asilvicultural or reafforestaltion business,either that income requirement is satisfied orthe lot or parcel so used has an area of notless than 100 hectares which is fully stockedfor that business.

One wonders what is meant by the words "fullystoeked". Is it to be assumed from that, that onemust have what used to be regarded as the normalplanting in forest areas of at least 1 000 trees ahectare? If that is the ease, it excludes newconcepts in forestry such as agroforestry and thetype of planting which occurs where the naturalrainfall is insufficient to maintain 1 000 trees ahectare. When the normal number of trees wereplanted in some of the pine plantations north ofPerth, the land was not able to sustain maximumgrowth until they were thinned out.

In the ease of agroforestry. only a quarter ofthe normal number of trees are planted and thistype of forestry is one of the recommended toolsfor salinity control. I wonder whether agroForestryfits the definition of "fully stocked" which theMinister proposes to insert in the legislation.

Parkland clearing also requires a reduction inthe number of trees and it is another tool in thecontrol of salinity which should be encouraged.On several occasions recently the Hon. LylaElliott has referred to land north of Perth whichhas been cleared, but should not have been. TheMinister for Agriculture has indicated thatchanges to the soil conservation legislation willmean that in future we will be able to stop theclearing of such land.

It is necessary to read this Bill in conjunctionwith amendments to that Act, because landownerscould be prevented from clearing land and will berequired to leave it in a parkland situation.

It is proposed that section 23 of the principalAct be repealed. Subsection (1) of that sectionreads, in part, as follows-

Where the Conservator of Forestsappointed under the Forests Act, 1981certifies in writing with respect to any landthat--

The subsection then lists three conditions whichinclude-

the land carries an average stocking of treesnot less than forty pereentum of a fullystocked stand and the trees with which the

land is stacked arc of an acceptable speciessuitable for cornmerecial forestry purposes.

Therefore, under the principle Act the land maycarry an average stocking of not less than 40 percent of a fully stocked stand, whereas, as a resultof the proposed amendment, it will be necessaryto have a fully stocked stand. I am not awarewhether, under the principal Act, it was possiblefor a person to obtain a deduction in land tax if heowned land cleared for parkland. My experienceof the land tax commissioner would lead me tobelieve he would not be able to. Perhaps theMinister could explain the way in which section23 of the Act, which it is proposed to repeal,worked.

It is necessary for one to have 100 hectares offorest before one can obtain a reduction in landtax within [he metropolitan area or a countrytown planning scheme. That is a great deal ofland and it should be appreciated that! frequently.it is possible to plant only 60 or 70 per cent of ablock. I do not think there would be many blockslarge enough to allow for continuous planting of100 hectares of forest. That factor, along with theconsiderable cost involved, leads me to ask theMinister for an explanation.

In the past the Government has planted pinetrees in the metropolitan area with great success,and I refer to the Collier plantation. The ForestsDepartment has located its headquarters at aforestry project in the metropolitan area.However! we are going out of our way to excludethe private developer from doing the same thing.The Hon. Phillip Pendal was the first to attackme for allowing some of those trees to be choppeddown. He would be one of the first to point outthat it would be preferable if we had more land,which is not being used for industrial orresidential purposes to be planted with trees withthe minimal clearing when the land is required tobe used for its original purpose.

I am concerned as to whether the proposedamendments will be unreasonably hard on aforestry business. Amendments are to be made tothe provision which relates to land that can beexcluded from the requirement to pay land tax, sothat the exclusion clause of the shedule will nowread-

(b) Class of land.land used solely or principally for all or

any of the following businesses-

(i) an agricultural, silviculture. orreaFforestation business; and

(ii) a grazing. horticultural, viticultural.agricultural, pig-raising, or poultryfarming business.

1192

[Thursday. 29 April 19821 19

It will not matter how uneconomic is the size of aperson's pig farm. vineyard, or poultry farm state-wide; but if he is involved with forestry in themetropolitan area he has to have 100 hectaresbecause the Minister believes that to be aneconomic unit. That is certainly making thingsdifficult for forestry.

The Hon. 1. G. Mcdcalf: You do not have toearn one-third of your income from forestry land,whereas with pig-raising you do. That is thedifference.

The Hon. D. J. WORDSWORTH: There aretwo ways in which a person can apply forexemption under the Act: By earning less thanone-third of his income from the forestry land ornot having less than 100 hectares. TheGovernment has endeavoured to lay down what isan economic forest, and it is interesting to look atthe Forests Act because that contains a definitionrequired for local government rating purposes.While most local government rates are based onunimproved value, in some cases the shires areable to rate on improved value. Members canimagine that a person who has his land undertrees which are valued at $1 000 an acre when thelocal government decides to rate on improvedvalues, will be out of business very quickly,because he does not have the income to pay therate until he harvests; his trees. Section 71 of theForests Act states-

When any area of land of not less than fourhectares in extent is planted, after thecommencement of this Act, with forest treesapproved of by the Conservator as beingsuitable for commercial purposes, thenumber of trees not being less than onethousand two hundred (1 200) to the hectarethen in computing the value of such area ofland as rateable propcrty Within the meaningof any Act relating to local government, theincreases in the value of such area of land byreason of the trees so planted shall not betaken into consideration.

In other words, the Conservator of Forests andthe Government already have had to make aruling on what is considered to be an economicforest, and the decision was four hectares.However, for land tax purposes that area hassuddenly become 100 hectares.

It might appear that I have been a little criticalof this legislation. but my criticism has beenmeant for that part of the Bill which affects themetropolitan area, because we should encouragemore plantings within the metropolitan region sothat we have a better place (or future populationsin which to live. Even should this be uneconomic

as a forest project. we should encourage theplanting of trees. The changes will make a verygreat difference to the planting of forestry areasin rural zones, and this is to be commended.

It is rather poor that each year we plant onlyabout 4 000 hectares of forest in WesternAustralia when New Zealand plants 55 000hectares, of which half that amount is plantedprivately. Even in Australia the private plantingsexceed the combined Government plantings in theACT, Tasmania, South Australia, and WesternAustralia. So there are considerable privateplantings in States other than Western Australia.Tasmania considered private plantings to be soimportant that it appointed a Deputy Conservatorof Forests just to look after private Forestry. Itwas found that the biggest deterrent to privateforestry in Tasmania was the Government.

It is interesting to compare the diffrerntoutlook of the Forests Department and theDepartment of Agriculture. The Government hasan obligation to ensure there is enough pulp woodfor the particle board factory in Dardarfup. TheForests Department feels it has a responsibility tofill that entire quota. It considers that privateforestry would not be able to meet thatresponsibility. If the Department of Agriculturehad the same outlook, no-one would be trusted toplant enough wheat to Meet Western Australia'srequirements. However, the department does notconsider that farmers arc unable to cope with thisrequirement.

The Government does not have to do all theplanting it is doing. It should be encouragingmore private forestry. The money it is using toplant its own forest should be used to subsidiseand encourage private plantings.

I am pleased to see this major amendmentbeing made to the Act.

Debate adjourned, on motion by the Hon. N. F.Moore.

H4ouse a djourned al1 5.13 p, ni.

QUESTIONS ON NOTICE

NATIONAL WAGE HEARINGS

State Government Submissions

212. The Hon. D. K. DANS. to the Ministerrepresenting the Premier:

In respect of all national wage hearings.between February 1976 and May 1981inclusive. before the AustralianArbitration Commission-

1193

1194 [COUNCIL]

(1) At how many such hearings did theState Government make sub-missions'?

(2) At how many such hearings did theState Government subnmit that noindexation be granted'?

(3) Will the Premier give the dates ofthe hearings referred lo in (2)?

(4) For those hearings other than in(2). what percentage indexation didthe State Government submitshould be granted?

The H-on. 1.0G. MEDCALF replied:(1) All hearings-16 in total between

February 1976 and May 198 1.(2) Seven,(3) 24 May 1977

22 August 197712 December 197728 February 19787 June 197827 June 197914 July 1980.

(4) 13 February 1976. unspecifieddiscounting for budgetary factors.28 May 1976. flat increase calculated byapplying Consumer Price Indexpercentage increase to minimum wage.12 August 1976, no increase oneconomic grounds or increase equatingto030 per cent indexation.22 November 1976, no increase oneconomic grounds or small increase toprotect low income earners.31 March 1977, $2.90 to account forincrease in health insurance costs.12 December 1978. no increase or smallincrease.4 January. 1980, 3 per cent9 January 198 1, less than 4.7 per cent.7 May 198 1, 3.6 per cent.Dates shown are the dates of decisionsissuing in respect of each hearing.

226. 233 and 239. These questions were postponed.

HOSPITAL

York District

247. The Hon. H. W. GAYFI3R, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Health:

(1) Is it correct that certain items ofequipment have been removed from theYork District Hospital in recent times?

(2) If this is so, what was the nature of suchequipment?

(3) Has any new medical equipment beeninstalled in recent times?

(4) Ifso. of what nature?(5) Is the present equipment at the hospital

sufficient to assist in the provision ofsatisfactory medical care'?

The Hon. R. G. PIKE replied:(1) Yes.(2) A number of theatre instruments were

transferred to Northam RegionalHospital in mid 498 1. These instrumentswere surplus to the requirements ofYork Hospital.

(3) Yes.(4) An emergency resuscitation trolley was

provided earlier this year. In 1981 theYork Hospital welfare committee sharedthe cost of providing the followingequipment-

a birth room lamp; andat (octal pulse detector.

(5) Yes.

ROAD

Mandurah: Bypass

248. The Hon. NEIL McNEILL. toMinister representing the MinisterTransport:

thefor

In relation to the eventual completion ofthe Mandurah bypass road andincluding the construction of a newtraffic bridge-(1) What stage has now been reached

in the planning studies?(2) What amount of the land south of

Pinjarra Road hats been acquired?(3) If land subdivisions are required for

the purpose, what steps arc beingtaken to expedite thesesubdivisions?

(4) To what extent, if any. areenvironmental factors involved inthe construction of this by-pass?

(5) What is the current estimated costof the completed work'?

(6) What were the average daily trafficcounts on the existing bridge ineach of the last three yea rsduring-

(a )(b)(c)(d)

New Year holidays:Australia Day weekend:Easter wveekend: andon any non-public holidayperiod:

1194

IThursday, 29 April 19821 19

and in each case what proportion ofthe traffic is estimated to beattributable to areas south ofMandurah Shire?

(7) What is the present estimatedpopulation of that part ofMandurab west of the Peel Inlet'?

(8) What is the estimated population ofall areas of the south-west beyondMandurah Shire for whom theexisting bridge is reasonablyexpected to provide the most directand convenient connection throughto the metropolitan area?

(9) What is the average daily trafficcount on-(a) Pinjarra Road east of

Mandurah tOwflsite; and(b) the present by-pass?!

(10) What contingency plans have beendrawn up to provide alternatetraffic communication in the eventof emergencies, particularly duringpublic holidays pending thecompletion of the new by-pass?

(10) When is it anticipated thatconstruction will commence on thenew by-pass road and bridge'?

The Hon. G. E. MASTERS replied:(1) Planning is complete.. The project is in

the very preliminary design stage.(2) Nil.(3) The Main Roads Department is now

preparing land requirement drawings.(4) The only environmental issue considered

of concern is the Sandfire Flats. TheDepartment or Conservation andEnvironment has accepted the proposal.

(5) Seven million dollars excluding land.(6) (a) Not available:.

(b) not available:(c) 1981 Friday to Monday average

daily traffic on the MandurahBridge was IS 235 vehicles: noinformation is available on theproportion of traffic attributable toareas south of Mandurah Shire:

(d) not available, but is estimated to beof the order of I 1 000 vehicles in1980-81.

(7) 1981 preliminary estimates for theMandurah Shire show a population of12 700. Information is not presentlyavailable for the population west of PeelInlet.

(8) 53 000 persons based on 1976 census.

(9) (a) 1981-82 average daily traffic is6 256 vehicles:

(b) 1980-81 average daily traffic is3440 vehicles. 198 1-S2 figures arenot available.

(10) It would be expected that in veryextreme circumstances traffic would beencouraged to use South WesternHighway.

(I I) No firm date has been fixed.

HEALTH: WATER SUPLIES

249. The Hon. N, E. BAXTER. to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for WaterResources:

I) Is the Minister awa re-

(a) of a report by the health surveyor ofthe Beverley Shire on the atrociousquality of the water supply to thattown and area:

(b) that the quality of water hasdeteriorated throughout thesummer months:

(c) that the swtmming pool has beenclosed since early in March becauseof the presence of Nacglcriad-fowfcrifound in water samples:

(d) that recent sampling of the mainsindicated that the water isabsolutely laden with Naegleria andother bacteria despite chlorination:and

(e) that early in March the healthsurveyor had at long conversationwith a senior engineer from thePWD who, although sympathetic.advised that ihe department did notknow what to do about thesituation?!

(2) H-as a ny of t he mla in pi pe i ne which wasinstalled many years ago. beenreplaced'!

(3) If not, does the department intend toreplace the main in an endeavour tosolve the problem?

The Hon. G. E. MASTERS replied:

(1) (a) Yes, but it has only recently beenreceived from the Public H-ealthDepartmnt:iv the report deals wvithwater quality as affected by thepresence of amoeba and not inrespect to any other aspects:

1195

1196 [COUNC IL]

(b) no, it has been extremely difficultto completely and permanentlyeliminate Naegkeria amoeba fromthe water distribution system atBeverley. but there is evidence tosuggest that there has been areduction in the numbers of amoebaoccurring; remedial measures havebeen taken in accordance withadvice from the Public HealthDepartment.

(c) yes;(d) no:(c) yes, however, the senior engineer

concerned did not state that thedepartment did not know what todo about the situation: he describedthe remedial measures that werebeing taken.

(2) Yes, but this was not for reasonsassociated with the presence of amoeba.

(3) The department does not intend toreplace any mains for reasons connectedwith the presence of amoeba. However,some main replacement may occur nextfinancial year. subject to the availabilityof finance, for other reasons.

EDUCATION: HIGH SCHOOL

Karratha

250. Thc Hon. PETER DOWDING, to theMinister representing the Minister forWorks:

I refer to the Minister's answer toquestion 85 of Wednesday. 31 March1982-(1) What were the names, addresses

and tender price of each of thetenderers?!

(2) What material was available priorto the acceptance of the tendersabout the financial stability of thesuccessful tenderer?

(3) From whom and to whom wererepresentations made, and what wasthe substance of therepresentations'?

(4) Is it a fact that-('a) the successful tenderer was

known to be in some financialdifficulties; and

(b) the Minister requested that thetender be nevertheless given tothat firm?

The Hon. G. E. MASTERS replied:

(1) Keywest Building Co. Pty. Ltd.. 182Rutland Avenue, Carlisle-$1 179000.00 (Withdrawn)J. R. & A. H. Farrell, 12 BrookionHighway, Roleystone-S I 318 I131.00A. Walters & Sons (1979). 4 StackStreet, Freman'le-$l1 363 379.00Jaxon Watson Joint Venture (No. 6),Hamerslcy. 1 55 Adelaide Terrace,Perth-S) 443 777.00Scaffidi Developments (Designs andConstructions), 116 Hobart Street. Mt.Hawthorn-SI 500 000.00Citra Constructions, 5 Mill Street.Perth-SI 789 236.00.

(2)

(3)

The normal trade financial reports.

Representations were made by thesuccessful tenderer to the Premier andthe Minister for Water Resources. It ispointed out that representations fromtenderers are not an uncommonexperience.

(4) (a) and (b) No.

QUESTION WITHIOUT NOTICE

POLICE: CRIME

Comissi~on

58. The H-on. P. G. PENDAL, to the Ministerrepresenting the Minister for Police andPrisons:

I refer to a news report in today's TheWest Australian which suggests that theFederal Government is on the verge ofestablishing a national crimecommission whether or not the StateGovernments agree to co-operate.I ask-

(1) Has the Western AustralianGovernment been consulted by theFederal Government on thismatter?

(2) If not, how can the StateGovernment have been expected tomove co-operatively with Canberraif it has not been consulted?

(3) Does the Minister in any way findoffensive the Prime Minister'sassertion that young MPs would begrey with age before all Statesagreed on a crime commission?

1196

[Thursday. 29 April 19821 19

(4) Will the Minister remind the PrimeMinister of the successful co-operative Commonwealth-Statenegotiations-leading to thecreation of a Joint NationalSecurities Commission-whichwere concluded without fear thatyoung members would turn greybefore an outcome was achieved?

(5) Arc the Minister and the StateGovernment prepared to co-operatewith Canberra in this matter and, ifso. has there been any need for thePrime Minister to use theextravagant language he has usedas far as Western Australia isconcerned?!

The Hon. 1. G. M EDCA LF replied:

(1) No: there has been no formal submissionto the Western Australian Governmentfrom the Federal Government or theresponsible Federal Minister, Mr KevinNewman. The first information we havehad on the matter has been Press reportsin the last couple of days.

(2) The Government is surprised, to say theleast, that it has not been consulted on amatter of such national importance.

(3) We are disturbed by the PrimeMinister's implication that the Stateshave been unwilling to co-operate onnational strategy involving various StatePolice Forces and the Federal Police.There has been considerable co-operation in this area of lace, includingthe formation of the Australian Bureauof Criminal Intelligence, and we areclose to establishing a national policeresearch unit.

(4) and (5) If the Commonwealthapproaches this issue in a genuine spiritof co-operation, the Western AustralianGovernment is prepared to give positiveconsideration to any Commonwealthproposal aimed at ighting organisedcrime.The fact remains that there is noevidence to suggest that theCommonwealth Government and itsadvisers have any greater capacity inthis area than the long-established andhighly experienced State police ofWestern Australia.Also, the Commonwealth must be awarethat it lacks the necessary constitutionalresponsibilities and powers to makeunilateral action truly effective.

1197